[FreeReign]

There’s a segment of FR that can’t separate the important facts from the made up stuff at GP.

I’m pretty sure that “the made up stuff at GP” is the entire problem.

I'm pretty sure there is indeed important stuff that needs to be separated from the made up stuff.

[Jamestown1630]

Why would we want to read a site that includes ‘made up stuff’ in the first place?

(It’s not like we can equate GP with Franklin’s ‘Silence Dogood’ writings...)

[Pelham]

“I’m pretty sure there is indeed important stuff that needs to be separated from the made up stuff.”

And you know which of GP’s claims is real, and which of their claims is made up, how, exactly? Do you roll dice? Throw darts?

Why do you think anyone would take your judgement seriously when you’re using a source that YOU know makes stuff up?

Before the internet, conservative journalism thrived and wasn’t making stuff up. Human Events. National Review. American Spectator. University Bookman. Intercollegiate Review.

Now with the internet we instead have a tidal wave of grifters and conspiracy nutbags making stuff up. There’s progress for ya.