Hidden Figures, A Movie About a Fake Story?

So been hearing some rumors and read an article on Breitbart that Hidden Figures is not based on a true story at all, but a movie only to empower women and minorities.

Is this true?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Figures_(book)
theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/07/german-police-quash-breitbart-story-of-mob-setting-fire-to-dortmund-church
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies
independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/donald-trump-inauguration-frank-sinatra-nancy-who-is-performing-when-is-it-watch-it-a7514721.html?amp
dailykos.com/story/2016/11/23/1603508/-Steve-Bannon-created-a-non-partisan-charity-to-funnel-money-from-billionaires-to-Brietbart
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Well women and minorities can't do anything so obviously

bait

>Breitbart

They severely exaggerated the importance of the three niggers and the amount of melanin in their skin

Point me to a unbiased news site

NOBODY HERE HAS WATCHED THE MOVIE

NOBODY HERE HAS WATCHED THE MOVIE


NOBODY HERE HAS WATCHED THE MOVIE


NOBODY HERE HAS WATCHED THE MOVIE

> something like an unbiased news side exists

>read an article on Breitbart
faggot

>Watching sjw propaganda

It does exist, but since it probably doesn't conform to your worldviews, you will hate it

There are no true stories in Hollywood. You read Brietbart

>Breitbart
lmao maybe, just maybe that's why

>Is this true?

>it's a "bait Sup Forumstards" thread with the three things they can't stand: smart, black women.
>revisionist history when?

Yes, they were so desperate for the race angle they created 2 imaginary racist characters despite the source material being about how she suffered no racism.

>Black girl Main Character was a real character?
Yes
>She helped the space program team?
Yes
>She helped it in the way portrayed in the movie?
No
>All the other female characters are real?
No

>Breitbart

>read an article on Breitbart

This persons vote cancels out my reasoned well informed vote. Thanks op

>read an article on Breitbart

Yeah, look at this proud full-blooded afrikang womyn

there's a difference between being biased, yet have journalistic standards and apply internal fact-checking, and then clickbait propaganda with an obvious agenda like Breitbart.

You can read a wiki article to know the story is full of shit

You can stop samecucking any time now

Yeah read something with integrity like the NYT or WaPo

Doesn't answer the question, friend

>this tired meme that her role was "le exaggerated" just to desperately claw at a true story that NASA confirms and three seconds on Google confirms
>being literally this desperate because blacks upset you that much where you have to take away their true stories
WEW, can't wait for the (you)s now. Almost guaranteed

You just described CNN

she's black though. not even mixed. are you suggesting this person is white?

obama is whiter than her and you guys call him a nigger.

doesnt matter, youre still a dipshit

It's like you don't know how melanin works and you never met a black person

>and read an article on Breitbart

If it has to be in English, try one of these, but for God's stake stay away from the editorialsː

The Guardian
New York Times
Washington Post
The Economist
The Wall Street Journal
Der Spiegel (English)

They may have a slight progressive bias in the sense that most journalists tend to be leftists, but they all pride themselves on critical journalism and internal consistency, at least in the actual reporting. The editorials are trash, though.

Right, because everything they write is wrong. No matter what. Why cant they just be responsible journalists and redpill me on the Jewish globalist conspiracy or the cultural marxist takeover that Alex talks about. You know, that solid reporting.

I have never met a masculine white male Democrat voter in my entire fucking life

> NYT

Oh but user, all remotely left journalists can't be trusted because blalh blah blah libcucks

You can't really be an alpha while calling yourself a "male feminist" and constantly virtue signaling

right, but election forecasts aren't actual reporting, and have never been.

Of course you didn't, you don't even get out of your basement.

How does bad or unexpected polling mean their journalism is all bad? You think polls are conducted in house and by the same people?

You should check these dubs.

I've never met a masculine conservative voter
Unless by masculine you mean obese, smelly, and uneducated, then yes

>caring about masculinity to others
Do you also refuse to cry because it's for pussies and measure dick sizes "just for fun bro"? Every uber-masculine person I have ever met has then gone off to suck a dick or turned out gay or in denial

Didn't they apologize for being biased and beg their readers not to cancel their subscriptions after the election?

>le npr meme
fuck off

>i don't like breitbart
>therefore everything on the site is false

And then they changed nothing about their """"reporting""""

>literally nothing wrong with NPR
You breitbart fags think what you peddle is news...

That one must have stung you, huh?

The true story is that the amerifat space program was almost exclusively the work of captured nazi scientists. They can't flat out admit that former SS officers got them to the moon, so they have to make shit up about 'muh stronk poc womun who dont need no white mans 2 spaec'

I have no clue about that. I would need a source. Still, polling is usually not done IN house at news networks. You all act like every single fucking poll was in on some conspiracy, when even Fox was polling Trump pretty low. Gee, it is almost like it was a surprise and less of "le ebin media conspiracy", like you retards think everything is.

I did last night senpai

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Figures_(book)
this is the book. synopsis is light, to say the least.

you tell me if it's conjecture or they name some names.

I don't know, never heard of it. Feel free to post a source.

To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me. Journalists tend to be cosmopolitan and internationalist, the vast majority of them are obviously going to be anti-Trump.

But ask yourself this, will Breitbart ever apologize for their own coverage? If NYT actually did, that only further proves how much more of a serious paper they are than Breitbart.

Breitbart is more reliable than CNN so there has to be some truth to it

>make shit up
Everytime these Hidden Figures threads are made I should just play a stormfag bingo of the same ten things I read in these bait threads

Someone make a template please

>been hearing some rumors and read an article on Breitbart

Retards genuinely believe this.

theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/07/german-police-quash-breitbart-story-of-mob-setting-fire-to-dortmund-church

>Breitbart is more reliable than CNN
Because of one election cycle? Kek. No. Nice meme though.

>but they all pride themselves on critical journalism and internal consistency

Well, they do.

I don't know any educated people that would bother with CNN, I certainly wouldn't.

But they are still lightyears ahead of Breitbart. That shit is intellectual poison.

My post is 100% factual. Sorry that facts trigger you.

Notice that the critics of Breitbart's defense boils down to "lmao Breitbart"

Breitbart covers things that are uncomfortable to hear, to say the least, and proggies shut down.

>But ask yourself this, will Breitbart ever apologize for their own coverage? If NYT actually did, that only further proves how much more of a serious paper they are than Breitbart.
Why should they apologize for anything. The only thing they should do is if they print something false or libelous, and then they print a retraction. That's it. It's not their job to be concerned with the feels of people they cover, let alone people who read their articles.

> self-loathing leftists aren't even aware of this
> I'm supposed to believe their opinions on what are and aren't "non-biased newspapers"

> When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our readers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

Sincerely,

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher

Dean Baquet, executive editor

How many times has CNN been caught straight out lying now?

Not to defend Breitbart, but the media right now is so politicized that not a single outlet is safe from lying. The guardian even has a meme on how retarded their editorial board is ("peak guardian"). So they might be right on this one, but next week they will say something equally retarded.

I don't think you really know what a fact is, but whatever you need to tell yourself.

You think Breitbart would have been contacted by Snowden or WikiLeaks? You think Breitbart would have uncovered Watergate?

You think Breitbart is ever going to win a Pulitzer?

Or are all these things just part of the liberal conspiracy?

>but they all pride themselves on critical journalism and internal consistency, at least in the actual reporting
If you think the bulk of the articles are totally immune to the proggie newthink in the building, you're mistaken. They are however widespread papers and if you're in journalism, you're probably expected to know what they're printing. I don't read most of them because more often than not I get hit with a paywall, which is bullshit if I'm reading maybe one or two articles a week.

The editorials are where the Id of these people come out to play, and they're revealing to say the least.

Probably never?

>no argument
Well at least you can admit you're wrong. Sorry kid, better luck next time.

>but they all pride themselves on critical journalism and internal consistency

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

kek, im not even an amerifat so I don't care about your political shitflining, but its hilarious to see people so deluded they actually defend flatout propaganda machines

>burden of proof, what exactly is that? XD
Right, I'm wrong about an established recent historical person that NASA backs up entirely..it's me...

Bet you wouldn't have any problems if she was white. "What an endearing story"

This post reminded me that leftists live in an alternate reality where everything is the opposite
>OP makes a very obvious thread to bait leftists
>gets 20 "lmao breitbart responses"
>delusional retard thinks this is a thread to bait Sup Forumstards
lmao

Bait or delusion?

My post is 100% factual. Sorry that facts trigger you.

Feel free to continue shitposting, but it wont change history. Sorry kid, better luck next time.

> Why should Breitbart apologize?
Why should the New York Time? The criticism is bias. If the NYT is guilty of this, so is Breitbart times a million.
> Breitbart covers things that are uncomfortable to hear.
So do all these supposedly untrustworthy liberal papers.
They have the sort of journalistic integrity required to look inward and conduct internal criticism. Apparently that makes them worse than blatant propaganda.

Too many to count.

>CNN has been subject to allegations of attempting to influence viewers, as opposed to an unbiased approach to political journalism
This doesnt mean any of the "controversies" actually happened or were actual lies, friendo. Just means they were accused for the most part. Nothing substantial though. They had a bias during the election, but they never reported factually incorrect information.

German nazi war criminals working for the US military were a minority...

I literally admit the progressive bias in the post you are quoting, but you know, nice counter and all..

Yeah it's amazing how many people are defending this movie.
>libs actually think 3 black women out of hundreds of scientists were indispensable for sending a rocket to the moon

It is though...

>breitbart

>My post is 100% factual.
You just keep repeating this without explaining why, at all...

Fuck off autist.

Armond White probably loves Breitbart and he said Hidden Figures was a good movie. Now what, Sup Forums?

clearly there are people in this world who are far enough away from my own standards of what constitutes journalism to take Breitbart at face value. If learning exactly what kind of reasoning is behind that requires my being baited, so be it. I can live with that.

> conduct internal criticism.
Only after their subscriptions dropped, not for the sake of journalistic integrity
> blatant propaganda.
Breitbart is right-leaning, but every mainstream news site is some sort of biased. Is propaganda too?

>8 more year of libtard butthurt

BEST, FUCKING, TIMELINE

She did though:
independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/donald-trump-inauguration-frank-sinatra-nancy-who-is-performing-when-is-it-watch-it-a7514721.html?amp

They show her tweets...

Every single one of those outlets lied about Trump's calls with Mexico and Australia. That was one day ago. Fuck off.

>thinking he'll even make it through the first year

Remember that time the CEO of Breitbart took donations from Donald Trump's fake charity, then used the website to push pro-Trump propaganda? Of course you don't remember, because you read fake news.

dailykos.com/story/2016/11/23/1603508/-Steve-Bannon-created-a-non-partisan-charity-to-funnel-money-from-billionaires-to-Brietbart

really makes me think

...

Jesus, the list just goes on and on. Absolutely brutal how anyone being critical of Israel gets shown the door.