There are embarrassing hot microphone moments, and there are infuriating episodes when the quiet part is said out loud and amplified to an unintended public audience. It happened to Andy Griffith’s Lonesome Rhodes in the classic film A Face in the Crowd, ending his populist political and, at least, temporarily, his television broadcasting career. Since...
If you read that whole page you linked to you would see they haven’t produced fake news so much as they consistently misrepresent facts to suit a conservative narrative.
So arguing it could be AI means you failed to actually read their fucking reasoning for the low credibility and bias claims. None of it had to do with facts not being true, but rather presenting those true facts within a conservative narrative. Whitmer is mentioned several times, and in each case it was rooted in real facts but presented with a conservative slant.
It’s clear they didn’t actually vet the source or read what mediabiasfactcheck said then, because at no point did they make “fake news.” So the likelihood of this being AI is near zero.
Taking the top line that some group made and not actually looking at the details is not vetting a source, it’s taking a quick glance as gospel. It matters that they don’t make fake news because it makes this video likely real.
But I mean you do you if you just take a quick glance as gospel and don’t actually, you know, fucking read anything yourself.
You’re not inspiring confidence in people here when purporting an obvious strawman fallacy. Please quote where I said they’re “fake news” as you put in quotes no less.
Second, one demonstrates an unfortunately low level of comprehension skills, given I stated, “Don’t trust this to be anything more than AI” – which suggests by comparative logic that there are possibly other things I trust equal to or lower than AI.
LMAO it’s a fucking video dude. You’re saying you’re NOT saying it’s AI while claiming it might be AI? What part of the video is real and what part is AI and what part is taken out of context. You’re just pulling shit out of your ass.
Dismissing the source is a genetic fallacy. They comment on someone else creating a fallacy and cant see their own. Their cognitive dissonance is in over drive
I mean, things take time. The Drudge Report wasn’t wrong about Monica, he was just an asshole. Assholes can be right and still refer to facts but present those facts in a different ideological context.
but I clearly was never going to get through to you.
Snopes confirmedthe video’s authenticity with the videographer who shot it. However, the audio was too distorted to definitively confirm the specifics of the conversation.
Even Snopes says its authentic you fucking moron, but I guess it’s “nothing more than AI” whatever.
If you read that whole page you linked to you would see they haven’t produced fake news so much as they consistently misrepresent facts to suit a conservative narrative.
So arguing it could be AI means you failed to actually read their fucking reasoning for the low credibility and bias claims. None of it had to do with facts not being true, but rather presenting those true facts within a conservative narrative. Whitmer is mentioned several times, and in each case it was rooted in real facts but presented with a conservative slant.
Screaming “fake news” is unhelpful.
Vetting sources absolutely is helpful.
It’s clear they didn’t actually vet the source or read what mediabiasfactcheck said then, because at no point did they make “fake news.” So the likelihood of this being AI is near zero.
Taking the top line that some group made and not actually looking at the details is not vetting a source, it’s taking a quick glance as gospel. It matters that they don’t make fake news because it makes this video likely real.
But I mean you do you if you just take a quick glance as gospel and don’t actually, you know, fucking read anything yourself.
You keep putting “fake news” in quotations like it’s something they said.
Oh so claiming it’s quite possibly AI isn’t directly making a claim that it’s most likely fake? Interesting.
It’s not even something I said lol. They’re clueless.
You’re not inspiring confidence in people here when purporting an obvious strawman fallacy. Please quote where I said they’re “fake news” as you put in quotes no less.
Second, one demonstrates an unfortunately low level of comprehension skills, given I stated, “Don’t trust this to be anything more than AI” – which suggests by comparative logic that there are possibly other things I trust equal to or lower than AI.
“Don’t trust this to be any more than AI” directly implies that it must be fake.
No, it does not lol. AI can distort half-truths / half-lies, take things out of context, but yes can also fabricate entirely.
Remember: LOW CREDIBILITY
LMAO it’s a fucking video dude. You’re saying you’re NOT saying it’s AI while claiming it might be AI? What part of the video is real and what part is AI and what part is taken out of context. You’re just pulling shit out of your ass.
Videos can’t be AI?
“LOW CREDIBILITY”
You just outright refuse to read the fact that they have never been found to make up facts. That would include making fake AI videos dude.
Anyway thanks for admitting you refuse to take a look at the facts and instead are screaming ITS FAKE with no evidence to back it up other than feels.
Cool. Whatever. Find me a better source.
lmao, jesus. Sorry I asked you to read and ripped a hole in your pulled out of your ass AI theory.
They don’t have a history of making shit up. They have a history of being extremely biased. This video has no commentary.
Soooooo no other source beside some shithole far-right subpar slop?
Last chance!
Sure, no other source, except for the video and hot mic recording of her saying exactly what’s being reported here.
Here’s another news source, which includes the actual recording.
But of course, we can all see that truth is not what you’re actually after here.
Oh I’m sure there’s plenty of sources here for this obviously surreptitiously recorded video. /s
Dismissing the source when the facts are real is in, a word, stupid.
Why don’t you prove to me they have a history of making shit up? Oh yeah, because your own source proves that wrong, ding-a-ling.
Dismissing the source is a genetic fallacy. They comment on someone else creating a fallacy and cant see their own. Their cognitive dissonance is in over drive
LOW CREDIBILITY
Should be easy to find a better source reporting on this, if vetted! Hell, even Fox News!
I mean, things take time. The Drudge Report wasn’t wrong about Monica, he was just an asshole. Assholes can be right and still refer to facts but present those facts in a different ideological context.
but I clearly was never going to get through to you.
Cool buddy, just wake me up when that happens ;)
Not even Snopes could verify it.
Even Snopes says its authentic you fucking moron, but I guess it’s “nothing more than AI” whatever.