Fucking right there is a doubt.
I believe that you don’t know the difference between a direct source and a right-wing editorial.
It’s a little after the 12:32pm mark.
LOL! In addition to the Tucker Carlson clip there’s also the John Kass and Michael Brown articles. Doubt away for as long as you wish. When you get thirsty, the water is right there in front of you for you to drink.
This has been an instructive eposide for me though. Shodan was right (again), and I should have listened to his advice.
We’ve got substantial evidence in this thread alone that what you believe and don’t believe have very little relation to reality.
There has never been a movement toward social justice and equality that has not been exploited by some unscrupulous swine. Personally, the ones who irritate me the most are those who make a very comfortable living as the champions of the poor.
So? Those of us who are sincere in our determinations, we should just give up because some self-serving asshole takes advantage?
Thank you for that direct link.
Do you understand the difference between what he provided and what you have been failing to provide, HurricaneDitka?
Archive.org (the Internet Archive / Wayback Machine) isn’t directly affiliated with CNN either. Why is that any more of a “direct link” in your view than YouTube, Townhall or the Chicago Tribune?
When you figure out the difference between news and editorial, you will have answered your own question.
So which one is Brooke Baldwin? News or editorial?
She was the source that you couldn’t provide a direct link to. Is this really that confusing for you?
That would actually be something you might want to investigate, one would think. You know where I found the link to the video? On Breitbart. The headline of the item says 12 journalists added fuel to the fire with this story in their reactions. However, immediately after that you see not all of them are journalists. Some are commentators. So maybe you could sort Baldwin and the 11 others into categories while learning of their foibles.
I provided what I felt was sufficient evidence to establish the fact of the matter. I suspect you know, as Ravenman conceded, that she was editorializing.
No, none of this is confusing for me. She claims the position of a news anchor and wants to wrap herself in the cloak of feigned objectivity, but editorializes her liberal beliefs when it suits her.
That would be something to consider, if it weren’t for the fact that you think Tucker Carlson is a reliable source. :rolleyes:
Here is some good documentation of the way the media accepted and publicized Smollett’s claims as if they were fact:
There are examples there from CNN, NBC, CBS, BuzzFeed (no real surprise there), WaPo, NYT, ABC, The Daily Beast, and PBS (!).
Why don’t you stick to telling us what you think? You’re not doing a very good job of stating what I think.
If you don’t think Tucker Carlson is reliable, why are you using him as a cite to support your arguments?
Because like Shodan, I suspect the doubts about whether Brooke Baldwin said “This is America in 2019” are largely feigned and insincere. They didn’t merit enough consideration from me to go clicking around CNN’s cite trying to find archive footage. Tucker Carlson had the snippet in a montage, and that sufficed for my purpose of dispelling any sincere doubts as to the existence of the quote.
Another thank you, Covfefe. I don’t see a video on that page but I do see the transcript and I concede that Brooke Baldwin said the words “and this is America in 2019”. I utterly deny that Hurricane Ditka’s characterization of her utterance is at all accurate tho. Utterly. It’s not even close, IMO.
Here are 3 different angles of Trump supporter and white supremacist (but I repeat myself) James Fields murdering Heather Heyer with his car.
But by all means let’s keep this discussion focused on whether CNN went too far assuming a hate crime.