Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Samples? What samples?
You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.
Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.
Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)
If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .
Example #2- which is
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".
It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.
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 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970
Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?
Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.
. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.
Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did. But if they do, they will have to take their lumps too. So if you catch them or any other media source doing that or carelessly or maliciously misrepresenting anything else, whether that source tilts left or right, by all means post your link.
So if you catch them or any other media source doing that or carelessly or maliciously misrepresenting anything else, whether that source tilts left or right, by all means post your link.Samples? What samples?
You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.
Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.
Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)
If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .
Example #2- which is
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".
It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.
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 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970
Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?
Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.
. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.
Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
Samples? What samples?
You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.
Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.
Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)
If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .
Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?
Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on..
Yet you didn't reply to the Daily Caller Fake News I pointed out
Example #2- which is
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".
It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.
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 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970
I don't care how much you try to rationalize it, or how much high minded sounding or irrelevant stuff you post trying to discredit the Daily Caller's analysis of it. I saw the original CNN story as well as heard the talking heads on television that day, and it was dead wrong. And wrong is wrong no matter who points it out.
Samples? What samples?
You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.
Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.
Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)
If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .
Example #2- which is
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".
It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.
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 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970
Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?
Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.
. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.
Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did.
If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .
Example #2- which is
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".
It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.
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 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970
Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?
Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.
. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.
Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did. But if they do, they will have to take their lumps too. So if you catch them or any other media source doing that or carelessly or maliciously misrepresenting anything else, whether that source tilts left or right, by all means post your link.
Hmmm how about maliciously mis-representing Muslims?
Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France
Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology on Saturday night for having allowed its anchors and guests to repeat the false claim that there are Muslim-only “no-go zones” in European countries like England and France that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to Shariah law.
Example #2- which is
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".
It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.
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 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970
Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?
Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.
. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.
Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did. But if they do, they will have to take their lumps too. So if you catch them or any other media source doing that or carelessly or maliciously misrepresenting anything else, whether that source tilts left or right, by all means post your link.
Hmmm how about maliciously mis-representing Muslims?
Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France
Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology on Saturday night for having allowed its anchors and guests to repeat the false claim that there are Muslim-only “no-go zones” in European countries like England and France that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to Shariah law.
That is a legitimate fake news story. The apology is still posted on their website, both written and the on air apology. They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way. An error, I might add, that did not unfairly or maliciously impact on any person's reputation or damage any person living or dead. If it had done so, it would have been a much more grievous offense.
If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .
Example #2- which is
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".
It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.
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 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970
Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?
Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.
. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.
Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did.
How about when Fox News maliciously and erroneously reported something that was false?
Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich "apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. ... It turns out, it wasn’t the Russians."
— Newt Gingrich on Sunday, May 21st, 2017 in an episode of "Fox and Friends"
That was a malicious attack on Seth Rich- and whose family has called Fox on it.
"We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments," Gingrich said on Fox May 21. "Nobody’s investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out, it wasn’t the Russians."
The problem was- Fox/Gringrich said this after this claim was recanted
Here’s the problem: Hours after Fox published its report, Wheeler recanted. He told CNN that he hadn’t seen the evidence himself, and his knowledge of Rich’s alleged email contact with WikiLeaks came from the national Fox News reporter, not his own investigative work.
"Let me just really quickly say this," Wheeler said on Hannity’s show May 16. "I don't know for sure, I don't know as a matter of fact if the emails went out to the WikiLeaks or anybody else, but it sure appears that way."
Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.
. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.
Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did. But if they do, they will have to take their lumps too. So if you catch them or any other media source doing that or carelessly or maliciously misrepresenting anything else, whether that source tilts left or right, by all means post your link.
Hmmm how about maliciously mis-representing Muslims?
Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France
Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology on Saturday night for having allowed its anchors and guests to repeat the false claim that there are Muslim-only “no-go zones” in European countries like England and France that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to Shariah law.
That is a legitimate fake news story. The apology is still posted on their website, both written and the on air apology. They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way. An error, I might add, that did not unfairly or maliciously impact on any person's reputation or damage any person living or dead. If it had done so, it would have been a much more grievous offense.
'legitimate fake news story' lol
They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way.
Tell me how that is different from CNN's publishing a mistake where their prediction turned out to be false- and they issued a correction?
The difference is that Fox was maliciously impugning Muslims- living and dead in France- while CNN's story didn't impugn anyone.
Example #2- which is
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".
It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.
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 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970
Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?
Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.
. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.
Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did.
How about when Fox News maliciously and erroneously reported something that was false?
Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich "apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. ... It turns out, it wasn’t the Russians."
— Newt Gingrich on Sunday, May 21st, 2017 in an episode of "Fox and Friends"
That was a malicious attack on Seth Rich- and whose family has called Fox on it.
"We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments," Gingrich said on Fox May 21. "Nobody’s investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out, it wasn’t the Russians."
The problem was- Fox/Gringrich said this after this claim was recanted
Here’s the problem: Hours after Fox published its report, Wheeler recanted. He told CNN that he hadn’t seen the evidence himself, and his knowledge of Rich’s alleged email contact with WikiLeaks came from the national Fox News reporter, not his own investigative work.
"Let me just really quickly say this," Wheeler said on Hannity’s show May 16. "I don't know for sure, I don't know as a matter of fact if the emails went out to the WikiLeaks or anybody else, but it sure appears that way."
Did anybody else other than Gingrich and Hannity at Fox report that story? Gingrich isn't a Fox staffer but is what they call a contributor, i.e. somebody brought in to be a talking head during a news segment. The official story, in a nutshell, is that Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the Rich family to investigate Seth's murder, initially said that Seth had given those e-mails to wikileaks. He then backtracked on the story. Of note, since they said they couldn't afford an investigator, a third party, a Mr. Butowsky, offered to pay Wheeler's fee and from what I have read, from that point on Wheeler only dealt with the Rich's.
Followed all manner of speculation, based on a lawsuit brought by Wheeler, that Fox News had colluded with Butowsky and the Trump Administration to cook up a fake news story. None of that claim by Wheeler has been corroborated by anybody I might add.
So it is possible that we could be dealing with fake news here though it is definitely unclear as to where it originated or who is putting it out there. The one thing in Gingrich's favor is that he was relating the story that was going around instead of asserting it as a confirmed fact.
Wheeler denied he ever made the claim about the Rich/wikileaks association though it seems uncertain whether that was before or after the Rich family issued him a cease-and-desist order as they said their son was not the wikileaks source. If he wasn't saying it, why the cease-and-desist order? That part of the story remains fuzzy. Fox News gets it wrong sometimes, but they don't have a history of making things up.
Julian Assange has not revealed his source for those e-mails but has been consistent that he didn't get them from the Russians. And so far as I know, we still don't know who killed Seth Rich or why.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did. But if they do, they will have to take their lumps too. So if you catch them or any other media source doing that or carelessly or maliciously misrepresenting anything else, whether that source tilts left or right, by all means post your link.
Hmmm how about maliciously mis-representing Muslims?
Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France
Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology on Saturday night for having allowed its anchors and guests to repeat the false claim that there are Muslim-only “no-go zones” in European countries like England and France that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to Shariah law.
That is a legitimate fake news story. The apology is still posted on their website, both written and the on air apology. They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way. An error, I might add, that did not unfairly or maliciously impact on any person's reputation or damage any person living or dead. If it had done so, it would have been a much more grievous offense.
'legitimate fake news story' lol
They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way.
Tell me how that is different from CNN's publishing a mistake where their prediction turned out to be false- and they issued a correction?
The difference is that Fox was maliciously impugning Muslims- living and dead in France- while CNN's story didn't impugn anyone.
I did. When Fox News botches a story, they generally admit it on their website and on air pretty much as prominently as they reported the story when they botched it.
Quietly changing the story and headline after the damaging fake news is already out there is not the same thing at all.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did. But if they do, they will have to take their lumps too. So if you catch them or any other media source doing that or carelessly or maliciously misrepresenting anything else, whether that source tilts left or right, by all means post your link.
Hmmm how about maliciously mis-representing Muslims?
Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France
Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology on Saturday night for having allowed its anchors and guests to repeat the false claim that there are Muslim-only “no-go zones” in European countries like England and France that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to Shariah law.
That is a legitimate fake news story. The apology is still posted on their website, both written and the on air apology. They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way. An error, I might add, that did not unfairly or maliciously impact on any person's reputation or damage any person living or dead. If it had done so, it would have been a much more grievous offense.
'legitimate fake news story' lol
They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way.
Tell me how that is different from CNN's publishing a mistake where their prediction turned out to be false- and they issued a correction?
The difference is that Fox was maliciously impugning Muslims- living and dead in France- while CNN's story didn't impugn anyone.
I did. When Fox News botches a story, they generally admit it on their website and on air pretty much as prominently as they reported the story when they botched it.
Quietly changing the story and headline after the damaging fake news is already out there is not the same thing at all.
Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.
. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.
Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.
LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.
He didn't say it.
Then they corrected what they reported.
So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?
Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?
And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did.
How about when Fox News maliciously and erroneously reported something that was false?
Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich "apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. ... It turns out, it wasn’t the Russians."
— Newt Gingrich on Sunday, May 21st, 2017 in an episode of "Fox and Friends"
That was a malicious attack on Seth Rich- and whose family has called Fox on it.
"We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments," Gingrich said on Fox May 21. "Nobody’s investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out, it wasn’t the Russians."
The problem was- Fox/Gringrich said this after this claim was recanted
Here’s the problem: Hours after Fox published its report, Wheeler recanted. He told CNN that he hadn’t seen the evidence himself, and his knowledge of Rich’s alleged email contact with WikiLeaks came from the national Fox News reporter, not his own investigative work.
"Let me just really quickly say this," Wheeler said on Hannity’s show May 16. "I don't know for sure, I don't know as a matter of fact if the emails went out to the WikiLeaks or anybody else, but it sure appears that way."
Did anybody else other than Gingrich and Hannity at Fox report that story? Gingrich isn't a Fox staffer but is what they call a contributor, i.e. somebody brought in to be a talking head during a news segment. The official story, in a nutshell, is that Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the Rich family to investigate Seth's murder, initially said that Seth had given those e-mails to wikileaks. He then backtracked on the story. Of note, since they said they couldn't afford an investigator, a third party, a Mr. Butowsky, offered to pay Wheeler's fee and from what I have read, from that point on Wheeler only dealt with the Rich's.
Followed all manner of speculation, based on a lawsuit brought by Wheeler, that Fox News had colluded with Butowsky and the Trump Administration to cook up a fake news story. None of that claim by Wheeler has been corroborated by anybody I might add.
So it is possible that we could be dealing with fake news here though it is definitely unclear as to where it originated or who is putting it out there. The one thing in Gingrich's favor is that he was relating the story that was going around instead of asserting it as a confirmed fact.
Wheeler denied he ever made the claim about the Rich/wikileaks association though it seems uncertain whether that was before or after the Rich family issued him a cease-and-desist order as they said their son was not the wikileaks source. If he wasn't saying it, why the cease-and-desist order? That part of the story remains fuzzy. Fox News gets it wrong sometimes, but they don't have a history of making things up.
Julian Assange has not revealed his source for those e-mails but has been consistent that he didn't get them from the Russians. And so far as I know, we still don't know who killed Seth Rich or why.
Fascinating the double standard you have for Fox News compared to CNN.
CNN gets it wrong sometimes- but they they don't have a history of making things up.
Gingrich isn't a Fox staffer but is what they call a contributor, i.e. somebody brought in to be a talking head during a news segment
Is Gingrich a paid employee of Fox News? Yes.
Were his remarks presented as part of Fox News? Yes.
Did Gingrich say on Fox News:
"We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments," Gingrich said on Fox May 21. "Nobody’s investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out, it wasn’t the Russians."
Was that story known to be false?
Yes.
having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments,"
The only person who made that claim had recanted that a week earlier.
Fox News was promoting fake news- maliciously harming the family of Seth Rich.
Which is why Fox News is being sued for its fake news.
His suit alleges Fox News defamed him by manufacturing two false quotations attributed to him and ruining his reputation by blaming him as the deceptive story fell apart.
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did. But if they do, they will have to take their lumps too. So if you catch them or any other media source doing that or carelessly or maliciously misrepresenting anything else, whether that source tilts left or right, by all means post your link.
Hmmm how about maliciously mis-representing Muslims?
Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France
Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology on Saturday night for having allowed its anchors and guests to repeat the false claim that there are Muslim-only “no-go zones” in European countries like England and France that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to Shariah law.
That is a legitimate fake news story. The apology is still posted on their website, both written and the on air apology. They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way. An error, I might add, that did not unfairly or maliciously impact on any person's reputation or damage any person living or dead. If it had done so, it would have been a much more grievous offense.
'legitimate fake news story' lol
They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way.
Tell me how that is different from CNN's publishing a mistake where their prediction turned out to be false- and they issued a correction?
The difference is that Fox was maliciously impugning Muslims- living and dead in France- while CNN's story didn't impugn anyone.
I did. When Fox News botches a story, they generally admit it on their website and on air pretty much as prominently as they reported the story when they botched it.
Quietly changing the story and headline after the damaging fake news is already out there is not the same thing at all.
LOL- pure partisan rationalization.
You literally have now defined "Fake News" as a purely interpretative exercise- where IF you think a news organization admitted their error CORRECTLY- then it isn't Fake News but when they don't- it is Fake News.
And clearly based upon your posts so far- CNN never meets your 'standard' and Fox always meets your 'standard'
And as far as Fox News
they generally admit it on their website and on air pretty much as prominently as they reported the story when they botched it.
That clearly didn't happen with the Seth Rich story. Fox had both Gingrich and Hannity pushing this story- and this was the only 'retraction'
Statement on coverage of Seth Rich murder investigation
On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.
We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.
The sad thing is that the issue of Fake News deserves a real debate- but you are not willing or perhaps able to hold every news organization to the same standard- regardless of their political leaning.
I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did. But if they do, they will have to take their lumps too. So if you catch them or any other media source doing that or carelessly or maliciously misrepresenting anything else, whether that source tilts left or right, by all means post your link.
Hmmm how about maliciously mis-representing Muslims?
Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France
Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology on Saturday night for having allowed its anchors and guests to repeat the false claim that there are Muslim-only “no-go zones” in European countries like England and France that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to Shariah law.
That is a legitimate fake news story. The apology is still posted on their website, both written and the on air apology. They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way. An error, I might add, that did not unfairly or maliciously impact on any person's reputation or damage any person living or dead. If it had done so, it would have been a much more grievous offense.
'legitimate fake news story' lol
They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way.
Tell me how that is different from CNN's publishing a mistake where their prediction turned out to be false- and they issued a correction?
The difference is that Fox was maliciously impugning Muslims- living and dead in France- while CNN's story didn't impugn anyone.
I did. When Fox News botches a story, they generally admit it on their website and on air pretty much as prominently as they reported the story when they botched it.
Quietly changing the story and headline after the damaging fake news is already out there is not the same thing at all.
Quoting the Fox 'retraction' to the Seth Rich story that they aired prominently on air and on their website- and 'retracted' solely by a quiet 'retraction' on their website after the damaging fake news
On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.
We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.
Hmmm how about maliciously mis-representing Muslims?
Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France
Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology on Saturday night for having allowed its anchors and guests to repeat the false claim that there are Muslim-only “no-go zones” in European countries like England and France that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to Shariah law.
That is a legitimate fake news story. The apology is still posted on their website, both written and the on air apology. They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way. An error, I might add, that did not unfairly or maliciously impact on any person's reputation or damage any person living or dead. If it had done so, it would have been a much more grievous offense.
'legitimate fake news story' lol
They cannot be excused for the error, but this does appear to be a good effort at correcting the error as visibly and prominently as they made it without trying to justify it in any way.
Tell me how that is different from CNN's publishing a mistake where their prediction turned out to be false- and they issued a correction?
The difference is that Fox was maliciously impugning Muslims- living and dead in France- while CNN's story didn't impugn anyone.
I did. When Fox News botches a story, they generally admit it on their website and on air pretty much as prominently as they reported the story when they botched it.
Quietly changing the story and headline after the damaging fake news is already out there is not the same thing at all.
LOL- pure partisan rationalization.
You literally have now defined "Fake News" as a purely interpretative exercise- where IF you think a news organization admitted their error CORRECTLY- then it isn't Fake News but when they don't- it is Fake News.
And clearly based upon your posts so far- CNN never meets your 'standard' and Fox always meets your 'standard'
And as far as Fox News
they generally admit it on their website and on air pretty much as prominently as they reported the story when they botched it.
That clearly didn't happen with the Seth Rich story. Fox had both Gingrich and Hannity pushing this story- and this was the only 'retraction'
Statement on coverage of Seth Rich murder investigation
On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.
We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.
The sad thing is that the issue of Fake News deserves a real debate- but you are not willing or perhaps able to hold every news organization to the same standard- regardless of their political leaning.
When you just keep repeating what you have said and start attacking me or somebody else you disagree with, you automatically lose the debate. But do have a pleasant day.
Another example of Fox Fake News- based upon the criteria established by the OP
Quoting the OP:
1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
Fox News’s appalling past 72 hours, analyzed
The Mueller indictment provides many details of how the Russian operation worked. It’s not the kind of story that should spiral entirely into political speculation. And, if anything, it is concrete evidence that Mueller’s investigation isn’t just a witch hunt against Trump, as the president has often said, but rather a truth-finding endeavor.
But that’s not the story we got on Fox News.
On Fox News, a full-throated defense of Trump
Instead of focusing on the details of the indictment itself, pundits on Fox News spent a good chunk of their airtime pointing out that this isn’t proof of the Trump administration colluding with Russia.
It’s been an astounding 72 hours on Fox News
The data paints a clear story of how damaging it is for a media outlet to prioritize its defense of the president. In the past 72 hours, Fox News:
- Limited its coverage of what the indictment actually reveals: evidence of foreign organizations trying to undermine American democracy
- Drastically reduced coverage of the Florida school shooting to push pundits onto TV to say this story actually vindicates President Trump, even though it does nothing of the sort
- Used a detail of the school shooting to push the narrative that the FBI, and by extension the Muller investigation, is flawed — and gave cover to President Trump
