Npr are going to ask the tough questions? Really? Still waiting on your alternative explanation.
Isnt that the crux of the problem? Reporting on what the officials say without question but rather on acceptanceReporting on what people say is what reporting is. Then they report on what others say, others who question them. Then there is "in-depth" reporting, something you have to wait for and seek out, that puts all that together with other facts and then you, joe citizen, try to form an opinion.
Npr are going to ask the tough questions? Really? Still waiting on your alternative explanation.I don't have all the facts. Why would I try to explain what happened in a jail cell 1,000 miles away that I couldn't get into anyway? I don't have a lot of faith that I'll ever know the whole truth, but I'm certain that you don't know it either.
NPR didn’t have to “ask” anything, they just listened to what Barr said. See definition of reporting above.
Reporting it as a fact without any qualifications or an alternative view. Just like the run up to iraq war.
Still waiting.
Cui bono??I don't have to answer every stupid question you put up. I know that helps convince you that you're right, but if I answer this one, you'll ask something else, and you'll still be convinced. You have plenty of unanswered points and questions from me. Pick a couple and maybe I'll consider responding to you.
Reporting it as a fact without any qualifications or an alternative view. Just like the run up to iraq war.How is someone saying something publicly with recording not a fact? There may be other facts in the future that lead me to believe that they didn't actually investigate anything. I'll deal with those when they appear. I can't have facts about future events like you apparently do.
It gets better.
NPR didn’t have to “ask” anything, they just listened to what Barr said. See definition of reporting above"
Has Npr questioned what barr has presented?
Take the iraq has WMD headline or as i have recently posted NYT headline that trump wants unity
Still waiting
I am asking you if you are good enough to answer. What is your alternative explanation and cui bono?
Barr is keeping the conspiracy idea open, I imagine, in order to deflect from his own responsibility in overseeing the DOJ who have been pathetically incompetent in keeping the highest profile prisoner in federal custody from dying (probably because of the prison’s negligence in following procedures that would have prevented Epstein’s suicide).
The DOJ controls the investigation, so in the unlikely event that Epstein was murdered, they can hide or undermine any evidence. I say this because, if anyone murdered Epstein, he was totally under the authority of the prison. The prison is under the authority of the DOJ. The DOJ is under the authority of Bill Barr. Bill Barr is totally inside Trump’s a-hole. So if someone murdered Epstein, it is more likely that someone/s in that chain of command had a realistic capacity to commit such a crime, than it would be for some agent of the Clintons.
Player, your last post to me is more gobbledygook.
Reporting it as a fact without any qualifications or an alternative view. Just like the run up to iraq war.I don't want to send your vulnerable psyche into the spin cycle, @Player, but not every single thing is like "the run up to iraq war [sic]."
You have plenty of unanswered points and questions from me. Pick a couple and maybe I’ll consider responding to you.Me too.
I don’t have all the facts. Why would I try to explain what happened in a jail cell 1,000 miles away that I couldn’t get into anyway?What is wrong with you, @Lausten? Why are you letting small details like not being clairvoyant; not living in New York City; not being an employee of the US Bureau of Prisons, the FBI or the Justice Department; and not having any personal knowledge about Jeffrey Epstein or his case prevent you from leaping to wild conclusions? Obviously you lack the capacity for rational thought.
The DOJ controls the investigation, so in the unlikely event that Epstein was murdered, they can hide or undermine any evidence. I say this because, if anyone murdered Epstein, he was totally under the authority of the prison. The prison is under the authority of the DOJ. The DOJ is under the authority of Bill Barr. Bill Barr is totally inside Trump’s a-hole. So if someone murdered Epstein, it is more likely that someone/s in that chain of command had a realistic capacity to commit such a crime, than it would be for some agent of the Clintons.OMG!! I may use this on Twitter sometime. Do you want me to blur out your ID or keep it on there?
I think Lausten may have a deficiency of hubris. (That can lead to not making catastrophic errors, but undermines the production of baseless, confusing and entertaining speculation.)
Oh, yeah, Tee, but I don’t want to be famous. Another potential self-serving advantage for Barr investigating the Epstein death, is that they have an excuse for not answering any questions about it (i.e., the typical “We can’t discuss cases while they are under investigation.”
Re NYT headline…
NYT Top Editor: Trump Racism Headline Was a 'F*cking Mess'…During a hastily arranged meeting, lasting well over an hour, top Times leadership addressed the paper’s staff about public criticism the outlet has faced in recent weeks centering around its coverage of Trump, race, and politics. …
Much of the meeting focused on outrage over a headline last week following multiple mass shootings, including one in El Paso that authorities have said was seemingly motivated by racial hatred. The headline, which proclaimed “Trump Urges Unity Against Racism,” faced criticism both outside and within the paper among those who said the publication was papering over the president’s history of racist comments and how Trump seemed to focus on other issues, including violent video games, more than racism and xenophobia.
“He’s sick. He feels terrible,” Baquet said of the person who wrote the offending headline.
The top editor reiterated that the headline was a mistake—“It was a fucking mess,” he told the staff…"
New York Times Editor Dean Baquet: Trump “Unity” Headline Was a ‘F*cking Mess’
One thing that’s different in journalism than in most occupations, @Player, is that when you mess up, the whole world finds out.
I once made a dumb mistake on a headline and got complaints. I was a mess for weeks. And this was a small paper, pre-Internet. I can’t imagine how it feels to be this guy. People do make mistakes.
In addition, journalists are subject to libel and slander laws, they do get sued and they do lose their jobs.
And it isn’t unusual at all to see media outlets doing autopsies on errors they made.
Is that the case in your occupation, Player? (If you have one.)
I think Lausten may have a deficiency of hubrisI think they sell a supplement for that.
Luckily, supplements are untested and unregulated, so Lausten doesn’t have to worry about the safety of taking it, like he would an Rx…
Oh, yeah, Tee, but I don’t want to be famous.I understand
I’ll cut your head off
Yeah a mess up after public criticism.