‘No F**king Way!’ – British Intel Mocked FBI’s Flimsy Russia Collusion ‘Evidence’ Against Donald Trump.
‘No F**king Way!’
Posts
Total:
11
-->
@Stephen
There's a conspiracy theory floating around that first lady Melania Trump is really a Russian spy.
As "evidence," internet commenters pointed to a chat she'd had with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a dinner for last year's G-20 Summit.
While Melania doesn't speak Russian, she does know English, French, German, Italian, and Serbian, in addition to her native Slovenian.
Many saw her engaged in conversation at dinner with Putin, and reports described the two as friendly during the meal.
As "evidence," internet commenters pointed to a chat she'd had with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a dinner for last year's G-20 Summit.
While Melania doesn't speak Russian, she does know English, French, German, Italian, and Serbian, in addition to her native Slovenian.
Many saw her engaged in conversation at dinner with Putin, and reports described the two as friendly during the meal.
-->
@FLRW
Best have another billion year investigation into Melania Trump costing billions of dollars, then FLRW. ....so everyone can ignore the corruption of the Biden's and Clinton's.
-->
@Stephen
mediabias/factcheck rates the National Pulse:
Overall, we rate The National Pulse Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, affiliation with a known questionable group, and several failed fact checks
For example, this incredibly shitty piece of writing: "The Durham Report, commissioned in 2019 after the excruciatingly drawn-out investigations into Trump and Russia, has concluded there was no evidence of any of it."
- Never mind that Durham took four years with no convictions to investigate Mueller's two year "drawn-out" investigation with 37 conviction. Never mind that all os Durham's top investigators walked away from the investigation in protest years ago.
- The "it" that Durham found no evidence for is any criminal conduct by US intel when investigating Trump. That is, Durham agrees with Mueller that an investigation was warranted by the Trump Campaign's many, many secret and still today never explained meetings with Russian Intelligence (FACT: The Trump administration denied or lied about 172 now proven meetings with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign). Durham correctly finds some fault with FBI fact-finding and readiness to believe the brags of minor Trump officials overseas (Carter Page, etc) but Durham does not contradict Mueller in any important finding, conviction, or (essentially) the 11 felonies Trump committed while trying to kill Mueller's investigation.
- Let's note that the Steele Dossier was itself a product of UK intelligence and to the extent that no particular of that document has yet to disproved, better respected by UK intel than US intel.
- Let's recall that in 2020, UK Intelligence condemned Boris Johnson cover up and failure to investigate Russian interference in the Brexit Vote and cited, with admimration, the example of US intelligence investigating and prosecuting Russia's political alliance with the GOP since 2016
MediaBias Fact Check has faced criticisms and scrutiny from various sources. Some of the common criticisms include:
- Methodology concerns: Critics argue that MediaBias Fact Check's methodology may not be transparent or consistently applied. There have been questions raised about the criteria used for determining bias and the reliability of sources cited.
- Perceived bias: Some critics have accused MediaBias Fact Check of having its own biases and influencing its assessments accordingly. These critics argue that the website itself may exhibit bias in its ratings and descriptions of news sources.
- Lack of expertise: Concerns have been raised about the qualifications and expertise of the individuals or organization behind MediaBias Fact Check. Critics argue that an assessment of media bias requires a deep understanding of journalism, media studies, and related fields.
- Limited scope: Critics argue that MediaBias Fact Check's coverage is limited and may not adequately encompass the full range of media bias. They suggest that the ratings and evaluations provided by the website may be incomplete or skewed due to the limited set of sources analyzed.
Any asshole can criticise and scrutinize. What is useful about mediabias/factcheck is that he seems equally skeptical of left-wing sources as right-wing, regularly updates his fact checks, and summarizes his conclusions in nice, easy to quote comparisions. There are lots of fact checkers out there but many seem devoted to only fact checking from one polticial point of view. As long as the top academic and journalistic sites continue to trust mediabia/factcheck so will I.
Different fact-checking organizations may have varying methodologies, priorities, and potential biases. It's important for individuals to consider multiple sources, including a range of fact-checkers, to obtain a well-rounded understanding of media bias and accuracy. While academic and journalistic sites may refer to MediaBias Fact Check as a resource, it is also advisable to exercise critical thinking and independently evaluate the credibility and reliability of any source, including fact-checkers. Considering a diverse range of perspectives and sources can help foster a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues.
Relying solely on the trust placed by top academic and journalistic sites in MediaBias Fact Check may present a potential pitfall. While it's important to consider the opinions and assessments of reputable sources, it's also crucial to maintain an independent and critical mindset when evaluating information.
Here are a few points to consider:
- Diversity of perspectives: Academic and journalistic sites, like any other sources, can have their own biases or limitations. Relying solely on their endorsement of a fact-checking organization might limit exposure to diverse viewpoints and alternative assessments.
- Transparency and methodology: It's essential to understand the methodology and criteria employed by MediaBias Fact Check. Familiarizing yourself with their process can help you determine if their approach aligns with your own standards of objectivity and accuracy.
- Critical thinking: It's always beneficial to develop and apply critical thinking skills when evaluating information. This involves cross-referencing multiple sources, fact-checking claims independently, and considering a range of perspectives. Doing so can help ensure a well-rounded understanding of a given issue.
-->
@Stephen
Imagine the level of the mind that reads The National Pulse. Lol
Nice use of ChatGPT. Let's ask the same AI what factcheckers it trusts and then check with those regarding The National Pulse
One reputable and widely recognized organization that ranks website reliability as a news source is the Media Bias Chart created by Ad Fontes Media. The Media Bias Chart assesses news sources based on two main dimensions: bias and reliability. It provides a visual representation of where various news outlets fall on the political bias spectrum and rates them according to their reliability.
Ad Fontes ranks The National Pulse as 19.44 out 42 in terms of right-wing bias (STRONG RIGHT) and 16.38 out of 64 for reliability (16 is the border between propaganda and outright lies).
- NewsGuard (www.newsguardtech.com): NewsGuard is a browser extension and website that assigns reliability ratings to thousands of news and information websites. Their team of trained journalists and analysts assesses websites based on nine criteria, including credibility, transparency, and adherence to journalistic standards. NewsGuard provides detailed information on each website's rating, offering users transparency and context for evaluating sources.
Newsguard is a paid service but ranks The National Pulse as RED (generally untrustworthy).
Every quote the OP article claimed was in the report was...get this...ACTUALLY IN THE REPORT.
Instead, radical leftoids resort to source shaming because they are too lazy or too intolerant to actually read the source report. Chat GPT was right, you should cross check information before trusting authority, especially the kind of authority that lies repeatedly to your face.
The OP article accurately cited quotes directly from the report, which undermines the baseless accusations made by radical leftists. It is disappointing that instead of engaging with the information presented, they choose to engage in source shaming, which reveals either their laziness or intolerance to read the source report. As Chat GPT mentioned, it is essential to cross-check information and not blindly trust authorities, particularly those who repeatedly deceive and manipulate the facts.