Rachel Browne makes you hate anatomy

This is why VICE removed comments. So they didn't have to be called out on nonsense stories like this one.

We trace how a narrative morphed and was exploited to suit right-wing interests at a time when there are heightened fears around Islamophobia and the credibility of journalism is at stake.

Did far-left extremist Rachel Browne write about the "anatomy of a false narrative" when her media outlet writes Fake News about Red Indians? How about when they tell patently untrue things about Donald Trump as he stomped Clinton endlessly in the televised debates?

Of course not. But they can endlessly tell you about the fog of war effect^† when Quebec City happened (not Muslims, early report said it was). When the fog of war exposes violent derka derka immigrants, it's a different story...

• Beltway sniper: Muslims, endless reports said it wasn't
• Orlando shooting: Muslim, endless reports said it wasn't
• San Bernardino shooters: Muslims, early reports said it wasn't
• Fort Hood Attack #1: Muslim terrorism, President Monkey claimed it was workplace violence
• Fort Hood Attack #2: Hispanic, endless reports claiming he was a "white hispanic"
• Parliament Hill shootings: Muslims, early reports said it wasn't
• Times Square Bomber: Muslim, NYC mayor said he was a militia member upset about Obamacare
• NYC Pressure Cooker attacks: Muslim, early reports said he wasn't
• Paris Attack #1: Muslims, early reports said it wasn't
• Paris Attack #2: Muslims, early reports said it wasn't
• Berlin Attack #1: Muslims, early reports said it wasn't
• Berlin Attack #2: Muslims, early reports said it wasn't
• Berlin Attack #3: Muslims, early reports said it wasn't
• Nice lorry attack: Muslims, early reports said it was a road rage incident
• Boston Marathon bombing: Muslims, early reports said it wasn't
• 9/11: Muslims, retarded liberals still think Donald Rumsfeld was responsible

^†Early reports are always sketchy. Usually it involves stories about multiple shooters, which is fairly rare. Most of it is pretty sensible: it's probably better as a public policy issue to assume he's one prong of a multi-prong attack than figure once you get one guy the crisis is over and everybody can let their guard back down. Seeing as how the entire Muslim religion is just an excuse to engage in gang warfare, it wasn't too much of a stretch that a Sunni man might join in with a pur de laine to take down a Shi'ite mosque.

When the far-left media morons at VICE start going into the backstory behind these false narratives that push their agenda, then you should read this article. Until then, don't bother.