OK.Here's a paragraph. The ++ comments are mine.
Without offering specific attribution, Todd revealed on-air that he had learned for certain that Clinton will not be charged.
++So to paraphrase: No source, but Chuck Todd says Clinton will not be indicted.
So....this is just Chuck Todd spouting off? This is Chuck Todd interviewing a security guard? What? We don't know, because there is no cited source.
Which amounts to, as you like to say, a BIG NOTHINGBURGER.
This information was obvious enough all along to anyone who followed the story accurately, as the FBI had already publicly told the New York Times that she was not even a target of their email investigation.
++How is it obvious? And who is the judge of whether a person is following the story "accurately." OK, I'm starting tire of this ridiculous exercise. This source is pure drivel. How you could even bother posting it is unfathomable.
News outlets knew this all along but decided to play up various misnomers about the story — on cable news in particular — because it seemed to be the only way in which they could get ratings about of Hillary’s otherwise steady and controversy free campaign.
++So how does "the daily news bin" know news outlets knew this all along? Seriously. Did they interview them? Do they have a source for a research study? How would they know this?
Are you starting to get the gist? The author goes on to misuse a word. Earlier, others were misused.
Educated people cannot read drivel like this. Stop posting such garbage. It's a waste of time and bandwidth. It shows absolutely no respect for your audience.
Cher
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
