CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[Foxfyre]

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.

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, fake news is not necessarily made up news. You can be 100% accurate in reporting but if you report in a way to give the reader/audience a false impression, it then becomes fake news. To take one statement of context and made a huge deal out of it after many other statements significantly qualify that one is just plain dishonest. No honorable, ethical journalist would do it. Instead he/she should report that 'the President raised eyebrows today when he said (whatever)' but it should be noted that he subsequently expanded on the comment with qualifications of. . . .

Putting out the first sentence with no qualifications is accurate, but dishonest nevertheless. When there is a back story that provides context, it must always be included when we know that an extemporaneous statement is not what somebody likely intended.

It was like when President Obama said something to the effect that John McCain had not questioned his Muslim faith, George Stephanopoulos quickly corrected him, "your Christian faith" and then Obama corrected himself. Stephanopoulos knew Muslim faith is not what the President intended to say and he made sure that the statement did not become the story. That is responsible journalism.

Some who have never believed President Obama was a Christian might speculate on that as a Freudian slip and the unethical would even take the one comment out of its full context and present it that way. Honorable people, however, leave room for the fact that it was in inadvertent misspeak in an extemporaneous response.



Another example I think somebody already provided.

When a tired President Obama on the campaign trail quipped that he had visited 57 states with three or four more to go, honorable people might tease him a bit about it but understood that he simply misspoke. (He actually meant 27 states.) The media pretty much correctly did not make any big deal out of it because most of the media supported President Obama.

But when Sarah Palin misspoke and said North Korea when any honest person would know she meant South Korea, the media and pundits were vicious in their rush to condemn her as clueless, ignorant, uneducated, etc. etc. etc. And again their criticism was using an actual quote from her but dishonestly used it to attack and discredit Palin.

So you can be accurate and report an actual event but report it dishonestly and with malice. And in so doing it becomes fake news.

Look I appreciate you giving me your thoughts on what is Fake News and what is not Fake News.

But you really weren't responding to my post.

You claimed that the media:
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

And I said:

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.

Your reply to my post doesn't seem to have anything to do with my post- because my post is challenging your claim. You haven't substantiated that most of the mainstream media claimed what you claimed. You have just asked us to accept your conclusion.

You have some interesting opinions in your post- some of which I might dispute, some I might not- but if I go down that trail- it just leads away from my challenge to you.

You have made a claim- substantiate it.

I am not going to make this yet another tiresome thread of what President Trump said or didn't say, meant or didn't mean with a "Muslim ban". This thread is about how things are reported and whether that is in a way that is honest and ethical or whether it is in a way that is dishonest and unethical and therefore constitutes fake news.

Now if you frame a question in a specific way that relates to how things are reported and that can be evaluated based on actual media coverage, I will be happy to answer it or tell you I don't have an answer.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, fake news is not necessarily made up news. You can be 100% accurate in reporting but if you report in a way to give the reader/audience a false impression, it then becomes fake news. To take one statement of context and made a huge deal out of it after many other statements significantly qualify that one is just plain dishonest. No honorable, ethical journalist would do it. Instead he/she should report that 'the President raised eyebrows today when he said (whatever)' but it should be noted that he subsequently expanded on the comment with qualifications of. . . .

Putting out the first sentence with no qualifications is accurate, but dishonest nevertheless. When there is a back story that provides context, it must always be included when we know that an extemporaneous statement is not what somebody likely intended.

It was like when President Obama said something to the effect that John McCain had not questioned his Muslim faith, George Stephanopoulos quickly corrected him, "your Christian faith" and then Obama corrected himself. Stephanopoulos knew Muslim faith is not what the President intended to say and he made sure that the statement did not become the story. That is responsible journalism.

Some who have never believed President Obama was a Christian might speculate on that as a Freudian slip and the unethical would even take the one comment out of its full context and present it that way. Honorable people, however, leave room for the fact that it was in inadvertent misspeak in an extemporaneous response.



Another example I think somebody already provided.

When a tired President Obama on the campaign trail quipped that he had visited 57 states with three or four more to go, honorable people might tease him a bit about it but understood that he simply misspoke. (He actually meant 27 states.) The media pretty much correctly did not make any big deal out of it because most of the media supported President Obama.

But when Sarah Palin misspoke and said North Korea when any honest person would know she meant South Korea, the media and pundits were vicious in their rush to condemn her as clueless, ignorant, uneducated, etc. etc. etc. And again their criticism was using an actual quote from her but dishonestly used it to attack and discredit Palin.

So you can be accurate and report an actual event but report it dishonestly and with malice. And in so doing it becomes fake news.

Look I appreciate you giving me your thoughts on what is Fake News and what is not Fake News.

But you really weren't responding to my post.

You claimed that the media:
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

And I said:

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.

Your reply to my post doesn't seem to have anything to do with my post- because my post is challenging your claim. You haven't substantiated that most of the mainstream media claimed what you claimed. You have just asked us to accept your conclusion.

You have some interesting opinions in your post- some of which I might dispute, some I might not- but if I go down that trail- it just leads away from my challenge to you.

You have made a claim- substantiate it.

I am not going to make this yet another tiresome thread of what President Trump said or didn't say, meant or didn't mean with a "Muslim ban". This thread is about how things are reported and whether that is in a way that is honest and ethical or whether it is in a way that is dishonest and unethical and therefore constitutes fake news..

Nor did I go into what Trump said- or what he did mean or didn't mean.

You made a very specific claim about the media that this entire thread really revolves around- you used the case of Trump's ban as an example- I didn't bring it up- you did.

Once again:
You claimed that the media:
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

And I said:

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.

Your reply to my post doesn't seem to have anything to do with my post- because my post is challenging your claim. You haven't substantiated that most of the mainstream media claimed what you claimed. You have just asked us to accept your conclusion.

My challenge to you is frankly about the credibility of your claims in this entire thread. You the example I have focused in on is just one- but I am mystified why you won't address it.

You have made a very specific claim about an abuse by the media regarding a specific incident.

I didn't agree with you- and went back and found specific headlines that didn't agree with your claim.

IF you are unable to back up your claim that 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

Then why should any of us accept any of your other unsubstantiated claims?


You have made a claim- substantiate it.

 

[Foxfyre]

If anybody wanted to see a demonstration of media bias, the recent Pew study should illustrate it very well, especially in the first 60 days and it is still 3 to 1 negative now.

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

And this despite a great deal of accomplishment in President Trump's first year of office, most of which was ignored or given only the slightest attention by most of the MSM:

The first half of the year:
President Trump’s Accomplishments (7.14.2017) - TheLead.com

The whole year:
Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed

 

[Lapax]

Good comment EvilEye, It truly is up to the news consumer. When it comes to news and understanding our world, it is important to continue to pay attention and get your news from multiple sources. Individual sources are usually corrected when they get it wrong or cross the line of objectivity (too egregiously) by themselves or media watchers. I usually do not blacklist major news sources when they get it wrong. If I get a half gallon of bad milk from Kroger, I do not stop shopping there forever and I do not give up milk, as it important to my diet. I do not assume they are trying to poison me, although I do sniff before I drink.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good comment EvilEye, It truly is up to the news consumer. When it comes to news and understanding our world, it is important to continue to pay attention and get your news from multiple sources. Individual sources are usually corrected when they get it wrong or cross the line of objectivity (too egregiously) by themselves or media watchers. I usually do not blacklist major news sources when they get it wrong. If I get a half gallon of bad milk from Kroger, I do not stop shopping there forever and I do not give up milk, as it important to my diet. I do not assume they are trying to poison me, although I do sniff before I drink.

But suppose during the year you shopped at Kroger's every week and in 25% of weeks you bought milk, the milk was bad. The next time you needed milk and needed it to be good, would you go to Krogers if you had someplace else to buy it?

I agree though that I don't stop reading/watching MSM just because they get so much wrong. But when they demonstrate obvious dishonest/biased reporting so often re certain topics, I do not rely on them for good information on those topics.

Welcome to USMB by the way. I hope you find a good niche here.

 

[Syriusly]

If anybody wanted to see a demonstration of media bias, the recent Pew study should illustrate it very well, especially in the first 60 days and it is still 3 to 1 negative now.

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

And this despite a great deal of accomplishment in President Trump's first year of office, most of which was ignored or given only the slightest attention by most of the MSM:

The first half of the year:
President Trump’s Accomplishments (7.14.2017) - TheLead.com

The whole year:
Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed

Now you want to conflate media bias with "Fake News"?

 

[Foxfyre]

If anybody wanted to see a demonstration of media bias, the recent Pew study should illustrate it very well, especially in the first 60 days and it is still 3 to 1 negative now.

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

And this despite a great deal of accomplishment in President Trump's first year of office, most of which was ignored or given only the slightest attention by most of the MSM:

The first half of the year:
President Trump’s Accomplishments (7.14.2017) - TheLead.com

The whole year:
Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed

Now you want to conflate media bias with "Fake News"?

When it is biased to the point of dishonesty, it is fake news.

 

[IM2]

There has always been some dishonesty and incompetence in news reporting. The problem today is that the administration is characterizing anything they don't like as "fake news" and a significant proportion of the electorate is swallowing it whole.

Wrong. 0bama whined about FOX all during his regime. The only difference here is that Trump is correct and 0bama was lying.

I do believe that when we look at his record Obama was correct about how Fox portrayed his administration. To this point Trump is the on being dishonest abut the media.

 

[IM2]

The problem with news in this country is extremely serious. The press is the only defense we have against government corruption. With the press firmly and unabashedly on the side of the democrats, no one can trust them.

This leads to politicians on both sides of the isle being able to do as they please. On the right, they can do whatever they want and just claim it’s fake news. On the left they can make up anything they want to and IF the ever get caught, they simply move quickly on to the next made up thing.

In the end we get situations like in Roy Moore’s case. We don’t know what’s true and what isn’t. Those who support him believe it’s a set up by the left and it could very well be since the left never has anyone call them to the carpet. They are above the law. The Moore supporters know that and it bolsters their belief in the conspiracy. Meanwhile, those on the left who get fed a steady diet of left wing slanted news don’t get to hear anything that doesn’t support the narrative about Moore.

What should have happened is the media should be non-partisan and lead the charge against corruption no matter what party they belong to. This would have kept the left honest and given the right news they can believe. Then Moore would be either never bothered or completely fucked depending on wether he’s guilty or not.

It’s terrible. The government is out of control and the people have no way to control them.

Come on. There are better examples of media bias than Roy Moore.

For instance, how many human interest stories do you see on any news station or in any media about the good things or good people in the black and hispaniic communities? Unless its done by a black or hispanic source, you do not see the Hispanic kid who graduated from High School with honors, never with a criminal record, no gang membership, etc. Or the same with the black kid. But you will see any act of violence that goes in in these communities. You won't see the story about the black or hispanic civic group holding the fish fry raise money for something like you do in the white community. If we want to discus media bias, let's talk about legitimate cases. .

 

[PredFan]

There has always been some dishonesty and incompetence in news reporting. The problem today is that the administration is characterizing anything they don't like as "fake news" and a significant proportion of the electorate is swallowing it whole.

Wrong. 0bama whined about FOX all during his regime. The only difference here is that Trump is correct and 0bama was lying.

I do believe that when we look at his record Obama was correct about how Fox portrayed his administration. To this point Trump is the on being dishonest abut the media.

You think that because you listen to them. Nothing FOX said was untrue about Obama. Nearly everything the MSM says about Trump is untrue and easily proven untrue. They don't care, they hate Trump so much that they publish lies and don't care.

 

[PredFan]

The problem with news in this country is extremely serious. The press is the only defense we have against government corruption. With the press firmly and unabashedly on the side of the democrats, no one can trust them.

This leads to politicians on both sides of the isle being able to do as they please. On the right, they can do whatever they want and just claim it’s fake news. On the left they can make up anything they want to and IF the ever get caught, they simply move quickly on to the next made up thing.

In the end we get situations like in Roy Moore’s case. We don’t know what’s true and what isn’t. Those who support him believe it’s a set up by the left and it could very well be since the left never has anyone call them to the carpet. They are above the law. The Moore supporters know that and it bolsters their belief in the conspiracy. Meanwhile, those on the left who get fed a steady diet of left wing slanted news don’t get to hear anything that doesn’t support the narrative about Moore.

What should have happened is the media should be non-partisan and lead the charge against corruption no matter what party they belong to. This would have kept the left honest and given the right news they can believe. Then Moore would be either never bothered or completely fucked depending on wether he’s guilty or not.

It’s terrible. The government is out of control and the people have no way to control them.

Come on. There are better examples of media bias than Roy Moore.

For instance, how many human interest stories do you see on any news station or in any media about the good things or good people in the black and hispaniic communities? Unless its done by a black or hispanic source, you do not see the Hispanic kid who graduated from High School with honors, never with a criminal record, no gang membership, etc. Or the same with the black kid. But you will see any act of violence that goes in in these communities. You won't see the story about the black or hispanic civic group holding the fish fry raise money for something like you do in the white community. If we want to discus media bias, let's talk about legitimate cases. .

I quite often see human interest stories from the Black and Hispanic communities. Sometimes it's all that is ever shown. These days when there is crime in those communities, the press seems to go out of their way to avoid mentioning skin color at all. The Roy Moore case is in fact a real actual case of media bias. But there are more. You cannot possibly try to tell me that the mainstream media isn't firmly on the side of the Democrats.

 

[task0778]

If anybody wanted to see a demonstration of media bias, the recent Pew study should illustrate it very well, especially in the first 60 days and it is still 3 to 1 negative now.

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

And this despite a great deal of accomplishment in President Trump's first year of office, most of which was ignored or given only the slightest attention by most of the MSM:

The first half of the year:
President Trump’s Accomplishments (7.14.2017) - TheLead.com

The whole year:
Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed

Now you want to conflate media bias with "Fake News"?

Fake news is grounded in media bias, it's pretty much the sole reason and purpose behind all these bullshit stories.

 

[Foxfyre]

If anybody wanted to see a demonstration of media bias, the recent Pew study should illustrate it very well, especially in the first 60 days and it is still 3 to 1 negative now.

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

And this despite a great deal of accomplishment in President Trump's first year of office, most of which was ignored or given only the slightest attention by most of the MSM:

The first half of the year:
President Trump’s Accomplishments (7.14.2017) - TheLead.com

The whole year:
Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed

Now you want to conflate media bias with "Fake News"?

Fake news is grounded in media bias, it's pretty much the sole reason and purpose behind all these bullshit stories.

For sure. Bias is a strong part of the fake news media syndrome and probably constitutes the huge lion's share.

The most common definition of bias as it would relate to news media:
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

So the fake news arises out of the reporter's or commentator's dislike of something or someone and his/her resulting unwillingness and/or inability to be objective or fair. The result is distorted reporting full of the reporter's personal opinions and leaving out critical extenuating information whether pro or con that would change the impression the reporter wants. Or burying that extenuating information so that very few readers would ever see it. The reader or audience can be left greatly misinformed or misled. This is what I most often observe on television and in print and it comes out of pure dedicated and dishonestly demonstrated bias.

The rest of the fake news falls into two camps:

1. The sensationalist who makes up something or greatly exaggerates something in order to have something to write/sell/fill space--think maybe Bigfoot sightings or selfies causing head lice or depressed man tries to feed himself to tigers or the purported Lebron Space Jam Sequel or the scream helplessly at the sky rallies.

2. Desire to promote a specific agenda or person and/or attack another and intentionally using false information to do it. Think CBS putting out a story on fake documents re George W. Bush knowing the documents they were using were forgeries. Think Reuters doctoring middle east photos to make the smoke rising from an Israeli attack look much worse than it was. Think of all the really inexplicable and malicious speculation and theories that have filled the news re the purported Russian collusion.

(And to the numbnuts, no I am not going to provide links for these. These are examples not intended for discussion on this thread. If you care, look it up yourselves.)

 

[Foxfyre]

There has always been some dishonesty and incompetence in news reporting. The problem today is that the administration is characterizing anything they don't like as "fake news" and a significant proportion of the electorate is swallowing it whole.

Wrong. 0bama whined about FOX all during his regime. The only difference here is that Trump is correct and 0bama was lying.

I do believe that when we look at his record Obama was correct about how Fox portrayed his administration. To this point Trump is the on being dishonest abut the media.

You think that because you listen to them. Nothing FOX said was untrue about Obama. Nearly everything the MSM says about Trump is untrue and easily proven untrue. They don't care, they hate Trump so much that they publish lies and don't care.

Re the Trump derangement syndrome, so often what they report is either untrue and easily proven untrue - or - it is something they make up or fabricate out of thin air or is their personal opinion that is impossible to verify or disprove.

 

[Foxfyre]

There has always been some dishonesty and incompetence in news reporting. The problem today is that the administration is characterizing anything they don't like as "fake news" and a significant proportion of the electorate is swallowing it whole.

Wrong. 0bama whined about FOX all during his regime. The only difference here is that Trump is correct and 0bama was lying.

I do believe that when we look at his record Obama was correct about how Fox portrayed his administration. To this point Trump is the on being dishonest abut the media.

You think that because you listen to them. Nothing FOX said was untrue about Obama. Nearly everything the MSM says about Trump is untrue and easily proven untrue. They don't care, they hate Trump so much that they publish lies and don't care.

Yes, many Fox commentators were critical about President Obama but they were critical of his POLICIES and not him personally so much. Occasionally you would have somebody give their personal opinion of his motives or his true agenda as they saw it, but it was never done mean, cruelly, or maliciously or constantly. Most of us who are avid students of this stuff had our opinions about his true, unstated agenda and occasionally commented on that, but it was not the constant drumbeat on Fox News or anywhere in the objective or right wing media.

Thomas Sowell--I miss him being active as a commentator--he retired last year--did an in depth analysis of Barack Obama in a series of columns in 2008. He was not at all in favor of us electing Obama and he really did go over everything he had observed, read, heard, saw with a fine tooth comb--pretty much everything that has proved to be what Sowell said. But in not a single one of those columns was Sowell malicious, insulting, self-righteous, or hatefully smug which we see all the time in the fake news now.

 

[Foxfyre]

The President's fake news rewards should be mentioned on this thread:
The "winners" of Trump’s fake news awards, annotated

1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover.

2. ABC News’ Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral with false report that Trump had ordered Michael Flynn to meet with the Russians prior to the election.

3. CNN FALSELY reported that candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald J. Trump, Jr. had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.

4. TIME FALSELY reported that President Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office.

5. Washington Post FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. Dishonest reporter showed picture of empty arena HOURS before crowd started pouring in. (At the time of the speech all seats and the standing room only space was filled and there were many who were not able to get in at all.)

6. CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding.

7. CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in process.”

8. Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand. (As did some other sources.)

9. CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under investigation. (Comey, in a congressional hearing, confirmed that he did in fact inform the President that he was not under investigation.)

10. The New York Times FALSELY claimed on the front page that the Trump administration had hidden a climate report.

 

[Circe]

The worst thing is polls.
They are all lies: pollsters can't poll accurately, not even close.

And yet the so-called news keeps running polls. All of them are false.

I have a process since 2016: whenever a polls is cited in any news article, I stop reading immediately, because it's all a lie.

 

[Foxfyre]

The worst thing is polls.
They are all lies: pollsters can't poll accurately, not even close.

And yet the so-called news keeps running polls. All of them are false.

I have a process since 2016: whenever a polls is cited in any news article, I stop reading immediately, because it's all a lie.

I agree. I get calls from various polling groups quite often when campaigns at the local, state, and/or federal level start heating up. And whether re candidates or pending issues, many of them are so slanted and biased in the wording of the questions that it is ludicrous.

Just like President Trump's approval ratings. Rasmussen has the most consistent rolling poll of that as he polls likely voters every day averaging the last three days for each report. Those number have pretty well been consistently between 43 and 48% all during 2017 and into 2018, But when he polls for various issues--taxes, regulation, military, immigration, foreign relations etc.--the approval rating for his position on those things is almost always substantially above 50%.

Most people love what President Trump is accomplishing and/or wants to accomplish. So I have to believe it is just his style or way of communicating etc. that is keeping his personal approval lower. I am pretty sure that if we held an election for President today, he would most likely win quite handily.

 

[Foxfyre]

Speaking of fake news, the New York Times did it again this week. Reporting on the recent school shooting in Kentucky, they came out with this story:

School Shooting in Kentucky Was Nation’s 11th of Year. It Was Jan. 23.

Acknowledging that few of us have subscriptions to the NYT (I don't and can no longer access the article) I will just summarize that the gist of the story was that there have already been 13 school shootings in 2018 and it is only January 23, i.e. another argument for more gun control.

But here are some of the 11 'school shooting' incidents they listed:

--A 31 year old man commits suicide in an empty school parking lot

--A college policeman leaves a gun unattended during a criminal justice presentation and a student shoots the wall as a target

--A random shot from off campus breaks a window at a college

 

[Circe]

I agree. I get calls from various polling groups quite often when campaigns at the local, state, and/or federal level start heating up. And whether re candidates or pending issues, many of them are so slanted and biased in the wording of the questions that it is ludicrous.

I stopped answering polls after getting one of those "push polls" like you describe, I believe that's what they are called. I was dutifully answering the questions when I realized the caller was saying things like "Do you realize that candidate X ....." and there followed real obscenities, dirty stuff! Not as bad as the McCain "black baby" calls that the Bush campaign apparently did in South Carolina in 2000, but bad. I hung up the phone quickly when that started and now I don't do polls. It's no wonder to me polls are always wrong: they poisoned the well.

Just like President Trump's approval ratings. Rasmussen has the most consistent rolling poll of that as he polls likely voters every day averaging the last three days for each report. Those number have pretty well been consistently between 43 and 48% all during 2017 and into 2018, But when he polls for various issues--taxes, regulation, military, immigration, foreign relations etc.--the approval rating for his position on those things is almost always substantially above 50%.

Most people love what President Trump is accomplishing and/or wants to accomplish. So I have to believe it is just his style or way of communicating etc. that is keeping his personal approval lower. I am pretty sure that if we held an election for President today, he would most likely win quite handily.

Rolling averages, I think. The LA Times did a poll with rolling averages daily the whole campaign and they were the only poll that was right! I remember the heat they constantly got that they had to be wrong, had to be polling wrong, immorally, etc. --- but they predicted Trump would win and almost no one else did.

You may be right in your analysis of the difference, but I don't trust any of it and think they are all lying to promote an agenda. I simply don't believe any number about Trump, and that's that. The news media completely collapsed in 2016 and I wonder if it will ever recover. I doubt it could recover soon because the whole model of news propagation has been destroyed by the Internet and social media. Something else will happen, but in the meantime I don't believe a word any of them say. Just simple physical facts, backed up by iPhone coverage, like the shooter in Las Vegas.