Jump to content

Operation Boomerang AG Barr's Investigation of Acts of Treason by Federal Employees


Nanker
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Kemp said:

Let’s play editor...

 

The crux of the article you shared is based off the first few sentences (pasted below).  As someone who writes professionally, let me show you how you can tell this is an Oped piece and not the “breaking news” you intended it to be.  Biased website aside, see the sentence from your article I pasted below?  Notice the bolded section the author wants you to focus on?  Just a tip, but a bolded statement in journalism is to help the reader focus on the crux and not the crucial fact-basis that comes after the crux, which you see below is nothing more than a generalization that “people familiar said”.   What comes after the masked over statement of “people familiar with...” is entirely 100% opinion-based with a blatant bias.  There are no facts in the article, no sources cited and therefore it has no merit or basis for sharing outside of leveraging the author’s similar opinion on things you have personally (and angrily) shared that tend to turn a good deal of posters off from you.   

 

But the findings ultimately turned over to Barr fell short of what Trump and others might have hoped, and the attorney general’s office elected not to release them publicly, the people familiar with the matter said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DFT said:

Let’s play editor...

 

The crux of the article you shared is based off the first few sentences (pasted below).  As someone who writes professionally, let me show you how you can tell this is an Oped piece and not the “breaking news” you intended it to be.  Biased website aside, see the sentence from your article I pasted below?  Notice the bolded section the author wants you to focus on?  Just a tip, but a bolded statement in journalism is to help the reader focus on the crux and not the crucial fact-basis that comes after the crux, which you see below is nothing more than a generalization that “people familiar said”.   What comes after the masked over statement of “people familiar with...” is entirely 100% opinion-based with a blatant bias.  There are no facts in the article, no sources cited and therefore it has no merit or basis for sharing outside of leveraging the author’s similar opinion on things you have personally (and angrily) shared that tend to turn a good deal of posters off from you.   

 

But the findings ultimately turned over to Barr fell short of what Trump and others might have hoped, and the attorney general’s office elected not to release them publicly, the people familiar with the matter said

 

Thanks for your great knowledge on writing. I have made my living as a writer.

 

The bottom line remains that this anticipated blockbuster is a whole bunch of nothing, so far, and it's getting late in the game.

 

Don't despair, though. Big news coming on Hillary's emails. If only she was running for President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Thanks for your great knowledge on writing. I have made my living as a writer.

 

The bottom line remains that this anticipated blockbuster is a whole bunch of nothing, so far, and it's getting late in the game.

 

Don't despair, though. Big news coming on Hillary's emails. If only she was running for President.

I appreciate your perspective (sincerely).  My only rebuttal is the “nothing so far”, is by design as evident by the actions of Google, Facebook and Twitter, among the populous media; each of which have chosen a side (monetarily) and therefore, have proverbial skin in the game.  My opinion is they are incentivized as such.  Facebook, Google and Twitter have not nearly been as discredited as the media until really only recently.  So it should serve as a notice to all in my opinion (Democrat, Rebublican, Independent) that anyone with an interest in the results of a potential crime, should not be the administer of the information regarding said potential crime.  Unfortunately, those vested parties are not just admins of information, they are knowingly removing proven information from the public under the false pretense of it being “disproven”.  

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...