This made me kinda sad today...

[Eminence]

Even if that's true, talking about this helps clarify it for me. You need a whetstone to sharpen a knife.

However, it's also true that seeing a message expressed in different ways by different people can be beneficial to understanding. As long as NPC D4617's questions are direct, seem sincere, and without mockery, they deserve a direct, sincere, serious response.

The first bit I'll agree with. From there I guess we'll disagree on how sincere he is.

 

[fishonjazz]

So it gets better

The day after the first incident, Nathan Phillips and his group of "protesters" tried to interrupt mass at DC national shrine.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/native-a...shrine-mass-after-covington-catholic-incident


So, no shocker really. The guy is an antagonist and disrespectful person. Also a liar.

But he gets the benefit of the doubt because he is Indian. Why is only one side calling him out on this? You know the answer.

I guess the church should move out of his way.

I have seen everyone in this thread calling him out. One side lol. You see what you want to see I guess.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Hotdog]

I have seen everyone in this thread calling him out. One side lol. You see what you want to see I guess.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Bulletproof is the only person from that side ive seen do it. But Im talking about the media on the left.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Bulletproof is the only person from that side ive seen do it. But Im talking about the media on the left.

Please tell me who the left media is, so I can avoid them. Can I read stuff from the left media when the reporter is very conservative who find their own stories and write them? How about a conservative media group that has liberal reporters? What makes media left? What people within turns them left?

Should I start watching Fox news, are they good news? You seem to post stuff from them and claim to be better informed than others.

 

[Harambe]

So it gets better

The day after the first incident, Nathan Phillips and his group of "protesters" tried to interrupt mass at DC national shrine.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/native-a...shrine-mass-after-covington-catholic-incident


So, no shocker really. The guy is an antagonist and disrespectful person. Also a liar.

But he gets the benefit of the doubt because he is Indian. Why is only one side calling him out on this? You know the answer.

I guess the church should move out of his way.

I like how you get to decide that one side gets the benefit of the doubt, and why that one person gets the benefit of the doubt.

It's almost like you're Morgan Freeman, narrating world events.

 

[Alfalfa]

So you say. Show me credible evidence that CNN does this. It should be easy for people to document that behavior, since this is the internet. I'd like to see instances where CNN stealth edited an article without saying anything about it. Because that's a serious breach of journalistic code of conduct.

Edit: Note that I'm talking about editing an article. Not adding content to an article about an event in progress. But changing the content, without acknowledgement.

*crickets*

 

[FalseFlagg K]

lol what a bunch of garbage this entire story is All of it.

 

[Harambe]

*crickets*

http://bfy.tw/Lxe7

Simple enough to me. Two simple strings, CNN and "has been updated"

Very first article I find is the following:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/opinions/dear-trump-loyalists-opinion-dantonio/index.html

Which contains the following just under the picture:

Michael D'Antonio is the author of the book "Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success"and co-author with Peter Eisner of "The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence." The opinions expressed in this commentary are the author's. View more opinion articles on CNN. This article has been updated to reflect the latest news.

The second article in the google search gets me here:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/trump-authority-border-personnel/index.html

And at the end of the article:

This story has been updated with additional developments.

As far as actual evidence of changing the article... ****. I think what you're asking for just isn't reasonable. But... sure? I guess? Here's a link to the times stating CNN corrected a story on Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/business/media/cnn-correction-donald-trump-jr.html

Anything more than that... eat a dick. If you go all "Find me a document that exists that contains MS word formatted corrections. Like my English teacher did. And yes, that's totally reasonable.", then you really, REALLY need more help than I'm willing to offer. Fifteen minutes spent searching and trying to word this properly is just exhausting.

 

[Alfalfa]

http://bfy.tw/Lxe7

Simple enough to me. Two simple strings, CNN and "has been updated"

Very first article I find is the following:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/opinions/dear-trump-loyalists-opinion-dantonio/index.html

Which contains the following just under the picture:



The second article in the google search gets me here:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/trump-authority-border-personnel/index.html

And at the end of the article:



As far as actual evidence of changing the article... ****. I think what you're asking for just isn't reasonable. But... sure? I guess? Here's a link to the times stating CNN corrected a story on Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/business/media/cnn-correction-donald-trump-jr.html

Anything more than that... eat a dick. If you go all "Find me a document that exists that contains MS word formatted corrections. Like my English teacher did. And yes, that's totally reasonable.", then you really, REALLY need more help than I'm willing to offer. Fifteen minutes spent searching and trying to word this properly is just exhausting.

Can't decipher what you're saying. Also not sure if you're fighting with me. But maybe you're misunderstanding my question. Framer said that CNN change their stories after the fact, without documenting the edits. I asked him to provide a proof of that serious claim, as it would delegitimize CNN as a source of information. No response. Thus, *crickets*. The examples you provided show the opposite; that CNN document any changes they make to their articles.

 

[Gameface]

Can't decipher what you're saying. Also not sure if you're fighting with me. But maybe you're misunderstanding my question. Framer said that CNN change their stories after the fact, without documenting the edits. I asked him to provide a proof of that serious claim, as it would delegitimize CNN as a source of information. No response. Thus, *crickets*. The examples you provided show the opposite; that CNN document any changes they make to their articles.

They do say it has been updated but don't specify what was added or if any information has been changed or removed.

 

[framer]

*crickets*

You want an article form CNN saying that they add content without timestamps to their articles? Do you READ their articles? They obviously inserted the interview information from the teenager into their "Native American Elder" article, did it come with an edit notification? No? Well there you go.

The last time I saw them remove or change content was during the Kavanaugh hearings with the accusations made by Avennetti's client. They could make the claim that things were later "clarified" but they definitely toned down the article after getting more information without alerting readers. I read both edits of the article.

Didn't take screenshots, because I really don't owe you anything.

 

[Alfalfa]

They do say it has been updated but don't specify what was added or if any information has been changed or removed.

I understand that new info is sometimes added to articles, specially ones about an ongoing event. Is that the complaint that framer has? Adding information without time stamping it? That's different from "ninja editing" which is changing the information without notice in order to deceive.