Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I can't help it if you color my commentary.
The "color" of your commentary exists without my help.
I don't understand this.
The article title referring to a "Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy" is a tongue in cheek fueled by Hillary Cinton's accusation of a "vast right wing conspiracy."
It's Barnes that is misrepresenting the entire story. Actually, all he's doing reciting an existing non-story and slapping his name on it to stir the pot.
I am not familiar with the existing non-story so have no ground to dispute what you say. What, in Barnes misrepresentation, is untrue?
He's trying to push another scandal that doesn't exist. Unless you already hold the opinion that the media is corrupt, there's little in the way of facts to support the claims. Barnes adding that he's now been changed by this new information is just silly drama.
-spence
|
I didn't see the "color" or hear the "tone" of "scandal" in Barnes' piece. What he said is either true or it isn't. What do you mean by "little" in the way of facts? How "big" does the way require? The drama could be silly, or funny, or sarcastic, or true, or false. I don't claim to know if what he says is true. You, obviously, have some facts in a big way that what he says is untrue. What are they?