That doesn’t work when the details are fuzzy, for example, this paragraph:
House Democrats Wednesday released a small batch of emails that appear to suggest President Donald Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of underage women than he has acknowledged.
You couldn’t say “Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged”. That suggests that the emails that were released referenced those specific ages, which they don’t.
You couldn’t say “Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged”.
You could say emails suggest Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged". You sure could. You sure should! It’s the truth! It’s recorded in many places, witnessed by many people!
You clearly have no idea how fact checking works in journalism.
Yeah right. IF that was true (and let me be clear - you have no idea what the fuck I know about) then a “free press” has been neutralized by the destruction of language. That’s a pretty arguable point. But.
Complicity is not handing over lists of names for people to be sent to camps. (it is, but) Complicity is super-boring shit where you approve the most mealy-mouthed nothingburgers all day long. Corporate news sewers are failing us every day, in almost every article.
And this “OMG You Can’t Say That Because It’s Not KNOWN” is why everybody thinks that’s the case.
Have you listened to first hand testimony from the Trumpstein victims? Have you? Okay you haven’t but that’s fine because they don’t make it into the NYT and CBS news. If you ever do, though, what you’ll find is that evidence that can be used to convict in a court of law will never be printed in the news. You think that has to do with fact checking in journalism? Don’t be a fool.
It depends, but “girls 11-14” might be a start.
That doesn’t work when the details are fuzzy, for example, this paragraph:
https://theweek.com/politics/house-democrats-release-epstein-emails-trump
You couldn’t say “Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged”. That suggests that the emails that were released referenced those specific ages, which they don’t.
You could say emails suggest Trump knew more about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls 11-14 than he has acknowledged". You sure could. You sure should! It’s the truth! It’s recorded in many places, witnessed by many people!
You clearly have no idea how fact checking works in journalism. They couldn’t make that claim.
Yeah right. IF that was true (and let me be clear - you have no idea what the fuck I know about) then a “free press” has been neutralized by the destruction of language. That’s a pretty arguable point. But.
Complicity is not handing over lists of names for people to be sent to camps. (it is, but) Complicity is super-boring shit where you approve the most mealy-mouthed nothingburgers all day long. Corporate news sewers are failing us every day, in almost every article.
And this “OMG You Can’t Say That Because It’s Not KNOWN” is why everybody thinks that’s the case.
Have you listened to first hand testimony from the Trumpstein victims? Have you? Okay you haven’t but that’s fine because they don’t make it into the NYT and CBS news. If you ever do, though, what you’ll find is that evidence that can be used to convict in a court of law will never be printed in the news. You think that has to do with fact checking in journalism? Don’t be a fool.