• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Washington Post Changes Headline in Ongoing Effort to Re-Write History Using Lies

(Sigh) Everyone who would bother trying to look at it again.

You miss the point. Nor is my point "partisan," as I am applying this standard to every news/social media.

Correcting a past article without also alerting current readers that this article was in error and had to be corrected is the problem.

Most people who have read an article don't go back and re-read it over and over again to see if there are any corrections.

What I am saying is, if a Newspaper, TV Station, or other Social Media outlet publishes a false or misleading story, and the facts have changed?

Then that "agency" should RE-PUBLISH a current story with the corrected headline and facts as prominently as they did the prior story. Basically OWN the mistake as publicly as they made the original false/misleading report.

IMO that would go a long way toward re-establishing some trust in news agencies.
They corrected the point in a prominent manner which did indeed alert the readers of the error. If anyone refers to that article in the future, that's the first thing that they'll see.
 
They corrected the point in a prominent manner which did indeed alert the readers of the error. If anyone refers to that article in the future, that's the first thing that they'll see.

You are intentionally missing the point. They simply edited the story which was published back in February 2020.

They did not publish a retraction and clarification article CURRENTLY so that everyone who reads that rag will become aware of the new facts.

Most people do not go back and re-read a story. They simply remember the headlines and regurgitate the assertions as if they were still factual today.

The only way for an "honest" news agency to undo such views is to publish a brand new story as openly and notoriously as the original, correcting the record for all to see, understand, and rewire their view points.
 
(Sigh) Everyone who would bother trying to look at it again.

You miss the point. Nor is my point "partisan," as I am applying this standard to every news/social media.

Correcting a past article without also alerting current readers that this article was in error and had to be corrected is the problem.

Most people who have read an article don't go back and re-read it over and over again to see if there are any corrections.

What I am saying is, if a Newspaper, TV Station, or other Social Media outlet publishes a false or misleading story, and the facts have changed?

Then that "agency" should RE-PUBLISH a current story with the corrected headline and facts as prominently as they did the prior story. Basically OWN the mistake as publicly as they made the original false/misleading report.

IMO that would go a long way toward re-establishing some trust in news agencies.

In this particular case, the original headline was an outright, intentional lie aimed at deceiving the weak minded or providing confirmation bias for those that require it.

This propaganda rag is nothing at all like a "news" source. It is only a propaganda rag.

There is absolutely NOTHING they publish that can be relied upon to be free of bias.
 
Correction: Trump presents his own thoughts as truth, obvious lies. And he never corrects himself, with footnotes or retractions.

I'll assume that you are simply not educated to understand the difference between "reporting" and "talking".

A reporter is charged with the responsibility to faithfully REPORT what they have witnessed. This is either REPORTING what a source has told them or what the subject of the reported event is quoted to have said.

In passing, if the "reporter" departs from quoting the subject and instead states what he thinks the subject meant, he is no longer reporting. He is editorializing

If a person talks, all he is doing is talking. OBVIOUSLY he is saying what he thinks.

Are you really this ignorant of the difference between talking and reporting?
 
I'll assume that you are simply not educated to understand the difference between "reporting" and "talking".

A reporter is charged with the responsibility to faithfully REPORT what they have witnessed. This is either REPORTING what a source has told them or what the subject of the reported event is quoted to have said.

In passing, if the "reporter" departs from quoting the subject and instead states what he thinks the subject meant, he is no longer reporting. He is editorializing

If a person talks, all he is doing is talking. OBVIOUSLY he is saying what he thinks.

Are you really this ignorant of the difference between talking and reporting?
Fair enough. But when a president says something, many people in the past responded to his words as if what he said was "reporting." When Trump trashed migrants, for example, he offered details as to their alleged crimes as if there was some evidence. A president by virtue of his office and the sway he hold over followers is *also* charged with some responsibility to faithfully report on reality.
 
In it's ongoing effort to re-write history by erasing the lies told before and replacing them with lies that are less revealing of their dishonesty and stupidity, WAPO Does it Again!

<snip>
After Cotton’s comments, the Jeff Bezos-owned paper crafted the headline “Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.”

Recently, the outlet changed the title from 15-months ago to now read “Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus fringe theory that scientists have disputed.”
<snip>

Concluding that the virus originated in and came out of a Chinese Lab was NEVER debunked and was never proven to be anything but a pretty good conclusion to draw from the available facts.

Changing the wording and the meaning shows that the lying propagandists feel they have been caught lying. THEY ARE PUSHING A NARRATIVE- NOT REPORTING THE NEWS!

The propagandists are working hard to deceive the weak minded.

Are you deceived as a member of the group defined as "Weak Minded"?

-OR-

Are you among those that are asking, "Just how stupid do the lying propagandists think we are?"
So you're upset because they changed an inaccurate headline to a more accurate headline.

Ho......kayyyyyyyyy.
 
So you're upset because they changed an inaccurate headline to a more accurate headline.

Ho......kayyyyyyyyy.
Obviously this is a sign that they are evil and duplicitous. Much like Trump adjusting the hurricane map to cover his ass. Not really, but I loved that particular event.
 
I always figured it came from the lab. China never admits mistakes. What makes the CT so ridiculous is that they are saying it was deliberately designed as a bioweapon and intentionally released to take over the world.

As I understand it, gain of function is a practice used to make it easier to infect test subjects. It's used by many researchers. Risky? Sure. Evil? No. The Delta Variant raging in India mutated naturally, unless you think China is still trying to kill us all by designing deadlier variants. It is certainly a possibility that Covid did its own thing while being studied.

That's why red flags go up for me when some people start talking about a lab release.
 
They corrected the point in a prominent manner which did indeed alert the readers of the error. If anyone refers to that article in the future, that's the first thing that they'll see.

Why did they include the obvious lie in the original story?
 
Why did they include the obvious lie in the original story?
I'd call it an exaggeration. The right expands the term lie when applied to the left and contracts it when applied to their own. Do you think Trump lies?
 
Fair enough. But when a president says something, many people in the past responded to his words as if what he said was "reporting." When Trump trashed migrants, for example, he offered details as to their alleged crimes as if there was some evidence. A president by virtue of his office and the sway he hold over followers is *also* charged with some responsibility to faithfully report on reality.

He is not. If he says a thing, obviously, he has said it.

As an example, Trump noted that there were some "bad hombres" included in the groups of folks illegally entering the US across the Southern Border.

The lying propagandists in the press and their cheerleaders in the Democrat-Socialist Party said that he said that all of the illegals were all MS-13.

Trump was telling the precise and actual truth. The lying propagandists in the press and the cheerleaders in the Democrat-Socialist Party were lying.

There were "bad hombres" that were crossing the Southern Border illegally and they were a part of the greater whole of illegals crossing the border illegally.

We are still not favored with accurate reporting regarding the computer of the crack head son of the President. Why not?

 
So you're upset because they changed an inaccurate headline to a more accurate headline.

Ho......kayyyyyyyyy.

I'm upset because their campaign of lies goes on and is endorsed by so many.

Your post here is such an endorsement.

Are you not distressed by the fact that the folks you trust are lying to you, intentionally, to deceive you?

If not, why not?
 
While I would be much happier if they issued an official apology to Senator Tom Cotton for the nakedly-partisan attack upon him, the Washington Post did the responsible thing. They corrected the story and then noted the correction.
agree
 
I'm upset because their campaign of lies goes on and is endorsed by so many.

Your post here is such an endorsement.

Are you not distressed by the fact that the folks you trust are lying to you, intentionally, to deceive you?

If not, why not?
Would you automatically characterize your mistakes as "lies"?
 
I'd call it an exaggeration. The right expands the term lie when applied to the left and contracts it when applied to their own. Do you think Trump lies?

As it turns out, one by one, the "lies" attributed to Trump seem to be truths.

The lies contained in this particular story were representative of the lies contained in almost every story this propaganda rag publishes.
 
Would you automatically characterize your mistakes as "lies"?

This particular story said that an idea had been completely proven to be false.

It had not been. There was no chance that it could have been proven to be false and there is now evidence that the claim of it was entirely without basis.

That is a lie, not a mistake.

IF the "reporters" had cited a particular source quoting them as saying that the idea had been completely proven false, THEN that would have been reporting. The fact quoted would still be a lie, but the report would be accurate.

As published, it was lying.

The stock in trade for propagandists.

The simple truth is that then, as now, the only reasonable interpretation of the facts in evidence is that the Coronavirus virus was bred in, then somehow got out of, a lab.

There are ONLY two questions now:

Why did the propagandists' masters decide to spread this lie?

Why are so many resistant to recognizing the lie as a lie?
 
Last edited:
This particular story said that an idea had been completely proven to be false.

It had not been. There was no chance that it could have been proven to be false and there is now evidence that the claim of it was entirely without basis.

That is a lie, not a mistake.

IF the "reporters" had cited a particular source quoting them as saying that the idea had been completely proven false, THEN that would have been reporting. The fact quoted would still be a lie, but the report would be accurate.

As published, it was lying.

The stock in trade for propagandists.

The simple truth is that then, as now, the only reasonable interpretation of the facts in evidence is that the Coronavirus virus was bred in, then somehow got out of, a lab.

There are ONLY two questions now:

Why did the propagandists' masters decide to spread this lie?

Why are so many resistant to recognizing the lie as a lie?
It was a mistake. It’s understandable, if not entirely accurate, to call the lab theory a baseless conspiracy theory. It’s technically accurate to simply call it an unproven theory. That you are frothing over this is reflection of you and not the Washington Post.
 
Would you automatically characterize your mistakes as "lies"?

Why are you calling this lie a mistake?

It was obviously not true and was written by a writer and approved by an editorial staff as being well researched and accurate before being published.

This was a propagandistic lie intended to deceive the weak minded.
 
Why are you calling this lie a mistake?

It was obviously not true and was written by a writer and approved by an editorial staff as being well researched and accurate before being published.

This was a propagandistic lie intended to deceive the weak minded.
Because the difference between "conspiracy theory" and "unproven theory" is rhetorical at best.
 
You have to appreciate Trumpists acting like the way you show how honorable and honest you are is to stick to the very first thing you said no matter what happens after.
Maybe we are smart enough to connect the dots when governments covers up the truth. Let see. Of all the towns and cities all across the world this virus starts in the very city with the viral lab working on these viruses. D-oh.
 
It was a mistake. It’s understandable, if not entirely accurate, to call the lab theory a baseless conspiracy theory. It’s technically accurate to simply call it an unproven theory. That you are frothing over this is reflection of you and not the Washington Post.

You seem to like being lied to.

Probably explains your choices of "news" sources.

The WaPo Story rules out and completely dismisses any possiblity that the virus "engineered", implying that it was not created in that Wuhan lab.

This does not eliminate the possibility that the virus was "bred", as a thoroughbred horse might be, but the article uses the "engineered" crutch to present an unjustified conclusion.

This is an obvious effort to deceive the weak minded.

This effort was apparently successful to at least some degree.

Upon further review, the virus has never been documented to pass from any animal to any human at any time, in any case anywhere, anyhow.

The original article was an outright lie and the follow up was not much better.

So, if this is true, what else must be true?

How much of our media here in the US is controlled by the CCP or by the need to do business in China with the approval of the CCP?

Our weak kneed morons in the press are lying to you and you are applauding them for doing so.

WHY?
 
Last edited:
The problem is Cotton and everyone on the right spending a year telling us covid was a hoax or the fault of dem governors suddenly wanting to look at China while telling us anything that happened to 600k Americans is the fault of Andrew Cuomo.

The point is Cotton and the rest are being completely disginenius and they want to redirect anger at Trump for covid to the same country TRump protected that got 500k AMericans killed. If you wanna make a broken-clock-defense for Cotton on this issue, I just don’t see it as valid. He’s not right. At all.
I was never a big fan of Tom Cotton, but the more people like you criticize him, I'm starting to look at him in a more positive way. I don't ever recall him saying COVID was a hoax. I do remember him being critical of the horrific abuse of power which was excused because of COVID.
 
Because the difference between "conspiracy theory" and "unproven theory" is rhetorical at best.

The story completely dismissed the possibility that the virus originated in the Wuhan Lab.

There is absolutely no foundation for that dismissal, never had it, never will.
 
I was never a big fan of Tom Cotton, but the more people like you criticize him, I'm starting to look at him in a more positive way. I don't ever recall him saying COVID was a hoax. I do remember him being critical of the horrific abuse of power which was excused because of COVID.

I believe you when you tell me you vote for folks based on how other adults make you *feel*.
 
You have to appreciate Trumpists acting like the way you show how honorable and honest you are is to stick to the very first thing you said no matter what happens after.

Maybe we are smart enough to connect the dots when governments covers up the truth. Let see. Of all the towns and cities all across the world this virus starts in the very city with the viral lab working on these viruses. D-oh.

:ROFLMAO:

The only reason you said anything about it was because right wing propaganda told you to, and the only reason right wing propaganda told you to is to deflect from Trump's massive incompetence and malevolence on COVID.It also doesn't help that half of you were insisting China did it on purpose as a biological attack.

You wanted to pretend that if it came from a lab because you thought if you could heap all the focus on that, people wouldn't pay attention to Trump's response to it....

....which was and would be devastating no matter where it came from. You didn't connect any dots. You didn't even know there were dots to connect. You were just parroting.






But really, the first point is just great. Again and again, you Trumpists cite self-correction by left-lean media as an indication that it is untrustworthy. You think clinging to the most idiotic bullshit ever is proof of trustworthiness.

You're not scoring points. You think you are, but you're not. All you're doing is showing that you couldn't give less than one half of someone else's dog's turd about truth, honesty, decency, or America.

It's just power for power's sake, which translates into "**** your feelings" if you happen to win and "WAAAAAAH WE ARE GIANT VICTIMS OF EVERYTHING!" when you don't get your way.

Disgusting and pathetic, pathetic and disgusting.
 
Back
Top Bottom