If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same construction that’s driven countless other shaky stories in the past, from WMD reports to Russiagate speculations. An unconfirmable hearsay story is conveyed by one source, who gives the reporter the numbers of two or three other people in the office who’ve heard the same tale from the same place. Voilà: A one-source pony is now factual “according to several people familiar with the matter.”
After the debate, Trump fans online were in full schadenfreude mode, crowing about how “the left” finally understood that CNN really is fake news. Overall, #CNNisgarbage trended and #fuckCNN wasn’t far behind.
If the network doesn’t see trouble in this, it’s delusional. Voters on both sides of the aisle have changed since the Bernard Shaw days. They pay more attention to media manipulations, and it doesn’t get much more manipulative than punching above the facts to advance transparent political narratives, which is a new and accepted habit in the commercial news landscape.
Michael Avenatti all over again. Regardless of what this guy says his credibility is shit. A known liar is obviously now telling the complete truth.
Sure. Agreed.I mean, that's sorta what happens when you try to take down big time criminals who only seem to associate with other shady as **** criminals. That's why you have to collect corroborating evidence. Like for example, every other witness so far and not a single witness who's actually cast doubt on any of it.