The news the MSM ignores because it does not fit the narrative

[Hockey Guy]

The_Lurker: better check your sarcasm detector



It's working fine. Thanks for asking though.

[big dick]

Lesson to take from this?

ISIS is (was) Mossad.

(obviously)

Mind explaining this Mossad thing to me?

[Tellafriend]

ISIS is (was) Mossad.

(obviously)

Mind explaining this Mossad thing to me?

Ha! I've been thinking the same thing for a while

[devidee]

ISIS is (was) Mossad.

(obviously)

Mind explaining this Mossad thing to me?

Like the CIA but for the joos.

[ErickAA]

BTW verm, you started this thread saying that MSM is completely ignoring the story.

When showed a few dozen links to MSM articles on it, you relented that they're not ignoring it, but they're HIDING it in places you can't find.

When showed that it's prominently displayed on front pages and among top stories, you say "okay, but there's not enough pictures"

It seems like you keep backpedaling and moving the goalposts. I'm totally on your side bro, I just need to know how to explain to my libtard friends how this coverup really works.

You do realize there is actually a record of what I actually said, right? Your accounts of what I said bear no relation with what I actually said. One look at my initial post would confirm this. Lucky for you, there isn't a lot of intellectual honesty going on in this thread right now, so no-one will care or call you out on it.

So carry on.

[SrslySirius]

BTW verm, you started this thread saying that MSM is completely ignoring the story.

When showed a few dozen links to MSM articles on it, you relented that they're not ignoring it, but they're HIDING it in places you can't find.

When showed that it's prominently displayed on front pages and among top stories, you say "okay, but there's not enough pictures"

It seems like you keep backpedaling and moving the goalposts. I'm totally on your side bro, I just need to know how to explain to my libtard friends how this coverup really works.

You do realize there is actually a record of what I actually said, right? Your accounts of what I said bear no relation with what I actually said. One look at my initial post would confirm this. Lucky for you, there isn't a lot of intellectual honesty going on in this thread right now, so no-one will care or call you out on it.

So carry on.

This is what you said:

Title is self explanatory. I am going to start a running thread of all the stories that the MSM is ignoring or burying because it does not fit the narrative.

You're then given a bunch of links that flatly refute this claim. Every major news outlet chose not to ignore this story. They all dedicated resources to reporting on it.

So what you said wasn't true. That's fine. But instead of being intellectually honest and admitting that you were exaggerating or mistaken, you then said:

You had to do a google search to find that article, despite the fact you have probably been on the CNN website several times since the story came out. The media knows how people consume news on the internet and they know how to "report" stories in such a way so that it has as little impact as possible.

So now it's not enough that the story is acknowledged and reported. The goalposts are already in motion. Now you claim that only google can find these articles, as if they're hidden deeply within sections of CNN and NBC that nobody can find.

Vegas and I show you evidence that this story was prominently featured on several major news websites, where hundreds of thousands of people undoubtedly saw it.

So again, you were wrong. And that's okay. But instead of being intellectually honest and admitting that you had gotten carried away, you then said:

Thanks Srsly. Notice in the NBC website has no picture. Just a little hyperlink.

Also notice for the NYT article the picture is on the "US" section. We can be fairly confident that the front page, if it had anything, only had a little hyperlink similar to the NBC website. Good chance it had nothing.

So now it's not even good enough that this story was dutifully reported on and presented to massive numbers of people. Now you require large fonts and pictures. We're a long way from "ignoring and burying" stories. We don't even know what your point is anymore. If there was some secret conspiracy to hide this information from the public, they have done an atrocious job of it.

It's very strange that you talk of honesty and critical thinking, when you keep ignoring facts that directly contradict you. Continually reshaping the argument and changing the subject. Making assumptions that confirm your bias. Pointing to the written record of what you said, claiming that you never said what you said, and chastising me for saying that you said it. You're being the exact biased, closed-minded person you describe. Do you have a self-esteem issue? Is this projection?

[Hockey Guy]

Damn you SS & your reading. Just stop it.

[ErickAA]

Quote Originally Posted by verminaard View Post
Title is self explanatory. I am going to start a running thread of all the stories that the MSM is ignoring or burying because it does not fit the narrative.
You're then given a bunch of links that flatly refute this claim. Every major news outlet chose not to ignore this story. They all dedicated resources to reporting on it.

So what you said wasn't true. That's fine. But instead of being intellectually honest and admitting that you were exaggerating or mistaken, you then said:

I can't believe I am actually wasting my time with this. You are literally copying and pasting my posts and then mischaracterizing them in the same post. it is hilarious. If I was inclined to I could go through your entire last post and point this out word by word, but I am not going to bother cause it wouldn't matter. You decided I am wrong before I posted my first word, and nothing I post will change your mind.

That being said, I will say I specifically included the word "burying" in the post you replied to and nothing I have seen from anything you or Vegas has posted contradicts that claim. Hilariously, you conveniently removed that word in your retort, of course as it doesn't fit the narrative you have created and instead want to get into some linguistic debate over my use of the word "ignore". It really is hilarious.

If you are deluded enough to think that CNN tweeting a picture of a McDonalds and then shortly after scrubbing all mention that a high profile serial murderer was found from the front page doesn't constitute burying than I can't help you.

CNN, the NYT and most of the rest of the mainstream media has a clear agenda to use the news to paint (mostly poor) white people in as poor a light as possible and everyone else in as positive a light as possible. If you can't see what is so clear in front of you than I can't help you. I am sorry, I tried, but I failed. You seen what you want to see, and reality just doesn't matter.

[ErickAA]

Damn you SS & your reading. Just stop it.

He didn't really read the posts he is replying too. He just pretended to. Then he counterclaimed an argument that isn't even there.

That is ok. You didn't read any of either of our posts. You are just assuming he actually said something that actually addresses the topic or refutes my argument (he didn't)

[Hockey Guy]

I really should learn how to quote stuff properly but I won't because I'm too stupid.

FYP

[Hockey Guy]

Damn you SS & your reading. Just stop it.

He didn't really read the posts he is replying too. He just pretended to. Then he counterclaimed an argument that isn't even there.

That is ok. You didn't read any of either of our posts. You are just assuming he actually said something that actually addresses the topic or refutes my argument (he didn't)

Only in your head. Log the fuck off already.

[ErickAA]

I already said I am not going to waste any more time with you. Your idea of having a debate is name calling. I am not going to waste another second on you. You are not worth it.

At least most of the other people in this thread are willing to engage in a mostly civil debate. All you bring to the table is juvenile name calling. Maybe if we were in kindergarten I would be wiling to go back and forth with you on your level. But I am not.

[Hockey Guy]

I already said I am not going to waste any more time with you. Your idea of having a debate is name calling. I am not going to waste another second on you. You are not worth it.

At least most of the other people in this thread are willing to engage in a mostly civil debate. All you bring to the table is juvenile name calling. Maybe if we were in kindergarten I would be wiling to go back and forth with you on your level. But I am not.

Keep discussing how you never said something when you did with SS then you crazy fuck.

[Corrigan]

Funniest thing about verminaard is how condescending he is to all the "sheeple" on here who don't know how the MSM is brainwashing us all.


The nicest thing I can say about him is just that he's simple.

We get it dude, you listen to Joe Rogan and Adam Corrolo podcasts, judge us not who are not so enlightened.

[donkdowndonedied]

Here, let me list it out how this works.

1) Person reads news that picks up racially charged stuff. From that they form their baseline opinion of how the "unbiased" media works.

2) Person sees regular less biased news NOT cover these events.

3) From #2 agree to conclusions of biased media.

Here, let me show you how it actually works:

1) Wake up in morning. Go to CNN. See headline of something along the lines of "Shooting in hospital" with no details. You wouldn't even know a mass shooting with a murder had been committed, it is so vague.
-I think to myself, must not be a white male, cause they aren't giving any details.

2). Go to Daily Mail. Top story on front page with all the details including a picture of the non-white shooter.

3) Later that day CNN puts up the story with some details (still less than what the Daily Mail had provided hours before). But story is buried and one would have to actively look for it to actually find it.

4). Two days later CNN front page headline (paraphrasing) "White suspect murders black woman in apparent road rage incident" Included on the front page is a picture of the victim and a fuzzy picture of the suspect from a freeway camera.

5.). Story stays on the front page all day. That night suspect turns himself in and the second he does his picture is front and center of the website.


-If you want to refresh your memory, here are the 2 stories, 2 days apart. I remember them because I remember at the time how funny and yet predictable it was how completely different the two stories were treated.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/30/us/new...ing/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/02/us/pa-...est/index.html

Both articles mentioned above have a picture of the shooter at roughly the same spot. You're not doing too well here with your objective.

[ErickAA]

Here, let me show you how it actually works:

1) Wake up in morning. Go to CNN. See headline of something along the lines of "Shooting in hospital" with no details. You wouldn't even know a mass shooting with a murder had been committed, it is so vague.
-I think to myself, must not be a white male, cause they aren't giving any details.

2). Go to Daily Mail. Top story on front page with all the details including a picture of the non-white shooter.

3) Later that day CNN puts up the story with some details (still less than what the Daily Mail had provided hours before). But story is buried and one would have to actively look for it to actually find it.

4). Two days later CNN front page headline (paraphrasing) "White suspect murders black woman in apparent road rage incident" Included on the front page is a picture of the victim and a fuzzy picture of the suspect from a freeway camera.

5.). Story stays on the front page all day. That night suspect turns himself in and the second he does his picture is front and center of the website.


-If you want to refresh your memory, here are the 2 stories, 2 days apart. I remember them because I remember at the time how funny and yet predictable it was how completely different the two stories were treated.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/30/us/new...ing/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/02/us/pa-...est/index.html

Both articles mentioned above have a picture of the shooter at roughly the same spot. You're not doing too well here with your objective.

Showing a picture of a suspect the next day buried in an article is very different than putting up a picture of the suspect on the front page the day the incident happened.

I am doing just fine articulating my argument. The disconnect is people making up their own versions of what I said and then pointing out to me why I am wrong using their made up version of events. Basically what you just did.

[Mintjewlips]

Funny how I just scoured Fox News' website and didn't see anything about it on there either. You have to do a Google search to find any story about it on their site.

And oh, btw...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/29/us/tam...son/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...llings-n824721

Neither news org avoided this story, it's just that the dipshit in charge is doing so much fucked up shit there's only so much time to report on stuff like this now.

You do know that a Saudi Prince owns like 21% of fox news right?....... Oh that's right, you're a n-wordweed savant, I get it, you're still stuck in that false left right paradigm that is being propagated by your bubble of reality.

It's all shades of grey and fox news is not conservative just because they say they are.

[Mintjewlips]

Where are your friends now..................Barry is still pulling for you tho...niggas get shot everyday b....

[DirtyB]

The truth about CNN becomes the truth about verminaard, which everyone already knew.

[donkdowndonedied]

Both articles mentioned above have a picture of the shooter at roughly the same spot. You're not doing too well here with your objective.

Showing a picture of a suspect the next day buried in an article is very different than putting up a picture of the suspect on the front page the day the incident happened.

I am doing just fine articulating my argument. The disconnect is people making up their own versions of what I said and then pointing out to me why I am wrong using their made up version of events. Basically what you just did.

If what you say is true, I'd expect there to be some significant difference. Both have the picture at about same size and location.

The front page picture could just as well be some other random occurrence. (Picture not available at the time the article went live.)

**IF** what you say is true, then I'd expect there to be no picture of the black doctor.