> Even after it was proven that the story was true
Where did you get that that story was true? It was mostly fake but with some elements of truth in it. The story itselve didn't even seem credible was my POV.
Genuine news seem to only be included in the archive where it was directly spliced with deception into a single half-truth. There was probably quite a big haystack of non-fakes that isn't included in the transcripts.
> how do i know if the article is real? because the victim, the police, and journalists who have researched the issue have all corroborated the facts.
All that info is brought to you by the media, who themselves mostly reprint ap and Reuters prepared news. There is very little corroborating or verifying going on.
If you have ever been involved in a news story, or have expertise in a subject matter, you will soon realise that the media presents a interpretation of events that need not relate very closely to reality.
>You know that feeling you get when a news story hits all the right notes and confirms everything you thought to be true about the evil of the other side?
Honestly your first line kinda describes your theory here...
I don't have much reason to think that story is fake, but if a few sentences are enough for you to just write it off I'm not sure it matters what I say. There are other stories on that issue.
> I find fake stories like this that act to dirty histories less entertaining and more just irritating when I realize “Oh, I am being lied to, thanks.” The worst is that years from now I will likely be left with vague recollections of this story and my brain won’t have adequately marked the memories as fiction.
You articulated something I’ve been aware of but hadn’t put into words.
It’s the primary reason I stopped reading/watching all news.
> I'm merely pointing out that the original comment is automatically assuming that the author's story is untrue. And that the comment makes a clear call for more proof.
Of course I do, because this is the default attitude one should have when approaching such stories on the internet.
This whole story could be complete fiction that never took place from the beginning to the end, unless you actually make an effort to locate and probably contact (since I don't think they would bother to publish any involved materials) the officials and departments involved. Have you?
This web-page is literally the only source we have. How the hell are we supposed to trust it by default?
> You described people who believed it as “detached from reality.” Is that not tantamount to saying it’s obvious?
Not the op, but it clearly was detached from reality. 1) It was false, therefore not reality. 2) The people who believed it were journalists, who should know to check first and also should know not to believe everything you read.
> The point being, the whole thing is a blatant fake, and people like you double down on their jingoistic rhetoric because they can’t imaging being fooled by such half-witted propaganda.
Speaking of propaganda.
Who's your source?, the words that you quote are useless without an actual person to put them too.
Theres also now plenty of news articles that have multiple bits of evidence that you have conveniently just left out.
You have a lot to type for someone without a single source.
> but realizing this story was not true is making my eyes water right now.
I didn't realize it could have such a powerful impact on you, sorry to hear that. I also saw something to that effect, accepted it, and moved on. I don't think there is really a way to consume information without trusting some things, but seeking deeper validation for things you may think are important. In light of other news, this didn't seem like something worth validating, so I assume many many people have internalized it as truth somewhat.
You're sure about that? The OP was referring to a "vile post of total incendiary bullshit." I don't know what led to this rather vague statement, but to me one possible reading seems to be that all or at least the vast majority of the reports are false (and are spread knowing that they're false.)
Where did you get that that story was true? It was mostly fake but with some elements of truth in it. The story itselve didn't even seem credible was my POV.
Source?
reply