05-22-2022, 04:23 PM
(05-21-2022, 08:38 PM)Dill Wrote: ???????????
There is no evidence to support Musk's claim that Sussmann or the Clinton campaign peddled information they knew was untrue. Multiple witnesses testified that respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns about the data. Sussmann's lawyers repeatedly said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material when he provided it to the FBI.
Three things
1. This is the last paragraph from the article. It is the authors opinion. Every bit of the article before it is not opinion, but rather the reporter reporting the facts. Oddly, he injects his opinion in at the end. This is a big problem with all media today, opinion is often injected into the facts and presented as such. It is very hard to differentiate.
2. So now for something to be labeled misinformation, it has to be false and knowingly distributed as such? Is that how you want to define it now? Im cool with it, just be consistent. Just realize that someone who is telling people to ingest Safe-Guard Equine Paste Horse Dewormer for covid isn't misinformation if that person has horses and notices that Ivermectin is an active ingredient and truly believes that he can eat it to treat CV
3. "A campaign staffer later passed the information to a reporter from Slate magazine, which the campaign hoped the reporter would "vet it out, and write what they believe is true," Mook said."
Really? That doesn't strike you as, at the very least, irresponsible, and at the very worst willfully ignorant knowing what it was going to lead to?They're admitting that the Clinton campaign wasn't sure if it was true, but passed along anyway and hoped that the media would verify it for them? C'mon, how would you react if it was found out that the Trump people passed along a story to FOX in hope that Hannity would verify it. You'd be okay with it?
