CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[Circe]

OT:

Well, now I suppose I understand how you came to notice religious allusion in the cave image I earlier posted.​

No, I'm using God as a metaphor here. I'm not myself religious, but it is a useful metaphor, especially for "everything."

 

[Circe]

Because CNN has been caught making up crap about Trump? This isn't rocket science. You lie about the president and he'll call you out on it.

I love that about Trump. Don't bring it, won't be there, is the new saying. But if somebody does attack him, whammo! Quite right. I need to do that more. It's a great relationship idea. He has others that are very useful: like quick forgiving and forgetting. Congress LOVES that.

 

[Circe]

The "old" standard remain. New standards have been added to them. There's nothing amiss about that.

Oh, Xelor --- are you saying you are HAPPY about the catastrophe that has happened to news reporting? It is your thread --- are you on the side of there being no problem at all with "fake news"?

 

[Circe]

Example: Trump fired Comey. That's a fact.
The way he did it was not the best way to do it. That's a fact.
The timing of it was unfortunate. That's a fact.

What is not a fact but is promoted as one by the fake news and those parroting it is that Trump fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation. There is absolutely zero proof or even probable rationale for that. And they interpreted, without any foundation or further exploration to verify their impression, that when Trump said he did consider the Russian investigation in his decision to fire Comey, that he was admitting he did it to obstruct the investigation. Which considering everything else is absurd on the face of it.

Hmmmmmm......I'd say "Trump fired Comey" comes as close as need be to what I'd call a "fact" these days, even though I try not to use that word anymore.

But the other two legs of your syllogism are surely opinions? "best way to do it" and "timing unfortunate" are opinion markers.

I think the opposite: "You're fired!" was a great way to do it, and the timing was good in that the sooner the better suited me: Comey was working up to a coup d'état, IMO.

 

[Circe]

it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

Interpretation of what the facts imply, portend, contradict, etc. is by definition commentary on the news. As commentary, it is not news; thus it is neither fake news nor not-fake news. As it's not news at all, what it is is something other than news. It's not even trying to be news, yet folks who call it seem to think otherwise and make themselves look asinine by calling it fake news.

"Fake news" is a new idiom: you don't like idioms, or maybe the amazingly rapid changes in language going on now? As a descriptionist, not a prescriptionist, re language, I love the new language usages, most of them. I don't like "pornstache," which I saw just this month of December in TWO novels sequentially! Apparently it's some kind of mustache, and I would pay money not to google a picture of that construction. Improvements in communication (the Internet) always change the language almost out of recognition, and here it goes again.

 

[Foxfyre]

[

Example: Trump fired Comey. That's a fact.
The way he did it was not the best way to do it. That's a fact.
The timing of it was unfortunate. That's a fact.

What is not a fact but is promoted as one by the fake news and those parroting it is that Trump fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation. There is absolutely zero proof or even probable rationale for that. And they interpreted, without any foundation or further exploration to verify their impression, that when Trump said he did consider the Russian investigation in his decision to fire Comey, that he was admitting he did it to obstruct the investigation. Which considering everything else is absurd on the face of it.

Hmmmmmm......I'd say "Trump fired Comey" comes as close as need be to what I'd call a "fact" these days, even though I try not to use that word anymore.

But the other two legs of your syllogism are surely opinions? "best way to do it" and "timing unfortunate" are opinion markers.

I think the opposite: "You're fired!" was a great way to do it, and the timing was good in that the sooner the better suited me: Comey was working up to a coup d'état, IMO.

As somebody who has been in the position of hiring and firing personnel, I think I am on pretty solid ground to say that the proper way is to do it face to face or at least notify the person by mail before it is announced on the internet or in the media. Perhaps it is my opinion that Trump blew the firing on that score, but it is an informed opinion.

And perhaps it is my opinion that the timing was awkward, but it is supported by all the speculation and fake news that it has generated.

And re your opinion of the sooner, the better, I would agree with you with the caveat that in the prevailing political climate, there was no good time to do it. I do trust the informed opinion of competent people that he had to go.

 

[Circe]

As somebody who has been in the position of hiring and firing personnel, I think I am on pretty solid ground to say that the proper way is to do it face to face or at least notify the person by mail before it is announced on the internet or in the media. Perhaps it is my opinion that Trump blew the firing on that score, but it is an informed opinion.

Oh, I see what you mean: on a personal basis. Well, you do have a point there.

 

[Foxfyre]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban..

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," it said.

His campaign statements were in fact part of the basis for most of the law suits challenging his temporary ban. And you didn't mention that fact at all.

In fact- in the (Left) mainstream media, the stated reasons why Trump was ordered the temporary ban were almost always part of the lead.

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
The executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump border policy: Who's affected?
Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?
On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries
But what is the order, dubbed the "Muslim ban" by those rallying against it, and who exactly does it affect?

Here are some key points from the full text explained.

What is the order?

• 
  
  
  • It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
  • There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
  • And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension

• 
  
  
  • The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
  • Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria

Indeed he did often campaign on restricting Muslims with the caveat that he wasn't suggesting a permanent ban. And he also equated it with numerous WWII policies in the USA and other countries restricting travel and/or entry of citizens from Germany, Italy, and Japan when we had no way to know if citizens from those countries were friends or spies/saboteurs. Current a radical, ruthless Islam is the #1 most dangerous enemy of the USA.

One of President Trump's more endearing qualities as well as a glaring weakness due to how it makes him vulnerable to his enemies, is thinking out loud. It is a trait you often see in strong extroverts who rapidly go from Plan A to B to C to D etc. in thought processes in working out what the solution or policy should be. The intellectually honest understand and allow that even though at times an off the top of his head comment, usually expressed in an incomplete thought, is cringeworthy. Those who hate him will pluck one or more statements from the whole process and hold it up as what he has proposed and they usually characterize that dishonestly.

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in. And when it is dishonestly reported publicly, it becomes another example of fake news.

NBC news, uncharacteristically perhaps, did some commendable reporting in this collection of Trump statements on the subject.
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, Deportations

Trump haters will see all of that as bad, indecisive, lying, waffling, flip flopping etc. etc. etc. and Trump hating media too often makes it all into fake news. More objective people I would hope would see it for what it is, i.e. working out a practical policy as such difficult, complicated, and controversial policy is usually worked out. In Trump's case though, the process has been unusually visible and audible. And that makes him more vulnerable to attacks by those who hate him and/or want him to fail and don't care if they mischaracterize his intent and motives when they say so.

 

[Syriusly]

Lets talk about this bit of "Fake News"

We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2017

In this tweet- President Trump says that all of the Networks are dishonest and corrupt- but not Fox.

Why? Is there any empirical evidence that President Trump is relying upon to show that NBC, and ABC and CBS and CNN are all dishonest and corrupt- but Fox is not?

Or is it just Fake News- because President Trump likes how Fox is everything that the other networks are- but biased towards him- not against him?

Because CNN has been caught making up crap about Trump? This isn't rocket science. You lie about the president and he'll call you out on it.

Is there any empirical evidence that President Trump is relying upon to show that NBC, and ABC and CBS and CNN are all dishonest and corrupt- but Fox is not?

 

[Syriusly]

If the fake news would be 50/50 for dem and repub it would be one thing, but finding fake news from CNN about Obama is about as rare as finding water on Mars. With all fake news being against Trump. it becomes a bias. Which we knew about already.

Nobody errors 100% for one side or the other. That's no longer an error when its 100% against one candidate or person.

LOL- there was plenty of Fake News about Obama- from Fox and Infowars and Breitbart. Just as there is Fake News from Fox in support of Trump.

Certainly there is a bias CNN against Trump- just as Fox has a huge bias towards Trump.

Has CNN or Fox erred 100% for one side or another? Or is it that Trump only notices when the error makes him look bad?

 

[Syriusly]

The "old" standard remain. New standards have been added to them. There's nothing amiss about that.

Oh, Xelor --- are you saying you are HAPPY about the catastrophe that has happened to news reporting? It is your thread --- are you on the side of there being no problem at all with "fake news"?

There is a real issue with "Fake News"- real Fake News- such as that generated by Russia and just by assholes on the internet- which people recycle over and over on the internet and sometimes gets picked up by legitimate news sources.

Then there is the fake issue with "Fake News"- which is that all of the media- except Fox and Breitbart- are all corrupt- and that everything that they say against Trump is biased so none of it can be trusted.

That is the story being promoted by the Right. And it is a continuation of a trend of attacking the media since Watergate.

I firmly believe that the biggest threat is not the occasional incorrect story published with anonymous sources- it is the effort to convince the public to not trust anything put out by the media.

Instead- trust what is put out by Trump, or the RNC, or the DNC.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yes CNN has errored 100% in Trumps direction since he became a candidate in 2016.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "old" standard remain. New standards have been added to them. There's nothing amiss about that.

Oh, Xelor --- are you saying you are HAPPY about the catastrophe that has happened to news reporting? It is your thread --- are you on the side of there being no problem at all with "fake news"?

There is a real issue with "Fake News"- real Fake News- such as that generated by Russia and just by assholes on the internet- which people recycle over and over on the internet and sometimes gets picked up by legitimate news sources.

Then there is the fake issue with "Fake News"- which is that all of the media- except Fox and Breitbart- are all corrupt- and that everything that they say against Trump is biased so none of it can be trusted.

That is the story being promoted by the Right. And it is a continuation of a trend of attacking the media since Watergate.

I firmly believe that the biggest threat is not the occasional incorrect story published with anonymous sources- it is the effort to convince the public to not trust anything put out by the media.

Instead- trust what is put out by Trump, or the RNC, or the DNC.

When the media is predominantly putting out fake news intended to undermine and/or disable and/or destroy a lawfully elected and lawfully installed government of the USA, they are far more dangerous than Russian or internet pranksters seeing what mischief they can make.

When the media refuses to accurately, honestly, and competently inform the people, it is much more difficult for the people to know what is truth and what is fake.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the fake news would be 50/50 for dem and repub it would be one thing, but finding fake news from CNN about Obama is about as rare as finding water on Mars. With all fake news being against Trump. it becomes a bias. Which we knew about already.

Nobody errors 100% for one side or the other. That's no longer an error when its 100% against one candidate or person.

LOL- there was plenty of Fake News about Obama- from Fox and Infowars and Breitbart. Just as there is Fake News from Fox in support of Trump.

Certainly there is a bias CNN against Trump- just as Fox has a huge bias towards Trump.

Has CNN or Fox erred 100% for one side or another? Or is it that Trump only notices when the error makes him look bad?

Please post some of the 'fake news' from Fox. We have been posting examples from other media entities, so surely you can easily find an example or two to expose Fox?

 

[Syriusly]

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban..

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," it said.

His campaign statements were in fact part of the basis for most of the law suits challenging his temporary ban. And you didn't mention that fact at all.

In fact- in the (Left) mainstream media, the stated reasons why Trump was ordered the temporary ban were almost always part of the lead.

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
The executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump border policy: Who's affected?
Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?
On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries
But what is the order, dubbed the "Muslim ban" by those rallying against it, and who exactly does it affect?

Here are some key points from the full text explained.

What is the order?

• 
  
  
  • It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
  • There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
  • And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension

• 
  
  
  • The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
  • Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in. And when it is dishonestly reported publicly, it becomes another example of fake news.

NBC news, uncharacteristically perhaps, did some commendable reporting in this collection of Trump statements on the subject.
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, Deportations

Fox- I appreciate the chance to discuss this in a rational forum at USMB. I deleted the other parts of your post, not to censor you, but to winnow out your opinion on who Trump is to get back to the ban.

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in.

You are not supporting this claim. Nor are you really responding to my post. I pointed out that the actual news articles after Trump announced his bans generally did report it accurately- and that the news articles themselves didn't call it a 'racial' thing. I posted two citations with examples to show my point.

Generally the news cited what Trump actually said- accurately reporting what Trump said was the intention of his ban. Now many people in the United States disagreed with Trump- accurately also mentioning Trump's campaign rhetoric where he promised to ban all Muslims from coming to the United States- and the news often quoted those people- which is just covering both sides of the story.

I have mentioned my doubts about the ban itself in earlier posts- but I think it would be better for the discussion if we stayed away from policy disputes- and instead focused on the topic- which is generally 'fake news'.

So was there 'Fake News' generated about the ban? Yes it was called by many a Muslim ban- but that came either from editorial pieces- which of course are not the news- or from those who opposed Trump's policies- and whom the newspapers quoted and reported. That doesn't make it "Fake News".

You have made a claim that: But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

So far this appears to be only your unsubstantiated opinion. Personally I think it displays a bias on your part. Because of your terms 'most' and 'almost no mention'- AND because you left out the reason why so many considered this to be part of a bigger plan- Trump's own campaign rhetoric.

 

[Circe]

There is a real issue with "Fake News"- real Fake News- such as that generated by Russia and just by assholes on the internet- which people recycle over and over on the internet and sometimes gets picked up by legitimate news sources.

The Russians! I forgot about the Russkies, but yes, they are definitely a part of the fake news problem. When the Russian trolling started, I was on an historical forum that had foreign current events sections, and it got so infested with Russians, the list disintegrated. And when they did an exposee somewhere on the Russian propaganda efforts, I had actually seen one of them: that photo of some unpleasant-looking black woman furiously waving a sign saying "Gimme more free shit!!" I did NOT forward it, but a whole lot of people did and that is how they get us to magnify their efforts to divide us and start a civil war, or at least get us so focused on each other we don't care what they are up to in the Ukraine.

Then there is the fake issue with "Fake News"- which is that all of the media- except Fox and Breitbart- are all corrupt- and that everything that they say against Trump is biased so none of it can be trusted.

That is the story being promoted by the Right. And it is a continuation of a trend of attacking the media since Watergate.

I firmly believe that the biggest threat is not the occasional incorrect story published with anonymous sources- it is the effort to convince the public to not trust anything put out by the media.

Instead- trust what is put out by Trump, or the RNC, or the DNC.

I don't agree: I don't trust any of it anymore. It's now nearly all fake news because what it really is, is all propaganda. Propaganda has been substituted for news, whatever news is, on both sides. True, a lot of people on each side believe their own slant, but it's gone to propaganda to talk up a coming war. This happened in the 1850s, too. "News" became nothing but propaganda, of the dirtiest kind, much like today.

 

[Syriusly]

The "old" standard remain. New standards have been added to them. There's nothing amiss about that.

Oh, Xelor --- are you saying you are HAPPY about the catastrophe that has happened to news reporting? It is your thread --- are you on the side of there being no problem at all with "fake news"?

There is a real issue with "Fake News"- real Fake News- such as that generated by Russia and just by assholes on the internet- which people recycle over and over on the internet and sometimes gets picked up by legitimate news sources.

Then there is the fake issue with "Fake News"- which is that all of the media- except Fox and Breitbart- are all corrupt- and that everything that they say against Trump is biased so none of it can be trusted.

That is the story being promoted by the Right. And it is a continuation of a trend of attacking the media since Watergate.

I firmly believe that the biggest threat is not the occasional incorrect story published with anonymous sources- it is the effort to convince the public to not trust anything put out by the media.

Instead- trust what is put out by Trump, or the RNC, or the DNC.

When the media is predominantly putting out fake news intended to undermine and/or disable and/or destroy a lawfully elected and lawfully installed government of the USA, they are far more dangerous than Russian or internet pranksters seeing what mischief they can make.

When the media refuses to accurately, honestly, and competently inform the people, it is much more difficult for the people to know what is truth and what is fake.

"predominantly putting out fake news intended to undermine and/or disable and/or destroy a lawfully elected and lawfully installed government of the USA"

Two points:

1. Donald Trump himself did exactly that for 5 years. For 5 years Donald Trump told Americans that President Obama might not be a legitimate President of the United States- to doubt the legitimacy of the lawfully elected and lawfully installed government of the USA- he went onto media and spread the Birther lies, he tweeted his Birther lies. Donald Trump Clung to ‘Birther’ Lie for Years, and Still Isn’t Apologetic. This was just the most egregious example of Trump Fake News generation. When the future President of the United States refuses to accurately, honestly and competantly inform the people- he is working to undermine the faith of the people to trust our government.
2. "predominantly putting out fake news". You really want to claim that any of the media- say CNN is 'predominantly putting out fake news'? See when you make such unsubstantiated hyperbole you undermine your entire argument. Certainly CNN has a bias- as does Fox. But both CNN and Fox predominantly put out actual news- often with a bias- but accurate news with a bias. What you haven't established is that CNN is actually trying to destroy the government of the United States. So far all you have established is that CNN got some stories wrong. And you make the leap from there that all of the media- except the Right Wing media- is all trying to destroy the government of the United States. And I think that just shows your own bias.

 

[Syriusly]

[
I don't agree: I don't trust any of it anymore. It's now nearly all fake news because what it really is, is all propaganda. Propaganda has been substituted for news, whatever news is, on both sides. True, a lot of people on each side believe their own slant, but it's gone to propaganda to talk up a coming war. This happened in the 1850s, too. "News" became nothing but propaganda, of the dirtiest kind, much like today.

So you don't trust any of it anymore.
So you don't believe any of the news about anything anymore.

The news reported about a horrible Amtrak accident outside of Seattle last week- do you not trust that?

What do you do- exactly- to stay 'informed'?

 

[Syriusly]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You have inspired me to check on these 'examples of CNN' putting out 'Fake News'

First of all- lets remember who your 'source' is- which is the Daily Caller- itself a Conservative news site- so hardly unbiased themselves

Lets look at #3- because their bias seems to be pretty clear here
Fake news about fake news
The Daily Caller- itself a conservative news site- claims that CNN was spreading "Fake New about Fake News with this headline:
Mainstream Media Reporting About Twitter ‘Fake News’ Is 100% FALSE

CNN reported that fake news on Twitter was higher in swing states. The report was accompanied by the chyron, “How ‘Fake News’ Spread During Election Week.”

The study CNN cited comes from the Oxford Internet Institute, titled, “Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States?”


The study’s authors’ do not, however, label their study as necessarily being about “fake news.” Instead, the researchers use the term “junk news.”


The bulk of “Polarizing and Conspiracy Content” comes from so-called “junk news” websites, which makes up 79 percent of the content.

Except- the Daily Caller is lying. While the researchers do use the term "Junk News"- they also extensively used the term "Fake News".

And CNN correctly talked about how the article that they were citing talked about Junk News
Here is what CNN said- and which your 'source' calls "100% False!"
Fake election news wasn't just for Facebook feeds. Twitter had its share as well.
"Polarizing and conspiratorial junk news" was as prevalent on Twitter as news from legitimate outlets in the days immediately before and after the US presidential election, a new study out of the University of Oxford released Thursday suggests.


Researchers from the university's Computational Propaganda Project examined more than 7 million tweets sent between November 1-11, 2016, which contained hashtags related to politics and the election. The study has yet to be peer reviewed and the team acknowledged limitations to its methodology.


They split content into categories including professional news, professional political content -- like that from a candidate's campaign -- and "polarizing and conspiracy content" which included objectively fake news websites, Russian sources of political news and WikiLeaks. Oxford researchers said the categories were not intended to be comprehensive.


They found that "polarizing and conspiracy" sources accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced news organizations also accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced political material accounted for 10%. Other political content, including activist blogs and political satire, made up the remaining 50%


Researchers assigned each tweet a location based on Twitter users' biographical information. This allowed them to estimate how fake and polarizing content was shared across individual states -- what they call the "junk news index." The researchers acknowledged that volunteered location information could be misleading in some cases.

And here are some excerpts from the report:
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-cont...17/09/Polarizing-Content-and-Swing-States.pdf
View attachment 167532

View attachment 167533

View attachment 167534

As an aside- in the article- the Daily Caller defends Infowars as a legitimate news organization. Because Infowars has professional journalists.

Do you agree with the Daily Caller that Infowars is as legitimate- as say CNN?

Still waiting for your response to this. You have challenged us a couple times to prove the claims wrong- I spent the time and researched this claim- and yes- the claim that what CNN published was 100% false- is itself false

 

[Circe]

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

Well, I'm wildly for that --- why do you suppose he WON? --

But it's not what this thread is about. The thread is about fake news.