Davin News Server

On 2025-08-05 04:05, NoBody wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 14:53:38 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-08-04 04:08, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 11:41:59 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-08-03 06:18, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 17:38:41 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-08-02 10:58, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, The Daily Beast removed an article from its website that
>>>>>>> highlighted claims that President Donald Trump met first lady Melania
>>>>>>> Trump through Jeffrey Epstein. These claims came from Trump biographer
>>>>>>> Michael Wolff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This editor’s note was posted on The Daily Beast’s site: “Editor’s
>>>>>>> Note. After this story was published, The Beast received a letter from
>>>>>>> First Lady Melania Trump’s attorney challenging the headline and
>>>>>>> framing of the article. After reviewing the matter, the Beast has
>>>>>>> taken down the article and apologizes for any confusion or
>>>>>>> misunderstanding.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolff’s original claims were made during an episode of “The Daily
>>>>>>> Beast Podcast,” which aired six days ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TheWrap’s Benjamin Lindsay wrote, “In the podcast interview with
>>>>>>> Joanna Coles, published Saturday, Wolff alleges that Donald and
>>>>>>> Melania met in 1998 through ID Models founder Paolo Zampolli, who
>>>>>>> himself had ties to Epstein and his partner Ghislaine Maxwell. He said
>>>>>>> that Melania was ‘very involved’ in Epstein’s social circle.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A spokesperson for The Daily Beast told media journalist Oliver Darcy,
>>>>>>> “The story was deleted because it did not reflect the comments made by
>>>>>>> Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles on the Daily Beast podcast.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 				
>>>>>>> https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2025/the-daily-beast-retracts-melania-epstein-story/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation:  They got caught flat out lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does Fox do when they get caught lying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do try to stick to the topic.
>>>>
>>>> I'm making a comparison...
>>>>
>>>> ...just the same way you like to do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok what stories did  Fox News put out that quoted people as saying
>>> things that were never said?
>>
>> So it has to be the exact same thing. You don't think lying about the
>> election being stolen counts?
> 
> I asked a very specific question.  Can't you answer a simple question
> without wandering around.
> 
>>
>> Sean Hannity testified that he did not believe the fraud claims "for one
>> second," even as he gave a platform to accusers to repeat them on his show.'
>>
>> 'Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham were shown in text messages to be
>> highly critical of the claims and the people making them, privately
>> calling them "mind-blowingly nuts."'
>>
>> But directly on point:
>>
>> 'On Friday evening, Fox News withdrew a story it had published in which
>> former Trump administration Health and Human Services Secretary Tom
>> Price was quoted as saying he would not support the former president in
>> 2024.
>>
>> “He can kiss my big medical butt,” the story said Price had remarked.
>>
>> However, the story was taken down and instead replaced with an editor’s
>> note.'

<https://www.advocate.com/media/fox-news-white-house-retraction>

>>
>> Also:
>>
>> 'Mr Wheeler said a Fox News reporter, Malia Zimmerman, fabricated quotes
>> in a story about Mr Rich that ran on the network’s website in May. Fox
>> retracted the article a week after publication.'

<https://archive.is/6btF0>

>>
>> 'On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the
>> investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article
>> was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we
>> require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was
>> found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.'

<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/statement-on-coverage-of-seth-rich-murder-investigation>

>>
>> So... ...was Fox News caught "flat out lying"?
>>
>> Yes or no.
> 
> Would you be so kind as to source your quote?  It's standard good form
> to do so.  What you posted sounds suspiciously like a hearsay claim so
> I'd like more information.

Sure! Done above for each source.

Note the last one is Fox News saying almost exactly what The Daily Beast 
said about their story.

But somehow you'll find a reason to treat them differently won't you?

:-)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe the fact that they were wiling to own up and apologize when they
>>>>>> made a MISTAKE is the reason YOUR source says:
>>>>>
>>>>> How is it a mistake to publish something that was never said as fact?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'The Daily Beast is a superb site'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Laughter!
>>>>
>>>> It's YOUR SOURCE sunshine.
>>>
>>> Actually it wasn't but I understand your confusion.
>>>
>>> Laughter...
>>
>> Actually it was. That is a direct quote from the poynter.org article you
>> posted:
> 
> Poynter is my source.
> 
> Duh...
> 
>>
>> 'The Daily Beast is a superb site, but it got beat up in media circles
>> for highlighting claims made by Wolff.'
> 
> You seem to have difficulty with mental math.
In what way?

In using a source, you implicitly admit you find the source credible.