President Donald Trump

[GwynnInTheHall]

Speaking of which, has our fearless head conspiracy theorist condemned the act of domestic terrorism? I haven't seen or heard anything yet. I wonder if it has anything to with the guy being white.

Hasn't said a word about the 63 year old white male who believes 5G is a thing , Q anon quack who blew herself up. Thank god he didn't take anyone with him

BTW My 5G is still working fine.

[The Feral Slasher]

He's a selfish, self-serving A-hole. However, he is a driven, extremely competent, and well-organized A-hole. Hence, the next President of the USA.

J

Wrong ! Sorry, Ted

[umjewman]

Wrong ! Sorry, Ted

It warms my heart that my working theory that OneJ is Ted Cruz is still around after all this time.

[Judge Jude]

Oh great, now they are saying the Nashville bombing suspect was a 5G conspiracy theorist.

do you have a link? haven't found any mention of this in any American media sources, including NY Times, Wash Post, and USA Today.

[Moonlight J]

do you have a link? haven't found any mention of this in any American media sources, including NY Times, Wash Post, and USA Today.

https://www.newsweek.com/why-nashville-bomb-investigators-feared-copycat-attacks-5g-conspiracists-1557485

[Judge Jude]

unfortunately, 2020 Newsweek is about as much "Newsweek" as 2020 SI is "SI" - they are name-legacy zombies.

from Columbia Journalism Review last year:

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/newsweek.php

"Newsweek has the name and the professional website it has built in years past, but it’s increasingly repurposing the work of others—whether the Washington Post, the outrage fiends at Fox News, or a dozen people on Twitter—and packaging it as its own. Plenty of news sites aggregate, and in many ways the story of Newsweek is the story of the industry.

But whereas other aggregators—Mashable, BuzzFeed, Upworthy; the list goes on—built their sites around this kind of internet-first strategy, Newsweek is selling off its own legacy while hoping that readers won’t notice. Reporters and editors there tell me they’re willing to do good work; the question is whether Newsweek is willing, or even able, to find a business model that allows them to do it."

.....................................

"With two years of near-constant editorial changes behind them, many journalists at Newsweek have found their jobs increasingly difficult to do well—or at all.

For most of the dozen or so reporters in the New York office, the day starts early. Their first story is supposed to be filed by 9am, and before it can be written, the story must be pitched to an editor over Slack in the form of a headline.

In theory, these headlines appeal both to a reader and to Google’s algorithms, but in practice the algorithm takes precedence. Editors sometimes suggest more viral headlines, or pitch headlines themselves using Google Trends or Chartbeat. (Lack of knowledge on a topic doesn’t stop them from assigning stories, which has led to Newsweek wrongly declaring that Japanese citizens want to go to war with North Korea and incorrectly reporting that the girlfriend of Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock was a polygamist.)"

.......................

"On March 20, Nancy Cooper, the editor in chief of Newsweek, sent an email to her editorial staff. The subject was “What is a Newsweek story? ”— an odd question at an eighty-six-year-old newsmagazine once considered one of the “big three,” alongside Time and the US News & World Report.

"The email contained four requirements for any story published on Newsweek.com. One, it must contain original reporting. Two, it must provide a unique angle or new information. Three, the reader must care about it. And four, the news must be news."

.........................

"Cooper’s push for original reporting is in part about writing for Google News, which promotes original reporting higher than aggregated pieces in search results. For the same reason, Newsweek reporters are instructed that a story must be a minimum of four hundred words; to hit this number, one reporter says, he would pad an article about a movie by listing the cast members or summarizing an actor’s previous film credits.

.........................

now look at that Newsweek story. Original reporting of "The theory that fears of 5G technology might have been behind the Nashville bombing on Christmas Day prompted federal, state and local law enforcement officials to focus on the possibility of additional or copycat threats to U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, according to restricted government threat warnings exclusively obtained by Newsweek."

now, maybe somebody working in a grim byline factory has better US national security sources than those making a good living at major news outlets - or maybe they just made it up (especially tempting in a case like this, since if he DOES turn out to have a 5G conspiracy connection, this looks prescient).

there's a weak-sauce effort to tie in an issue in Memphis last year as "Tennessee a hotbed," as if they are the twin cities or something. and the rest of the article is just a rehash of already-published info - or "padding," as Newsweek's own call it.

but kudos to the writer, who no doubt got a free Wendy's Frosty coupon for this one.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Here are a couple places where I have seen the rumors:

https://www.wsmv.com/news/fbi-agents-investigating-if-5g-paranoia-was-behind-nashville-bombing/article_952f937e-47f9-11eb-b1c3-bfda1689fb18.amp.html

https://nypost.com/2020/12/27/fbi-probing-if-nashville-bomber-was-paranoid-about-5g-technology/

I haven't seen any confirmation of the rumors from official sources.

[Judge Jude]

one is from a guy who says law enforcement asked him if a 5G issue might be a possible motive. so that doesn't tell us anything.

"Fridrich confirms that agents asked him whether or not Warner had paranoia about 5G technology. Fridrich told the agents that Warner had never spoken to him about that."

the other is from a source roundly mocked around here (often justifiably) that simply parrots the story above (at least it provides a link).

so who is this mysterious 'they' in: "they are saying the Nashville bombing suspect was a 5G conspiracy theorist." ?

it's not law enforcement in that link, the angle remains invisible at the national media level in spite of hundreds of reporters chasing down leads, and we have a clickbait sweatshop very likely tossing up a Hail Mary.

seems like "they" is doing most of the heavy lifting here.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I have no desire for you to act like RJ is your newspaper and you are my editor.

It's a rumor. I pointed you at a couple sources for it. You could say thanks and move on.

[Ken]

You could say thanks and move on.

Hell would freeze over first.

[Judge Jude]

this is RJ, as it began 2020, and how it ends:

"they are saying the Nashville bombing suspect was a 5G conspiracy theorist."

three other RJers blindly accept this "fact" as they comment.

this seemed interesting, so I ask, "do you have a link? haven't found any mention of this in any American media sources, including NY Times, Wash Post, and USA Today. "

one newsweek.com link is quickly provided in good faith - though, as noted, that's no longer a reputable source.

then "Here are a couple places where I have seen the rumors."

of course, it's only one place, since the second place just rewrote the first. and even the first did not offer a "rumor" - oh, now the claim has been demoted - but rather had a mention that law enforcement asked a routine question.

when this is noted, the snarky response is, "I have no desire for you to act like RJ is your newspaper and you are my editor. It's a rumor. I pointed you at a couple sources for it. You could say thanks and move on. "

first of all, before it supposedly was a mere "rumor" here, it was quite a bit more confident: "they are saying the Nashville bombing suspect was a 5G conspiracy theorist."

once no "they" could be produced - unless randos on Twitter have become coin of the realm in these parts -the deflection effort is "it's just a rumor."

to top it off, after failing to come up with more than a single article that mentions a single person who was asked a 5G question about the bomber - and the person said he had heard of no such thing - I am told to "say thanks and move on" for failing to produce anything of value.

and since critical thinking has been banned on RJ, the first response of course is to rally 'round the guy who tossed out what, so far, is 'fake news.'

ok, I get it. you guys made your bed.

but it would be nice if some of you weren't so smug in mocking other people for blindly believing everything their 'leaders' tell them.

the mocking part actually is justified. but the attitude of "but we're too smart to make any mistakes like that" - well......

and now, let the ad hominens and deflections begin!

[GwynnInTheHall]

this is RJ, as it began 2020, and how it ends:

"they are saying the Nashville bombing suspect was a 5G conspiracy theorist."

three other RJers blindly accept this "fact" as they comment.

this seemed interesting, so I ask, "do you have a link? haven't found any mention of this in any American media sources, including NY Times, Wash Post, and USA Today. "

one newsweek.com link is quickly provided in good faith - though, as noted, that's no longer a reputable source.

then "Here are a couple places where I have seen the rumors."

of course, it's only one place, since the second place just rewrote the first. and even the first did not offer a "rumor" - oh, now the claim has been demoted - but rather had a mention that law enforcement asked a routine question.

when this is noted, the snarky response is, "I have no desire for you to act like RJ is your newspaper and you are my editor. It's a rumor. I pointed you at a couple sources for it. You could say thanks and move on. "

first of all, before it supposedly was a mere "rumor" here, it was quite a bit more confident: "they are saying the Nashville bombing suspect was a 5G conspiracy theorist."

once no "they" could be produced - unless randos on Twitter have become coin of the realm in these parts -the deflection effort is "it's just a rumor."

to top it off, after failing to come up with more than a single article that mentions a single person who was asked a 5G question about the bomber - and the person said he had heard of no such thing - I am told to "say thanks and move on" for failing to produce anything of value.

and since critical thinking has been banned on RJ, the first response of course is to rally 'round the guy who tossed out what, so far, is 'fake news.'

ok, I get it. you guys made your bed.

but it would be nice if some of you weren't so smug in mocking other people for blindly believing everything their 'leaders' tell them.

the mocking part actually is justified. but the attitude of "but we're too smart to make any mistakes like that" - well......

and now, let the ad hominens and deflections begin!

You forgot to say--One of them made a joke about it.

We may never know his true motivation, or we may who knows. who care?

The real story is this--Trump has said/done NOTHING about this tragedy--we can assume (and would probably be right) that if the Bomber were--Of Color, Democrat, Progressive, an Immigrant or a Muslim, he'd be ALL over the media shitting his pants. But He's not, maybe because the guy was white, maybe because he's checked out--who knows.

The 5G angle has some legs. WHY park in front of the ATT store? Why do everything you can to make sure there are FEW or NO casualties (the warning, countdown etc--Christmas Day)? Seems his beef was with someTHING not someONE.

But you're right--we have been quick to call you and other Right leaning RJrs out for blindly following a POS for close to 4 years so call us out for connecting dots in a case though unproven, seems very similar to other bullshit the MAGA cult or QANON are inclined to embrace and act upon.

No deflection, No attacks (unless you identify as a MAGA/QANON type then, well you deserve it.

Have a great 2021, I know I will!

[DMT]

I don't recall JJ ever expressing support for Shithead.

[Kevin Seitzer]

this is RJ, as it began 2020, and how it ends:

"they are saying the Nashville bombing suspect was a 5G conspiracy theorist."

three other RJers blindly accept this "fact" as they comment.

this seemed interesting, so I ask, "do you have a link? haven't found any mention of this in any American media sources, including NY Times, Wash Post, and USA Today. "

one newsweek.com link is quickly provided in good faith - though, as noted, that's no longer a reputable source.

then "Here are a couple places where I have seen the rumors."

of course, it's only one place, since the second place just rewrote the first. and even the first did not offer a "rumor" - oh, now the claim has been demoted - but rather had a mention that law enforcement asked a routine question.

when this is noted, the snarky response is, "I have no desire for you to act like RJ is your newspaper and you are my editor. It's a rumor. I pointed you at a couple sources for it. You could say thanks and move on. "

first of all, before it supposedly was a mere "rumor" here, it was quite a bit more confident: "they are saying the Nashville bombing suspect was a 5G conspiracy theorist."

once no "they" could be produced - unless randos on Twitter have become coin of the realm in these parts -the deflection effort is "it's just a rumor."

to top it off, after failing to come up with more than a single article that mentions a single person who was asked a 5G question about the bomber - and the person said he had heard of no such thing - I am told to "say thanks and move on" for failing to produce anything of value.

and since critical thinking has been banned on RJ, the first response of course is to rally 'round the guy who tossed out what, so far, is 'fake news.'

ok, I get it. you guys made your bed.

but it would be nice if some of you weren't so smug in mocking other people for blindly believing everything their 'leaders' tell them.

the mocking part actually is justified. but the attitude of "but we're too smart to make any mistakes like that" - well......

and now, let the ad hominens and deflections begin!

I have no issue with you questioning my sources. I wasn't clear in my first post that it was rumors. Hopefully I cleared that up in my second post.

I do think it's an interesting rumor in that it provides a plausible explanation for something that otherwise makes no sense. It may well turn out to be false. It is nonetheless interesting to discuss. I do not believe that every post in this forum needs to hold to the standard of what would be published in a newspaper.

I saw some other stuff on Twitter where people said that the bomber had posted 5G conspiracy stuff on his Facebook. I haven't done any investigative journalism on this myself because I didn't feel the need. Hopefully it's clear now what the level of sources are on this (rumors based on what FBI agents are asking people about).

I have no problem with questions or disagreements. I just wish you didn't take opportunities to catch me in "gotchas" because I didn't word things perfectly the way you would like. If you don't want to act like this is the informal conversational environment where we can give each other some benefit of the doubt, that's fine, but it will greatly reduce my desire to participate in conversations with you.

[Judge Jude]

well, a Nashville bombing is not something useful for potential political talking points for me.

and yes, I spent the last two Super Bowl Sundays on a work weekend on the very street that was bombed.

the bar/restaurant that we rented out, I am told, had all its windows blown out and I also am told that the entrance/lobby is pretty much gone.

I have many work colleagues who live very close to there, so whether this was a lone wolf or a member of a massive conspiracy is of vital interest to me.

I just don't think that a well-respected member of any online community ought to be tossing out flippant "they are saying" rando conspiracies of the day so carelessly. the next 2 posts afterwards here backed the "rumor" and others rallied to you.

"I saw some other stuff on Twitter" - Seitzer, you don't want to be a leader, I get it.

but in this forum, you are (for obvious reasons). deal with it.

feels like almost nobody here except me (and belatedly, you) is questioning whether we should be so sure that this is a 5G + Quanon conspiracy theorist. you helped poison the well, like it or not.

and much respect to DMT for not fearing the mob in accurately reflecting my positions. 'right-leaning' (and left-leaning) impressions people make of others comes from a parallax view - basically, the further you divert from the center, the more inaccurate your sense of reality becomes.

"The 5G angle has some legs. WHY park in front of the ATT store?"

um, does that sound familiar? have you ever seen some interviews on Fox News and heard the same sentiments? did it make you wonder why they just start with an assumption, and then backfill to fit their agenda? do you think that makes sense?

look, in the end, do you guys prefer to believe that this guy is a 5G/Quanon nut, regardless of the truth (which btw we don't know yet)?

would you rather not pop in here and have a bunch of posters reinforce rumors that your echo chamber already has told you to believe - especially if it turns out to be false?

I sincerely hope the latter sentiment about getting facts not fiction - but I am not optimistic.

there's no reason to 'need' this guy to be another talking point - you have plenty already. let's wait and see how this plays out, and let's treat each other better by trying to pass along more than rando Twitter rants and unreliable rumors.