“Since some folks in traditional media still love to pretend that they are part of a select group of information filters that can provide fact-checked news items and that their internet counterparts cannot, I’m going to keep driving this point home: internet news groups and blogs are no more susceptible to hoaxes than major news media,” Timothy Geigner reports for Techdirt. “We saw a wonderful example of it recently with the Manti Te’o story, in which major news not only bought the BS hook, line and sinker, but through their inaction, actually perpetuated the story. Still, while that was a story that was, at best, a very sad case of someone lying their tail off, some examples can provide a little more levity.”
“Such as, for instance, when the L.A. Times and UPI write up very real accounts of a very fake iPhone case that includes a retractable cup-holder. The kicker being that Network World’s blog dismissed it as a prank days earlier,” Geigner reports. “Despite the pure ridiculousness of a case for a phone where the largest part of the equipment holds a Starbucks coffee cup, the L.A. Times wrote about it in all seriousness.”
Read more in the full article here.
WTF is this story about?
Fake coffee cup holders, on iPhone cases, not researched by mainstream media, before making fools of themselves.
A little comprehension deprived or what?
What did they do, say Obama invented it? That guarantees no fact-checking will be done.
Oh, by the way, in related news:
How the left-wing media lied about father of slain Sandy Hook Elementary student being “heckled” by those who can comprehend the Second Amendment
Don’t be pawns for the deceitful, despicable liars in the mainstream media to manipulate at will.
… and after that word from our sponsors its back to sanity.
He asked: “Who in this room needs an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine?” The reply was “shall not be abridged,” not a response to his question at all. The question was a rhetorical, yes or no query. The only possible answers were “I do” or “I don’t”, although no response was actually sought, that being the nature of the rhetorical question. Not one gun-hugger said either of those. They attempted to deflect the point of his question with diatribe, instead of engaging in an honest reply, or, as the usual response to a rhetorical question, keeping their mouths shut and listening to his point.
Heckling is the right word for this.
His question was NOT a rhetorical question. He wanted someone to answer. He paused and waited for someone to respond.
You’re off the debate team.
Q: “Who in this room needs an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine?”
A: Anyone fighting someone with an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine.
The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect against oppressive government. The ability to shoot criminals in the face is just a side benefit.
The sooner your Libs figure that out, the better.
The reason the psychos go to public schools to wreak destruction is because public schools are GUN FREE ZONES and they know everyone inside is helpless.
Change that and you’ll have fewer mass killings.
Furthermore, it’s precisely because of left-wing, bleeding heart nutjobs that these psychos are not confined to nut houses where they belong. You have only yourselves to blame.
“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. — Henry St. George Tucker
Lastly, I’ve heard talk of a U.S. civil war in the comments above.
Question: Who do you think wins, the well-armed conservatives with trucks and machinery who believe in America’s founding principles and who farm and tend the nation’s food supply or the effete unarmed liberals, already corralled into cities, reliant on food being shipped in daily, reliant on public transport, who have no vehicles or machinery, who are subject to having their gas, water, and power supplies diverted with relative ease?
The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect against oppressive government. The ability to shoot criminals in the face is just a side benefit.
The sooner your Libs figure that out, the better.
So those who hope to be part of an armed insurrection against the Government elected by “we the people” need them? Thanks for clarifying.
The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect against oppressive government.
You should read the Patriot Act very carefully. Place of birth does not enter into the decision regarding who is or is not a terrorist, only the actions of the individuals. And, while you may feel the actions of our duly elected Government are “oppressive”, as long as those feelings are not shared by the majority, you will be the terrorist if you take up arms against that Government.
How can you tell if the majority agree with you? You will win at the ballot box. Until then Seal Team Six will be on the side of the electorate. Actually, after then too. That’s how democracy works. Don’t be too enamored with your fantasies about disgruntled farmers in trucks overthrowing the Government. If they get too uppity, we won’t have to shoot them, we’ll just cut their subsidies.
Ummm. That’s just an assumption. Gun nuts always forget about the “well regulated” part of the 2nd Amendment. Who’s going to regulate this militia if it’s not going to be some sort of
government? And it seems pretty reasonable for those regulations to restrict the sort of guns people can have. The Founders had no problem with gun control legislation because membership, registration, mandatory inspection and training would be essential to a well-regulated militia. No well regulated militia would want nut jobs going off and killing scores of children at schools, or movie goers, or ordinary folks attending a congresswoman’s Saturday morning meeting.
Everyone today who thinks they have enough guns and ammunition to fend off a government military that can kill you before you even get a chance to see them, raise your hand! 🙂
“The reason the psychos go to public schools to wreak destruction is because public schools are GUN FREE ZONES and they know everyone inside is helpless.”
Such frothing, delusional bull!!! Ever hear of “other countries”?
In numerous countries, public schools – and most of society – are gun free zones and they simply don’t have these regular as clockwork massacres. When they do happen, they are incredibly rare aberrations.
It’s NOTHING to do with “gun free zones” and everything to do with some kind of deranged sickness of violence that infests the US in a way that is not present in any other industrialized nation.
I’ve heard of other countries. Let’s take Australia, for example:
The Australian gun ban was supposed to halt gun crimes… the opposite has happened. “On November 1 last year, gang members fired a hail of bullets at a Sydney police station using high-powered 9 mm automatics or semi-automatics. Five police were inside. This barrage of shots in a city street was exactly the sort of scenario the buy-back was supposed to stop.” Apparently the bad guys didn’t get the memo.
http://www.calnews.com/archives/metcalf13.htm
Gee, really, you mean criminals don’t follow the “law” or even “executive orders?” Amazing. What a surprise. Wow. Whodathunkit?
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it. — Clint Eastwood
“Gun control is a myth, or rather a mountain of myths sustained by campaigning elites in secure buildings with armed bodyguards: the myth that if law-abiding citizens hand their guns over to the big government to burn, then we will enter a new peace; the myth that if we feel that we are gun controllers, then we are humanitarian citizens even when statistics undermine our self-praising image; and the myth that punishing thousands of farmers and sporting shooters, for the crimes of others, will bring healing. But we (meaning anti-gun Australians) were (and are) wrong.”
Read more here.
One data point does not a survey make.
Let’s look at other developed STABLE nations. I.e. let’s not compare to the Congo, or even to somewhere like Guatemala, which is in a state of constant semi-war.
The general murder rate and massacre rate in the US is massively higher than most countries in the world, and more than any other developed, stable country.
A range of countries like Ireland, Slovakia, Norway, Denmark, Uzbekistan, Japan and many, many more have gun death rates than are small fractions of that in the US.
By your theory, the death rate in the US should be massively lower than any of them. And Australia – one tenth the gun death rate of the US. Oops on your statement above. I guess the gun ban is working, overall.
Seamus,
Only a fool trusts the “government.”
The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect against oppressive government.
Citiizens who allow their governments to disarm them are fools.
“Do countries with strong gun control laws have lower murder rates? Only if you cherry-pick the data.” — Thomas Sowell
“Gun control means control. It means control for the government and the government starts controlling the people.” — Luke Scott
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — James Madison
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” — Alexander Hamilton
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” — Mohandas Gandhi
“To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” — Adolph Hitler
Have a nice day, silly Lib.
Well Armed, you and Fwhatever are lost in Extremesville at the corner of Paranoia Lane and Dain Bramage Street.
One of the primary reasons for the right to bear arms was to support local militias in a newly formed country that lacked the massive military forces that we have today. People back then also hunted a lot more. There was less formal law enforcement and a much larger number of dangerous wild animals roaming the land.
I am not against guns. But I am against nutcases like you who treat guns like a religion and refuse to acknowledge their own hypocrisy.
Mr. Well Armed, meet the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Your interpretation is inconsistent with just about every person rendering a thoughtful analysis of the Bill of Rights, including the Supreme Court. I do not see “oppressive government” anywhere in there. I do see “security of a free state” and the purpose of a “well regulated militia.”
Saint Reagan banned assault weapons
so?
“One data point does not a survey make.”
I think if you did a wide-ranging survey about “serious” mainstream media v blogs, you’d see, in general, a lot more solidity in the mainstream. I’d rather rely on the BBC for political or financial reporting than most of the blogs I read.
You had me until you mentioned BBC. For a public owned corporation it certainly has a left wing bias. Reminds me a lot of the CBC.
You reminded me of piece I saw back in the Reagan era, comparing US and UK political parties.
Labour Party – kind of like the Democratic Party. Tories – kind of like the Democratic Party.
(And for the obtuse, that’s not a typo.)
a
“For a public owned corporation it certainly has a left wing bias.”
Ah yeh. Sorry. Should have used some unbiased media outlet as an example like – um – Fox.
Brevity is the key to a good head line. Let me rewrite thate one for you, MDN:
Mainstream media fails to fact-check
Much better.
But, but I WANT one 🙁
I would rather have a DD cup holder…..
Wait! I already DO!!! Two of them…..
Damn, that sounds like a serious case of man-boobs. Do you have a belly and butt to match?
Sorry to disappoint…but they belong to my lady-friend.
I merely give her a hand to support them….
Who you tryin’ to kid, you’re using both hands and you know it.
Not needed for iPhone, since it is one-hand-use device (unlike bigger Android phones). You can drink the coffee and type on iPhone at the same time with no issue, despite what the joke video portrayed.
The L.A. Times is the same left-wing rag that published an altered photo of one of our troops during the Gulf war, to make it look like the solider was pointing his rifle at civilians! I would not use the L.A. Times to line a bird cage!
Looks cool. Can be useful I think. And yea, I’m serious.
Next Week We Review the New MacBook Wheel!!
yes!
“The aardvark asked for a ride”
Brought to you by the same logic as anal-ysts use… Anything to get a better deal on stock… Guaranteed job security anyways…