Is it OK for NYT, CNN and squad members to report misinformation

[Dill]

(10-20-2023, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

It is very unlikely that crowds protesting before US embassies throughout the Middle East are reacting to Tlaib and the NYT. 
And, of course, that Tlaib was a cause of all that rioting.

He didn't say she was the cause of the rioting.  He said her spreading Hamas propaganda was contributing to it.  Why do you lie about things so easily debunked? . . .
Pally was quite right. The Times report probably moved the needle for no one, especially after the retraction. 
So ME rioting, sure. Caused by Tlaib, HIGHLY doubtful.
At this point I must reiterate that you clearly don't read posts before responding to them.  I've addressed this disingenuous assertion from you already.  Again, why do you repeat lies that are so easily disproven by simply reading the posts in this thread?  Do you think people are that stupid?

LOL So THAT'S how you "easily debunk" a "lie"?  First of all, I said "a" cause, not "the." But let's take a closer look at those posts I "clearly don't read." In post #1 Luvnit said "the squad" used their bad reporting and CAUSED a "ton of harm." 

"Then the squad used their bad reporting and caused a ton of harm, not only in the US, but the world. We know Talib hates Jewish people so know her motivation." 

Why would he use the term "caused" if he meant "influenced"?  But I'm "LYING" If I say he said "caused" because he said "caused"?

In his post #17, he says people think Israel attacked the hospital BECAUSE of what a "US Congress woman" said. That's asserting a causal relation, not "influence."

"My guess is they still think Israel attacked the hospital because CNN and NYT said they did as well as a US Congress Woman."

On the home front, he doesn't say she "influenced" rioting here in post #45. He says she IGNITED it. That's a CAUSAL relation, different from "pouring gas" on a fire ignited  by someone else. Whenever he talks about Tlaib, he positions her as a cause.

So again, I am quoting the posts you say I don't read before responding. That's called SUPPORT or PROOF. And PROOF is not "easily disproven." What you call "addressing disingenuous assertion" is just bald assertion without support or proof. So not "addressing" anything. 

Final note--for the argument I was making, it was immaterial whether Luvnit said Tlaib "caused" or "influenced" rioting. My point was that her effect was exaggerated, first by him, now by you. Yet on that immaterial distinction you pile your usual UNSUPPORTED accusations that I lie and am "disingenuous." As if all that had been actually established in some previous post and now you are put out by having to repeat it. This is a tactic you've used on a number of threads. Examples provided upon request.