Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (11)
sorted by:
I mean, it's technically the truth when you consider they refuse to actually investigate further.
"We found nothing wrong!"
"Did you look properly?"
"Shut up, bigot!"
At best they are horribly misusing the language. It's like when they were talking about the presidential election and some clever propagandist wrote "without evidence" and all the media dimwits (they aren't even midwits) thought it sounded good and copied the phrasing. The time proximity of someone dying during strenuous athletics and also being vaccinated is circumstantial evidence. The number of players dropping dead vs. previous years and vs. non-vaccinated players is statistical evidence. Upon investigation one may find conflicting evidence that disproves the hypothesis, but putting the phrase "no evidence" in a headline is transparently deceptive. I don't even feel sorry for people who fall for it.
Relevant reaction clip.
Fact checking is only ever as credible as the checkers involved. It's not surprising that confidence in both the MSM and associated groups is at an all time since repeatedly they get found out as lying through various means.
Of course there are enough normies about that the sheer volume of docile ignorance means the lies can be spread and controlled given how long it will take for the actual truth to come out, if that even matters at this point.
Remember all throughout the Rittenhouse trial, and even now after it, there are still those who think the following about what happened that night:
Even though he fired at 4
peaceful protestorsrioters, hit 3 while missing the black man that tried to jump-kick him, and killed 2. 1 of the 3 shot was even in the actual trial testifying but that didn't stop things. Although it did give a great literal facepalm reaction from the prosecution because Gaige was that fucking stupid he stated what happened was self defense.Wasn't his rifle first of all, and the whole "state lines" thing was an extremely early narrative set up to guide the public into a controllable mindset. Additionally the distance Kyle travelled was 17 km or something which isn't even a long commute for some people on top of the fact his father lived where the
peaceful burning flamesriots were happening.3. Dogs can't look up.It's often touted as paranoia but when you can consistently prove falsehoods it's always best to question everything reported, even when it's by someone you know and trust well enough you might not bother checking. Malice aside people can be wrong so checking these things is important.
tl;dr There are four lights!
The fact that his teammates, who know if he was vaxxed or not, said it was the vax, isn't relevant?
Stop believing your lying eyes!
Reuters said this. Reuters' CEO sits on the board of Pfizer.
Wait, fucking what?
Is that really allowed?
As long as Thomson Reuters discloses it to stock holders, it should be legal to have this conflict of interest. Reuters should also be disclosing this conflict of interest to their readers, on every story about Pfizer even, but I don't know of any law requiring that. There's no journalistic integrity in modern press.
who are you going to believe? the experts, or your own eyes?
Considering the occasional double take I'll have I don't even trust my eyes 100% of the time so if I'm going to question what I personally see I'm definitely going to question what other people tell me they've seen. Other people are idiots when they're not intentionally trying to mislead you and sometimes they're idiots when they are trying!