Versa-Tech Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) So FNC is now reporting that Ambassador Stevens was still alive when he was brought to the hospital. This, seemingly, contradicts reports that he was found dead at the consulate, and then paraded around the streets like a flag. Call me crazy, but wasn't this "News", the original story? It feels like deja vu all over again. I can specifically remember reading the original report (hours after) that said that ambassador stevens died at the hospital of smoke inhalation, several hours after a group of heroic libyan civilians carried him there. I even remember the caption on an image, from an entirely different source, that refered to him as "unconscious" as he was being carried through the streets. So where the hell did this bullshit story come from? Why was the report changed to vilify the heroic libyans who tried to save him? Was this part of the WH's denial strategy? Why is FNC referring to this as a "New Report"? Edited September 24, 2012 by Versa-Tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Washington Post reported this six days ago: Witness, video: Libyans found Stevens alive after consulate attack, rushed him to hospital Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted September 24, 2012 Author Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) Yeah, but does anybody know who reported the original story... 12 days ago. I'd like to know where this BS originated. Why were the Lybian people thrown under the bus? It sounds to me like this was all part of the WH's strategy to divert the blame from Al Qaeda to the Lybian people... And Fox News was all too willing to run a story that painted the average Lybian in the same light as the Egyptians. I think it's of paramount importance to point out that the Lybian people elected a moderate government, as opposed to the Egyptians that elected the Muslim Brotherhood. It was Lybia's intelligence agency who warned the Ambassador 3 days before of the threat. It seems to me that Libya is a true ally, Egypt is an adversary, and the only people who are denying it are the WH and Sean Hannity. Since when do those two agree on anything?! Is Fox News simply to proud to admit they got it wrong? I am, of course, ignoring the fact that CNN and MSNBC are still refering to the attack as "amidst protests im response to a 3-month-old youtube video....". Despite CNN's (impossible to find on their own website!) excellent reporting on Lybia's early warning to the state dept, they're still perfectly willing to make contradictory assumptions on their headlines to protect the Obama Administration. Fox News though? I'm so confused. Edited September 24, 2012 by Versa-Tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Despite CNN's (impossible to find on their own website!) I was just having the same thought a short time ago. Who the heck designed CNN's website? It's almost as bad as Drudge. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) {self-edited} Edited September 24, 2012 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted September 24, 2012 Author Share Posted September 24, 2012 I was just having the same thought a short time ago. Who the heck designed CNN's website? It's almost as bad as Drudge. Yeah, Drudge hasn't changed their format since they started. It's kind of genius in a way though. The advertisement block at the top of the page is more bandwidth intensive than the entirety of the content. They make a killing per kilobit. Speaking of which, I'm have a forum policy question regarding bandwidth abuse. Where should I post it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Yeah, Drudge hasn't changed their format since they started. It's kind of genius in a way though. The advertisement block at the top of the page is more bandwidth intensive than the entirety of the content. They make a killing per kilobit. True, as an aggregator I guess they don't really need to be as pretty, but CNN's is just a mountain of hyperlinks with no real rhyme or reason as to their location, at least on the upper half of the homepage. Speaking of which, I'm have a forum policy question regarding bandwidth abuse. Where should I post it? You can message me, Richard, or Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Yeah, Drudge hasn't changed their format since they started. It's kind of genius in a way though. The advertisement block at the top of the page is more bandwidth intensive than the entirety of the content. They make a killing per kilobit. Simplest is always best; think Google's home page. And if you want to kill DR's ad, use your HOSTS file. Here's how. Not only will it get rid of the ads and speed up your browser, but it can also help prevent viruses/malware/adware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Simplest is always best; think Google's home page. CNN's homepage isn't simple though. It's a pile of text URL's grouped together in no seemingly logical order for the most part. Drudge only seems simple by comparison because there are fewer links. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.