And improperly. If someone survived being strapped to it and suffered only relatively minor injuries then fair to say it didn’t reach the desired potential.
No, the Vegas shooter was a white guy in his 60s, therefore he had “mental health issues” rather than being a terrorist.
Edit: To clarify, my post is bitter sarcasm against how some media described the Vegas shooter, rather than label him for what he was: a terrorist and ■■■■ of the highest order. And yes, it’s very fortunate the NY guy was incompetent.
I know you lot probably won’t like the sites but the news story is correct and CNN and co got two stories very, very wrong:
The Sessions one below is interesting. He was telling the truth, the FBI did inform him not to reveal his contacts with Russia while on official Senate work on his disclosure forms.
When fake news news turns out not to be fake, no retractions.
And, then there is the truly fake news, such as Obama’s place of birth and the bowling green massacres…
So I thought I’d check the second one. And hang on a second, there is this article by CNN on the 26th of May where they say that the FBI had advised him of that, but that their experts said he should still have disclosed. And then when the email was released, they reported on that.
How is this fake news? How isn’t this the proper process - reporting on what happened, giving the person at the heart of the article a chance to respond, printing that response, and then getting experts to comment on its appropriateness. And then, as more information comes out putting up articles about that. Obviously exactly how they focused on it and interpreted it can be debated. but there wasn’t any fake news here.
CNN went with a story without the facts and a story that implied guilty and fit with a narrative they were running about Russia and then claimed that his response was not correct.
Maybe they should do what journalists are meant to do, investigate BEFORE running with a story without all the facts?
You mean apart from the facts they wrote in the original article? Which they never said were untrue? Never questioned? Just said that others would advise differently.
Also, could you please define “all the facts”? Because I think if we use your definition, nobody would write a story on anything.
It seems your issue is not that its fake news, but that you don’t like how it was sensationalised. Which is a different issue.
If the facts were wrong deliberately then it is fake. If they view persists after the facts clearly show the the view is wrong then it is fake news.
If it is a news service making a mistake and then correcting themselves and apologising then you have a pretty regular news organisation that isn’t perfect but strives to be.
Fake news is; pizzagate, birther moment, uranium one, Comey / Mueller being corrupt and partisan hacks (they are lifeline republicans FFS) and numerous other things peddled by Fox News who are not in the habit of correcting any mistakes they make and rarely pull their ‘talent’ into line.
The US is about to have its biggest test of its institutions when Trump fires Mueller because he’s getting a bit close to truth…so far the checks and balances of their system have failed… will be fascinating to see whether it slides further towards authoritarianism or the checks and balances hold.