These two articles were written hours apart on the same day, about the same state, by the same journalist....
You can’t make it up.
(media.greatawakening.win)
📺 MEDIA STUPIDITY
Comments (42)
sorted by:
Probably not even real people.
Exactly. https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2019/02/06/meet-bertie-heliograf-and-cyborg-the-new-journalists-on-the-block/?sh=4e83b8fb138d
Would it be too much to hope that the author got redpilled during those hours?
Maybe they did, but aren't permitted to delete the first article because it was co-authored.
It should be conspiracy analysts, not theorists.
Classic sociopathic narcissism
Oh boy...this one is an all time classic.
AP is a news cooperative. Member news organizations get to use stories written by AP newsmen as well as stories by other member news organizations. They can use the AP writer's byline or not, add their own reporter's byline or use only their byline. AP bureaus have newsmen on duty 24 hours a day. This story could have been edited later by someone from AP who added enough to add their byline to the story. To the jackass who downvoted me for explaining how the bylines and headlines work with AP, you are a jackass and you can't change plain facts. AP stories change throughout the 24 hour day. Bylines depend on who contributed to the story or even just who is posting the story.
Nothing really going on here.
But ... somebody used the debunked words "conspiracy theorists" in the first title (not the byline).
Who did that?
Most AP employees sit at computers and rewrite stories night and day, it's not like a newspaper or broadcast newsroom. A few might do a little reporting or add new info to update a story. Many are stories from member news organizations, a few are AP original stories. A later rewrite was done, a new headline was written. That newsman may not have liked the terms used earlier or just wanted a new headline because of the update. The new headline may have been written by someone on their website, or an editor. We have no source so could have been from any member news organization's site but it looks like an AP site. Members can do whatever they want with the story, the byline, the headline. My point is the change most likely means nothing except someone wrote a new headline. I wouldn't guess it's because AP suddenly saw the light.
Thank you, that explains the conflicting articles, but who is behind them. The same reporter is the face of the article
In a regular newsroom, you have reporters either coming in from an assignment and writing that story or doing phone interviews and then writing. Plus editors, copyeditors, etc. AP is a news cooperative - they have a few reporters but mostly newsmen sitting at computers and making sure all those stories coming in from members or AP reporters are ready to go out on the "wire." (No actual wire has been used since I was a very young woman.) Members give stories to AP to be shared with other members. Member newspapers, radio and TV, cable, online news then can pick and choose what stories they want to use. The reporters listed on the two bylines may or may not be AP reporters. They probably are. Cooper is either a newsman who worked the phones and added copy to the story or could be a reporter from a member news organization who added a bit to be able to give that organization a little ownership of the story. That's done often. You may also see at the bottom of a story "SoandSo Jones also contributed to this story." BTW, reporters pretty much never write their own headlines. That's true everywhere.
I get what you mean..I majored in communication and worked at the college radio station we used to resc stuff that came in on the teletype on the air.that was 40 yrs ago. A long time ago I had wonf Freed some of the incidents where they call it mockingbird media are just anchors and newscasters reading ap type article
Enemy of the people
Little Bob and Jonathan got a little egg on their face.
the American Alligator loves egg.
This^
Drip, drip, drip
The Platinum Jubilee is what peaks my interest in those screenshots.
Because they are gaslighting all sides so that everyone can see what they want to see.
These article comparisons are potent redpills! Thank you for posting. I save every one I come across!
You can almost feel what they're thinking.... After writing the first one; "Oops, we'd better report this correctly or we're going to lose readers and wind up like Disney, Netflix and State Farm"!
Only thing wrong is that it implies a negative, and that a conspiracy theory is automatically baseless, read into by tinfoil hat wearers (who, by the way, were correct that the government was watching everybody)
My preferred pronoun is Conspiracy Factualist. I know what I'm laying down is fact.
"Theorists" presumes a WAG, or "Wild Assed Guess", and is why the C_A threw it on everyone after Kennedy was shot, that had issue with the Warren report, to discredit them.
High five to you!!
"Conspiracy Investigator" -- you know, like what they cops do when they take down the mafia or a bank heist team.
Ah yeh, thats a good one too!!
Look up theory definition. It's a WAG.
Big bang Theory, Theory of evolution, Theory of relativity as a few examples among many. All of these are being proven wrong in current scientific, astrophysics, archeological, and genealogy fields.
My comment stands.
I can’t wait for some serious Biblical archeology finds to be revealed
Already been a lot, they're just suppressed big time. Wouldn't want any Biblical validation to get out to the masses, dontcha know. There's a few channels on YT that dedicate to Ancient Archaeology, unsuppressed, to tell the real stories of our past.
Robert Sepehr is a great one and known as "The most dangerous archaeologist in the world". There's a few more and should pop up in the sidebar after viewing Roberts stuff.
I see I'm conversing with a moron. Reading comprehension is preferable when on a forum....kind of important.
Had you stopped a moment instead of ranting like a leftist and thought about what you just said, you'd understand why I'm saying this now.
Example:
What, a Theorist or "Right"? Your literary skills aren't exactly coherent so I'll address both. First, I literally said I wasn't a theorist, but AM a factualist. I don't present bullshit Theories that do not have provable data behind it. Second, as for being "right", well, I am, so let's just play this out to prove it.
To Wit: since you couldnt be bothered to look up the definition of a Theory to prove yourself wrong as I had suggested, here it is for you from Websters.
"Plausible", "belief", "Ideal or Hypothetical", "unproved assumption", "Conjecture" are all things defining what a Theory is; i.e. a WAG.
In layman terms, Corky, a better understanding of what you spout off would go a long way to looking less ignorant. You can pull that BS on Fakebook or Twatter, but not here.
Contextually and definitively different in every way.
An established Theory; e.g. Big Bang Theory that is wrongfully taught as fact, and pondering possibilities without affirming it's plausibility as fact are not the same. I do not expect someone whose mental capacity is on par with a Golden Retriever to understand that, but I felt a glimmer of hope in offering the explanation to you anyway. Either it'll sink in or you'll begin dragging your ass on the carpet. My money is on the latter.
Edit: I've scored between 148 and 152 on several IQ tests, by request. So technically, yes, that does make me a Genius according to MENSA rules of the required 140 to qualify. You know, since you brought it up.
Better than being a coincidence theorist.