11/03/2020 / By News Editors
Most fact-checking organizations are bullies, who ignore the lies told by far-left publications like CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Buzzfeed, and others while focusing instead on labeling conservative news websites as fake or mostly fake news.
(Article by Patty McMurray republished from 100PercentFedUp.com)
NewsGuard, a relative newcomer in the self-appointed arbiter of truth game, is certainly no exception.
Four days ago, Shayna Elliot of NewsGuard, sent an email to 1oo Percent Fed Up informing us that they were planning to write a report “highlighting social media
NewsGuard’s Shayna Elliot wrote to 100 Percent Fed Up on Wednesday:
Your Facebook account (100 Percent Fed Up) is included based on a post* reviewed by NewsGuard which claims “372,000 mail-in ballots rejected” in “critical swing state” Pennsylvania, when in reality 372,000 ballot applications were rejected, a seemingly small but crucial distinction. Voters who were denied a mail-in ballot are still able to vote in person.
If you would like to include an on the record comment, please let me know as soon as possible. We intend to publish our report tomorrow morning, Wednesday, October 28.
100 Percent Fed Up co-owner Patty McMurray responded to Elliot’s email:
Hi Shayna. My name is Patty McMurray. I wrote the article you are referring to. Unfortunately, when we wrote the article, ProPublica, the source we used that broke the story did not, from what I recall, mention “applications,” but instead, focused on mail-in-ballots. We were given a fact check violation by Lead Stories. We immediately corrected our title to add “applications,” and within hours, the fact check violation was removed. End of story.
If you want to talk about election-related misinformation, you might want to focus on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, etc., who all reported a lie that President Trump was somehow working with the Russians to get elected, when in fact, it was the Democrats and Deep State who pushed a lie about the now disproven Steele Dossier, funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. You might also want to look into Hunter Biden’s emails and question why the mainstream media refuses to report on his father’s involvement in his dirty foreign deals. But alas, your focus is on the big stuff, like mail-in-applications vs. mail-in-ballots.
NewsGuard is of no interest to me. Feel free to write whatever you’d like. I’ve actually been waiting for the moment your organization attempted to threaten me again so I could write about NewsGuard and the research I did on the last guy who threatened me from your organization. I’ve taken over 100 screenshots of David Lepeska’s anti- Trump tweets, yet he was posing as a neutral “fact-checker” for your organization when he contacted us and asked us to give him information that we felt was none of his business. Your so-called “fact-check” group behaves more like a mob with a shakedown mentality than a professional organization. I will not be threatened by you or anyone at NewsGuard over the prospect of receiving negative press from you. We are two moms who’ve been publishing accurate conservative news for over 7 years. We have over 2.5 million followers who appreciate our hard work and dedication to the truth. NewsGuard is irrelevant to us.
Please feel free to print my statement (in bold).
– Patty McMurray
Today, only 4 days before the general election, NewsGuard published their ridiculous smear article titled:
Tagged Under:
banned, Censored, Censorship, conservatives, elections, Facebook, Fact-checking, newsguard, politics, Social media, speech police, thought police
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
COPYRIGHT © 2018 SPEECHPOLICE.NEWS
All content posted on this site is protected under Free Speech. SpeechPolice.news is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. SpeechPolice.news assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and service marks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.