MSM with egg on their face

Oh my giddy aunt. What a whirlwind long weekend (we had Monday off in Wellington) with the mainstream news finding major egg on their face twice in three glorious days. Hallelujah.

Stuff, as has become their modus-operandi, opting to mitigate their stupidity in running any and every anti-Trump story, no matter how ridiculous, with belated attempts to provide ‘balance’ (that would be called publishing facts as opposed to make-believe, to all you grown-up readers) succeeded only in digging themselves deeper down the hole of unprofessional antics.

The Buzzfeed nonsense lost its credibility on the altar of the Washington Post no less. Ouch! That must have hurt; lefty-on-lefty unfriendly fire. The headline may have well as read ‘Thanks very much, you made us all look completely stupid’, which it did. Gob-smacked by their own naivety and gullibility Stuff attempted to cover-up without re-publishing the article from the Washington Post which tore Buzzfeed to shreds. It?s truly strange: an outlet that breathlessly repeats all Washington Post anti-Trump opinion with glee couldn’t find space to run the excoriation; so it’s up to Whaleoil to bring it to you: quote.

“The special counsel?s office has only rarely issued public statements since it was created in May 2017; it had never previously issued a public statement regarding evidence in its investigation into Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Inside the Justice Department, the statement was viewed as a huge step, and one that would have been taken only if the special counsel?s office viewed the story as almost entirely incorrect. The special counsel?s office seemed to be disputing every aspect of the story that addressed comments or evidence given to its investigators.

The explicit denial by the special counsel?s office is likely to provide further ammunition to complaints by Trump and his supporters that press coverage of him is unfair and inaccurate.? end quote.

The Washington Post

In somewhat of a technical glitch. I?m very sure, all comments on the original Stuff article alleging Mr Trump explicitly instructed bent lawyer Cohen to lie on his behalf to congress were closed, and all, including the many attesting to the veracity and integrity of Buzzfeed news, have disappeared down the memory hole. Amazing, eh?

It?s almost as if Stuff got stiffed by their own fruit-loop of anti-Trumpism and are embarrassed by it.

Then came the Maga-hatted KKK story, the teenaged Catholic boys beating up on the poor ol? Native American. Lordy; how awful could those boys be? Shame on them. That story was followed by another alleging the racist hat-wearers performed a haka, the very New Zealand cultural icon, in their defiance of the miserable, completely not political-agitator, gentleman at front and centre of the proceedings. Oh how I laughed at that one. The lads of Covington College more likely to have a better handle on the language of Swahili or of Hindustan burial practices than the performance of ?Ka Mate?.

The third, and only factual, story related to the boys was reluctantly titled: ?Videos show what really happened in confrontation between US students and Native American?; in other words, ?We got sucked in, again?. The story corrects the record, and some respect is due to that, explaining that the young fellows were the recipients of hate, not the perpetrators of it.

Stuff and all the left-wing press may try to shrug the weekend off, but they?ve been made to look ridiculous, and they know it. They?re hurting over their own lack of standards, playing directly into Trump?s narrative of fake news. Now the big boys and girls have come out to say ?enough is enough?. First: the Washington Post?s excoriation of fabrication without corroboration in regard to the Buzzfeed story. Then a New York Times front-page article attempting to explain away their own stupidity asks the rhetorical questions, “Why do people fall for Fake news? Are they blinded by their political passions? Or are they just intellectually lazy?

As you may have already guessed the correct answer to the New York Times?s poser is the latter. Pointing to a comprehensive study carried out by the authors of the article in regards to gullibility, more or less, they print a most interesting conclusion.

Are they really suggesting fake-news comes with a credibility warning? It sounds as though they are:

?The Oxford Dictionary declared ?post-truth? to be the word of the year in 2016 and defined it as: ?relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.?

This is a reflection of a growing issue in the modern world. It is imperative for psychologists to develop a clear understanding of why people fall prey to the various forms of disinformation that we now appear to be inundated with on a daily basis.