I've been trying to avoid using the term "fake news" in the aftermath of this election. It's a silly and pathetic attack generated by the liberal media. With Trump’s startling upset in winning the White House, the media have been inventing all kinds of narratives to explain away why the Orange Menace beat the Pant-Suited Tyrant.
So this "fake news" scandal is nothing but another, sad excuse. But when there's hypocrisy to expose, I just can't stay silent.
Clearly, this election rewrote the rules. Forever. Polls were devastatingly wrong. They were exposed as being merely tools used by the media and liberal groups to shape the election the way they wanted it. It doesn't take a genius (and I'm far from one) to realize the polls that gave Hillary a massive lead were meant to sway public opinion rather than gauge it.
The media did their best to downplay legitimate issues surrounding Hillary, like her email server scandal, her Foundation's connection to foreign interests, and other revelations in the Wikileaks dump. All the while anything seemingly suspicious about Trump was magnified and overblown.
All their hard work at trying to steal this election away from the people failed. Trump was able to flip blue states red. He embarrassed Hillary and all her cronies by proving the media does not control the people like they thought they did.
For Trump to win almost entirely thanks to social media, you know the world has changed.
Yet the old guard refuses to wake up and smell the coffee. Their latest pathetic attack is to blame Trump's win on websites like Trigtent; so-called "fake news" sites that are reaching you, the people, more effectively than their bloated cable channels.
What is really happening is online news sites- many of which provide a conservative perspective- are threatening the mainstream media, so they are mounting a campaign to discredit them. But they've already lost. It's not like we're going back to 1992 when newspapers were king, and we all watched the evening news.
But this excuse of calling anything that's not the New York Times "fake news" has only come around to bite the mainstream media in the ass. The real fake news is coming from them. It has been all along.
So it was in the case of a Muslim man that burned down his own mosque.
A Muslim man has been sentenced to 4 years in jail after burning down his own mosque last Christmas – a crime the media had originally pinned on conservatives.
As of writing, the most liked comment on a Washington Post article highlighting the crime is one from 2015 which reads, “Trump’s hate and bigotry has inspired much damage.”
Another popular comment – also from 2015 – reads, “Donald Trump supporters are burning mosques and beating black people. What do you think will happen if Trump becomes president?”
A third reads, “Thank you, Donald Trump, for yet another demonstration of how enthusiastic your supporters are.”
Sad, pathetic, and a violation of every journalistic standard. There was zero evidence that the mosque burning was motivated by Trump. Since the beginning of the election, the left has called Trump supporters bigots, sexists, racists, and Xenophobes, despite the fact they are simply regular Americans who voted their conscience. Without a drop of evidence, they were quick to blame people for something they didn't do.
Meanwhile, there has been a rash of fake hate crimes, perpetrated by liberals, meant to frame Trump supporters. But the real hate crimes? Non-existent.
The liberal news wanted to push the narrative that people who support Trump are racist and ignored any non-whites that supported the man throughout the election. It was a calculated effort to discredit him and his many supporters.
The mainstream media had such little respect for their audience that they floated this idea without bothering to back it with facts. Generally speaking, if you're going to make a claim as bold as "Trump is a racist," you need proof to support it. The media never did; because he's not a racist.
That didn't stop them from encouraging this kind of fake news. But what about the many subscribers and supporters of these papers and news outlets? Don't they deserve the facts?
While some of them wanted to believe in these lies and did their best to spread them, most probably just wanted real news. But the left is so determined to have their way, they won't stop from promoting a false narrative.
However, when the real news comes out, they suddenly back away, as was the case with the mosque:
Unfortunately for that narrative, a Muslim man pled guilty to the incident this past weekend.
The man, named Gary Nathaniel Moore, reportedly attended the burned mosque up to five times daily for five years.
Following news of Moore’s conviction, a number of people have accused mainstream media outlets of ‘losing interest’ in the story now that the “blame Trump” narrative has been lost. (via Milo)
Did the Washington Post apologize to Trump and his supporters (aka millions of Americans)? Did they correct their dubious claims? Of course not. They'll keep up every comment and post that paints Trump as a racist, even when proven false, in hopes dumb people will believe it.
It's even more damning when you realize just how much fake news is being spread by these so-call legitimate sources of news. Once again the left is guilty of the very thing they accuse the right of.
In an interview with Vox.com’s Tim Lee, Tucker Carlson hammered the writer for his insistence that right wing outlets are responsible for a disproportionate amount of fake news...
Carlson got right to work challenging Lee’s viewpoints by reading out a list of fake headlines he’d seen on Vox.
“There is a bridge between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank,” he read. “False.”
“There are 102 toilets in Boulder, Colorado,” he continued. “Not true.”
“If you had 10.9 billion Syrian refugees, you’d probably only have three terror attacks,” came the next point. “That’s bad math.”
“Here’s my favorite,” Carlson chuckled. “There was a man who escaped both doomed Malaysian Airlines flights. Ha!”
“Your site, like a lot of sites, has fake news on it,” Carlson declared. “Should we shut it down? Should Facebook take it out of its news feed?” (via Milo)
It's alarming when you think about it. You can explain it all away, by saying that any news site will occasionally post something false. You can rationalize Vox's shocking track record of fake news by saying it happens to the best of them.
Yet they attack other sites and expect us to look the other way for their fake stories. Does anyone else see the double standard?
The liberal media wants us to just believe everything they tell us. They want us to swallow whatever toxic lies that best fit their agenda and will crush anyone that dares challenge them. But we're long passed the day when they hold any real power in our society.
News is being spread through independent sites, social media, and ever-changing and expanding outlets. Outlets that old MSM just can't compete with.
This pathetic attack on the future of news will only serve to drive the final nail into their coffins.