Right… the way the news reports influence voter decision making is broken.

She’s just mad that most people are ignoring a transparent hit piece.

I suspect that any Trump supporter or rational moderate would agree with this answer:

“A far Left-wing magazine publishes an article written by a far Left-wing writer, who has actually written nicer things about Fidel Castro than Donald Trump,  in which anonymous sources make an accusation about Trump that has been countered by a Whitehouse email and multiple eyewitnesses who have gone on record disputing that claim, and you’re surprised I think the accusation is bullshit and that it won’t change my views?  Go fuck yourself.”

Spread the love

By J. Kb

11 thoughts on “The reinforced, armor clad, impenetrable bubble of DC reporters.”
  1. “…I believe The Atlantic’s reporting.”

    Pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the political mindset of young miss Alter.

    1. Yes, because The Atlantic (among many) has never quoted anything the current President has said out of context. Sure. [/sarcasm]

      More and more it seems like MSM journ-o-lists have a wife-beater mentality.

      To whit: “Who you gonna believe? Me, or your lyin’ eyes?”

      Also: “Where else you gonna go? Nobody else gonna take you in!”

  2. “… the accusation is bullshit…” & “Go fuck yourself.”

    Took the words outta me mouth. The MSM commitards better learn to code and soon. Karma is a patient but very harsh mistress, and she don’t give a shit who you think you are or who you know.

  3. Even Goebbels knew that effective propaganda needed a basis in truth- something that was true to the subject being lied about.
    This fails that test, as it’s not true to the person of President Trump. He’s not that type of person, and is far too interested in history to think that way.

    1. Journ-o-lists still have this belief that they are the sole arbiters of information to the masses — that they can take a quote out of context to smear their target and their readers/viewers have no ability to look it up and verify for themselves.

      But we can verify the quotes and events in question, and we’ve learned that journ-o-lists are so full of s@#t they try to sell the excess on paper by labeling it as “investigative reporting”.

      It’s neither investigative nor reporting. It’s a smear job.

      They just haven’t realized that we’ve figured out what that “smear” really is.

  4. At this point most main strema media could tell me water is wet or the sky is blue etc and I’d be skeptical until I can personally verify that.

  5. Someone I know, currently a freelance writer but worked at a local paper for years, insists that this must be real because ‘The Atlantic printed it, and I trust them.’

    Pointed out the slight problem of numerous people being willing to put their names to “This is bullshit”, vs “I’m keeping my sources anonymous so nobody can attack them on Twatter” and so forth; doesn’t matter. Hell, Goldberg admitted to, let’s say ‘slight problems’ with his anonymous sources, she doesn’t care.

    And this is from someone who’s always telling other people to check their sources and double-check the information. Except this would be bad for Trump, so it doesn’t need to be done here. It’s discouraging.

Comments are closed.