Perfect illustration of how scumbag reporters lie:
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 12, 2023
This BBC hack claimed he's seen more hate on Twitter. When asked, he can't name a single example because he hasn't look. Then claims @ISDglobal -- funded by US, EU and neoliberal billionaires - said it:pic.twitter.com/Z0F8eGm1wp
१२ एप्रिल, २०२३
"Perfect illustration of how scumbag reporters lie...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५९ टिप्पण्या:
This clip will never see the light of day in the MSM because it is their standard MO.
No. Let’s don’t move on. You being yes, a scumbag liar and all. Never accept that shit. In any way.
Another mile marker on our scenic road trip to becoming another low trust society.
The British people are forced at gunpoint to pay this babbling moron's salary.
Diversity. Rabid diversity, for giggles, profit, and leverage.
Journalism is a one-sided conversation that women love to parrot. e.g. Karens.
Can you give style points for wedgies??? Cuz that was a 9.9!!!
I hope he stole the reporters lunch money as well.
Proof? What do you mean proof? Who needs proof, I said it so it must be so.
It's really kind of comical. The pathetic little dweeb was actually quite confident about the statement he made, attributing it to his own experience, until it dawned on him, just as he was about to concoct some moronic lie, that Musk would make him prove it, and that would likely not be possible. He is still sure he was right, because someone else, he can't quite remember who, told him it was true. And he apparently believes he is practicing "journalism", when he claims to have experienced something he knows he has not experienced. He was really shocked that Musk would be so rude as to challenge him. I'm surprised he can dress himself.
I'll bet this was Musk's game plan from the start -- Take over Twitter so the corrupt media would seek him out for interviews, hoping to smear him. Hate speech is such a scarce and valuable commodity that Juicy Smollett (yes, I know) and dozens of others have gone into the business of faking it. Too bad their product is so nasty and detrimental to the left, at least fake lobster is marginally nutrious.
I further wager the BBC news department deeply regrets sending this fool to pound his empty head against the oak tree.
Besides, what's wrong with hate speech? All lefties hate Donald Trump, defaming and cursing him incessantly on every social media platform, including this one. Yet no one on CNN or BBC demands they be silenced. Free speech that doesn't offend someone is like wax fruit, pretty but worthless. I'd appriciate a lecture from Inga or any of the other usual suspects on why I'm wrong about hate speech. (Fair warning: Don't claim that your defamatory Trump rants are true and therefore not libelous, because I'll just brand you a liar in return.)
Why don't more targets push back against the lies?
This was pretty "funny".
'I saw it on your website'.
'For example?'
'Well, I don't actually look at your website.'
'So how do you know?'
'I saw it on your website.'
'For example?'
(repeats)
"When asked, he can't name a single example..."
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw the hateful posts on Twitter last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
Ann didn't provide proof of her claim either, but you believed her. Funny, that.
Reminded me of this clip when I saw the tweet via twitter, earlier today...
If Life Were Only Like This
Blogger Mark said...
"Ann didn't provide proof of her claim either, but you believed her. Funny, that."
I don't see Althouse making a claim. What are you talking about?
Musk smelled the blood early in that exchange.
Mark writes, "[Althouse] didn't provide proof of her claim either, but you believed her. Funny, that."
What claim? Do you have a reading disability or something? And why the unmerited familiarity? To you and all of us, her name is Althouse. In future, don't be impertinent. We're guests, not confidants.
And progressives will nod their heads and agree that "hate speech" has increased on Twitter since Musk purchased the company. They too will be unable to provide concrete examples of such hate. Most of the violent rhetoric I see on Twitter is from the left and much of it is from highly "educated" and "credentialed" leftists.
Kudos to Mr Musk. He always insists on telling the truth. That virtue alone makes him one in a million.
Being an African American man by birth is special too. But today he is 100% Texan.
Mark (who I've resisted calling a dumb lefty) thinks he's smarter and more honest than the rest of us, but has given no evidence of either despite repeated attempts.
He reacts to the Prof's post like dumb lefties react to Libs of TikTok--"You can't show us showing off our lying nuttery!"
That he sees a claim in the post that isn't there, while ignoring what is, speaks volumes.
i can't figure reporters out.. HOW, can they BE: THAT STUPID?
but on the other hand.. I think about journalism majors i knew back in college, and things start to add up
Quaestor said...
Mark writes, "[Althouse] didn't provide proof of her claim either, but you believed her. Funny, that."
What claim?
i THINK Mark means Althouse 'claimed' in her title that lying scumbags lie..
And (according to Mark, apparently*)..
providing Actual Video Footage of something happening is NOT providing proof of it happening.
In Other Words.. Mark is (apparently*) saying: WHO are you going to Believe; ME? or Your lying eyes.
Which is (apparently) Mark's way of letting us know; that he is, In Fact.. A Journalism Major
apparently* i keep saying apparently, 'cause i CANNOT read people's minds, so i DON'T know
Dumb Lefty Mark: "Ann didn't provide proof of her claim either, but you believed her. Funny, that."
Quaestor: "What claim? Do you have a reading disability or something? And why the unmerited familiarity?"
Dumb Lefty Mark makes his dumb lefty reputation the old fashioned way, he earns it.
Every single day.
And even if Ann had made that claim, Mark was also far too dense to actually see the and comprehend the proof that was provided in the video.
That's pretty much Double Dumb.
Double. Dumb.
Some of you seem to have forgotten about Althouse posting about seeing porn on Twitter last week, despite posting on that discussion.
I guess because you disagree with my politics you play dumb. If you cannot put 2 and 2 together, that's on you.
Mark said...Ann didn't provide proof of her claim either, but you believed her. Funny, that.
Mark, you’ve gotten a lot of pushback here, and rightfully so given your post was simultaneously combative and vague, but I am interested in your answer. What did you have in mind? What was the prof’s claim that she provided no evidence for?
I credit Mark for appearing on this post. I thought for sure this would be one of the (numerous) posts where no Leftist dares tread. His comment displays why they avoid many posts.
And Quaestor, it annoys me too when anyone addresses Althouse as "Ann". Most inappropriate in my view. I'm looking at you, Inga.
Musk was unfair. He insisted the reporter engage in fact-based questions. He wasn’t concerned about the reporter’s feelings and fact-free beliefs. I’m sure this proves that Musk is a racist.
Musk was unfair. He insisted the reporter engage in fact-based questions. He wasn’t concerned about the reporter’s feelings and fact-free beliefs. I’m sure this proves that Musk is a racist.
Yes. More to the point, Musk questioned the reporter's lived experience rather than accept it as true. HOW DARE HE?!
I suppose one could say Ms Althouse's verbatim repetition of Greenwald's tag for the tweet as the header for this post without the expected ritual denunciation of Greenwald, Musk, or the suggestion anyone not getting a Fox News paycheck would ever be less than 100% accurate and unbiased could constitute a 'claim'.
I do think we overuse the word 'lie' or 'lying'. Though it's nice shorthand in this kind of situation, I highly doubt the interviewer (or Musk) knows empirically the amount of 'hate' on Twitter at any given point in the past. Greenwald could have used the current phrase 'Asserted without evidence' and gotten just as much mileage.
The reporter presumed, correctly, that he could say what he said and that a useful proportion of listeners would nod in agreement, belliecvng it as one more indication that hate speech is rampant.
I suspect that the cohort he had in mind was not moved by Musk's challenges.
Well, the BBC in their print version of the story does lean heavily on a report from Newguard that says the Musk era is very hateful, trolly and chock full of mis and dis. So it must be true.
The irony of a news organization using a biased source to legitimize their biased article on another information outlet is quite precious.
The media are lying liars who lie - right to your face.
Musk no longer has the bod for the t-shirt statement. Put on a tie, dude, and make tycoons great again!
Not sure I would consider it a lie. It is arguable that the reporter is simply incompetent, lazy, and/or biased. I mean, that makes the reporter equally worthless, but lying does require some basic understanding what the truth is or at least what it might be. That's asking a lot here.
Note that this sort of thing makes the media especially dangerous. People who oppose you but have some decency can be reasoned with. People who oppose you and have no logical reason to do so do not leave a lot of options. People who oppose you and are also unqualified for the jobs they hold are the worst, as they will do anything to cling to their undeserved status.
“And Quaestor, it annoys me too when anyone addresses Althouse as "Ann". Most inappropriate in my view. I'm looking at you, Inga.”
Why are you addressing me? I always refer to Althouse as Althouse, never Ann. Faulty memory or senile?
Journalists assume that they are smarter than they are, and that interview subjects are guiltier and more defensive than they have reason to be.
Funniest part is the end, when the Reporter says "Let's Move on"
Yeah, of course. You can't answer a simple question. Let's Move on indeed.
Christopher B - I agree that generally we in this culture overuse "lying" but in this case it is literally correct. The reporter claimed to have seen something personally which he had not: in other words he lied. He's a liar. Whether he's a scumbag is personal opinion, but that he's a liar is pretty well established. The BBC reporter was simply repeating an activist organization's press release as his own observation or reporting, which it seems to me is the dishonesty at the core of the profession these days. Almost all reporters are just mouthpieces for activist groups they are politically aligned with.
Christopher B, for what it's worth, Musk himself used the word "lie", to the reporter's face.
And I think the lie Musk was accusing him of was not about the amount of hate on Twitter in general, but the reporter's claim that he had seen the increase himself.
I'd be fascinated to hear Althouse's take rather than GG's on the whole interview, or transcript, or even this Substack article about the interview in its entirety. It really is stunning how many biased positions the reporter holds and is willing to premise questions on but cannot in any way support by citing facts. The highlights are literally just the tip of the stupidity iceberg. Althouse has a thing about Musk and I can't figure it out but really, I would gladly "click for more" if she shared her reaction to this extraordinary interview.
One hot take: Musk shows that the ONLY way to ensure the world sees how media sausage is made is by taping every interview they do with you. Learn something republicans.
What a nasty putz Elon Musk is.
This BBC reporter was given a 20-minute warning that Musk would make himself available for the interview. The reporter engaged Musk. The reporter was trying to be polite with Musk. The reporter clearly wanted to give Musk the chance to talk freely. Musk wanted to cross-examine the reporter. It was a really minor point and I expect to learn a lot more than this one limited clip. I've already seen a few more bits from the interview that show Musk in a whole lot less flattering light.
I wish Musk all the worst.
I highly doubt the interviewer (or Musk) knows empirically the amount of 'hate' on Twitter at any [time]*
It can't be empirically measured, of course. Even finer point: who gets to define what is "hate speech" and what are the criteria?
*Christopher B quote paraphrased to make it more general, and because I agree with it 100%.
Reporters have usurped the number one scumbag position taking a wide lead over 'scumbag lawyers'.
"The reporter was trying to be polite with Musk."
Horse hockey.
This interview illustrated what happens when you have an individual of moderate intelligence* confront one of superior intelligence who is prepared.
*Giving the BBC guy the benefit of the doubt.
LLR Chuck writes, "This BBC reporter was given a 20-minute warning that Musk would make himself available for the interview."
That BBC reporter arrived at the Twitter headquarters without an appointment or an invitation. The fact that Elon Musk consented to give him over 90 minutes of his time is remarkably generous and hospitable.
That LLR Chuck would stoop to such a puerile calumny isn't surprising for two reasons. Puerile calumnies aren't much of a stoop for someone as lowdown as Chuckie Toe-Cheese. In order to stoop one must first stand, whereas slitherers can't stoop at all, the bottom of the slime pool being their full-time habitat. Secondly, Chuck earned at least one A at the Close Cover Before Striking School of Law and Watch Repair, that being Distortion and Deception 101. His classmate, Michael Avenati, only got a B, and that was on the curve.
Inga writes, "Why are you addressing me?"
I didn't. There are rules of fair debate, or is that news to you? One rule is about accurate attribution which is easily addressed as above. See that? I quoted you by name, Inga. Nobody else. I didn't leave the quote to dangle without attribution, and I certainly did not imply any other source for your question.
So why did you leave my name in and omit the name of the commenter whose comment you find objectionable? For the record, the comment belongs to Wilbur. From the evidence before me, if anyone has a senility problem, it's you, Inga.
LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck: " I've already seen a few more bits from the interview that show Musk in a whole lot less flattering light."
LOL
No, you didn't. You're lying. Again.
The entire interview reinforces completely, without exception, the bits that have been shared widely thus far and the entire interview shows Musk in complete command of the facts, the nuances of complex business dealings and social interaction concerns and actions taken by previous parties, the politics of it all, etc.
That's actually what LLR-democratical Chuck's problem is: Musk proved Chuck a liar, again, s he always does and this angers Chuck very, very much. Dumb people often react that way.
This total dunce far left moron "journalist" (that's enough to make Chuck swoon with adoration and love) has been the on-the-beat tech writer for years.
For years!
He should not have needed more than 90 seconds worth of prep. But he, like Chuck and his democratical pals, are utter buffoons and cannot handle the simplest and predictable pushback on their bias-driven lies.
It's hardly a surprise that LLR-democratical Chuck, fresh off having his arse handed to him on his pathetic Trump made Superman Biden look bad in Afghanistan lies is now shifting to deny the obvious that is out there for all the world to see.
Russian Collusion Truther and Hillary/FBI Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Inga: "Why are you addressing me? I always refer to Althouse as Althouse, never Ann. Faulty memory or senile?
Inga did however also refer to Althouse as a b****.
So there's that, of course.
Naturally, since that occurred more than 15 minutes ago I fully expect Inga to deny it.
Lets see what happens.
Caroline: "Musk no longer has the bod for the t-shirt statement. Put on a tie, dude, and make tycoons great again!"
Those dudes just can't do it.
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
RichardL: "The reporter presumed, correctly, that he could say what he said and that a useful proportion of listeners would nod in agreement, belliecvng it as one more indication that hate speech is rampant.
I suspect that the cohort he had in mind was not moved by Musk's challenges."
Indeed.
See LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck.
A perfect example of that cohort you describe.
Double Dumb Lefty Mark: "Mark said...
Some of you seem to have forgotten about Althouse posting about seeing porn on Twitter last week, despite posting on that discussion.
I guess because you disagree with my politics you play dumb. If you cannot put 2 and 2 together, that's on you."
Does Althouse's anecdotal experience represent the entirety of the twitter-verse?
We'll wait for your evidence.
(FYI: we are all just hoping you'll use ISDglobal as your source! LOL)
-Mr Musk I'll never forget all that HATE, I saw on twitter. It was SO HATEFULL. And unforgettable. I'm scarred for life!
-Like what?
-Uh, well you know. That thing. I can't remember.
-Lets move on.
Its called a False accuastion. knowingly made.
ITs like me saying you fuck pigs. And then when someone asks for proof, I have none.
And then one of my buddies says, Well, maybe Rc was just lazy. or forgetfull. Rc didn't LIE!
Yeah, that's the ticket!
“I didn't. There are rules of fair debate, or is that news to you? One rule is about accurate attribution which is easily addressed as above. See that? I quoted you by name, Inga. Nobody else. I didn't leave the quote to dangle without attribution, and I certainly did not imply any other source for your question.
So why did you leave my name in and omit the name of the commenter whose comment you find objectionable? For the record, the comment belongs to Wilbur. From the evidence before me, if anyone has a senility problem, it's you, Inga.”
Speaking of senile, Quackstar,
I didn’t address you. How could you imagine I was addressing you? Wilbur was addressing YOU, (that was part of the quote) then he went on to say something untrue about me by NAME. So I responded to Wilber. DUH. Althouse prefers us to not mention the name of the person we are responding to. Why don’t you know that? Why didn’t you look up the quote I provided and deduced it was Wilber I was speaking to.
Quackster actually made a false statement about me addressing him, when he probably knew I was addressing Wilber (or most normal people would’ve come to that conclusion). How is Quackster similar to the “scumbag reporter liar” interviewing Musk?Same goes for Wilbur, except his excuse is probably senility.
Dear Inga,
Assuming the rule exists as, you violated the rule by including my name in a deceptive and dishonest manner, implying I insulted you. (If only that were possible.) There were many things you could have done to void that calumny, using ellipsis marks for example. But the well-mannered thing was to attribute Wilbur. It is not the reader's responsibility to track back over the comment history to clarify your intent, that's your responsibility, which you shirked out of laziness, stupidity, or malice.
However, everyone, in any context, online or off, with a modicum of common sense and decorum attributes quotes. Since you obviously have none of these, I pity you.
P.S. Go ahead and call me Quackster since it evidently gives such a jolt of puerile delight. It's water off the duck's back, as they say.
Inga writes, "Quackster actually made a false statement about me addressing him, when he probably knew I was addressing Wilber (or most normal people would’ve come to that conclusion). How is Quackster similar to the “scumbag reporter liar” interviewing Musk?Same goes for Wilbur, except his excuse is probably senility."
Did I? Below is my entire comment.
Inga writes, "Why are you addressing me?"
I didn't. There are rules of fair debate, or is that news to you? One rule is about accurate attribution which is easily addressed as above. See that? I quoted you by name, Inga. Nobody else. I didn't leave the quote to dangle without attribution, and I certainly did not imply any other source for your question.
So why did you leave my name in and omit the name of the commenter whose comment you find objectionable? For the record, the comment belongs to Wilbur. From the evidence before me, if anyone has a senility problem, it's you, Inga.
I challenge you to delineate precisely my false statement, though I doubt you have the integrity, the courage, or even the good manners to take up the gauntlet. Most commenters here hold you in very low esteem. Here's a chance to rank up a bit.
Quaestor said...
LLR Chuck writes, "This BBC reporter was given a 20-minute warning that Musk would make himself available for the interview."
That BBC reporter arrived at the Twitter headquarters without an appointment or an invitation. The fact that Elon Musk consented to give him over 90 minutes of his time is remarkably generous and hospitable.
Tell me where you got your information that the "BBC reporter arrived at the Twitter headquarters without an appointment or an invitation..."
I got my information about Musk providing 20 minutes' notice (additionally, it was late in the evening) from The Guardian, which reports that it got its information from the BBC.
Are we arguing if there's pornography on Twitter. Yes, there is. I have seen it by accident. If you search for it, you will find it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा