Examples of media flip-flopping

I've been collecting examples of the media contradicting itself. These work really well to redpill normie friends on social media who don't notice when the media completely contradicts itself every couple weeks. When you show them a ton of examples, it really softens them up to hear other views they're normally resistant to hearing. Share what you got, thanks in advance.

Other urls found in this thread:

cnn.com/2017/05/30/opinions/trump-budget-paid-leave-calder-opinion/index.html
youtube.com/watch?v=pklk7fCHSXE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

...

...

here's a few

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

A lot of these are when new information comes out. The others are opinion pieces which are not factually news.

I shouldn't be surprised I guess. Sup Forums proves itself rather dumb again.

...

...

...

During Bush they were all anti-war and anti-survalence state, during Obama...crickets. The dems have always been just a purely reactionary party, the hypocrisy is now becoming more apparent. There are various reasons for this, but I think Nietzche hit the nail on the head when he talked about the slave revolt in morality. Granted, he was talking about Jews and Christians, but it applies word for word to the secular progressive cult. Kind of scary really

When the "new information" is "Trump said he approved of what we approved," the media proves itself retarded.

>A lot of these are when new information comes out.
Even more are when one propaganda angle doesn't work, and they realize they need to memory hole their last position on an issue.
>The others are opinion pieces which are not factually news.
Does it make it any less hypocritical and absurd that an opinion flip-flops 180 degree within 5 days?
> Sup Forums proves itself rather dumb again.
Go back to and complain about us, no one respects your opinion here where they aren't paid to.

...

The only one posted so far that might have changed based on new info in any significant way is the Comey one, and that's just because they didn't like what he was doing. Any other examples?

...

...

Trump can be a fascist and a moderate Republican - if most Republicans are fascists these days (which they are)

Here's something related, to know the kind of people behind these kinds of articles.

...

This is the best one.

...

This is a great thread. Please keep posting.

Does anyone have the image of all the media outlets trying to incite civil war?

...

>most republicans are fascist
Republicans advocate a syndicalist state apparatus that unifies private capital and labor, circumscribing international finance?

...

...

Especially when they proudly say they have the right to be mad that they got what they wanted, just because Trump delivered it.

I liked how you blacked out the word "opinion" from the title bar when it was inconvenient for your narrative.

I think you're confusing fascism with socialism.

pic related

opinion flip flops aren't qualitatively "less severe" than "journalistic ones" , especially not in the age of "editorialized reporting".

This is the best.

>I think you're confusing fascism with socialism.
I think you need to read Georges Sorel, Mussolini's 'Doctrine of Fascism', and "Freedom from Interest Slavery' by Gottfried Feder.

>CNN's opinion section is one person

Okay.

I guess Sup Forums is flip flopping every time I say you're a faggot.

...

>checked
What's a good may may name for these kinds of pics?
Something catcher than "flip-flops"

Because it wasn't there. See for another screenshot.

>CNN isn't responsible as an instituion for its product
Okay. I guess is still in denial that she lost.

... who were literally all socialists before they changed their name and applied the exact same views of socialists of their time except being pro war instead of anti-war.

>what is an opinion article: the thread

>all fascists are socialists
Syndicalists aren't marxist socialists, read a book.

This is why you guys get defeated in every single internet debate you start outside of Sup Forums, you just trust random .jpgs on the internet that can be instantly disproved.

cnn.com/2017/05/30/opinions/trump-budget-paid-leave-calder-opinion/index.html

Where did I say Marxist? Read the fucking thread you massive retard.

contribootin

>youtube.com/watch?v=pklk7fCHSXE

>when it's Fox News doing it

>fuckin fake news rupublicunts! Down with Drumpf! Huhhhhrrrr durr

>played out buzzwords intensify

kill yourself

>you guys get defeated in every single internet debate you start outside of Sup Forums
...according to fags who can't win a debate outside of ?

>Where did I say Marxist?
You omitted that critical distinction like a brainlet who needs to read a book.

...

Out of context BUMP

>...according to fags who can't win a debate outside of

I literally just proved him wrong one post ago. How mentally disabled can you get?

>You omitted that critical distinction like a brainlet who needs to read a book.
Nope, we call that a "Strawman" but go ahead, pretend I was talking about Marxism so you can prove yourself right in an argument that only exists in your head.

Damage control in this thread making me chuckle.

I still need that image of the media headlines promoting civil war

...

If you wanna see damage control, try posting:

Hey guy, why did Trump say he was going to build a solid concrete wall across the entire Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it? Because now he's saying he's going to build a fence, across part of the border, and Mexico may reimburse part of the fees at a later date. But he says that's what he said from the beginning? Doesn't that seem a little like flip flopping to you?

The real issue is that editorial opinions are being presented as factual news, and have been since the Bush Administration, to the point there is no longer any mainstream journalism that isn't loaded with personal opinions.

>damage control bot stopped posting until someone else posted a pic and then immediately fired back up
Lol.

>I literally just proved him wrong
You prove anything, you vaguely hinted at your opinion. You demonstrated nothing via evidence or counter-example, you just kvetched.
>Nope, we call that a "Strawman"
It's a strawman when you omitt a critical nuance, like, say, the fact that a national "socialist" means a racial nationalist, while a marxist "socialist" means an economic nationalist, and the two ideologies are antipodal, opposite, and contradictory. Also, factually incorrect that all fascists were "socialists" (implying marxists). Also, factually incorrec that Republicans are fascists, because they're all neo-liberal champions of international investment capitalism.
>tl;dr
You're politically illiterate with an inappropriately high self-appraisal of your own competence.

...

...

>trump is hitler
>trump is israels puppet

>It's a strawman when you omitt a critical nuance
> the nuances I omit are never critical, because my argument wouldn't make sense with them included

What the fuck is wrong with you.

...

It's so fucking blatant. Why don't more people call them out for stuff like this?

>Trump is an orange retard
>Trump pulled off the greatest collusion in human history and after 20 months we can't find anything

>You prove anything, you vaguely hinted at your opinion. You demonstrated nothing via evidence or counter-example, you just kvetched.
At this point I must assume you are a paid shill, since no one can be this retarded. Just click the reply chain. He said that the article wasn't an opinion. I linked to the fucking article, right at the top it says "opinion"

>It's a strawman when you omitt a critical nuance
No a straw-man is where you attack someone for a position that they don't have, but is easier to attack. You know, like when I say "Mussolini was a socialist before he changed parties", and you say "He wasn't a Marxist!" because what I said was right, so you invented a strawman that was easier to attack.
Let me phrase it another way. I said those people were socialists, and it hurt your feel feels, so you tried to make everyone think I called them Marxists.

>Also, factually incorrect that all fascists were
I didn't say all, I said those three specifically, because they were.

>Also, factually incorrec that Republicans are fascists, because they're all neo-liberal champions of international investment capitalism.
Maybe once upon a time. Then again you fags love pretending the world is like it was a decade in the past when you make your arguments, so whatever.

>You're politically illiterate with an inappropriately high self-appraisal of your own competence.
Nay, thou

Bump

This one was just sad

>russians are nazis
I. CANT. EVEN.

>maybe snark will help this tu quoque fallacy fly under the radar with no examples given
Any examples of this hypocrisy where I ignore critical nuances?

Have we had this one yet?

...

>Dunning Kruger
I swear there is one guy on Sup Forums and another guy on /ck/ who keep posting this. It's like they just learned about it and feel the need to bring it up at any possible time.

It must be classic projecting. I suppose if my life consisted of living vicariously online from my parents' home, despite years of being convinced I was smarter/better than all my peers, I would have to double down on my defense mechanisms too.

We do, they respond by sliding the thread and otherwise burying inconvenient facts

tl;dr faggot I don't care what you think, fuck off to your regular hugbox

Nay, thou

Also, I'm screencapping your defeat here for future threads. Enjoy the e-fame.

>Nay, thou
Ecstatic.

Nay, thou.

...

Contradictormemes

>Enjoy the e-fame posting as anonymous
You're a potato.

>republicans are just evil rich people
>why do poor republican Hicks vote against their interest
>republican party is actually dominated by the middle class

Who are you quoting?

Nay, thou.

...

It's funny because you lost.

He's sarcastically paraphrasing you, genius

Where did I say any of that?

Who is he paraphrasing?

God damn the absolute idiocy displayed in this post is mind boggling

How much are they paying you?

>Where did I say any of that?
He's sarcastically paraphrasing you, to mock you. He's not quoting you. Does the difference make sense to you?

I keeping on topic with the thread while simultaneously telling you to fuck off

Nah.