Wash Post literally creates fake news article and runs it

[UCFKnight85]

Exhibit 2000: why we hate the media

This assclown at the WaPo made this article and somehow it was actually published- a "story" that attempts to draw the conclusion that the shooter who targeted Republicans was actually a right-wing talk show listener that was driven over the edge by his program. the article does not even mention that this is a 100% pure Bernie Bro DNC supporter with no ties at all to the talk show host.

They couldn't even find one single person to claim this guy listened to right wing radio. Probably because he was glued to MSNBC every night.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rvative-radio-host-sparks-online-outrage.html

And yet the usual suspects STILL wonder why we don't trust the media. The industry is full of cretins, liars, and partisans who simply push what they want instead of actual news.

 

[UCF11and1]

Yes, ignore Dumb's cyber security plan with Russia (they'll tell us how not to get hacked) and the meeting Dumb jr. (Plus campaign head) had with Russians about the hacking

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

lol.

 

[CommuterBob]

#1 reason why liberal people listen to conservative talk radio: they hate it and can't wait to hear what the host says next.

http://www.talkers.com/2011/10/20/qualitative-aspects-of-the-talk-radio-audiences/

Although many of the hosts (and callers) in the news/talk radio universe are obviously conservative, the listeners are far more diverse in terms of philosophy and party affiliation. In other words, there is not as much preaching to the choir as conventional wisdom would have you believe. A significant percentage of listeners are independent. It bears repeating –– despite the industry’s obsessive adherence to “format purity” on a political ideology level –– a healthy percentage of talk listeners do listen to hosts with whom they disagree…they even listen to hosts they hate!

And in FAKE NEWS fashion, the WaPo didn't report that the shooter listened to the guy, the radio host himself said it. Here's the only mention in the article of the possibility that Hodgkinson listened to the radio host (Romanik):


“I can’t say for sure if this Hodgkinson guy listened to me, but he probably did,” Romanik said in a recent interview. "

Otherwise, the WaPo story is actually fairly positive about Romanik and his show. More FAKE NEWS from right-wing sources.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cas-inner-frustration/?utm_term=.a15c0bcf5467

 

[UCFWayne]

LOL

 

[UCFKnight85]

#1 reason why liberal people listen to conservative talk radio: they hate it and can't wait to hear what the host says next.

http://www.talkers.com/2011/10/20/qualitative-aspects-of-the-talk-radio-audiences/



And in FAKE NEWS fashion, the WaPo didn't report that the shooter listened to the guy, the radio host himself said it. Here's the only mention in the article of the possibility that Hodgkinson listened to the radio host (Romanik):


“I can’t say for sure if this Hodgkinson guy listened to me, but he probably did,” Romanik said in a recent interview. "

Otherwise, the WaPo story is actually fairly positive about Romanik and his show. More FAKE NEWS from right-wing sources.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cas-inner-frustration/?utm_term=.a15c0bcf5467

LOLLLLLL You are absolutely incredible. You will defend any pile of shit.

Let's just reset here- why did the WaPo feel the need to run this story, with this angle? There was absolutely no evidence that shooter was some right wing talk radio fan. There is zero evidence that this pushed him to go attempt to kill Republicans. There is ample evidence that he was a big fan of left wing media content- NONE of which is in the WaPo story!

And your "evidence" is this idiot shock jock host saying "he probably did"? LOL!!

The WaPo writes a story on a left wing MSNBC fanboy fanatic who tried to killed a bunch of Republican lawmakers, and they frame the story by highlighting a right wing talk radio host, and then make 100% unsupported suggestions that Hodgkinson went to kill these guys thanks to the talk show.

And you try to defend the WaPo. Sad!

 

[UCF11and1]

#1 reason why liberal people listen to conservative talk radio: they hate it and can't wait to hear what the host says next.
http://www.talkers.com/2011/10/20/qualitative-aspects-of-the-talk-radio-audiences/
And in FAKE NEWS fashion, the WaPo didn't report that the shooter listened to the guy, the radio host himself said it. Here's the only mention in the article of the possibility that Hodgkinson listened to the radio host (Romanik):
“I can’t say for sure if this Hodgkinson guy listened to me, but he probably did,” Romanik said in a recent interview. "
Otherwise, the WaPo story is actually fairly positive about Romanik and his show. More FAKE NEWS from right-wing sources.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cas-inner-frustration/?utm_term=.a15c0bcf5467

This is what happens (on either side) when people is too stupid to read and just get outrage reading what other idiots post in social media

 

[CommuterBob]

LOLLLLLL You are absolutely incredible. You will defend any pile of shit.

Let's just reset here- why did the WaPo feel the need to run this story, with this angle? There was absolutely no evidence that shooter was some right wing talk radio fan. There is zero evidence that this pushed him to go attempt to kill Republicans. There is ample evidence that he was a big fan of left wing media content- NONE of which is in the WaPo story!

And your "evidence" is this idiot shock jock host saying "he probably did"? LOL!!

The WaPo writes a story on a left wing MSNBC fanboy fanatic who tried to killed a bunch of Republican lawmakers, and they frame the story by highlighting a right wing talk radio host, and then make 100% unsupported suggestions that Hodgkinson went to kill these guys thanks to the talk show.

And you try to defend the WaPo. Sad!

Whatever. If that quote in the story wasn't in there, there would be no conservablogger articles or twitterbots raging about the WaPo pushing the idea that Hodgkinson was inspired by Romanik. The story isn't even about Hodgkinson, but rather is about Romanik being a conservative talk-radio host in Hodgkinson's hometown - and even paints him in a positive light by pointing out his charity work and influence on the community. That's it. The fact remains that the claim that Hodgkinson fed off of Romaink isn't in the article. And what's funny is that any suggestion of such a claim is made solely by Romanik, not the WaPo. But you go apeshit over whatever gets spoonfed to you by the conervabloggers trying to invent controversy. Hilarious. I bet you didn't even read the WaPo article.

 

[sk8knight]

#1 reason why liberal people listen to conservative talk radio: they hate it and can't wait to hear what the host says next.

http://www.talkers.com/2011/10/20/qualitative-aspects-of-the-talk-radio-audiences/



And in FAKE NEWS fashion, the WaPo didn't report that the shooter listened to the guy, the radio host himself said it. Here's the only mention in the article of the possibility that Hodgkinson listened to the radio host (Romanik):


“I can’t say for sure if this Hodgkinson guy listened to me, but he probably did,” Romanik said in a recent interview. "

Otherwise, the WaPo story is actually fairly positive about Romanik and his show. More FAKE NEWS from right-wing sources.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cas-inner-frustration/?utm_term=.a15c0bcf5467

This article spends more than 10 paragraphs calling him a racist hate monger and juxtaposes him with the worst domestic attack on Congress in our modern history before it manages to say one positive thing about him. Yet you call this fairly positive?

 

[CommuterBob]

This article spends more than 10 paragraphs calling him a racist hate monger and juxtaposes him with the worst domestic attack on Congress in our modern history before it manages to say one positive thing about him. Yet you call this fairly positive?

Yes, the article factually relates his on-air and witnessed public speech. It could have just stuck to that, but it also calls out his positives.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Whatever. If that quote in the story wasn't in there, there would be no conservablogger articles or twitterbots raging about the WaPo pushing the idea that Hodgkinson was inspired by Romanik. The story isn't even about Hodgkinson, but rather is about Romanik being a conservative talk-radio host in Hodgkinson's hometown - and even paints him in a positive light by pointing out his charity work and influence on the community. That's it. The fact remains that the claim that Hodgkinson fed off of Romaink isn't in the article. And what's funny is that any suggestion of such a claim is made solely by Romanik, not the WaPo. But you go apeshit over whatever gets spoonfed to you by the conervabloggers trying to invent controversy. Hilarious. I bet you didn't even read the WaPo article.

lulz. Ok dude. Again- what is the point of this article?

To show that right wing talk radio is big in middle America? Everyone already knew that.

There is a deliberate attempt here to set readers up to arrive at the conclusion that the shooter was an avid listener of this moron and ultimately went to kill Republicans because of the rhetoric on this show. If you arrive at any other conclusion that you're simply lying to yourself. There is literally no reason to even produce this article unless someone wanted to paint the picture that right wing media, and not the vast left wing media complex, is to blame for this shooting.

This would be like if an avowed right wing activist who listens to Rush and Fox exclusively, attempted to shoot up a bunch of Democratic lawmakers, and a news outlet ran a story noting how popular Rachel Maddow is in the shooter's town. It would be utter dipshit nonsense, just like this is.

 

[sk8knight]

Yes, the article factually relates his on-air and witnessed public speech. It could have just stuck to that, but it also calls out his positives.

But you said "fairly positive" which implies that the overall tone of the article is positive. Which, factual as their representation of his speech may be, could not be further from the truth. You are really spinning by asserting otherwise.

You are absolutely avoiding the context that the Washington Post is driving with this story. This article draws a causative line between the shooter and this shock jock. The problem is that line exists only in the mind of the shock jock and not in any evidence that has been brought forward. In actuality, there was a much stronger correlation between the shooter and left-wing media. But this article is now in the public space and this unsubstantiated fabrication will undoubtedly be cited by many others as truth. Better yet, they managed to put forward the strong implication that Trump thinks like this guy because this idiot said so.

WaPo pulled this little thread of crazy and ran this to steer their readership's views on conservatives, on Trump, and start to redirect the perception that it was Republican's rhetoric that spun the shooter up. This is how the big lie starts; quietly with false correlations and emotional appeals.

 

[CommuterBob]

There is a deliberate attempt here to set readers up to arrive at the conclusion that the shooter was an avid listener of this moron and ultimately went to kill Republicans because of the rhetoric on this show.

That is an inference made by others, but is not an explicit conclusion of the article. Could it be possible that there's an interesting guy who holds a vastly different viewpoint from the shooter who lives in the shooter's home town? From the title and text of the article, that would be more correct of a conclusion than what you've been fed to believe. There's absolutely nothing in the article that confirmed that the listener even listened to the guy, let alone was an "avid listener" who took the rhetoric to drive him to violence. Nothing. To state otherwise is to draw an inference that is simply not implied by any direct text from the article.

This article draws a causative line between the shooter and this shock jock.

It certainly does not, other than the guy is from the same town. There is nothing in the article to support that claim.

WaPo pulled this little thread of crazy and ran this to steer their readership's views on conservatives, on Trump, and start to redirect the perception that it was Republican's rhetoric that spun the shooter up. This is how the big lie starts; quietly with false correlations and emotional appeals.

Again, that is an inference being done by other people. There is absolutely nothing in the article that directly supports that claim. The other articles, bloggers, etc. inciting this claim are the ones lying and creating false correlations and emotional appeals. I'm sorry you can't see that.

But you said "fairly positive" which implies that the overall tone of the article is positive. Which, factual as their representation of his speech may be, could not be further from the truth. You are really spinning by asserting otherwise.

For the WaPo, it's pretty positive. They usually crucify those with ultra-conservative viewpoints and spew racist speech. The fact that they gave him any positive spin at all should be considered remarkable. Hence, my "fairly positive" statement.

 

[UCFWayne]

mental gymnastics

 

[UCFKnight85]

mental gymnastics

Bob has gone off the deep end in defending his left wing media favorites

 

[NinjaKnight]

My favorite part of this post is when people lose their minds faux raging over lies told by a newspaper, but give zero shits over lies told by the POTUS.

 

[UCF11and1]

more fake news, I'll be waiting for people to be fired:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-fox-friends-apos-walks-122426598.html

 

[UCFWayne]

so both sides are guilty of putting information out there without actively checking to make sure its accurate. congrats, on figuring out that the current 24 hour news cycle/first to post to twitter facts be damned actually sucks.