"Portland Protesters Burn Bibles, American Flags In The Streets" has a RT video that shows exactly that, and links to several other confirmed Twitter accounts all stating the same thing.
How is that a lie?
New York Post says 'a bible', and your video a single book being burned, can't see whether that's a bible. The original video has been deleted (link is dead here: https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1289512762733785088 ) but quickly picked up by the usual far-right BS twitterati.
>The fire was later put out by members of Moms United for Black Lives Matter, who doused the flames with bottles of water and stomped on the embers,
so that article OP cites is outrage bait, it's not an informed source.
How does this follow? One faction burns a bible and another faction puts it out. How do you choose which narrative to privilege?
Do you REALLY find it that hard to figure out? I can't tell if you're being sincere, or just being a troll who is trying to shrug and say nihilistic-sounding things to advance the alt-right agenda, which is to "flood the channels with shit" as Bannon said.
If some right-wing rando at a protest start burning a bible, and then two large established groups of protestors try to stop him because it is not what they are protesting and is sending a misleading optics, it really isn't that hard to see what is going on.
Like the white supremacist biker that was recently arrested for smashing windows during a BLM protest in an attempt to create deceptive optics for the right wing media machine.
We can get into a nuanced discussion of "is it really lying" since there's a video, but I have not been a party to any conversations in my lifetime that start with a nuanced discussion of "is something technically a lie" that end with a good feeling in my gut. So that's kinda a clue that despite the technicalities of language something uncool is happening.
That's wild. You can't have a functioning press under those assumptions, because you don't know for absolute certain that everything is the way it looks. Donald Trump might be a long-term agent of the Democratic Party aiming to damage the Republican Party. Of course, it doesn't look that way on the surface, but you never know. Saying he's a Republican is "a lie" by those standards.
> The Haymarket affair (also known as the Haymarket massacre, Haymarket riot, or Haymarket Square riot) was the aftermath of a bombing that took place at a labor demonstration on May 4, 1886, at Haymarket Square in Chicago. It began as a peaceful rally in support of workers striking for an eight-hour work day, the day after police killed one and injured several workers. An unknown person threw a dynamite bomb at the police as they acted to disperse the meeting, and the bomb blast and ensuing gunfire resulted in the deaths of seven police officers and at least four civilians; dozens of others were wounded.
Not exactly helpful.
"Today there were protests, and during those protests these things occurred, we do not yet know if the people committing these terrible acts where part of the protest or not"
Instead we get
"During mostly peaceful protests everyone sat in a circle chanting defund the police" while in the background we see buildings on fire
This entire thing fits in a pattern of poisoning the well and conflation of unrelated things on this topic. Is it strictly speaking a "lie"? Probably not, but it's also most certainly not an article intended to promote a deeper understanding of events – quite the opposite.
I wish journalists had higher standards, but they don't. I wish the same for consultants, but they typically recommend whatever they're selling, not what the customer needs, so I don't know why journalists would be more ethically, they're human like all of us.
For an example close to my heart, I can't count how many videos I've seen purporting to show little innocent children dying in Gaza (killed by the IDF) or in Syria (killed by Insert Party Here) that were actually from Syria (ie: not the IDF) or Iraq (ie: not your least-favorite party to the Syrian Civil War).
Is it a lie if I post a video of my dog playing fetch and say it's someone else's dog doing a trick? Hell yes it is.
They have originated with events on the ground widely reported by independent journalists, citizens and local news.
What people here are doing is dismissing the overall picture of what's happening on the ground in Portland based on a few misreported facts. No matter that that are hundreds of videos from different sources showing all kinds of crazy shit. "Breitbart lied about bible burning, so the protests must be peaceful!"
Claim: Protestors burned then stomped on the US Flag
Snopes: Mostly False, Protestors actually stomped then burned the flag
[1]: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-n...
This is supposed to prove that hundreds of videos posted there (many of which are sourced and attributed) are all fake? This sort of ad-hominem nonsense is getting beyond ridiculous.
What makes corporate-owned media more trustworthy than state-owned media?
And has any of it found to be true?
I see a worrying amount of blame on invisible spies for actions that happen all the time in the real world without the need to sound like we are living in Red Scare 2.0.
To literally quote 1984:
>The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over.
IMHO dismissing/criticising a rather lengthy article just on one less-than-ideal example is not really good form.
I actually up-voted the article, and started reading, then removed my up-vote when I realized the very first article linked contradicts the entire headline. If the headline is true, the author could have picked dozens of other links of obvious lies, but clearly didn't attempt to validate their own work
I'm skeptical because there have been times footage from other events have been reused out of context to push an agenda. Just a few days ago Trump ran a campaign ad that used Ukrainian protest imagery to demonstrate chaos in the US, for instance.