LostandFound ago

Good spot, can we fire this over to the PG censored list? I cant seem to locate that now, on mobile not tinfoilhattery.

SheSaidDestroy ago

It has been attacked as "fake news" by multiple people/sites:

https://twitter.com/true_pundit/status/793842646808563716 https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-pundit/ http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news-source/true-pundit?page=56

The reason being that the sources were unnamed/anonymous NYPD staff, so no proof.

But at the same time, Washington Post was not called fake news when its source consisted of unnamed "U.S. officials" with no proof.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.d489f119588c

And also received several thousands of comments expressing blind belief in the unnamed/anonymous sources (while also mocking fake news in some cases) and were not considered gullible or crazy by the MSM for doing so.

Why is there a difference in standards?