Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diana Falzone responds to a New York Times report that her former boss who killed the Stormy Daniels story is currently peddling fake news written by Macedonians.

This is the problem when our Republican political leaders show themselves to be vulnerable to Russian disinformation campaigns- they have placed a giant target on our country and every malign foreign actor will be aiming for it.
smh

Anonymous wrote:Diana Falzone responds to a New York Times report that her former boss who killed the Stormy Daniels story is currently peddling fake news written by Macedonians.

Anonymous wrote:Diana Falzone responds to a New York Times report that her former boss who killed the Stormy Daniels story is currently peddling fake news written by Macedonians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jane Mayer is one of the most skilled and respected legitimate journalists around.

She’s nothing like the hacks and fools that populate the rightwing propaganda media.

Billionaires like Murdoch and Singer and Anschutz and Koch and Wilks have trouble finding truly smart people to sell their propaganda in exchange for their money. That’s how you end up with weak-minded liars like Ben Shapiro (Wilks: Daily Wire) and Eddie FootFetish (DC Examiner) and Bret Stephens (dirty Wilks dollars at Prager U; WSJ previously) and all the unmemorable morons over at Daily Caller (Koches) and Breitbart (Mercer).

Jane Mayer is a real journalist. I’m sorry you’re jealous that your “movement” doesn’t have many people who can measure up to her.

Is “Wilks” an autocorrect for “wiki”?

No. PP is referring to the Wilks Brothers who find right wing “media” operations and gave $15 million to Ted Cruz. Here’s the wiki for the Wilkses:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_and_Farris_Wilks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jane Mayer is one of the most skilled and respected legitimate journalists around.

She’s nothing like the hacks and fools that populate the rightwing propaganda media.

Billionaires like Murdoch and Singer and Anschutz and Koch and Wilks have trouble finding truly smart people to sell their propaganda in exchange for their money. That’s how you end up with weak-minded liars like Ben Shapiro (Wilks: Daily Wire) and Eddie FootFetish (DC Examiner) and Bret Stephens (dirty Wilks dollars at Prager U; WSJ previously) and all the unmemorable morons over at Daily Caller (Koches) and Breitbart (Mercer).

Jane Mayer is a real journalist. I’m sorry you’re jealous that your “movement” doesn’t have many people who can measure up to her.

Is “Wilks” an autocorrect for “wiki”?

Anonymous wrote:Jane Mayer is one of the most skilled and respected legitimate journalists around.

She’s nothing like the hacks and fools that populate the rightwing propaganda media.

Billionaires like Murdoch and Singer and Anschutz and Koch and Wilks have trouble finding truly smart people to sell their propaganda in exchange for their money. That’s how you end up with weak-minded liars like Ben Shapiro (Wilks: Daily Wire) and Eddie FootFetish (DC Examiner) and Bret Stephens (dirty Wilks dollars at Prager U; WSJ previously) and all the unmemorable morons over at Daily Caller (Koches) and Breitbart (Mercer).

Jane Mayer is a real journalist. I’m sorry you’re jealous that your “movement” doesn’t have many people who can measure up to her.

Anonymous wrote:Jane Mayer is one of the most skilled and respected legitimate journalists around.

She’s nothing like the hacks and fools that populate the rightwing propaganda media.

Billionaires like Murdoch and Singer and Anschutz and Koch and Wilks have trouble finding truly smart people to sell their propaganda in exchange for their money. That’s how you end up with weak-minded liars like Ben Shapiro (Wilks: Daily Wire) and Eddie FootFetish (DC Examiner) and Bret Stephens (dirty Wilks dollars at Prager U; WSJ previously) and all the unmemorable morons over at Daily Caller (Koches) and Breitbart (Mercer).

Jane Mayer is a real journalist. I’m sorry you’re jealous that your “movement” doesn’t have many people who can measure up to her.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.mediaite.com/online/i-stopped-the-stormy-daniels-story-at-fox-news-heres-why/

The point that makes it ring true to me is why would the story only have been offered to Fox? Mayer did not even contact the guy who made the decision.

In the recent national coverage of this incident, based on an article in The New Yorker, no one has questioned why Stormy would try to leak an anti-Trump story exclusively to Fox News, seen by virtually everyone as a pro-Trump outlet. In reality, she was actually talking to a handful of others as well.

The Daily Beast later reported that it had “protracted talks” with her and had three sources confirming the affair. She was reportedly in talks with Good Morning America as well.

So why didn’t those outlets publish anything either? The best account I’ve found was written by Jacob Weisberg, Slate’s then editor-in-chief, who was also chasing the story. It’s a fascinating read and similar to our own experiences.

Prior to the election, he had spoken several times to Daniels and even seen some so-called corroborating evidence, yet still didn’t publish a story, for solid reasons. For instance, an unsigned, undated “contract” from Daniels’ lawyers with pseudonyms throughout is far from proof of the affair.

Why would they offer these bizarre snippets of information and then go silent? Again, Slate’s editor gives the best explanation: “Daniels said she was talking to me and sharing these details because Trump was stalling on finalizing the confidentiality agreement and paying her. Given her experience with Trump, she suspected he would stall her until after the election, and then refuse to sign or pay up.”

After her payment from Trump, Daniels stopped talking, and it took the Wall Street Journal a year to report the story fully on January 12, 2018.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox is not a news organization, but rather a political propaganda group. It should be treated as such by the law. Govern it by the FEC, not the FCC.

Yes, and it's been proven that Fox is propaganda (and MSNBC and CNN are not - they're just profit-first infotainment):
Fox propaganda study: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20160812

Data in this study is from 1998-2008. Fox was propaganda then and Fox is propaganda now.

And anyone who watches Fox willingly is a dupe and a fool who is getting screwed by Rupert Murdoch. (That includes all the GOP Congressmen who have it on in their offices. They're low IQ morons installed by the GOP donors.)

There's some kind of magic mojo that Murdoch's been able to work - because that kind of stuff doesn't just go on here in the US, but also in Australia and the UK where his media empire has reach. And along with it comes idiotic "It was cold on Tuesday therefore climate change is a Chinese hoax" et cetera.