Re: Nothing to see here

My word, that is, like, the longest article I've ever read quoting an anonymous source allegedly talking about an unverified secondhand assertion that apparently originated from an unnamed "highly placed" Burisma executive. That's even better than that "Fourth Wall Break inside another Fourth Wall Break So That's Like Sixteen Walls!" from Deadpool.

The article even admits that this anonymous source supposedly talking about what this unnamed Burisma executive allegedly told him was that Biden was also "paid in such a manner that it would be spread across multiple bank accounts over time"...which is another way of admitting that since Joe already released his financials from the past 22 years that $5 million never appeared there (which I already knew, since I've looked at them pretty carefully myself.)

I literally do not even think that qualifies as a news article. Actually it's barely even a lead, much less a smoking gun.

But do rock on. I won't judge your critical thinking skills. At all.

quozzel

Hall of Famer [20542]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 11691

Joined: 10/15/02

Re: It’s down to a matter of loyalty to ‘the cause’

Jun 9, 2023, 6:04 AM

Dude, that article isn't journalism. There is no other significant news source in America that would run with that because it's...nothing. A cream puff. Cotton candy. It may taste sweet for a second but there's literally nothing to it.

I gotta hand it to Fox News, though. They're definitely being way more careful with anything that could be perceived as slander. There is zero chance whatsoever anybody could win a defamation suit against this article because there are literally no facts asserted in it. We have no idea who this nameless source is, it could be anybody. Nor was the unnamed source even making the assertion himself, he was quoting somebody else...who is also nameless and could be anybody, and therefore cannot be questioned.

That amounts to...let's see here...zero, plus zero, plus another zero...like, wow. It's still zero. There is not a single assertion there that anybody could remotely disprove in a court of law because there are literally no specific facts whatsoever to latch onto and disprove.

That's kind of a new trick, and I've seen it repeated several places in conservative "media" lately. They're definitely being a lot more careful in the wake of Alex Jones and Fox News losing billions in defamation suits. Just be vague to the point of negligibility while putting it in the context of something that could possibly be a scandal...and then let the audience put these non-facts together into an actual inference all on their very own.

The sad part is, this seems to be enough anyhow. At least for the moment.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Nothing to see here

Re: Well ain’t that a surprise!