AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
They don't have to. That's the tangled web of Western deniability. I remember a while ago I posted in this forum an article from a simple wine journalist. At the time there were all these articles saying the same thing as if it was a bunch of journalists investigating and all confirmed what was happening was true. This simple wine journalist decided for himself to see if this were true which was there was outrage in France that Chinese were buying up all the French vineyards. So he goes to France and starts asking around if this was true. He found that no Chinese were buying French vineyards and only found one who said if that were happening he would have a problem with it. So how did multiple journalists write the same thing that turned out to be wrong? That's the trick of Western journalism to prevent themselves from being sued for lying. They write about what someone else wrote noting it in their article because then all will be blamed on the original for getting it wrong. That's what happened. They loved the conclusion hence why they perpetuated the lie. They didn't care if it was true but overall it says there is nothing that prevents them from lying and doing shady things. They want people to believe so no one doubts what they write.Isn't there some kind of clause that you can't reveal that you were paid to do it and have to present it as your own opinion? Otherwise, it's kinda like athletes/celebrities/models driving a sponsored car but saying it's the ugliest piece of shit they ever saw and wouldn't go near it if they weren't paid. That's actually damage to the company instead. If these people are coming out saying they were paid, I'm thinking it's because the position has become so stupid that they need to disown it or risk reputational damage greater than what they might have to pay back in damages.
Last edited: