Look, we all distrust the legacy media here, and for damn good reason. It's one thing we can almost all agree on. But journos are very hesitant to directly attribute something to someone if it wasn't actually said. Claiming to have spoken to someone, and that they said something, when they didn't, is a great way to get busted for fake sources...one of the few standards journos still seem to take seriously.
It's possible a mistake occurred in reporting, but I think that's pretty slim.
Direct attributions, as far as I know, are pretty dang solid.
Metcalf said Lang invited him to speak at Saturday’s rally, trying to win him over with statistics about black violence and “white lives matter” rhetoric.
“‘I said, ‘You, sir, are part of the f—ing problem. You are not a part of the solution. I don’t want anything to do with you,'” Metcalf said.
He demanded that Lang remove photos of his son from the Protect White Americans website and event flyers, and he plans to complain to the school board for granting protesters access to the stadium parking lot.
“I want [the superintendent] to explain to me how you let this white piece of trash on school property where my son was murdered less than two weeks ago.”
Did you bother to check the link that i posted or not? why do i bother posting links to articles if you aren't even going to check it? https://archive.md/THuuI
Credit where credit is due, you did provide a source beyond Some Random Person On Twitter.
However I'm always going to endorse the sentiment that we need to be skeptical of information that's being fed to us via social media. The last several years I have seen people become far too complacent about accepting statements at face value if those statements align with their already held beliefs.
Yes, lets trust a random quote in a random tweet without any kind of evidence to prove it.
Sounds good.
Im willing to bet the quote was more like "get this white supremacist guy outtta here" and whoever is quoting him is changing what he said.
Look, we all distrust the legacy media here, and for damn good reason. It's one thing we can almost all agree on. But journos are very hesitant to directly attribute something to someone if it wasn't actually said. Claiming to have spoken to someone, and that they said something, when they didn't, is a great way to get busted for fake sources...one of the few standards journos still seem to take seriously.
It's possible a mistake occurred in reporting, but I think that's pretty slim.
Direct attributions, as far as I know, are pretty dang solid.
The quote is in the New York Post article dude
Hey now, you can't just go around demanding corroborating evidence to verify baseless claims that agree with the hivemind's opinion.
Did you bother to check the link that i posted or not? why do i bother posting links to articles if you aren't even going to check it? https://archive.md/THuuI
Credit where credit is due, you did provide a source beyond Some Random Person On Twitter.
However I'm always going to endorse the sentiment that we need to be skeptical of information that's being fed to us via social media. The last several years I have seen people become far too complacent about accepting statements at face value if those statements align with their already held beliefs.