What isn't shocking is the number of narratives that you ignore that were actually correct. Having said that, this clearly isn't the whole story and the report actually says they only investigated the Dept of Interior.


I also think it's stupid to dismiss the IG's findings just because he was appointed by Trump. He's a career bureaucrat and worked for the IG in the Dept of Commerce under the Obama administration. I see no evidence that he is partisan.

Isn't that what we expect, that the news is, by and large, largely correct?

Not only that, we would also expect cases of misleading or incorrect reporting to benefit the left and the right in roughly equal proportion.

Can anyone name a single incident where the original story the mainstream media ran with was (meaningfully) more favorable to the conservative/Republican side than the truth?

For sure. Why do you reject so much of it then?

Is this a serious question? You've come into a thread that details how yet another narrative reported by the "news" was completely false, and asked why a person doesn't trust the "news"?

It's not that I don't think you're a serious person, merely that your take on politics are so "toe-the-line" that any opinion you espouse can be disregarded as never having been touched by critical thinking.

Ok so a Trump lackey revises history and you people eat it up like flies eat up regurgitated dog shit.

Also, the stated reason makes this even worse if true. They assaulted American citizens before curfew to allegedly erect a fence they didn’t even erect for several more hours.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Jun 12 2021 01:42pm

Read the report and my original post lol

Link: https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/SpecialReview_USPPActionsAtLafayettePark_Public.pdf
Pay special attention to the scope and methodology.

This post was edited by thundercock on Jun 12 2021 01:46pm

Now, here is an example of the narrative the "news" provided https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/08/attorney-general-barrs-dishonest-defense-clearing-lafayette-square/



Now, we know that there had been a large amount of property damage, injured officers, and it was not a "peaceful protest". We know that Trump did NOT order the park cleared. We know that the actions taken were taken because violent rioters were burning, looting, and murdering.

My question for you is, why are you asking why a person doesn't believe the "news" in a thread detailing yet one more case of false narratives by the supposed "news"?



This post is not about why you should believe the "news". It's why he does NOT believe the "news". Because it's not "news" by and large, but instead a narrative that provides only the few facts needed to support the narrative, relies heavily on conjecture and attack to make it's point.

So, feel free to answer the question any time: Why are you in a thread detailing yet another false "news" narrative, asking why a person doesn't believe the "news".

I expect them to get the basic facts right. When they don't, I expect them to acknowledge the mistake, retract the story, and, when it's repeated and egregious, outline what steps they've taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. We are not seeing that. The mistakes are consistent, they're partisan in nature, and there is neither accountability nor change in behavior.

This is unfortunately a side effect of the Trump presidency. We cannot take these institutions at face value.

I'm curious if you'd be willing to expand on this thought, tbh. From my perspective, there's always been a media bias, and narrative-driven reporting. Why was Romney accused of being racist and sexist and blah blah blah ad nauseum when he's shown nothing of the sort? Why were Obama's socialist proclivities not reported on in 2008?

To my view, to a very large degree, I cannot recall the last time the media was friendly towards any but Democrats. The media was touting the 1994 crime bill when it was a Democrat passing it. The media always seems to fall in line. Oddly, the only time the media in general has stood in favor of Republicans is when war was involved, or when there's a republican standing against another republican. So for instance, the media was nothing but applause when it came to the invasions of both Afghanistan AND Iraq. Likewise, they were very supportive of Syrian intervention, Libyan intervention, etc. When Trump fired the missiles after the hoax "saran gas attack" at Syria, the media was once again gushing. The same media that was also calling McCain a racist sexist homophobe trotted him out as some great hero the moment he was at odds with Trump. The same media that attacked Romney ad nauseum is now touting him as the model republican (globalist warmonger RINO).

The pattern is that the media will favor republicans who start wars, escalate wars, or engage in interventionism, and those who stand against whichever republican is "holding the torch". They will not, however, stand for any real Republican policy, or republicans in general. The majority of media coverage for republicans is terrible (outside of Fox News), and has been since before 1996 when Fox News was founded. So I guess my question would be, is the narrative-driven reporting really a side effect of the Trump Presidency, or did the Trump Presidency highlight what had already existed for longer than most of us have been alive?

Final thought: