Poor Jim Acosta.
The guy is waging a one-man war against the term “Fake News.”
Calling the American news media "fake news" may feel good to some. It may energize the base. But it's bad for our democracy.
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) July 16, 2017
But sadly for him, he has only himself and the rest of the corporate news media to blame for the term’s very existence.
Or has Jim forgotten that they dreamt up the term to explain away Hillary’s humiliating defeat?
After the election, the “American News Media” published lists of alleged “Fake News” sites.
They even claimed that these sites – including Zero Hedge, InfoWars.com, Breitbart and the Gateway Pundit – were taking their marching orders from the Kremlin.
Even their preferred candidate hopped on the “Fake News” bandwagon.
Remember? When Hillary spoke at the retirement event for Harry Reid, she prattle on about the dangers of “Fake News.”
CNN even reported on it.
So if Jim is super upset over the term “Fake News,” maybe they shouldn’t have coined it.
They forged this weapon.
They wielded it against our side.
And, unfortunately for them, we’re much better fighters. Can we help it if our side was able to disarm them and wield that weapon more effectively?
What Acosta fails to grasp is we are on to them.
We know that their greatest weakness is the fact that they suffer from projection.
And 99.9999% of the time when their side hurls an accusation at us, it applies not to us, but to them.
So they hurl “Fake News” only to discover far too late that the term more closely defines them.
You guys created this Frankenstein, Jim.
And now the monster turned on its creator.
To this day, Acosta still has this tweet pinned to the top of his timeline.
We are real news Mr. President. #realnews
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) February 18, 2017
Oh, honey. You can’t unring this bell no matter how frantically you try.
But Acosta isn’t alone.
Just look at CNN’s Chris Cillizza.
Three weeks before the 2016 election, Cillizza tweeted this:
Let me say for the billionth time: Reporters don't root for a side. Period. https://t.co/dhH8eherOR
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) October 16, 2016
But check out this brief video clip from CNN’s coverage on election night:
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 15, 2017
“The states that we really need … uh … that Hillary Clinton really needs.”
“We need to make … uh … Hillary Clinton needs to keep…”
What’s this “we” Jake Tapper was talking about?
If reporters don’t root for a side, why is Jake Tapper having a hard time distinguishing between what Hillary needs and what you guys need?
Could it be that CNN was rooting for Hillary?
These guys can protest all they want.
But the truth is in their own reporting.
Sorry, Jim. The only thing “bad for democracy” is a corporate media openly advocating for one political party while actively smearing the other.
What is “bad for democracy” is exploiting “news” to advance an agenda then hiding behind the First Amendment when you’re called out for it.
Acosta’s childish protestations only work in a world where people are ignorant of CNN’s one-sided advocacy.
Unfortunately for Jim, the genie is out of the bottle.
They’ve been exposed.
And no matter how many sanctimonious tweets about “democracy” and “journalism” these nitwits crank out, there’s no stuffing that genie back inside.
Hit the Tip Jar!
Your contributions help keep PatriotRetort.com an ad-free site. Hit DONATE button or the SUBSCRIBE button in the side bar. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!
Check out DiannyTees.com
— my Conservative & Christian T-shirt Store.