The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: FaC on July 25, 2016, 10:29:06 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028045655
DetlefK (8,018 posts)
Russia Today reliably chooses to tell only half the story about the DNC e-mails
https://www.rt.com/usa/352934-trump-sanders-wikileaks-dnc/
Wikileaks this, Wikileaks that, DNC bad, poor Bernie, Trump was right...
But why doesn't the article mention what happened before Wikileaks got their hands on the e-mails?
Who gave those e-mails to Wikileaks?
And as this is an article about e-mails of the DNC, why doesn't the article mention that the DNC was hacked a few months ago?
It's almost as if Russia Today cherrypicks what to mention and what not to mention.
The comment-section is a combination of "crooked Hillary" and "Trump 2016".
Which begs the question: What kind of red-blooded, super-patriotic, all-american Trump-voter reads and comments on Russia Today???
I guess as long as RT chose to tell the moonbat side of the story they were A-Ok. Now that they seem to be putting a different spin on the story their reputation is going into the tank?
I guess "trusted" really maens "Spin it our way (or else)".
Nuclear Unicorn (18,924 posts)
3. Isn't that kind of like blaming Deep Throat and the Washington Post for Watergate?
^^^ Stepping close to the edge today...
Tommy_Carcetti (25,595 posts)
4. It's the only way RT could ever be described as reliable. nt
Snork - when could RT ever be described as reliable?
DetlefK (8,018 posts)
5. Lie-by-omission is standard for Russia Today:
When russian and british hooligans clashed in France during the EM2016: There were instances where the Russians were the aggressors and there were instances where the british were the aggressors. But mostly Russians.
RT reported about this. It covered several incidents in one big article.
Whenever the British were the aggressors, it was "british fans attacking russian fans".
Whenever the Russians were the aggressors, it was "fans attacking british fans".
Throughout the whole article, RT carefully avoided associating russian hooligans with beating up people, even when they were clearly the aggressors and had beaten people bloody.
^^^ Thank you Capt. Obvious
-
The main one's I know who used RT as a legit site were the bern-outs with the hillbots cherrypicking what they liked and didn't like the way that libs usually do.
Keep in mind, these are the same libs who thought Pravda was giving an accurate reflection of the USSR and the evil USA.
.
-
It's almost as if Russia Today cherrypicks what to mention and what not to mention.
How rich is that coming from the most ridiculous cherry-pickers on the net?
-
I wonder if the DNC computers had Kasperski internet security on them? :popcorn: