Txdigest.com

Not one person thought to fact check this blaring headline.

Then repeated by lots of liberals

Even Rachael Maddow retweeted.

Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says
“The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated,” Dr. Jason McElyea said

They posted a picture with the story of people wearing coats, in September, in Oklahoma, waiting inline.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... d-1220608/

The story is so crazy only a liberal would believe it.

Fake news rules the day. It's gotten so bad that you can generally assume the opposite of whatever you see on the news.

When I clicked on it, they had already posted an update, basically discounting much of the story. Good for them.

rusty wrote:When I clicked on it, they had already posted an update, basically discounting much of the story. Good for them.

You are absolutely correct.

The headline is still above the correction.

We all realize that few people will read past the headline.

When did Rolling Stone become a breaking news source for anything ?

John in Plano wrote:When did Rolling Stone become a breaking news source for anything ?

A lot of big players bought into this story without question.

Drew Holden, the keeper of receipts, has a whole thread on it.

Here's one, and you're welcome to see the rest at the link.

But the real champion of this tall tale was
@MSNBC
. @maddow
had a tweet about it that went viral.

She’s got an audience of millions of people and couldn’t be bothered to even look into a story that pretty obviously doesn’t pass the sniff test.

https://twitter.com/DrewHolden360/statu ... 3855753220

It gets even worse.

Sangersteve wrote:

John in Plano wrote:When did Rolling Stone become a breaking news source for anything ?

A lot of big players bought into this story without question.

Drew Holden, the keeper of receipts, has a whole thread on it.

Here's one, and you're welcome to see the rest at the link.

But the real champion of this tall tale was
@MSNBC
. @maddow
had a tweet about it that went viral.

She’s got an audience of millions of people and couldn’t be bothered to even look into a story that pretty obviously doesn’t pass the sniff test.

https://twitter.com/DrewHolden360/statu ... 3855753220

Unless there is a date in that link that answers my question I ain't looking.

Your welcome to answer or ignore questions I post.

Entertainers and magazines geared to entertain haven't been my source for breaking news in decades.

JSYK
NTYC

John in Plano wrote:Your welcome to answer or ignore questions I post.

Entertainers and magazines geared to entertain haven't been my source for breaking news in decades.

JSYK
NTYC

Here's your answer

Rolling Stone is an American biweekly magazine and website that focuses on popular culture. It was founded in San Francisco in 1967 by Jann Wenner, who is still the magazine’s publisher. Although they are primarily known as a Music Magazine, it has a long history of covering politics. Its reporting can be very in-depth and well researched.

Now even if Rolling Stone is not where most people might not go for breaking news, Since the story was picked up by a lot of other outlets that some people go to for breaking news, fake news is still fake news.

What difference does it make where it originated?

Thanks
I've never been a reader of Rolling Stones

John in Plano wrote:Thanks
I've never been a reader of Rolling Stones

Heck, I have never been a fan of the Rolling Stones.

My bad for not answering the question.

The original source is important to me because of the numerous times , on the internet, news posted with a link isn't the original source ......And many times when the original source is found the information found is far different than the news posted.

The original source is irrelevant. Anybody that publishes a story without doing their own verification is guilty of journalistic malpractice.