A bit fringe, don't you think? Foreign Policy Journal (is not Foreign Policy) only shares one of these interesting mails. Then, the Global Research's article was republished from "A Sheep No More" that claims that "is no longer plugged into the Matrix like the many sheep who are still programmed to believe that they have correct information provided by a varied and “independent media.” Vice speculates without coming close to conclusion.
metabunk/snopes aren't proof of anything, they're just as biased as anyone. Just because I call myself a fact checker, doesn't mean I actually am. What's your issue with the email? Do you think Wikileaks faked it?
Well, it is just your opinion. Definitely you should adopt meaning of phrase "reliable and validated source". Btw, nearly 3 years UK's media regulator Ofcom said that RT's channel breached its legally binding Broadcasting Code on nine occasions. Controversies are more.
They would say that wouldn't they, Russia is the boogeyman, perhaps they should be "reliable and validated" like CNN.
Btw, I don't trust RT 100% either, I get news from many sources and try and work out what's going on. Everybody puts their spin on it, everyone has an agenda. There's no 100% "reliable and validated source".
A bit fringe, don't you think? Foreign Policy Journal (is not Foreign Policy) only shares one of these interesting mails. Then, the Global Research's article was republished from "A Sheep No More" that claims that "is no longer plugged into the Matrix like the many sheep who are still programmed to believe that they have correct information provided by a varied and “independent media.” Vice speculates without coming close to conclusion.
The email is from Hillary Clinton, you can read it yourself, who cares who published it?
Right, but one has to care and analyze , then look for solid proofs. https://www.metabunk.org/claim-hillary-clintons-emails-reveal-libyan-invasion-result-of-monetary-policy.t7188/
metabunk/snopes aren't proof of anything, they're just as biased as anyone. Just because I call myself a fact checker, doesn't mean I actually am. What's your issue with the email? Do you think Wikileaks faked it?
https://www.rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/
Well, it is just your opinion. Definitely you should adopt meaning of phrase "reliable and validated source". Btw, nearly 3 years UK's media regulator Ofcom said that RT's channel breached its legally binding Broadcasting Code on nine occasions. Controversies are more.
They would say that wouldn't they, Russia is the boogeyman, perhaps they should be "reliable and validated" like CNN.
Btw, I don't trust RT 100% either, I get news from many sources and try and work out what's going on. Everybody puts their spin on it, everyone has an agenda. There's no 100% "reliable and validated source".