GeddyWrox wrote: 33anda3rd wrote:
GeddyWrox wrote:But go ahead and paint me with a tin foil hat brush. That's fine.
I don't mean to paint you that way Geddy. Abramson, yes. But not you.
Good to know. But here's the thing - and maybe I'm off base, but SA always cites his Russia posts. Always. And a lot of times he's using the work from NYT or WaPo as a jumping off point, and then tying in quotes from Mueller's report or other news items. He's not making [expletive] up. Does he write sensationalist headlines, sure. But I feel like he backs up the stuff he's writing on Russia. He's certainly no Alex Jones Pizza Gate type conspiracy hack. IMO.
He's not a Pizzagate hack, but he's a hack. Please consider:
1. He posts links for donations and is trying to get paid in money off outrage. A Paste journalist Tweeted a reply to his donation plea, asking why he needed donations when he's on the payroll at two news sites. Abramson blocked him on Twitter.
2. When he was on a real roll with Russia, how many tweets had "RETWEET if you agree/think..." in them? This is just self-promotion without real result. Here's what I mean: Link.
Why does he beg for retweets? He is trying to get paid in social media currency off outrage. If you want to "Send Trump a message" or "Let the Senate know" something, retweeting this outrage profiteer is not the way to do it, all it accomplishes is making the outrage profiteer internet famous.
3. He wrote in June 2016 that Sanders (who trailed by hundreds of delegates) was actually winning the primary. Here's the link to that post of his: link.
Oops. The link, of course, is dead because he deleted that post in which he said that Clinton's 54-46% lead was "actually a dead heat" and he was probably tired of people tweeting at him that he's a liar. All this does is misinform. I know, because my most liberal friends were on Facebook early last summer repeating this: Bernie's not out, Bernie can still win. They believed his BS. The Atlantic has said about his writings that they: "not only denied political realities and delegate math as the race wore on; they often denied basic human logic."
For what it's worth, Abramson acknowledges and rationalizes his lies:
4. Check out this tweet.
Then click on the link. Abramson tells us it's about Trump "about to go to war." But find the word "war" in the article he's linking. He's a sensationalist, happy to fabricate things to generate clicks, likes, follows. That tweet has 1K retweets and 1.5K likes. That's insane
yo! It's like if I tweeted "Cardinals win 2018 World Series" with a link to a story about some catholic cardinals praying for poker addicts.
5. Check out this tweet:
It's a lie. The Steele Dossier was reported by:
The New York Times
Abramson has no sources. Abramson collects the reports of real journalists then credits himself for "reporting" on it. He's a self-congratulatorty ding-dong taking credit for other peoples' work.
6. Check out this tweet:
and the thread.
You tell me how many MSM links you'd like to disprove those claims, I'll happily link them. Especially: "FACT 10: Those who lied in some way about Russian meetings include Page, Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, Sessions, Cohen, and Trump. Plus Kislyak." How did the MSM not report on Flynn and Sessions having Russian meetings when Sessions was forced to recuse himself from Russiagate due to
the media revealing his lies? How did the MSM not report on Flynn and Russia when Flynn went to prison over Russia after the MSM reported that he had contact and lied about it? Abramson just basically tells whatever lies he needs to make himself a heroic journalist and the big papers a bunch of liars.
Abramson is a [expletive] turd. Everyone from GQ to ThinkProgress, Paste to the WaPo, Deadspin to Vice has called him a conspiracy theorist and not just downplayed his importance but done stuff like call into question Twitter for giving him that blue checkmark which dangerously validates his conspiracy theories to people turning to Twitter for actual news.