Doug64 wrote:Are you still making that claim? The last time you tried to give an example of Breitbart lying, it turned out the reporting was a spot-on example of how reporting is supposed to be done.
No, the last time we discussed it, I quoted a news article where the arresting officer in the case directly contradicted the Breitbrat article.
The fact that you misread it is not an argument.
(Those who wish to understand what Doug64 and I are arguing about here:
https://www.politifact.com/california/s ... bout-dead/ )
Breitbrat also accused the Guardian of lying about immigration, but it turns out the Guardian was telling the truth. If the Guardian was telling the truth, then Breitbrat’s version of the truth was probably not the truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ight-trumpAnd then there are the leaked emails that show how a senior trump advisor colluded with Breitbrat to portray immigrants as criminals, which would then support the policies of the advisor. People have demanded that this advisor be fired because of the racist views expressed in the emails.
https://www.newsweek.com/stephen-miller ... on-1473955So, please explain why you trust this source that has been known to lie, has colluded with racist government officials, and perpetuates a racist paradigm. Thanks.