President Trump attacks ‘left-wing’ Google search results

“President Donald Trump has accused Google of rigging the search results for the phrase ‘Trump news,'” BBC News reports. “In a tweet, he accused the technology giant of prioritising negative news stories from what he described as the ‘national left-wing media.'”

“He said most of the stories that appeared on the results page were negative and that conservative reporting was being ‘suppressed,'” The Beeb reports. “Google states on its support page that there are ‘over 200 factors’ that feed into the ranking of a web page on its search engine.”

“In his tweets, President Trump claimed that 96% of the news articles presented by Google in response to the phrase ‘Trump news’ were from left-wing news outlets,” The Beeb reports. “[The 96% figure] appears to have come from analysis by Paula Bolyard at the conservative news site PJ Media [96 Percent of Google Search Results for ‘Trump’ News Are from Liberal Media Outlets]. Ms Bolyard reported the 96% figure and said CNN had the greatest number of featured links, which President Trump mentioned as well. ‘I performed the search multiple times using different computers – registered to different users – and Google returned similar results,’ she wrote. ‘While not scientific, the results suggest a pattern of bias against right-leaning content.'”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034371152204967936
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034373707047882759

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Only Google knows for sure how their algorithm works. As with news sources, use different search engines, too.

Do not solely trust Google News. Do not solely trust Apple News. Do not trust any single gatekeeper.

The best way to consume so-called “news” is to cast a wide net.

As always, readers of “news” need to consider the sources and interpret what they are being told accordingly. The more disparate sources you can find, the better. And we don’t mean different newspaper, network, website brands that are all owned by the same conglomerate. Determining the actual ownership of your “news” sources is an investment that requires a bit of time, but it is very enlightening. — MacDailyNews Take, June 17, 2015

SEE ALSO:
The Boston Globe Editorial Board: Break up Google – June 16, 2018
Bernstein: Google to pay Apple $3 billion this year to remain the default search engine on iPhones and iPads – August 14, 2017
James Damore: Why I was fired by Google – August 12, 2017
European Union hits Google with record $2.73 billion fine for abusing internet search monopoly – June 27, 2017
Google’s Eric Schmidt wore staff badge at Hillary Clinton’s ‘victory’ party – November 16, 2016

86 Comments

    1. Actually, trite phrases are meaningless. Here’s something of substance:

      The Tyranny of Algorithms

      As early as 2010, researchers at Harvard University started finding evidence that Google’s search rankings were not so objective, favoring its own products over those of competitors. A Federal Trade Commission investigation into the conglomerate in 2012 also indicated evidence that the company was using its monopoly power to help its own businesses. So it’s no secret that Google search results aren’t a font of objective and unbiased information…

      Google is not fair; it favors some candidates, and it opposes others. And so far, it seems to prefer Democrats.

      Our crowdsourced analysis of Google search results on Dec. 1 for the names of 16 presidential candidates revealed that Democrats fared better than Republicans when it came to supportive and positive sites within the first page of results. Democrats had, on average, seven favorable search results in those top 10, whereas GOP candidates had only 5.9.

      To be clear, we’re not suggesting that Google is a digital arm of the Democratic Party. But our analysis clearly shows biases and differences in the results surfaced around the various candidates. Could those biases be caused by a single rabid software engineer? Possible, but highly unlikely. The bias is more probably an organic, emergent result constituted from a complex prism of quantification involving hundreds of signals and increasingly complex and opaque artificial intelligence. But if this is happening “organically” as the Google algorithms respond to various inputs, maybe it’s high time to rein in or at least double-check how this new actor in the democracy is behaving.Daniel Trielli, Sean Mussenden, and Nicholas Diakopoulos, Slate.com, December 7, 2015

      Read more: Why Google Search Results Favor Democrats, Slate.com, December 7, 2015

      1. Interesting higher education and the media arrived at the same conclusion going back to 2010. It is SO obvious. In the past it was just the leftist universities, then K1-K12 education, then the MSM media lost their minds and no longer hide liberal bias. Now today we have social media joining in and Apple censoring right wing speech, while selling left wing hate speech for profit. The left deck has been FULLY STACKED just in time for the mid-terms …

      2. No sher, shitlock. Every ad agency posing as a search engine or social platform is obviously going to bias results that generate the most income. This is called capitalism you nitwit.

        What you can’t prove, despite over a decade of whining, is that any search engine that people use actually pushes a political agenda. You can’t, because you know that would not be the most profitable way to run a company. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc have all profited immensely by creating systems that let people parrot others, say whatever they want to say, and repeat to them what people want to hear. There is no curation or fact checking on these platforms. They are echo chambers where the loudest shout down the quieter, decent people.

        Hilary won the popular vote because there are more democrats than republicans. Hilary lost the election because these social platforms you claim are biased are actually infested with misinformation campaigns specifically designed to support your orange hero. Thus the independent middle in key swing states made the error of thinking a “businessman” could be good for the economy, and religious nuts of course were supportive of anything that protects their hilariously corrupted 2000 year old dogma in the SCOTUS.

        You say Faux News and Bimbaugh Opinion Hour have massive followings, which Nielsen ratings will prove, but then you whine that the voices of the billionaire Murdochs, Kochs, and Mercers are somehow silenced. I think not. The billions that these oligarphs and their Russian counterparts have poured into US media is obviously obscured as much as they can make it, but you are so weak between the ears that you won’t even lift an eye to look at the reality of who pays for what in media today.

        It’s beyond hypocritical for President Whiner to be tweeting at 5:30am about being silenced on a worldwide Twitter megaphone.

        Illegal? Ha. The corrupt Trump cronies have been breaking laws and are being prosecuted accordingly. That’s bad news for Trump but good news for the American justice system. What side are you on?

      3. Actually, the most interesting thing, apart from your quotes_R_us pick n mix best fit references, is your credulous support of everything Trump says, does or is going to do…no matter what. No perspective, no balance and not one jot of embarrassment over their support of a litany of conspiracies, bald lies and misinformation you have vomited onto MDN regarding Obama. So posting fake birth certificates, endless “Muslim userper” taunts, outrage over golfing weekends and the laughable “Obama is a racist”.
        Credibility is earned, not an expectation or a right. You and your president show zero inclination in that respect but are long on whinging and crying foul.

        1. “your credulous support of everything Trump“

          On the flip side of that coin IS your credulous bogeyman beliefs, Democrat stereotyping, childless insults and total disrespect for the hardest working president in decades.

          The man is far from perfect, but he gets results. We are not blind like you and don’t support everything he says or does. Your incoherent grammar challenged partisan attacks are all the same over and over, ad nauseam.

          If you have nothing new or intelligent to offer, other than attacking supporters of the president (we got it) — give it a rest and stick to facts not vague leftist hysterical generalizations …

    2. dddd, the way it works, as I understand it:

      When Google Search launched many years ago, it ranked all the pages it could find on the Internet by how many other sites linked to it. Links from more popular sites got a higher weight. After the initial ranking, items and sites moved up or down based on how many clicks they got and how many additional links they received. New pages inherited the weight of associated sites.

      In other words, the basic algorithm is simply popularity. If left-wing sites get more links and clicks than alt-right sites, their ranking will reflect that traffic pattern. When outraged conservatives link to a scandalous Libtard outrage, they are helping its ranking.

      There is built-in feedback, because items with a higher ranking appear on the first page of results and get more eyeballs, which results in more clicks and links and thus a still higher ranking for that page and future pages from that source. Low-ranked results get fewer views and thus fall even further.

      As time went on, the algorithm became more complicated, including things like social media rankings and complaints of inaccuracy (and probably how much the site was paying Google for advertising), but the fundamental metric was still essentially to reward popularity. That isn’t biased. When people look for answers on a search engine, they normally prefer the answers that other people found more satisfactory, rather than less.

      Google is not subject to some sort of “Fairness Doctrine” that requires it to promote unpopular sites just to provide ideological balance. It isn’t a broadcaster, so the FCC has no jurisdiction. No other agency in this country has the power to dictate the content of communications by a private party. The First Amendment lives (or at least it is still breathing).

      The scary thing here is that the Chief Executive of the Federal Government is promising that it will “address” this pesky problem of the traditional and social media promoting a message with which he disagrees. He hints that he wants to make it “illegal” for their editorial discretion to continue. The Orwell fans out there will understand when I point out that the next step after the Ministry of Truth is the Ministry of Love.

      1. Two things here:

        1) It isn’t an antitrust issue. The Sherman Act, et al. do not prohibit a company from attaining a dominant market share, so long as it does not do so through unfair competition. Google was not the first into the search engine business, and it was far from the last. It is the most successful because people who could have used (and can use) any available search service chose to use Google because they preferred it to its competitors. If a better engine comes along, people will drop Google the same way they dropped Yahoo! and MySpace.

        How would you two propose to address this “monopoly” that already has many unsuccessful competitors? Simply shut Google down for being successful so that one of its competitors can replace it?

        I suppose you will say, “Split it up!” How? Divide the assets equally between two companies and let them compete against each other until one of them outcompetes the other so that the process has to be repeated? Give one company searches from A-L and another from M-Z? Give one searches on US sites and the other the rest of the world?

        Gosh, and you guys accuse ME of being in favor of Big Government and opposed to American enterprise.

        2) Even if it were an antitrust issue, the First Amendment protects trusts as firmly as it protects other corporations and natural persons. Essentially every newspaper in America opposed the New Deal, but Roosevelt never tried to address that by making criticism illegal. John Adams did try it with the Sedition Act of 1798, but neither he nor his political party ever held national office again. That said, Adam’s Enemy Aliens Act is still in effect, so you could use that against the body snatchers.

        1. Most excellent article and the best I have read on the subject. Key graf:

          “But as the years passed, his concern – indeed his guilt – grew. “It’s power without responsibility.” He paused. “There’s so much power, and so little responsibility.”

          I noticed USER did not respond. His typical MO you will not hear a peep when the evidence is overwhelming against his uneven beliefs.

          The sooner Google is brought before Congress to answer for their operational LIES, the better …

        1. USA TODAY?!? HA! The largest liberal biased newspaper in the free world at one time, around 2.5 million circulation trouncing the NYT. The first newspaper to mandate diversity hiring and promotions, laced most all articles with political correctness and opinion in 1990 on. Did you ever notice ALL section fronts daily featured a man, woman and minority including graphics while working toward an initiative of diversity by 2000 company wide of almost 90 newspapers? You wouldn’t know that beyond the left biased Google searches of today you cut and paste that support your views …

          1. Did you ever consider the possibility that if all the section fronts only featured white men it might signal…

            First, that Gannett Company, Inc. believes that only white men do anything worth reporting? Just because you apparently believe that is true doesn’t mean that Gannett agrees.

            Second, that Gannett believes that the money it makes by attracting female and minority readers (and advertisers marketing to female and minority customers) is just as green as the money it collects from white men? Just because you don’t want to get cooties from money that passed through impure hands doesn’t mean that Gannett agrees.

            Third, that Gannett Newspapers might be utterly bewildered as to what their diversity policies have to do with a factually reported story about Internet search results? Just because you want to make everything about race doesn’t mean that Gannett agrees.

            1. “Just because you want to make everything about race doesn’t mean that Gannett agrees.”

              I can’t teach you to read, brainless. Gannett is making it all about race since 1990, not me. I simply pointed out their strategy and asked if you noticed. Learn to read on face value and not extrapolate according to your liberal playbook and project your falsehoods on me! …

        1. The Trump worshipers have plenty of ignorance and denial on display too.

          Trump wants to be an autocrat and is acting like one. The free press, and profiteering companies that sell ads and information and clicks, are protected by the Constitution that you claim to love.

          If you don’t like the Google “monopoly” then use another search engine. Several alternatives are excellent. I use IXQuick.

          Also, you should stop frequenting websites that make their income from Google ads if you feel that strongly that Google is suppressing your biased point of view or somehow hiding the data that you can’t find to support your opinions.

  1. just a few weeks ago President Trump supported Google against EU who fined Google for violating various privacy rights. Now Mr Trump is having a go at Google as per this article. He needs to make a decision and stick with it instead of jumping all over the place on a whim

      1. That’s right, even I was briefly enamoured with him during the ground-breaking season one of The Apprentice. I faded in the later seasons when he transmuted from a tough-as-nails negotiator into a regal presence announced by velvet-clad trumpeteers.

  2. Not much can be done about that. The vast majority of news outlets are left leaning. The vast majority of Trump news is spun in the direction of hate, let alone leftist. Google does not create the news. Google does not balance search results to fit the needs of individuals or groups. I don’t believe they should mess with search results. Stick with the algorithm, even though even though it seems to be delivering skewed results because it is, in its own way, documenting how the media works.

    There have been cases of Google slyly inserting editorial content, such as defining fascism as a right wing phenomenon only, but when called on that they corrected it.

    This however, is not their fault. This is our one sided media and they are unashamed of their actions.

    Dear MDN… the advertising is growing almost intolerable. I completely recognize that you must sell ads, like Facebook and others, but they’re snatching my browser and dumping me on Amazon, and I can barely find the actual content at times. Lots,of,giant clickbait ads obscure everything. Sometimes ads appear in the middle of the content and if you try to move it, poof you’re sent off to never never land to try and find your way back.

    It’s not the fact that you have ads, it’s their behavior.

    1. “The vast majority of news outlets are left leaning”.

      Please offer facts to support your opinion.

      Faux News continues to have high user numbers. The Murdoch media empire is as big and powerful as ever. The few magazines and print newspapers left basically just syndicate content from international sources like Associated Press or Thompson/Reuters.

      For every idiot liberal on the internet, you can easily find an equal and opposite belligerent fact-free radical rightwinger. Most of the extremists on both sides are single-issue nincompoops who have no ability to discern long term complex issues that face the world today, nor do they have the patience or temperament to work together with others to resolve problems. You see more and more people brainwashed by trolls (including many foreign trolls) fomenting discord and spreading FUD to divide America and weaken it. They are succeeding, as evidenced by the antisocial fact-free views voiced by the extreme conservatives on this site and elsewhere. Extreme liberals, as far as anyone can tell, are lost in a cloud of legal medicinal weed in Colorado. They have never hurt anyone and don’t have any working brain cells left to argue an issue anyway.

      Bottom line, the Trumpian whiners are just making themselves look like the narrow minded selfish twits they are. Any look, you have nothing stopping you from communicating! Looks like your opinions aren’t being suppressed at all! You can find a blog or echo chamber to support you anytime you want. Yet for some reason you choose to support Google client MDN, a supposed Mac tech news aggregator, to air your grievances. That’s downright pathetic.

      1. It’s a FACT! thetheloniousmac is absolutely correct.

        It’s also a fact over 90% of journalists are registered Democrats. Can you imagine the workplace harassment and conservatives HIDING in the closet.

        As I have posted before, the liberal bias ramped up with indoctrination of political correctness in the early 1990s.

        After Trump was elected president, they simply don’t pretend to hide it anymore and it’s batsh*t in our face 24/7. With the exception of Fox News, turn on any news channel and it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

        Surveys have been done for over 30 years by peer review journalism watchdogs, Editor & Publisher, Columbia Journalism Review, Poynter Institute, many colleges and universities. I have been reading the results for decades.

        So once again, you huff and puff loudly and have no idea what you are talking about …

      2. Mike,

        You have to accept it is true. GeoB says so, citing no specific evidence as usual. If he says that Rupert Murdoch, Sinclair Broadcasting, American Media, Breitbart, and all the other American media empires that support Mr. Trump collectively share less than 10% of the market, it must be so.

        If that were true, incidentally, it would explain why Google leans left, if it does. A book’s index, a library’s catalog, and an Internet search engine can only reflect the tilt of what they are indexing. Traditionally. In Trump World, however, it is the fault of the index if it doesn’t reflect reality as the Executive Branch of the Federal Government wishes reality to be. It needs to toe the party line.

        Again, why aren’t there more of you OUTRAGED that a politician who received only 46% of the vote in his most recent election is proposing to force private American nationals to submit to government control of the content of their communications? If “censorship” by Apple, Google, and Facebook makes you nervous, why doesn’t an apparently serious proposal for government suppression of the First Amendment not make you furious?

        1. “You have to accept it is true. GeoB says so, citing no specific evidence as usual.”

          I don’t do anyone’s homework, the facts have been out there for decades and I named several sources. Oh, and I also find it ironic and totally amusing you are preaching to the one person with the most opinions and least amount of FACTS.

          Well, since the left is out of political power on state and federal levels, guess all you have left is to stick together with volumes of misinformation.

          I feel your pain …

  3. If Trump weren’t an idiot, and someone the leaders of his own party weren’t discussed with, there would be so many TRUE negative news articles about him. It’s his own fault, but he never admits his faults. Google should ignore him and continue doing what it does.

    I don’t see him criticizing Fox for all the fake news they put out in favor of him.

    1. And your asinine comment shows the mindset created by a one sided media. They are feeding your delusions.

      I demonstrated yesterday how when reporting on the trade agreement with Mexico, CNN went into a diatribe on reality TV and Trump. There is no longer truth in the media. Only opinion. The outlets from Al Jazeera to PBS are not reporting news they are editorializing. Most universities are no longer educating, they are indoctrinating.

      Since you agree with the ideology, it’s fine by you. It’s not fine though. Anything but.

      Even the CEO of NPR admitted it’s left leaning while not offering any real solution.

      1. Trump couldn’t exist without the news. He uses it to project his smoke and mirrors.

        There is no trade agreement with Mexico, only a vain attempt by Trump to publicly shame Canada into ceding points that they have no reason to cede (for example: arbitration procesess to protect against product dumping. Why Trump would object to that, one has no idea.) But you think it’s newsworthy that Trump declares that he has almost signed up 2/3 of a 3 party trade negotiation. What the F ever. Why don’t you get excited when the 3 countries actually sign the trade agreement together.

        YOU are a poster boy for partisan politics here too. You sling mud as fast and hard as the political opponents because you and your piggy opposition both love to play in it.

        Enough already. MDN doesn’t do Mac news anymore. They don’t moderate the site. It’s now a google ad page devoted to Trumpanzees and the few opposition willing to drop to your low fact free level.

        1. “Trump couldn’t exist without the news.“

          President Trump exists because of the will of the American people. There, I fixed it for you. I will say he is savvy and plays the media like a Stradivarius …

          1. “…plays the media like a Stradivarius…”
            That being the case, why is he constantly tweeting “It’s not fair!”
            So being filament-thin-skinned is playing like a maestro?
            Shameless cheerleading.

  4. Carrot top is a paranoid egotist. EVERYONE is out to get him didn’t you know that? I know I speak for most Canadians and Europeans that many of us are heart sick at the passing os John McCain. Why is he admired internationally? Because he is the complete opposite of that Moron-in-Chief who has made the US a pathetic joke when it comes to the word stage. There are good people in America who hold McCain’s values, however, ~ 35% are hillbilly’s with no sense of decency and are just mindless sycophants.

    1. Oh please. When Trump won the election I predicted to friends that they would now see a never ending deluge of the most angry, intolerant, one sided, negative, hateful, attack media that we’ve probably ever seen, and that it would not stop until he was either dead or out of office. I predicted that they would dig and dig and dig and any action that can cast a negative light on the President would become headline news.

      I explained that they (leftists) do not understand why they lost the election. They will blame the electoral college, they will claim the election was fixed, they say its because people hate women, and on and on and never once will it occur to them that they are just wrong.

      They all but anointed Clinton as the President and could not believe for a moment that we didn’t buy it.

      I was not wrong on any of this.

      1. Oh please! yourself. And I predicted when Obama was elected that tha reactionary right would mount a sustained campaign of conspiracies, character assassination, fake opinion pieces and plain hate, until he was gone.
        And I was right. So what?
        This whole premise of political bias is a canard meant to disguise his shortcomings but instead hangs Christmas lights on his self doubt and self centered world.

    2. “35% are hillbilly’s with no sense of decency and are just mindless sycophants.”

      So, so since you are so unbiased, why did you use “hillbilly”? To whom are you referring specifically? People who are not like you? Do you refer to Hillbillys as people beneath you? Do you consider yourself judgmental, or not?

      Here is a hillbilly for you:
      Alvin Cullum York (December 13, 1887 – September 2, 1964), also known as Sergeant York, was one of the most decorated United States Army soldiers of World War I.[1] He received the Medal of Honor for leading an attack on a German machine gun nest, taking 35 machine guns, killing at least 25 enemy soldiers, and capturing 132.”

      Well done labeling a whole group of people in a single sentence. Go pat yourself on the back. You are a perfect example of the “tolerance.” 😉

      1. I got an idea, why don’t you change the main thesis of the post and focus on minutiae. I used the term in its well know meaning of representing someone who is uneducated and generally unaware of much outside their own sphere. ….. ergo, your average Trump voter. Am amazed how you employ the same distraction tactics as your glorious leader. Do you comb your hair the same way too?

  5. I’ve noticed that Fox News often doesn’t cover stories that appear elsewhere, or gives them minimal coverage (e.g., things that make the president look bad). Even going to the Fox News site and searching there often doesn’t return any hits, even when they have something on the topic. If you’re looking for something and it’s not covered or can’t be found, maybe the problem is with Fox News.

    1. Should they have locked up Lincoln? He had mistresses. Should they have locked up Kennedy? He was even implicated in a murder. Should they have locked up Clinton? He remains accused of rape on top of all his other sexual misconduct charges. Maybe Dr. Martin Luther King should have been locked up. He too had a thing for hookers.

      1. More statements without references.

        You go ahead and lead the charge to exhume Lincoln’s bones so he can be properly punished. sheesh.

        Your deflection is noted. Womanizing is immoral, but not against US law. On the other hand, it’s an indicator — not a foolproof conviction — of character. If you could pull your head out of Trump’s ass, you might notice how many of his administration have broken US law and are being prosecuted. Likewise, the feckless republican led congress has, in case you haven’t noticed, a large wave of corruption right now, with McConnell of course being one of the first to line his pockets. He obviously isn’t working to pass any reform bills as promised.

        Meanwhile Clear Channel, a self proclaimed conservative company is buying a dominant stake in outdoor billboards and radio stations nationwide.

        Meanwhile Sinclair, which had assembled a huge portfolio of local TV stations, censors its news and inserts nonfactual statements that it forces its news announcers to read as a condition of employment.

        AM radio, as it has been for decades, has been largely dominated by socially conservative personalities, sports, and religion. Not liberal causes.

        Perhaps Trump should find other media outlets — the only one he seems to be able to spell when whining on twitter is CNN. There are thousands of other outlets that parrot his shallow values. He’s just too lazy to find them apparently.

      1. Locking up innocent children, proud of grabbing women by the pu*sy, petty disparaging remarks on decorated war vets, >3500 proven lies coming out of his mouth…. yep, Captain Bone spur does ignite a lot of fires from what he says. Your point besides the obvious? Oh, I get it, your head is so far up your ass that you can’t hear what he says! Open your ears, maybe you will understand why 65% of Americans and frankly the rest of the world are so upset.

            1. the truth is strong. Since you can’t refute the accuracy of what Buster stated, why don’t you let it drop. Your orange hero is a self serving brat who never served in the military, never honored any religious or moral code, has a string of bankruptcies and failed marriages for which any decent human being would be ashamed, and daily tweets out fact free whining that you apparently believe.

              It ain’t hate. It’s truth. You just refuse to open your eyes.

              Do yourself a favor: lets assume you are as socially disgusting as Trump, and you only care about tax rate and personal wealth, as he does. How does that square with your desire for America to be “great”/

              According to the Guardian (is a UK newspaper an acceptable source or are they too liberal for you?), the US deficit under Trump is ballooning — $804 billion in the red this year and almost $1 trillion projected for 2018 by the CBO. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/09/us-deficit-trump-tax-cuts-trillion-cbo-projection

              Trump claims massive economic growth will pay for the tax cuts he gave corporations for which they enriched their executives with stock buybacks and bonuses. EVERY PROJECTION shows this optimistic sales pitch that Trump gave isn’t coming true.

              Trump paints trade deficits as a problem when in fact it is the freedom of US consumers and businesses to spend their money how and where they wish. The arbitrary Trump tariffs that disrupt
              international trade will hurt US producers and consumers. That’s why Big Ag is lobbying for ~ $ 5 billion in corporate welfare. Not that it will save US farmers who have lost customers.

              Do us all a favor — since you can’t care less about the character and ethical behavior of the president, then just prove to yourself how the long term economic trend will be. We all know there is a short term bump. After you are done counting your massive tax return, go ahead and plot the rate of deficit growth in the USA for which your children will pay, with interest. I’ll bet it will make them feel great.

            2. “The Guardian” has been the most liberal newspaper in the UK for decades. Just because you don’t see it, does not change reality. I have long given up hope on bias free, truth and justice from the MSM …

            3. In 490 BC, the herald Pheidippides ran 26.2 miles to inform the Athenian archons of the outcome of the Battle of Marathon. Unfortunately, they dismissed his message because they believed it was fake news from a liberal source, so they didn’t follow up on the battle by harrying the Persians out of Greece. That’s why we all speak Farsi now.

              Dismissing a message because you dislike the messenger is the essence of an ad hominem argument that has no logical force.

            4. “Dismissing a message because you dislike the messenger is the essence of an ad hominem argument that has no logical force.”

              There is NO MESSAGE! Don’t lecture me LYING LIBERAL …

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.