Good thing she did not. It is the right wing media the one that showed themselves to be the biggest makers of fake news.
I did notice that also Townhall and other sources did go for the misrepresentation of what the accuser of Moore did say. That tells me that FOX news and many others are not news but part of the fake news problem. And once again I end up noticing that many conservatives will continue to rely on the real makers of fake news.
“Well duh; they’re the only ones you can trust.”
So where is your cite showing that this is what happened in this case? GIGObuster’s post provides evidence what you are claiming here is a misrepresentation of what happened.
You got anything to back up your claim or not?
Watching the polls on FiveThirtyEight during the Presidential election, there was a pretty clear dip in popularity for Trump each time he got major press (the Access Hollywood video, the debates, etc.). They would bottom out after about two weeks and then go back up.
Reality only has a temporary effect against personal politics and peer pressure.
The Washington Post should have waited until November 28th or so to post the accusations. Not timing it correctly has rendered their exposition of reality wasted. They might as well have not bothered.
Calling Fox “fake news” is a slippery slope I don’t wish to tread on. If you call their constant spin and often deceptiveness “fake news” even if it is based on real events and not made up out of whole cloth, then what’s to say opponents of the “liberal”, reality-based media cannot further stretch the definition of “fake news” to include media outlets with occasional spin, rare reporting errors, and an annoying attachment to accuracy?
I’m fine with calling Fox News the propaganda department of the Republican party, and I don’t care what lies this leads its adherents to (continue to) tell.
Before replying, it has to be painfully noted that Trump and many on the right have the mantra that “liberal” corporate news are fake news. And making that become a “fact” among their members. There is no slippery slope for the right wing, they already did fall from the precipice.
So, we already had a long discussion on how inadequate FOX news are, while I have seen that FOX does give straight news, specially on disasters, that is also a thing that the “liberal” media does. The problem I have seen with FOX is that there is a record of items that they have indeed made up, among them the Benghazi manufactroversy, climate change denial, and now a pathological defense of the many in-defensible things that the president and the Republicans are doing.
IMHO When a media source does by design tell their reporters what the official news must contain, and gross negligence or pathetic efforts to correct the record (so as to not changing the first lines so the copy pasters can continue to mislead friends and family) then yes, I’m willing to call them fake news creators.
Incidentally, I still have to see any heads roll from FOX for the attention they gave (and continue to give) to nothing-burger “scandals” while more serious news do come hard on the people making mistakes. While weasels like James O’keefe still have the ears of many right wing sources, just as an example.
As I have often said FOX is to the Republican party what Pravda was to the Communist party.
Of course they did, but words have meanings. The right doesn’t believe in that, in fact saying “everything’s an opinion so why not vote Republican?” But everyone who can remember way back to 2016 knows that “fake news” applies to sites that bait eyeballs with completely fabricated stories. I can almost call Brietbart’s ACORN sting “fake news” but not quite. It would have been fake news if there hadn’t actually been an ACORN employee who said some things that could have been taken out of context.
In contrast, the vast majority of “fake” Fucks Gnus stories are simply composed of spin and contextomies. In perils of falling to bothsidesdoitism, I’d say that the percentage of actual fake news on that channel is only slightly higher than the percentage of highly innacurate (but not fake because it was mistaken rather than deliberate) stories on other channels, with the caveat that F** N*** doesn’t actually care if their stories are accurate whereas most other mainstream media does.
Actually Weasel O’keefe had to settle with one ACORN employee for misrepresenting him. Other employees showed how they actually made their words so outlandish that only an idiot would fall for it. It turns out that many editors from the right wing media are idiots or that they do not care so as long they mislead others.
In my estimation, it is not even close, I still remember how amusing it was in a previous thread for a right winger to post a graph that demonstrated how news sources like MSNBC almost did not gave importance to the Benghazi “scandal” and now FOX news reported that item many times. (The Graph showed almost no time dedicated to it from MSNBC and many, many hours by FOX news)
Turns out that many investigations did show that virtually all accusations against Obama and Hillary Clinton were not true. So then outfits like MSNBC actually were more responsible.
It is my estimation that things like that made the difference in the past election. Just as (Getting back to the subject) I do think that Moore can still win the election. Thanks to the misleading efforts from FOX news and others.
Maybe she needs to produce the long-form yearbook.
The kerning! Check the kerning!
O’Keefe was, in fact, just presented with a right-wing journalism award from Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas.
I can tell it’s a shop because some of the pixels are off and I’ve seen quite a few shops in my time.
Not sure if that was in jest but other sources report the same:
http://impactawardsevent.com/impact-award-recipients
The photo can be the result of just blowing up a small picture and applying a filter to make it less blocky. And if what the quick search I made has the proper info, the one offering the image got it from an Instagram that belongs to O’Keefe or from his group.
Roy Moore’s strategist goes all-in:
What about all those women who came forward with stories about Roy Moore?
I know I shouldn’t be, but I’m actually surprised that framing this as a Trump referendum would be considered a good idea, even in Alabama. If Moore loses, however, it will make it so much sweeter.
It kinda is “Trump on trial in Alabama” since he has now injected himself into the race. But I think Republicans might want to be careful about using the phrase “Donald Trump on trial”, regardless of the context. 
This whole Moore and Trump thing will make for a nice case study on the perniciousness of cognitive dissonance for future psychology textbooks.
Objecting to Moore on the basis of all these accusations puts a Trump voter in the pickle of having some ‘splaining to do. Why is Moore any more repulsive than Trump? Why does he deserve to be penalized for his behavior when Trump was not? Rather than admitting to an ethical blunder in voting for Trump (who has actually has been accused of forcibly raping a 13 year old), what we’re seeing is conservatives doubling down like a sucker who has already lost half his savings at the blackjack table. Walking away from the table means admitting you made a mistake by even playing, so you might as well go all in and convince yourself that a payoff is coming that will wipe away the debt.
Trump’s endorsement of Moore is ingenious because associating the two together is a reminder to his voters that they made exceptions for him so they have to make exceptions for Moore. In this way, he’s not only normalizing sexual misconduct among GOP politicians. He’s creating a system that rewards candidates that are like him in this way. In a hypothetical primary between two Republicans—one clean and straight-laced and one with a reputation like Moore or Trump—people who voted for Trump now have a psychological reason to vote the latter in over the former. Assigning value to a clean, scandal-free political history means admitting you don’t want someone sexually sketchy in office…ouch, but look at the POTUS…let’sjust pretend having a dirty reputation means you actually are an unfairly maligned hero of the people! Yeah, that’s the ticket. Power to the people.
You also have to remember that there are quite a few people out there that do not see anything wrong with what Moore and Trump have done, as the voters have done the same, or would like to do it themselves.
If you fantasize about walking in on teen beauty pageants in states of undress, or picking up teens at the local mall, then they are your heroes. Of course you will vote for them.