So the Whitehouse sent out a tweet implying that Scotland wasn't part of the U.K. Are they total dimwits?

@SW-User Why do you think that?

This would have easily made reputable news sources yet none of them have this story.

It's a classic example of how we are manipulated by the internet.

@SW-User it was reported in "The Scotsman" - the most reputable and authorative paper published in Scotland

Scotland's not that big and it seems that "the Scotsman" is #3 for publication.

@SW-User Well if you won't believe what is considered a reputable source that's your affair

BBC, Washington Post, Fox News

@SW-User The official white house twitter account, you can look it up. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/white-house-forgets-scotland-is-part-of-uk

But I like your skepticism.

Do you honestly believe that tweets can't be faked on a fake news site?

@SW-User The BBC then: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-44807972
Down at 19:40

@SW-User https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/donald-trump-baby-uk-visit-14907933

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/white-house-says-scotland-isnt-12914878

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/white-house-forgets-scotland-is-part-of-uk

Where on that page?

@Graylight it doesn’t make it real.

@SW-User Yeah. Yeah it does. This phenomenon of 'negative news must be fake news' didn't exist until 2016. You don't have to believe in it for it to be real.

It was a simple blunder, which they corrected. Defending that mistake with such bluster indicates deep insecurities.

@Graylight or just plain stupidity.

@SW-User Since the BBC is also now not trustworthy, we'll soon be just left with your original opinion, and you can feel secure.

It wasn’t on the bbc site.

@SW-User Just because you haven't seen it on the BBC does not mean it did not happen

This would have easily made reputable news sources yet none of them have this story.

It's a classic example of how we are manipulated by the internet.

@SW-User The whole point of this post is how the story did, in fact, appear in multiple reputable outlets.

Yes and reputable sources (which the list of three aren’t) also retract false stories.

None of the major outlets reported this because it’s fake.

I will present an example later of how easy it is to fake a tweet and make it “news.”

You make a image of a tweet with your own text. Then change a few numbers in a real URL for the same account. Twitter always says that tweet was deleted. Even if it never existed.

Then, have a few of your propaganda websites make it look like a story and you’re done.

This has been going on for years.

@SW-User It appeared on the WH official site. It was removed [i]by[/i] the WH without a word of it being a hoax. It marks the 2nd time the very same mistake has been made.

It's not fake, it's not a hoax...it's also not a big deal. Your blind and rabid defense makes you seem just the slightest bit unhinged.

@SW-User [quote]This would have easily made reputable news sources yet none of them have this story.

It's a classic example of how we are manipulated by [b]the internet[/b].[/quote]


And where do you get your news from pray?

@HerKing "The Conservative Family Values Let's Save America MAGA" site

@Graylight Damn...I forgot about that one!

@Graylight @HerKing I get most of my news from the Washington Post.