Konran

I've been saying this since the news broke...how can Western media be trusted for its integrity? If you look at the names who sponsor the ICIJ and see they are;

"Open Society" Foundation (Soros Foundation), Sunlight Foundation (receives most of their funding from Soros), the MacArthur Foundation, Knight Foundation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Omidyar Network (named after and associated with the founder of eBay - ultra-liberal and globalist Pierre Omidyar)

If this unholy alliance between the press and these business globalists is not the epitomy of a conflict of interests then I don't know what the fuck is.

leahbettsisdead

Yeah! Western media can't be trusted! This Russian propaganda media outlet though, they are the ones to trust. /s

McBitches

RT had Ken O'Keef on it calling out a lot of bullshit. By that virtue alone RT is more credible to me then Western garbage. I don't see a problem if the propaganda happens to be true as long as the agenda doesn't overshadow the facts.

leahbettsisdead

RT and Ken O'Keef are not immune to bias. What is the bullshit in the Panama Papers? Is the problem that those you want exposed have not been?

Of course there is a bias in what has been released. The information is possessed by over 100 news agencies, thus, mitigating the bias of one of the other, but not completely eliminating it.

My issue is that criticisms of the reports seem only to be attacking the sources and not discussing the information leaked.

McBitches

All very good points.

Konran

No - I did not say that.

The news that has been released about Putin and all the others named is valid and true. I do not doubt that.

I am talking about the narrative that is being pushed. If you cannot see that particular paradigm then I am sorry for you. If you think that I am some kind of commie-loving Putin-bot then you are simply deluded. And if you are working for the propaganda arm of the groups I mentioned in my earlier post then you are just doing your job.

Whatever the reason - nice straw man attempt at an argument.

leahbettsisdead

Your tu quoque fallacy mixes nice with your ad hominem fallacy to defend your genetic fallacy.

My /s sarcastic comment was merely to point out your initial genetic fallacy response.