Not all of those sources are so-called "liberal media" but suit yourself.
You don't understand - anything source that deviates from the Faux News orthodoxy is "liberal media" and therefore not to be trusted. How else are you going to keep the cultists inside the bubble?
The other side of this coin is that I can't see any reason why I should look at a heavily biased book about the Clintons that has already been thoroughly debunked.
You don't understand - anything source that deviates from the MSNBS orthodoxy is "right wing media" and therefore not to be trusted. How else are you going to keep the cultists inside the bubble?
You don't understand - anything source that deviates from the MSNBS orthodoxy is "right wing media" and therefore not to be trusted. How else are you going to keep the cultists inside the bubble?
A spokeswoman for the company said, "This is a routine notification that Amazon sends to previous version purchasers whenever there is an updated file. The changes that amazon is referring to as significant are actually quite minor. We made 7-8 factual corrections after the first printing and fixed a technical issue regarding the endnotes. This global fix may have made the changes appear more extensive than they were."
My reading comprehension is just fine. Your quote above is just the publisher trying to cover their ass. There is nothing "routine" or "minor" about this:
According to Politico, the updated version removes a passage outlining how Bill Clinton gave paid speeches to TD Bank, a shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline, and the bank said it would begin selling its shares in Keystone after Hillary Clinton left the State Department. But author Peter Schweizer reportedly cited a fake press release as his source for TD Bank's plans to sell its Keystone shares.
no subject
You don't understand - anything source that deviates from the Faux News orthodoxy is "liberal media" and therefore not to be trusted. How else are you going to keep the cultists inside the bubble?
The other side of this coin is that I can't see any reason why I should look at a heavily biased book about the Clintons that has already been thoroughly debunked.
Not to mention one where the publisher had to make "significant revisions" two weeks after publication to correct factual errors in reporting:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-cash-publisher-corrects-errors-in-book/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/15/politics/clinton-cash-book-revisions/
The house of cards fell almost as soon as it was propped up.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
A spokeswoman for the company said, "This is a routine notification that Amazon sends to previous version purchasers whenever there is an updated file. The changes that amazon is referring to as significant are actually quite minor. We made 7-8 factual corrections after the first printing and fixed a technical issue regarding the endnotes. This global fix may have made the changes appear more extensive than they were."
no subject
According to Politico, the updated version removes a passage outlining how Bill Clinton gave paid speeches to TD Bank, a shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline, and the bank said it would begin selling its shares in Keystone after Hillary Clinton left the State Department. But author Peter Schweizer reportedly cited a fake press release as his source for TD Bank's plans to sell its Keystone shares.
Dan Rather was fired for less.