NYT publishes fake news in story about fake news! Hilarious pie on the face of NYT.
The mainstream media is now officially going to put out ‘real news’ all the time…HAHAHA…Associated Press declares war on ‘fake news’ only they can’t stop aping Pravda, of course.
Now, when AP or another participating fact-check organization flags a piece of content as fake, Facebook users will see that it has been disputed and there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. That flag will follow the content if a Facebook user chooses to share it.
That will make a good laugh. Normally, we have to publish the fake news and then debunk it such as nearly anything in the Washington Post or NYT. Now, we will get the fake news for free, all the time. The fake news purveyors all think this is very clever of them. Ram the propaganda down everyone’s throat and they will cease reading any alternative news!
Warning to the media giants: this didn’t work in Russia back in the Pravda years.
“AP has long done some of the most thorough fact-checking in the news business,” said Sally Buzbee, AP’s incoming executive editor. “This initiative is a natural extension of that tradition, and of the AP’s long-standing role setting the standards for accuracy and ethics in journalism.”
HAHAHAHA..I remember their ‘fact checking’ during the Vietnam war years. They also lied about me. They lied about nearly everything I knew was happening, that is, stuff I witnessed or it happened around or to me. So I assumed they were lying about nearly everything else. Today, it is the same.
Fact of life: when I was camped out right in front of the UN for a month with my Chinese students I was protecting, it was obvious this was happening. All major world media had reporters and offices in Midtown Manhattan and staff at the UN to cover the news and this piece of news didn’t get covered, it was covered up!
Not one reporter outside of the early CNN crew, interviewed me. Not one reporter asked questions at all. It was rendered basically invisible via a conspiracy which AP participated in, to not cover this major news story that changed US policies and forced the Chinese to back down in China.
This happens all the time. The ‘news’ we see is the proverbial tip of the ice berg. The underwater part is very vast and quite invisible unless it is happening to oneself and in the US there is this vast iceberg of unhappiness which Trump tapped into which the mainstream media avoids like the plague.
In recent weeks, AP has been identifying fake news stories, such as a false report that President-elect Donald Trump had allowed a homeless woman to live in Trump Tower. It also debunked a trending story that claimed Hillary Clinton won only 57 counties in the U.S. presidential election.
Yes, Hillary won more than a tiny handful, she got every sanctuary city, for example, and other places but not many. Her appeal was very limited in geographic size. This article doesn’t mention who started the 57 county rumor. But I will note that the article didn’t go on to tell the truth: Trump’s counties that voted for him was the biggest in the last 50 years outside of Reagan who he nearly matched!
That is major news! But AP didn’t choose to mention this startling fact especially with DNC criminals screaming bloody murder about the votes.
So, Trump got ‘only’ more than five times the counties than Clinton? HAHAHA. Note how the 1992 election as nearly totally even in the county vote count. 1996 was close, too. But since then, the division has grown worse and worse each election with the Democrats getting less then one third of the counties even when they won.
Half as many counties voted for Clinton than for Obama when he first ran. But Hillary got less than half of the counties her husband got when he won.
Trump receives credit from electoral specialists for expanding the Republican footprint, notably in places that had previously backed Barack Obama. According to a calculation by Time magazine, Trump won 220 counties that had voted for Obama in 2012, while Hillary Clinton took far fewer — 17 — that had gone for Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee.
And Trump outperformed Romney’s vote share in 2,728 counties, compared to just 383 where Clinton outperformed Obama.
The divide doesn’t stop at population. Mark Muro and Sifan Liu of the Brookings Institution crunched the numbers on the overall economic output of Clinton and Trump counties. Their finding? Clinton’s comparatively tiny number of counties “encompassed a massive 64 percent of America’s economic activity,” compared to 36 percent for Trump’s much larger stable of counties.
Yes, the handful of counties that benefited from free trade and the destruction of the working class stiffs thrived while the rest of the nation died on the vine. What this examination doesn’t do is, compare how counties with huge welfare populations voted. These vote DNC for welfare money.
Looking at the map below, it is obvious the native reservations voted for the DNC in the far west and the black belt in the Deep South voted for Clinton and the rest were the places that are import/export economies on the coasts all voted for Clinton for obvious reasons.
All of this illustrates a general pattern for Democrats in recent election cycles: They have run strongly in populous and economically growing urban and suburban areas, but poorly in lightly populated rural areas. This has been true for the entire period we’re looking at — in fact, Bill Clinton never managed to win more counties during his two victories in the 1990s — but the partisan disparity has been growing steadily. And the pattern reached a new apogee with the Trump vs. Clinton race.
Now for a contrast, the above article was not completely comprehensive but they didn’t lie about anything which is good, we go to the mess of the Amazon.com news website run by Bezos: Trump ‘lost’ most of the rich counties…claims the ever-lying Washington Post. This is a lie, of course: all the dead manufacturing cities that are now welfare hell holes, voted uniformly for Clinton, too.
The Brookings analysis found that counties with higher GDP per capita were more likely to vote for Clinton over Trump, as were counties with higher population density. Counties with a higher share of manufacturing employment were more likely to vote for Trump.
“This is a picture of a very polarized and increasingly concentrated economy,” said Mark Muro, the policy director at the Brookings metro program, “with the Democratic base aligning more to that more concentrated modern economy, but a lot of votes and anger to be had in the rest of the country.”
The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America’s economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country’s economic activity last year.
Clinton, in other words, carried nearly two-thirds of the American economy.
Here’s how the researchers, at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, visualized that. You can see immediately what’s going on: With the exceptions of the Phoenix and Fort Worth areas, and a big chunk of Long Island, Clinton won every large-sized economic county in the country.
The conclusion is, oh look! Our economy is now concentrated in a few places! Isn’t that charming! And all those darn Deplorables who were left behind when the Bilderberg gang stripped the nation of most of its manufacturing and other export items, is now a poor hell hole.
The story claims, this is a good thing and it is the fault of the people left behind, that they are bitter, why didn’t they also funnel manufactured goods into their own home ports? Oh! They are all land-bound! They can’t do this. Too bad, to hell with the hinterlands, everyone there should die, right? So says the Washington Post.