In our effort to push back against so much misinformation, we wanted to flag an important update on a story that’s been widely circulating. The Guardian ran an article that was later corrected. The outlet acknowledged it had to update the piece after realizing part of the reporting wasn’t accurate.
Doesn't matter. Right-Wing media and social media are still spreading lies. Even when it's debunked, they don't stop.
That's true! Moreover they eat their own dog food. A maga I know told me how Patrick Mahomes was going to pay for Kirk's kids college and he was crying and saying how great that is and of course how no evil Dem would ever do something like that. The story had already been solidly debunked! 😩
Admitting when you're wrong and making it right is a good thing...the bad part is so far The Guardian is the only one.
What’s unfortunate is the DOJ will likely release some fake testimony from the shooter blaming left trans stories already circulating
I saw a cnn article make this same claim today and immediately questioned it. I was able to disprove it quickly. Shame on news outlets for not fact checking.
The anecdote about gossip shared in the movie “Doubt” perfectly describes a situation like this. Once the feather pillow has been cut open outside and hundreds of feathers fly away on the wind you can never get them all back again. No “oops sorry” will undo the damage. I’m sure they know it.
Too late. We can no longer trust The Guardian.
Sure we can. We can't trust wingnuts who KEEP running with earlier and quickly retracted/corrected versions of stories, but then we never could.
The very few centre left legacy media need to be 100% correct before going to print. Horrible and difficult, but necessary.
Journalism literally cannot BE that. Jesus Christ. This is more "the left must be entirely, superhumanly above reproach." Fuck that noise. The Guardian did WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. You want to slam the use of an anonymous source? Because they later retract? You've got a LOT of slamming to do.
I would have agreed with you ten years ago. Now, the left cannot report anything but verified proof, otherwise the far right will profit. I hate it too.
Even "verified proof" gets cast as "fake news" every damned day, so I don't know why WE have to pass an IMPOSSIBLE, literally impossible, purity test.
Just checking facts. Can’t be that hard, can it? People are sick of ‘people say’ nonsense.
Please explain to me how THE FUCK a journalist "checks" that one person has a specific impression of another person and has conveyed that honestly. It is not remotely uncommon to gather comments from friends, neighbors, bystanders, etc. at all kinds of news events. You're demanding the impossible.
This was not the case. They failed to check what was said and by whom accurately.
How many times have I asked this now... HOW do you "check" someone's IMPRESSION??? This anonymous (meaning the Guardian didn't disclose who they were) person spoke TO a Guardian reporter. That person later retracted what they'd told the reporter. ➡️
Example: Everyone knows it's proven that eyewitness accounts are often demonstrably rife with errors, because people remember shit wrong. So do you demand that witnesses to an event not be quoted unless they, what, submit to a polygraph first?
"They Shoot Emotional Support Animals, Don't They?" -Gilbert Hortman, 14/6/2025
As seen in the screenshot provided of the story, the editor’s note reads:
“This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship.”
In plain terms: - The Guardian originally included paraphrased comments from someone who said they knew the suspect in high school. They claimed, citing an unnamed high school friend, that suspect Tyler Robinson was the lone “leftist” in a family of “very hard” Republicans.
I suspect a lot of these things are done with the knowledge a lie will spread further than the correction.
- After the piece ran, that person admitted they weren’t sure about those details. - The Guardian then removed the quotes and added a note explaining the correction.
The funny part is The Guardian should have looked up his voting public registration before making any accusations. It quite literally says, he's unaffiliated. They dug that pothole they fell into.
As a regular protester, I’ve been instructed by organizers to not give provocateurs ANYTHING to work with. I like The Guardian, but they MUST check and double check stories like this before publishing. Because the damage they can do, once released, retracted or not, can’t be undone
Notice the correction is at the beginning of the article as opposed to NYT which is at the end…
"Journalism"
No shame in admitting, and correcting, an error.
in fact, journalistic ethics require it.
The shame is that MAGA is dangerous. So is Trump’s regime. So any rhetoric against the left had better be checked, checked and checked again.
Errors like this are prettt disqualifying. Even if you orint a correction easy odds that correction will not be seen
The shame goes to the reporter who failed to do their basic due diligence. And they're probably tapdancing around the fact that they were conned by some a-hole who wanted to invent a backstory for this dude where he had liberal views. There's no verifiable evidence of that so far.
It’s very easy to demand perfection when you’re not the one doing the job. They are publishing a daily newspaper and website, not producing a long form documentary over a period of months. There is a time constraint on the depth of fact-checking that can be applied to accounts from witnesses.
He detained two people and announced he was captured and then let them go. They at least need to publish the newspaper right.
Which is the hallmark of what I have called "Rolling Stone journalism" since the 80s. Get a tory idea, draw your conclusions, do your interviews, just include what confirms your bias and don't bother with corroboration.
If you think that they are promoting the notion that the radical Left is responsible for the violence in America, then you've clearly never read a copy of The Guardian. Reporting what witnesses say is not an endorsement. It's responsible journalism - as is publishing corrections where appropriate.
The problem is that all journalists are chasing our attention so they can stay in business. Without views or clicks, they will shut down so reporters are rushed by frantic owners. Some aren't, BBC is funded by the UK govt, I don't know any others off the top of my head. It makes "scoops" imperative.
The BBC is no longer an independent, objective broadcaster.. Its a Zionist mouthpiece
It was ever thus. That’s the business, has been since the first newspaper was printed. We demand instant news. It’s a balance between getting the story out and meticulously fact-checking every single source. Sometimes info reported in good faith turns out later to be inaccurate.
PBS. Oh, nevermind.
I also think it's imperative to be wary of just restating someone is a "leftist". The right wants it to mean how they (as fascists) actually behave: hateful and violent. Political liberals and progressives believe in good government that serves its diverse population and sustains safety nets.
If you think that The Guardian is "the Right", I'd suggest actually reading the paper / website. There is a huge difference, which you clearly fail to grasp, between reporting the views or opinions of a witness, and promoting those views as editorial policy.
I didn't say The Guardian is right-wing. I worry about reporting getting manipulated by right-wing narratives and terms that I kept hearing such as "leftist" and "trans ideology".
There was also another term being used by the so-called mainstream media called "trans ideology." That is not a real thing. That is right-wing conspiracy talk. Journalists who get paid should know the difference.
Good point.
At this point I would think that Patel and the other crime fighting wannabes know if he were a democrat given what discord channel he was posting on. And believe me if he were a democrat Patel would be holding a marathon press conference of nothing more than him screaming “lunatic left”.
But the right will never accept the original story wasn't true. Should not have been published without verification
Shame goes also to the editor- for heaven’s sake, that’s what editors are FOR
There isn’t a news outlet in the world that hasn’t at some time reported information in good faith, that later turned out to be incorrect. None of them are infallible. It’s how they deal with it that marks out the responsible publications.
And the editor who should have questioned it. However, a timely correction is proof of good faith. Other continue circulating known lies.
There is shame in reporting before you fucking know any facts.
They didn't just make this up out of thin air. They spoke to a witness, an attributed and verified source, who then later changed their story. The paper acknowledged and corrected. This is what responsible news outlets do.
There is.
Exactly, which is what good journalism does-correct the error.
Save for the damage is done. And running viral on a different algorithm were the correction is not picked up.
And yet, the dye was cast
No shame in admitting an error and correcting, but this wasn’t a soccer score, it’s a powder keg and most peep would be very careful before publishing something so incendiary. When FOX say it everyone yawns, but @theguardian.com is a well known left of centre paper so that was particularly damaging
In this case it I'd put more blame on the "friend" who clearly wanted to be on the front page and provided information they then walked back.
Anybody can lie to a reporter. It's the reporter's job to vet their sources. Don't have time? Can't vet them? Don't use the quote.
Yep, reporters arr not a stenographers service.
It's not always easy to vet an otherwise obscure source such as this one. In the absence of a verified claim, the guardian did the right thing by publicly acknowledging the misquote and walking back the lie.
They vetted nothing. Sloppy and does damage.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” Mark Twain
Trump must have forgotten to pay the kid for his original statement.
Fox News is outright pushing another false narrative that Tyler was having a relationship with a trans person. They want to round up all the trans people, first.
I bet it was a cute furry boy who tried to show him all the love in the world and maybe was afraid of guns.
And the conservatives are clinging to that like their lives depended on it. I just spent a few minutes reading comments on conservative Reddit and they are so sure this guy was not one of them. SO SURE.
Meanwhile, the far right is circulating the original quote at warp speed, and the fanatical base will never see the correction . It’s criminal lack of responsibility on the part of the Guardian.
He was though. Maybe what counts as a leftist in Utah makes you a Redhat in New York, but you can just tell.
"you can just tell"
Its the chucks. Not popular footwear with the right.
i know a conservative who wears them
Nor with most people, in general. If we're going the statistics route, this dude is 99.9999% conservative. Doesn't matter either way. Conservatives revealed their evil intent before the guy was turned in. Wanting to start a war because one nutcase might finally not be a conservative. WTF.
Yeah they really trying to weaponize it when they should be calling for peace.
Well would you look at that…a prominently featured correction at the top of the article, directly below the headline, the way it’s supposed to be done. Now if only @wsj.com would do the same!
An unverifiable claim is that "Charlie Kirk was killed by a secret Epstein victim".
"We are sorry for our part in this misinformation stream and will work harder to vet content we present." - Implied?
And we’ll never hear from this so-called source again.
The court hearing must be public, everything should be public. Anyone trying to hide the investigation and the court proceedings tries to hide the facts from the public.
Did not expect this of the guardian
It's mostly because they don't have much resources to verify everything before publishing. Moscow has been using that for years, they had their own "journalists" there who would make "investigations" that Ukraine is a Nazi and run by Nazi etc.
Too late. The right wing nut jobs are already running with that narrative
Before they're done with him they'll convince his family he's a homosexual pansy and they're better of without him.
That's why the investigation and court proceedings must be all public
Of course they will. If they aren't the Trump regime can't keep bragging about how transparent they are. Because clearly many of them are criminals too.
Well, he’s wrong imo
The MAGAtards (and their preferred websites) are NOW claiming that Tyler was living with a trans male.
Where is that coming from? I keep seeing that
He's already been mocked as well for living at home with his parents.
Choosing an ableist slur to emphasize your dislike of a group of people somewhat undermines positioning yourself as an ally to marginalized folks. If you actually intended to throw disabled people under the bus casually in the course of an unrelated discussion, though, I guess you accomplished that?
It’s the job of journalists to verify, not just take someone’s word for it. Journalists are so bad at journalism now it’s beyond being a joke, it’s dangerous. Shame isn’t a big enough word for them now.
I'm ok with that. We all make mistakes, and they owned it.
Wish they could teach that to the rest of the media
now Spencer Cox is claiming the shooter was brainwashed by leftist ideology...but not presenting any evidence to back that claim. I think the GOP is just going to keep railroading their preferred narrative to their captive cult audience, facts be damned.
They're just following in the twice impeached felon's footsteps. It worked for him so they're using his playbook.
Right wingers have no credibility, period. They'll lie and gaslight to promote their agenda. The truth doesn't matter and they feel no guilt or responsibility spreading those lies.
I had read that he had been smitten by groyper and was more inclined to follow their ultraconservative views!
Oh wow. A news source being accurate? What’s that about?
They WEREN’T accurate, that’s why they had to issue an apology. The damage has been done, however, because no other outlet is issuing a similar correction.
A half assed apology.
Oh, you mean "the gameplan"
Zing.
Thanks, I hate it. Take my like.
Thank you, friends.
I’m seeing online that Tyler is in a romantic relationship with a trans person who is his roommate and is cooperating with authorities. I’m not finding a reliable source. Seeing only Fox, TMZ and NY Post reporting it online. Anyone else?
Nope. No reliable outlet is going to touch this transparent horseshit.
bsky.app/profile/eosi...
Thanks!
I had a friend send a screenshot but no real verification.
The Guardian rarely gets it wrong but when they do, they correct it unlike our MSM.
Apology needed from from them. Huge Print just below masthead. I’m probably going to cancel my subscription over this. They should have checked their source!
They have no idea of the shitstorm they caused. A little footnote correction is not enough. Fire all responsible @theguardian.com
That’s what real publications do.
I thought a story needed at least TWO reliable sources.
I am shocked that The Guardian, a paper I trust or trusted, would post unsubstantiated information when it was so inflammatory.
And good for them for doing it.
🇺🇲🇬🇧🇹🇯🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🇵🇸🇺🇦🇵🇱🇷🇴🇺🇲
This has to be about the 5th story that has been rertracted by an outlet...I have never seen anything like this
It’s because ALL these news outlets think they’re going to out “scoop” one another. It’s making them all sloppy and untrustworthy. A lot of them will probably burn the ashes before all this is done, and then we’ll be wondering why we don’t have journalism in this country anymore.
This seems to be the reality during times of crisis or upheaval. The rumors fly and what we should have learned by now is to record everything, take screenshots, and don't jump to conclusions until the dust settles. It's the Wild West out there.
Posted this myself hoping ppl would notice Up untill the 2020 Dem primary I was a dedicated subscriber to @theguardian.com After seeing so many incomprehensible hit pieces on 2020 Dem candidates they clearly chose to bruise, I stopped being so loyal Never trust fully bsky.app/profile/soun...
"why bother checking, just run with it"
Wobedraggled, "why bother checking..." As noted by ANPS, the source admitted uncertainty about what they had told the Guardian AFTER the story ran, after which the Guardian retracted the reporting. You might follow your own advice and check your facts before commenting.
Always low counters trying to come in with the clap back... IDGAF what news source you are make sure your shit is rock solid before you report it, that should be the standard. But we live in an age where everyone has the attention span of a flea on acid. "follow my own advice" lol Go away.
It's really as though some people don't understand how journalism works and is SUPPOSED to work. Pure idiocy. You can't "make sure your shit is rock solid" if the shit is someone's claimed impression of someone else. When that impression is RETRACTED, the journalist has to retract.
What we may never learn is how hard they pushed the source before publishing. How did you know him, how close were you, why specifically do you think he was the leftist in his family?? Like could this have been avoided with the most basic of questioning before wetting your pants over the scoop...
"Oh here's a "source" with the narrative we wanna push, GO GO GO...." That's all the "news" is these days. 24hr news cycle killed real news.
It's the guardian, they don't want to push an anti left story , but will if they believe it. The guardian is one of the most left leaning papers in the uk. Of the important ones, the only left leaning one.
Maybe it is cultural divide, but it just seems wild to not have been VERY dubious of some conservative hack remembering back to HS without very specific details. Like in a UT HS you might be leftist for only wanting to fire LQBTQ people from their jobs, but not stone them in the town square.
I'm not saying they were right publishing in the first place, I'm saying that saying they did so because they have a right-wing agenda to promote is imbecilic and shows how isolated you are from the rest of the planet or even just your western allies
Single source material is (or was) always suspect. The MSM became a revenue source sometime back in the 60s. Once the news department of TV stations was made dependent on advertising the die for bad reporting had been cast. Consolidation has also snuffed out good reporting.
Did they verify any of this? No. They ran a quote without any checking or verification, Correcting after the fact isn’t journalism nor is it reporting.
You don't print it in the first place. This isn't throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks. Bullshit accusations become dangerous.
Getting the facts right outweighs getting bullshit out first. Billionaires Propaganda Media outlets only profit in first come Click bait. Fuck em all
They made a mistake and corrected it as they should. That’s how reliable journalism should work They still are one of my go-to outlets
No, reporters vet quotes. Editors vet the reporters. That is why AI can’t do journalism. Apparently neither can The Guardian. Time to reevaluate my subscription.
Not every mistake is a firing offense. They took responsibility
This isn’t an oversight about county water system reporting. The entire MAGA nature has seized on this like a life ring. Reporting that relies on a dubious source and contradicts their other reporting should have had additional vetting or withheld. This IS a fireable offense for a “journalist“.
I did
That reporter should be fired.
I've been posting this wherever I see the uncorrected versions pop up. They're always screen shots -- because there ARE no links now that wouldn't immediately disprove what the wingbag wingnut posting uncorrected garbage is always claiming.
Guardian of the Right
thehill.com/homenews/sta...
www.tmz.com/2025/09/13/t...
Uh oh. The right made shit up, got caught, and are now trying to cover their asses by making more shit up.
bsky.app/profile/eosi...
www.axios.com/2025/09/13/k...
bsky.app/profile/eosi...
This-is scary. They really want war.
I think Fox would lose their viewers for a week if they ever showed that kind of maturity and responsibility.
As crazy as each and every fucking day is in America, bound to be inaccuracies... At least they were flat out fucking lying to manipulate anyone, and they sure did update and fix instead of being lazy.
What was the article please ?
Facts are facts. The "left" isn't the problem... www.theguardian.com/world/2020/j...
Once a teaspoon of shit is added to a cask of wine, it is all shit. That was deliberate.
As you can see, this is now an open and shut case, and as the suspect is demographically inoffensive, we can't use his identity to fuel a culture war so it is sadly time to move on. www.normalisland.co.uk/p/here-is-ex...
Now why couldn’t The Guardian have thought of this?
Guardian you know better.
Some context please
What a novel concept... admitting you got things wrong and issuing a correction. Kinda thought that was par for the course, or should be.
Kirk would not shut up about the Epstein files, so he had to go.
But the cows are already out of the barn!
They trusted a single, questionable source instead or corroborating the details with others who also knew him. That's poor journalism. They corrected the record but the damage was done. The reporter should be fired.
Perhaps they just did what they were told to do - paper and reporter.
well - the editor who OKd its publication for not ensuring the source was corroborated ☯️
They should be doing more than that, these agencies that are publishing deliberately false reporting need to get sued out of existance like the WSJ and the Guardian.
The Guardian DID NOTHING WRONG. They were told something by someone who claimed to have specific knowledge. They reported it. Probably verified the person went to HS with Robinson. Then the person retracted the claim. The Guardian quickly corrected the stories. That's how journalism works.
That's not how journalism works, you report when you have verified sources, fuck the Guardian and hack publications.
You're a know-nothing moron. Begone.
Were they supposed to magically know that the person was lying? The vetting process is to confirm the verifiable facts. The Guardian did that. The consequences of the lie are enormous, but it was the source that lied, not the Guardian.
Because you verify sources with other sources, especially some random person claiming to have gone to the same HS, that is not journalism, that is yelling fire in a theatre because some you never met said there is a fire.
Maybe don’t run with something from someone who has not seen the kid since high school, that you cannot corroborate anywhere else, when the whole thing has been rife with misinformation and speculation and is and absolute powder keg?!?! FFS, it’s Journalism 101.
I'm sure that you can march right in to every journalism class in the US and correctly instruct students on how it's done. 🙄 MAYBE you should reserve some ire for the outlets who NEVER fucking get it right and NEVER bother to retract or apologize, instead of slamming The Guardian.
It's taught in every journalism class to get multiple independent sources, if you run a story with one source you better be 100% on that source, the Guardian knows better and still ran a completely irresponsible story that has a real possibility of getting people hurt.
Absolutely, we have enough speculation and rumors on every social media site. These publications have debased themselves into nothing more than tabloids trying to get clicks with running this type of BS.
Honest journalism is so important thank you
Damage done.
A LIE, you meant to say
Looks like it was first published by the WSJ. AI says they read an early "law enforcement bulletin" -- question is who generated that? I suspect the current FBI may not be fully up to their job at the moment. It's also so concerning how things become "true" so fast for so many.
Good! I saw shit yesterday and was like, “WTaF, Guardian?! I *used to * trust you. You too can now sod off with all the rest.” 😿
you dragged that way out, for no apparent reason. what’s wrong with “this info presented(by multiple outlets), new info comes in, new update” all encapsulated by the headline “developing story”!?!?
Because the "new information" that prompted the correction was something the journalist should have asked as one of the very first questions. They should have asked others at the school at the time if they recalled the two together. The editor should have verified the answer to those questions.
If the story is developing, the expectation is that the scope is limited, not that the information presented as factual is subject to fundamental revision simply because the journalist didn't feel like doing their due diligence.
It would be very different if the reporter had asked questions shoring up Source A's perspective, and then later Source B shares info that conclusively shows Source A is a pathological liar, and then the guardian published a clarification, but that's not at all what happened here
You don't KNOW what happened here. Stop making it up. Or go work on your novel.
For all we know, the Guardian DID all that (except no one can "verify" one person's impression of another). The person later RETRACTED THEIR CLAIM. The Guardian CANNOT then continue to claim it's true. What is with the overreaction to this? Jesus Christ.
Thank you for sharing
The fucking irony of these grifters trying to call out anyone else for misinformation Forty-six. Eighteen. Sixty-Six. Hutt Hutt HIKE General Public can disregard.
That’s how it should be . We all make mistakes .
not as a properly trained journalist, no. that's not how it works.
Corrections and retractions are seen or understood by very few readers. News outlets' mistakes, in this case, put many people at serious risk of attack for something that isn't even true.
No, you verify your source before you publish...how have people forgotten this basic tenet of journalism. It's about being accurate in situations like this, not being first or the most outrageous.
This! But they have not suddenly forgotten or gotten lazy. It’s intentional. If the story fits a certain narrative that will stoke outrage and thereby get the most reach, clearly the attitude is “publish first, validate later” because it’s only about proving engagement to advertisers now, not facts.
The truck is forward the lie even if u have to back track , the damage is done . Like trumps court cases , by the time it’s “ Fixed” it’s useless .
Gosh excuse my spelling 🙈
The damage has been done and they know it. We'll be gunned down in the streets for this
Apparently the shooter's roommate tried to cover for Tyler by lying to the Guardian that Tyler had " leftest" leanings ... The grandmother of Tyler in an interview said that the whole family were Trump supporters, and those cryptic writings Tyler left on the gun shells was Far Right Maga shit..
The non Roommate and non trans young man being mislabeled as a roommate needs to sue now. youtube.com/shorts/TCa8B...
A few years ago a great show was on HBO with Jeff Daniel’s -Newsroom. They had an episode about the dangers of jumping the gun on a story
How in the fuck do you have to remove quotes that never happened? Do quotes not mean anything anymore?
The anonymous person who was quoted by The Guardian later said they did not really know Robinson well enough to be sure of those statements. The Guardian had no choice but to make a correction.
Measure twice. Cut once. If you put something in quotes it’s because that person actually said it. That didn’t appear to have happened here. Sloppy journalism. In this environment, and considering they pointed to the shooter as a “leftist,” there are consequences for bad reporting.
Pay attention. This is really simple: If I tell a reporter "Bla bla bla," they print my quote, and I later RETRACT that claim, THEY also have to retract it. This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen on Bluesky. This is Facebook-level dumb.
PSA - Update on the battle for LA Pt. 1 bsky.app/profile/isth...
PSA - Update on the battle for LA Pt. 2 bsky.app/profile/isth...
Here is a video of her I posted a while back, actually in the thick of it. Listen to her words, and know whats happening in #LA is a foreshadow for the rest of us. In a macro sense, We have been able to live in a fantasy that these things couldnt happen. We were wrong. Community build & prepare now.
Shit's gotten more stupid since then. Sadly, this is yesterday's news.
Yeah, now it's, "Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk for his transgender partner" 🤦♀️
It was always going to be a trans person's fault, one way or another.
Drudge ran the headline, but the link led to the New York Post, so, it’s the purest wagyu 🐂💩, without even looking.
Ya-I just heard this. Hilarious
youtu.be/0IpbuTN6sOM?...
This was supposed to be satire back in the '80s not 25 real life youtu.be/0IpbuTN6sOM?...
The non Roommate and non trans young man being mislabeled as a roommate needs to sue now. youtube.com/shorts/TCa8B...
MUST SEE
Too late now, it's out there and the magats are running with it. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's part of their narrative now...
They couldn’t be bothered to check the facts before publishing a story that is creating extreme division and danger for transgender people. Got it.
Worth reading
… which is why I subscribe to The Grauniad: its actual journalism.
Sorry, but you don’t publish such a thing without checking the source many times. They flamed the divide AFTER Trump and his minions had already threatened the “left”. I totally lost respect for them. British media is famous for lies and cover ups.
Weak shit.
At this point, I want the right wingers to see all of this misinformation and I do want it to result in violence. Enough violence that they start taking guns away from these absolute nut jobs.
Too late, they already threw it out there and the haters ran with it, and will not go back to read the retraction nor correct what they have already put out there.
Too late, parts of the cult are running with it.
I live in Utah & our local news outlet used LLM as a tool to report the news & failed to use the retracted version of the Guardian piece, they quoted the original…after the Guardian removed that part. 🤬
Forgot the grand ballroom in your drawing on the white house... 🤢
On = of
Why can't WE have rational, compassionate leaders--like normal countries do?
Go mexico!
Leave it to someone outside of the US showing some integrity.
youtube.com/shorts/UVJ9s...
They’re so busy fellating the corpse of CK that they can’t spend any time in verifying stuff before hitting publish.
It's sickening but not surprising. Nobody should trust corporate journalism. Their primary goal is to make money for their shareholders. The truth comes a distant last.
Every single day is a battle against the utter chaos. 😕
I'd really like the media to tackle the "groyper " rumors too. Though it risks giving them attention. In today's "hyper media" we must remind ourselves that only the person involved can say what their intent was & what drove them (besides dislike as shared by family). Interim, Avoiding X etc., AMAP
You sure those boys ain’t as well?
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Said both simultaneously, “My finger smells like my brother’s butt.”
Dangerous to not go to the utmost effort to fact check in these times.
The first hours after an arrest is the period people clamour for motivation. When poor reporting, sometimes a deliberate attempt to misdirect public feeling happens in that period it causes a great deal of damage & is used as in this case to further the cause of right wing hatred & conspiracies.
Fox lies
Although all friends and family reported he was living at home. Hmmm.
NYT reported he shared an apartment with a roommate.
The non Roommate and non trans young man being mislabeled as a roommate needs to sue now. youtube.com/shorts/TCa8B...
This is what happens when you help this Regime in any way, shape, or form.
The non Roommate and non trans young man being mislabeled as a roommate needs to sue now. youtube.com/shorts/TCa8B...
Well it is Fox Entertainment "reporting" so may or may not be true. Also, it would depend on who in the FBI told them. The FBI is not what it used to be. 🫤
Completely agree. But now that that is out there. It could be found untrue by morning and the nimrods will still believe it forever.
You are correct. And they will run with it as far as it will take them.
I wouldn’t put it past unnamed “senior FBI officials” as having floated it to Fox just to get it out there.
Senior FBI must be Dan McBoingboing
They fired everyone else. Kash or Dan
The Guardian should have never published this!😡 Totally irresponsible!!
That's a standard retraction policy for responsible publishers; if they're honest.
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Mark Twain
Now they’re out here saying that Robinson allegedly had a trans roommate and romantic partner? They can’t even get the narrative straight. This disinformation is totally on purpose. The only both sides argument is that they are both in on this. Fight back, ffs. Hope we shut down the fed.
I saw that. Marc Caputo. Axios, which gave us Alex Thompson (ugh). At this point, it feels like they're throwing every bit of swill they see and hear at the wall, desperate for something to stick. Desperate to remove attention from WHO benefits right now from getting Charles Kirk to shut up.
I saw that new trans piece too. Stating he lives with his significant other who is a transgender, even included that it was the fbi that leaked the info.
Saw mentions of papers asking neighbors only for the neighbors to say they didn't think the shooter or his roommates were trans.
People are just horrible human beings.
Found the mention. bsky.app/profile/texb...
Oh I believe you 100% I just meant the right is posting a lot of bs stories, no proof just to incite violence
Just shared it cause I prefer to share the source of comments. Didn’t think you were making a comment on me or the content of my skeet.
I appreciate it!!
bsky.app/profile/eosi...
Utah governor Spencer Cox said in his press conferences that Robinson was in a romantic relationship with his roommate and that the roommate is transitioning from male to female. He also said that the roommate has been cooperating with authorities.
Now CBS is saying, not only was Robinson allegedly in a relationship with his trans roommate, but he also had a furry obsession. The media is grasping at straws at this point. Done with this place.
It's striking that in this age of disinformation, the running of a correction in itself makes news. I'm grateful but it does spotlight how much integrity in media has changed.
