FBI investigating Breitbart and InfoWars
-
ppaw1999http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fbi-investigating-right-wing-sites-role-campaign-hack-article-1.3004192
Everyday something new comes up. How do you guys keep up with all this? I hope we get some answers on all this Russian stuff in the near future. Either prove it or put it to rest. -
Spock
They will continue this till the next election. The Obama hold overs will see to it -
Spock
I wonder if the National enquirer is upset that nobody has investigated their fake news for the past 30 years
-
gutIt's ok, because these are fake news sites...unlike liberal bastions of facts VOX and Mother Jones.
Raising some interesting questions, though. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, but if you represent something completely fabricated (which, in some cases, would qualify as libel & defamation) as news should there be some sort of repercussions?
Maybe losing press credentials is enough. But we have many indicators and standards for things in our life - maybe we need a similar standard for news organizations? I feel like people know US Weekly, ET, The Enquirer and the like are scandal sheets. But do they really understand what they're getting with Breitbart or some of these others? -
Spock
By others you mean CNN, fox, CBS, ABC etc...... At the end of the day, most of that shit is unsubstantiated crapgut;1844266 wrote:It's ok, because these are fake news sites...unlike liberal bastions of facts VOX and Mother Jones.
Raising some interesting questions, though. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, but if you represent something completely fabricated (which, in some cases, would qualify as libel & defamation) as news should there be some sort of repercussions?
Maybe losing press credentials is enough. But we have many indicators and standards for things in our life - maybe we need a similar standard for news organizations? I feel like people know US Weekly, ET, The Enquirer and the like are scandal sheets. But do they really understand what they're getting with Breitbart or some of these others? -
gut
No, rational opinion and speculation is very, very different from an actual lie like Pizzagate. The networks, even MSNBC, are head and shoulders above the likes of Mother Jones and Breitbart.Spock;1844277 wrote:By others you mean CNN, fox, CBS, ABC etc...... At the end of the day, most of that shit is unsubstantiated crap
I'm not sure how conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones should be treated and dealt with. I find tremendous entertainment value in some theories, but I think many people actually buy-in whole hog. But it's so fringe that I don't really see the harm.
And I think the idea that Breitbart or Infowars had any impact on the election is laughable. -
Spock
Oh....so since MSNBC is reporting that trump and Russia were in bed together with absolutely no evidence is real news and pizza gate isn't? All this Russia news is no difference than pizza gate or the Hillary has Parkinson's newsgut;1844278 wrote:No, rational opinion and speculation is very, very different from an actual lie like Pizzagate. The networks, even MSNBC, are head and shoulders above the likes of Mother Jones and Breitbart.
I'm not sure how conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones should be treated and dealt with. I find tremendous entertainment value in some theories, but I think many people actually buy-in whole hog. But it's so fringe that I don't really see the harm.
And I think the idea that Breitbart or Infowars had any impact on the election is laughable. -
gut
No, it's not the same. Even speculation around "if the rumors are true" is an entirely different thing from making up sensational "facts" and then concocting an even more sensational narrative like Pizzagate. That was a complete bullshit conspiracy theory built on a pile of bullshit....the Russia crap doesn't rise to near that level of stink.Spock;1844281 wrote: All this Russia news is no difference than pizza gate or the Hillary has Parkinson's news
Trump and his associates had business and other dealings with Russia. And probably totally legit, but Trump also kind of brought a lot of this on himself. -
QuakerOats
The Left had to create a narrative following their stunning defeat. Prior to Nov. 8th, there was no 'Russian talk'. What a pathetic and helpless bunch of losers.ppaw1999;1844194 wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fbi-investigating-right-wing-sites-role-campaign-hack-article-1.3004192
Everyday something new comes up. How do you guys keep up with all this? I hope we get some answers on all this Russian stuff in the near future. Either prove it or put it to rest. -
ptown_trojans_1
What? Umm yeah there was.QuakerOats;1844335 wrote:The Left had to create a narrative following their stunning defeat. Prior to Nov. 8th, there was no 'Russian talk'. What a pathetic and helpless bunch of losers. -
ptown_trojans_1
As for the story, I highly doubt anything sticks to either site.
If anything, it will only make them more popular with the Trump bots. -
majorspark
One thing is for certain there would be no Russia investigation/hearings if Hillary won the election. -
ptown_trojans_1
Just more Benghazi and email hearings...majorspark;1844347 wrote:One thing is for certain there would be no Russia investigation/hearings if Hillary won the election. -
Heretic
Benghazi is probably a really good comparison point. Big conspiracy talks emphatically made by one side. Nothing comes of it after however-many hearings (or likely comes of it as far as Russia goes). Side that started banging the drum really loudly refuses to stop because they prefer their manufactured "reality" over the non-victory for them that that those hearings determined.ptown_trojans_1;1844351 wrote:Just more Benghazi and email hearings... -
gut
....Heretic;1844366 wrote:Benghazi is probably a really good comparison point. Big conspiracy talks emphatically made by one side. Nothing comes of it after however-many hearings (or likely comes of it as far as Russia goes). Side that started banging the drum really loudly refuses to stop because they prefer their manufactured "reality" over the non-victory for them that that those hearings determined.
Yeah, that part where Susan Rice went on tv and blamed a video...and then they threw the video maker in jail....all to cover-up something that didn't need to be covered up.
Yeah that, like, never happened. -
majorspark
Not if the democrat party held majorities in both the House and Senate as well.ptown_trojans_1;1844351 wrote:Just more Benghazi and email hearings... -
ptown_trojans_1
?majorspark;1844431 wrote:Not if the democrat party held majorities in both the House and Senate as well.
If Clinton would have won, the House would still be R, and the Senate would be probably 50-50 or just barely one party or the other. -
majorspark
I know that. If the Democrats held the Executive and both houses of Congress like the Republicans do they would not allow it.ptown_trojans_1;1844458 wrote:?
If Clinton would have won, the House would still be R, and the Senate would be probably 50-50 or just barely one party or the other. -
Spock
not even close. There was real time evidence that the WH covered up the botched Benghazi information and changed CIA talking points. Sending someone on TV to lie etc.....Heretic;1844366 wrote:Benghazi is probably a really good comparison point. Big conspiracy talks emphatically made by one side. Nothing comes of it after however-many hearings (or likely comes of it as far as Russia goes). Side that started banging the drum really loudly refuses to stop because they prefer their manufactured "reality" over the non-victory for them that that those hearings determined. -
Heretic
gut;1844392 wrote:....
Yeah, that part where Susan Rice went on tv and blamed a video...and then they threw the video maker in jail....all to cover-up something that didn't need to be covered up.
Yeah that, like, never happened.
You'll have to refresh my memory as to when any of this led to concrete repercussions and punishment, as opposed to simply adding to the divisive environment where one side is convinced the other is guilty, while the other is convinced they're the victims of a witch-hunt. IE: The end result of Benghazi and the eventual end result of Trump/Russia.Spock;1844480 wrote:not even close. There was real time evidence that the WH covered up the botched Benghazi information and changed CIA talking points. Sending someone on TV to lie etc..... -
gut
Again, if you're going to equate no evidence with a verifiable fabrication...then there are basically no limits to what you'll rationalize or dismiss.Heretic;1844494 wrote:The end result of Benghazi and the eventual end result of Trump/Russia.
The Russia thing, as it stands today, is comparable to Birthergate. Benghazi, no, that was a real scandal. Let's not conflate reality here and lower the bar between real scandals and fake news.