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.
Here we have Fox News- editorializing that the FBI is committing a coup against the U.S. government.
No that is Fake News. Intended to slander the FBI for the sole benefit of the Trump administration.
Fox News host Jesse Watters criticized Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation at the FBI, suggesting it’s been “crooked from the jump.”
“If that’s true,” he said on Saturday, “we have a coup on our hands in America.”
Jeanine Pirro on her Fox News program on Saturday said that never in presidential election history has there been “as great a crime or as large a stain on our democracy than that committed by a criminal cabal in our FBI and the Department of Justice who think they know better than we who our president should be.”
Fox News host and growing media conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity in June said a “soft coup is underway” in America aiming to overturn Trump’s election. “Sinister forces quickly aligning, in what is becoming now, in my mind, a clear and present danger.”
[
Now if you can find a similar example in which Fox News trashed somebody with no evidence whatsoever go for it. And if you find the source and can show that they just quietly retracted their original report, I would really like to see it.
Seth Rich: Separating fact and speculation
Fast forward to May 16, 2017. Fox News reported that the FBI had proof that Rich had sent WikiLeaks "thousands of internal emails."
Fox cited an anonymous federal investigator who said the FBI had the emails between Rich and WikiLeaks. It also quoted Rod Wheeler, a private investigator who was looking into Rich’s death on behalf of Rich’s parents , as saying, "My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and Wikileaks."
[
Now if you can find a similar example in which Fox News trashed somebody with no evidence whatsoever go for it. And if you find the source and can show that they just quietly retracted their original report, I would really like to see it.
Seth Rich: Separating fact and speculation
Fast forward to May 16, 2017. Fox News reported that the FBI had proof that Rich had sent WikiLeaks "thousands of internal emails."
Fox cited an anonymous federal investigator who said the FBI had the emails between Rich and WikiLeaks. It also quoted Rod Wheeler, a private investigator who was looking into Rich’s death on behalf of Rich’s parents , as saying, "My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and Wikileaks."
They cited somebody on the record corroborating the story. It was not based purely on an anonymous 'off the record" source.
Here we have Fox News- editorializing that the FBI is committing a coup against the U.S. government.
No that is Fake News. Intended to slander the FBI for the sole benefit of the Trump administration.
Fox News host Jesse Watters criticized Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation at the FBI, suggesting it’s been “crooked from the jump.”
“If that’s true,” he said on Saturday, “we have a coup on our hands in America.”
Jeanine Pirro on her Fox News program on Saturday said that never in presidential election history has there been “as great a crime or as large a stain on our democracy than that committed by a criminal cabal in our FBI and the Department of Justice who think they know better than we who our president should be.”
Fox News host and growing media conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity in June said a “soft coup is underway” in America aiming to overturn Trump’s election. “Sinister forces quickly aligning, in what is becoming now, in my mind, a clear and present danger.”
Again please put the quotations in their full context and then give me a legitimate rebuttal by a reliable source showing how any of those examples got it wrong. .
[
Now if you can find a similar example in which Fox News trashed somebody with no evidence whatsoever go for it. And if you find the source and can show that they just quietly retracted their original report, I would really like to see it.
Seth Rich: Separating fact and speculation
Fast forward to May 16, 2017. Fox News reported that the FBI had proof that Rich had sent WikiLeaks "thousands of internal emails."
Fox cited an anonymous federal investigator who said the FBI had the emails between Rich and WikiLeaks. It also quoted Rod Wheeler, a private investigator who was looking into Rich’s death on behalf of Rich’s parents , as saying, "My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and Wikileaks."
They cited somebody on the record corroborating the story. It was not based purely on an anonymous 'off the record" source.
Except of course- Rod Wheeler denied making that comment
Here we have Fox News- editorializing that the FBI is committing a coup against the U.S. government.
No that is Fake News. Intended to slander the FBI for the sole benefit of the Trump administration.
Fox News host Jesse Watters criticized Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation at the FBI, suggesting it’s been “crooked from the jump.”
“If that’s true,” he said on Saturday, “we have a coup on our hands in America.”
Jeanine Pirro on her Fox News program on Saturday said that never in presidential election history has there been “as great a crime or as large a stain on our democracy than that committed by a criminal cabal in our FBI and the Department of Justice who think they know better than we who our president should be.”
Fox News host and growing media conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity in June said a “soft coup is underway” in America aiming to overturn Trump’s election. “Sinister forces quickly aligning, in what is becoming now, in my mind, a clear and present danger.”
Again please put the quotations in their full context and then give me a legitimate rebuttal by a reliable source showing how any of those examples got it wrong. .
I need to provide you with a source that the FBI is not engaging in a coup right now?
Do you believe that the FBI is participating in a coup?
That is what Fox is telling you.
Note you aren't asking Fox for any evidence of such a coup.
[
Now if you can find a similar example in which Fox News trashed somebody with no evidence whatsoever go for it. And if you find the source and can show that they just quietly retracted their original report, I would really like to see it.
Seth Rich: Separating fact and speculation
Fast forward to May 16, 2017. Fox News reported that the FBI had proof that Rich had sent WikiLeaks "thousands of internal emails."
Fox cited an anonymous federal investigator who said the FBI had the emails between Rich and WikiLeaks. It also quoted Rod Wheeler, a private investigator who was looking into Rich’s death on behalf of Rich’s parents , as saying, "My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and Wikileaks."
They cited somebody on the record corroborating the story. It was not based purely on an anonymous 'off the record" source.
Except of course- Rod Wheeler denied making that comment
Here we have Fox News- editorializing that the FBI is committing a coup against the U.S. government.
No that is Fake News. Intended to slander the FBI for the sole benefit of the Trump administration.
Fox News host Jesse Watters criticized Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation at the FBI, suggesting it’s been “crooked from the jump.”
“If that’s true,” he said on Saturday, “we have a coup on our hands in America.”
Jeanine Pirro on her Fox News program on Saturday said that never in presidential election history has there been “as great a crime or as large a stain on our democracy than that committed by a criminal cabal in our FBI and the Department of Justice who think they know better than we who our president should be.”
Fox News host and growing media conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity in June said a “soft coup is underway” in America aiming to overturn Trump’s election. “Sinister forces quickly aligning, in what is becoming now, in my mind, a clear and present danger.”
Again please put the quotations in their full context and then give me a legitimate rebuttal by a reliable source showing how any of those examples got it wrong. .
I need to provide you with a source that the FBI is not engaging in a coup right now?
Do you believe that the FBI is participating in a coup?
That is what Fox is telling you.
Note you aren't asking Fox for any evidence of such a coup.
The Fox affiliate that initially reported the story has him on film and audio making the statement. They fully acknowledged that after he gave the on record, on camera, on audio statement he some days later backtracked on the story. Nevertheless, Fox had an on the record source that they say they corroborated with a separate source for their news story.
Rod Wheeler backtracks statements about Seth Rich investigation
But here is Wheeler on camera:
I am putting this in the CDZ as I would like a serious, civil discussion re the serious business of media coverage that is:
1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
3. Fake news in that it is information created or repeated that is patently false.
Based on posts and people recruited to be talking heads on television, it seems obvious some think this syndrome doesn't exist at all or it is purely an invention of Fox News. Others are diligently pointing out that it does exist and is mean, cruel, hateful, and detrimental to us as a society.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
The poll is set so that people can change their vote if they change their mind during the discussion.
While I think that even the term "Fake News' is mostly a propaganda term used primarily by the right to discredit legitimate media so that when media reports things like Watergate that Americans won't be able to distinguish real news from Fake News- there is indeed Fake news being promoted by the Media.
One of the prime examples was Fox New's story alleging Seth Rich who was murdered- was the one who leaked the emails.
Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
Fox News' story, which took flight online and ran in segments across major shows, breathed fresh life into the rumors. Fox reported that the leaks came from inside the party and not from hackers linked to Russia — despite the conclusions of the nation's most senior intelligence officials. The network suggested that Democrats might have been connected to Rich's death and that a cover-up had thwarted the official investigation.
The network cited an unnamed FBI official. And the report relied heavily on Wheeler, a former police detective, hired months earlier on behalf of the Riches by Butowsky.
Fox's report went sideways shortly after it was posted online and aired on Fox & Friends. It was denounced by the Rich family, D.C. police, Democratic Party officials and even, privately, by some journalists within the network. Within hours, Wheeler told other news outlets that Fox News had put words in his mouth.
Despite those concerns, Wheeler appeared on the shows of Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News star Sean Hannity, who devoted significant time to the story that night and in subsequent days. In speaking with Wheeler, Hannity said: "If this is true and Seth Rich gave WikiLeaks the DNC e-mails ... this blows the whole Russia collusion narrative completely out of the water."
A week later, on May 23, Fox retracted the story, saying the reporting process failed to live up to its standards. Hannity said he would take a break from talking about Rich's death out of respect for the family.
Perhaps it would be more enlightening if you posted some excerpts from what Fox News actually reported so that the readers here could responsibly judge whether they were engaging in 'fake news'? But if Fox prominently retracted a story they determined they got wrong, I don't have a problem with that. We'll see if WAPO demonstrates as much integrity in the CDC story most recently mentioned should that in fact turn out to be a misrepresentation. Which again I am pretty sure it was based on the pure implausibility of it if for no other reason.
'based on the pure implausibility of it'? Have you been watching what has been happening in the various departments in the last year? This would seem incredibly implausible for any administration other than this one.
Washington Post has retracted many stories it reported in error.
Now you say that you don't have a problem when Fox retracts a story that they got wrong? Really?
Do you use that same standard with CNN?
Your second post you cited this link as an example
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/7-times-cnn-botched-the-news-in-2017/- as examples of media "Fake news"
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.
Note how CNN issued a correction- and admitted the error
And again- another example you claimed was fake news- another example of CNN acknowledging their error
Later that month, CNN.com published, deleted, and then retracted and apologized for an article that claimed Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was the subject of a Senate investigation for his ties to Russian bankers. After an intense public backlash, three key members of CNN’s investigative team resigned over their role in the retracted story.
And another one in your link that CNN retracted after the fact
CNN botched another “bombshell” on Friday when it reported that Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign had received advanced access to stolen emails published by WikiLeaks. The network hyped the story as a bombshell for most of the day before TheDC’s Chuck Ross debunked it, revealing several serious errors with the story.
So why is it okay for Fox to print "Fake news" as long as it retracts it later- but not okay when CNN does the same thing?
I am putting this in the CDZ as I would like a serious, civil discussion re the serious business of media coverage that is:
1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
3. Fake news in that it is information created or repeated that is patently false.
Based on posts and people recruited to be talking heads on television, it seems obvious some think this syndrome doesn't exist at all or it is purely an invention of Fox News. Others are diligently pointing out that it does exist and is mean, cruel, hateful, and detrimental to us as a society.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
The poll is set so that people can change their vote if they change their mind during the discussion.
While I think that even the term "Fake News' is mostly a propaganda term used primarily by the right to discredit legitimate media so that when media reports things like Watergate that Americans won't be able to distinguish real news from Fake News- there is indeed Fake news being promoted by the Media.
One of the prime examples was Fox New's story alleging Seth Rich who was murdered- was the one who leaked the emails.
Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
Fox News' story, which took flight online and ran in segments across major shows, breathed fresh life into the rumors. Fox reported that the leaks came from inside the party and not from hackers linked to Russia — despite the conclusions of the nation's most senior intelligence officials. The network suggested that Democrats might have been connected to Rich's death and that a cover-up had thwarted the official investigation.
The network cited an unnamed FBI official. And the report relied heavily on Wheeler, a former police detective, hired months earlier on behalf of the Riches by Butowsky.
Fox's report went sideways shortly after it was posted online and aired on Fox & Friends. It was denounced by the Rich family, D.C. police, Democratic Party officials and even, privately, by some journalists within the network. Within hours, Wheeler told other news outlets that Fox News had put words in his mouth.
Despite those concerns, Wheeler appeared on the shows of Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News star Sean Hannity, who devoted significant time to the story that night and in subsequent days. In speaking with Wheeler, Hannity said: "If this is true and Seth Rich gave WikiLeaks the DNC e-mails ... this blows the whole Russia collusion narrative completely out of the water."
A week later, on May 23, Fox retracted the story, saying the reporting process failed to live up to its standards. Hannity said he would take a break from talking about Rich's death out of respect for the family.
Perhaps it would be more enlightening if you posted some excerpts from what Fox News actually reported so that the readers here could responsibly judge whether they were engaging in 'fake news'? But if Fox prominently retracted a story they determined they got wrong, I don't have a problem with that. We'll see if WAPO demonstrates as much integrity in the CDC story most recently mentioned should that in fact turn out to be a misrepresentation. Which again I am pretty sure it was based on the pure implausibility of it if for no other reason.
'based on the pure implausibility of it'? Have you been watching what has been happening in the various departments in the last year? This would seem incredibly implausible for any administration other than this one.
Washington Post has retracted many stories it reported in error.
Now you say that you don't have a problem when Fox retracts a story that they got wrong? Really?
Do you use that same standard with CNN?
Your second post you cited this link as an example
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/7-times-cnn-botched-the-news-in-2017/- as examples of media "Fake news"
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.
Note how CNN issued a correction- and admitted the error
And again- another example you claimed was fake news- another example of CNN acknowledging their error
Later that month, CNN.com published, deleted, and then retracted and apologized for an article that claimed Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was the subject of a Senate investigation for his ties to Russian bankers. After an intense public backlash, three key members of CNN’s investigative team resigned over their role in the retracted story.
And another one in your link that CNN retracted after the fact
CNN botched another “bombshell” on Friday when it reported that Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign had received advanced access to stolen emails published by WikiLeaks. The network hyped the story as a bombshell for most of the day before TheDC’s Chuck Ross debunked it, revealing several serious errors with the story.
So why is it okay for Fox to print "Fake news" as long as it retracts it later- but not okay when CNN does the same thing?
The difference is in how it is reported and how it is retracted. When it is thrown out there as red meat that goes viral in minutes and then is quietly amended, deleted, admitted as error, the damage is already done and few ever see or know about the correction. For the most part, Fox goes on air on the program the error occurred and corrects the misinformation. When and if they don't do that, and somebody is unjustly or wrongly trashed, they would be just as culpable as CNN or any other news organization that is making money by trashing people with fake news.
I am putting this in the CDZ as I would like a serious, civil discussion re the serious business of media coverage that is:
1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
3. Fake news in that it is information created or repeated that is patently false.
Based on posts and people recruited to be talking heads on television, it seems obvious some think this syndrome doesn't exist at all or it is purely an invention of Fox News. Others are diligently pointing out that it does exist and is mean, cruel, hateful, and detrimental to us as a society.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
The poll is set so that people can change their vote if they change their mind during the discussion.
While I think that even the term "Fake News' is mostly a propaganda term used primarily by the right to discredit legitimate media so that when media reports things like Watergate that Americans won't be able to distinguish real news from Fake News- there is indeed Fake news being promoted by the Media.
One of the prime examples was Fox New's story alleging Seth Rich who was murdered- was the one who leaked the emails.
Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
Fox News' story, which took flight online and ran in segments across major shows, breathed fresh life into the rumors. Fox reported that the leaks came from inside the party and not from hackers linked to Russia — despite the conclusions of the nation's most senior intelligence officials. The network suggested that Democrats might have been connected to Rich's death and that a cover-up had thwarted the official investigation.
The network cited an unnamed FBI official. And the report relied heavily on Wheeler, a former police detective, hired months earlier on behalf of the Riches by Butowsky.
Fox's report went sideways shortly after it was posted online and aired on Fox & Friends. It was denounced by the Rich family, D.C. police, Democratic Party officials and even, privately, by some journalists within the network. Within hours, Wheeler told other news outlets that Fox News had put words in his mouth.
Despite those concerns, Wheeler appeared on the shows of Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News star Sean Hannity, who devoted significant time to the story that night and in subsequent days. In speaking with Wheeler, Hannity said: "If this is true and Seth Rich gave WikiLeaks the DNC e-mails ... this blows the whole Russia collusion narrative completely out of the water."
A week later, on May 23, Fox retracted the story, saying the reporting process failed to live up to its standards. Hannity said he would take a break from talking about Rich's death out of respect for the family.
Perhaps it would be more enlightening if you posted some excerpts from what Fox News actually reported so that the readers here could responsibly judge whether they were engaging in 'fake news'? But if Fox prominently retracted a story they determined they got wrong, I don't have a problem with that. We'll see if WAPO demonstrates as much integrity in the CDC story most recently mentioned should that in fact turn out to be a misrepresentation. Which again I am pretty sure it was based on the pure implausibility of it if for no other reason.
'based on the pure implausibility of it'? Have you been watching what has been happening in the various departments in the last year? This would seem incredibly implausible for any administration other than this one.
Washington Post has retracted many stories it reported in error.
Now you say that you don't have a problem when Fox retracts a story that they got wrong? Really?
Do you use that same standard with CNN?
Your second post you cited this link as an example
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/7-times-cnn-botched-the-news-in-2017/- as examples of media "Fake news"
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.
Note how CNN issued a correction- and admitted the error
And again- another example you claimed was fake news- another example of CNN acknowledging their error
Later that month, CNN.com published, deleted, and then retracted and apologized for an article that claimed Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was the subject of a Senate investigation for his ties to Russian bankers. After an intense public backlash, three key members of CNN’s investigative team resigned over their role in the retracted story.
And another one in your link that CNN retracted after the fact
CNN botched another “bombshell” on Friday when it reported that Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign had received advanced access to stolen emails published by WikiLeaks. The network hyped the story as a bombshell for most of the day before TheDC’s Chuck Ross debunked it, revealing several serious errors with the story.
So why is it okay for Fox to print "Fake news" as long as it retracts it later- but not okay when CNN does the same thing?
The difference is in how it is reported and how it is retracted. When it is thrown out there as red meat that goes viral in minutes and then is quietly amended, deleted, admitted as error, the damage is already done and few ever see or know about the correction. For the most part, Fox goes on air on the program the error occurred and corrects the misinformation. When and if they don't do that, and somebody is unjustly or wrongly trashed, they would be just as culpable as CNN or any other news organization that is making money by trashing people with fake news.
So tell me more about this coup that is going on according to Fox.
While I think that even the term "Fake News' is mostly a propaganda term used primarily by the right to discredit legitimate media so that when media reports things like Watergate that Americans won't be able to distinguish real news from Fake News- there is indeed Fake news being promoted by the Media.
One of the prime examples was Fox New's story alleging Seth Rich who was murdered- was the one who leaked the emails.
Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
Fox News' story, which took flight online and ran in segments across major shows, breathed fresh life into the rumors. Fox reported that the leaks came from inside the party and not from hackers linked to Russia — despite the conclusions of the nation's most senior intelligence officials. The network suggested that Democrats might have been connected to Rich's death and that a cover-up had thwarted the official investigation.
The network cited an unnamed FBI official. And the report relied heavily on Wheeler, a former police detective, hired months earlier on behalf of the Riches by Butowsky.
Fox's report went sideways shortly after it was posted online and aired on Fox & Friends. It was denounced by the Rich family, D.C. police, Democratic Party officials and even, privately, by some journalists within the network. Within hours, Wheeler told other news outlets that Fox News had put words in his mouth.
Despite those concerns, Wheeler appeared on the shows of Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News star Sean Hannity, who devoted significant time to the story that night and in subsequent days. In speaking with Wheeler, Hannity said: "If this is true and Seth Rich gave WikiLeaks the DNC e-mails ... this blows the whole Russia collusion narrative completely out of the water."
A week later, on May 23, Fox retracted the story, saying the reporting process failed to live up to its standards. Hannity said he would take a break from talking about Rich's death out of respect for the family.
Perhaps it would be more enlightening if you posted some excerpts from what Fox News actually reported so that the readers here could responsibly judge whether they were engaging in 'fake news'? But if Fox prominently retracted a story they determined they got wrong, I don't have a problem with that. We'll see if WAPO demonstrates as much integrity in the CDC story most recently mentioned should that in fact turn out to be a misrepresentation. Which again I am pretty sure it was based on the pure implausibility of it if for no other reason.
'based on the pure implausibility of it'? Have you been watching what has been happening in the various departments in the last year? This would seem incredibly implausible for any administration other than this one.
Washington Post has retracted many stories it reported in error.
Now you say that you don't have a problem when Fox retracts a story that they got wrong? Really?
Do you use that same standard with CNN?
Your second post you cited this link as an example
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/7-times-cnn-botched-the-news-in-2017/- as examples of media "Fake news"
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.
Note how CNN issued a correction- and admitted the error
And again- another example you claimed was fake news- another example of CNN acknowledging their error
Later that month, CNN.com published, deleted, and then retracted and apologized for an article that claimed Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was the subject of a Senate investigation for his ties to Russian bankers. After an intense public backlash, three key members of CNN’s investigative team resigned over their role in the retracted story.
And another one in your link that CNN retracted after the fact
CNN botched another “bombshell” on Friday when it reported that Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign had received advanced access to stolen emails published by WikiLeaks. The network hyped the story as a bombshell for most of the day before TheDC’s Chuck Ross debunked it, revealing several serious errors with the story.
So why is it okay for Fox to print "Fake news" as long as it retracts it later- but not okay when CNN does the same thing?
The difference is in how it is reported and how it is retracted. When it is thrown out there as red meat that goes viral in minutes and then is quietly amended, deleted, admitted as error, the damage is already done and few ever see or know about the correction. For the most part, Fox goes on air on the program the error occurred and corrects the misinformation. When and if they don't do that, and somebody is unjustly or wrongly trashed, they would be just as culpable as CNN or any other news organization that is making money by trashing people with fake news.
So tell me more about this coup that is going on according to Fox.
I think you'll have to find somebody dealing in fake news to talk to you about that.
Perhaps it would be more enlightening if you posted some excerpts from what Fox News actually reported so that the readers here could responsibly judge whether they were engaging in 'fake news'? But if Fox prominently retracted a story they determined they got wrong, I don't have a problem with that. We'll see if WAPO demonstrates as much integrity in the CDC story most recently mentioned should that in fact turn out to be a misrepresentation. Which again I am pretty sure it was based on the pure implausibility of it if for no other reason.
'based on the pure implausibility of it'? Have you been watching what has been happening in the various departments in the last year? This would seem incredibly implausible for any administration other than this one.
Washington Post has retracted many stories it reported in error.
Now you say that you don't have a problem when Fox retracts a story that they got wrong? Really?
Do you use that same standard with CNN?
Your second post you cited this link as an example
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/7-times-cnn-botched-the-news-in-2017/- as examples of media "Fake news"
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.
Note how CNN issued a correction- and admitted the error
And again- another example you claimed was fake news- another example of CNN acknowledging their error
Later that month, CNN.com published, deleted, and then retracted and apologized for an article that claimed Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was the subject of a Senate investigation for his ties to Russian bankers. After an intense public backlash, three key members of CNN’s investigative team resigned over their role in the retracted story.
And another one in your link that CNN retracted after the fact
CNN botched another “bombshell” on Friday when it reported that Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign had received advanced access to stolen emails published by WikiLeaks. The network hyped the story as a bombshell for most of the day before TheDC’s Chuck Ross debunked it, revealing several serious errors with the story.
So why is it okay for Fox to print "Fake news" as long as it retracts it later- but not okay when CNN does the same thing?
The difference is in how it is reported and how it is retracted. When it is thrown out there as red meat that goes viral in minutes and then is quietly amended, deleted, admitted as error, the damage is already done and few ever see or know about the correction. For the most part, Fox goes on air on the program the error occurred and corrects the misinformation. When and if they don't do that, and somebody is unjustly or wrongly trashed, they would be just as culpable as CNN or any other news organization that is making money by trashing people with fake news.
So tell me more about this coup that is going on according to Fox.
I think you'll have to find somebody dealing in fake news to talk to you about that.
Well at least we agree that Fox's declaration of a coup is fake news
'based on the pure implausibility of it'? Have you been watching what has been happening in the various departments in the last year? This would seem incredibly implausible for any administration other than this one.
Washington Post has retracted many stories it reported in error.
Now you say that you don't have a problem when Fox retracts a story that they got wrong? Really?
Do you use that same standard with CNN?
Your second post you cited this link as an example
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/7-times-cnn-botched-the-news-in-2017/- as examples of media "Fake news"
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.
Note how CNN issued a correction- and admitted the error
And again- another example you claimed was fake news- another example of CNN acknowledging their error
Later that month, CNN.com published, deleted, and then retracted and apologized for an article that claimed Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was the subject of a Senate investigation for his ties to Russian bankers. After an intense public backlash, three key members of CNN’s investigative team resigned over their role in the retracted story.
And another one in your link that CNN retracted after the fact
CNN botched another “bombshell” on Friday when it reported that Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign had received advanced access to stolen emails published by WikiLeaks. The network hyped the story as a bombshell for most of the day before TheDC’s Chuck Ross debunked it, revealing several serious errors with the story.
So why is it okay for Fox to print "Fake news" as long as it retracts it later- but not okay when CNN does the same thing?
The difference is in how it is reported and how it is retracted. When it is thrown out there as red meat that goes viral in minutes and then is quietly amended, deleted, admitted as error, the damage is already done and few ever see or know about the correction. For the most part, Fox goes on air on the program the error occurred and corrects the misinformation. When and if they don't do that, and somebody is unjustly or wrongly trashed, they would be just as culpable as CNN or any other news organization that is making money by trashing people with fake news.
So tell me more about this coup that is going on according to Fox.
I think you'll have to find somebody dealing in fake news to talk to you about that.
Well at least we agree that Fox's declaration of a coup is fake news
I didn't agree to anything and haven't any idea what you mean by a coup in this context.
Too often we don't get a fair accounting of both sides of any story, honest investigations of both political parties and policies are rare indeed. A double standard exists for Repubs and Dems with one side getting a raw deal and the other getting preferential treatment with negative stories downplayed or totally ignored. Even in the public forums and college campuses we have some people trying to deny others their rights to speech, and that attitude is pervasive throughout our society including journalism. And it's reached the point where accusations are treated as truth by the media if it is critical of the other side, and it's hard to get to the truth sometimes. Which leaves us somewhat vulnerable as a society I think.
Exactly!We've reached a point where we will only believe "news" items that we fancy, and where we can maintain a safe ideological space from that which we don't.
We're doing this to ourselves. This is destructive for a republic, and we're watching the resulting decay in real time. As we point the finger at the "other side". As usual.
.
Too often we don't get a fair accounting of both sides of any story, honest investigations of both political parties and policies are rare indeed.
We've reached a point where we will only believe "news" items that we fancy, and where we can maintain a safe ideological space from that which we don't.
We're doing this to ourselves. This is destructive for a republic, and we're watching the resulting decay in real time. As we point the finger at the "other side". As usual.
.
I'm not a big fan of the current usage of the word "Truth". Today, all it means is "stuff that I agree with".We've reached a point where we will only believe "news" items that we fancy, and where we can maintain a safe ideological space from that which we don't.
We're doing this to ourselves. This is destructive for a republic, and we're watching the resulting decay in real time. As we point the finger at the "other side". As usual.
.
Your post and that below yours by task0778 are both saying something similar. You imply that news can be and is "truth," but that idea is being challenged today and appropriately so.
I think there is no truth. There are only alliances. We are not interested in "truth," we are interested in our allies, and that is the "news" we want, info that helps our alliances. The news media used to have all sorts of rules and rituals to avoid this alliance thing and present what they called "facts" (opinions that want to be privileged and believed). But the news media went over to the dark side with the rest of the public over the last couple decades and during 2016, flump! it turned over completely into fake news favoring their leftwing allies, and since the right out-numbered them in critical areas, they turned out wrong about pretty much everything they "reported."
Unlike you, I am okay with all of this. It's what happened in the 1850s, too, and you can't stuff a genie back into its bottle. The nation is already disunited and on the us-vs-them system, and trying to force people to read fake news they have no reason at all to believe isn't going to stop the drift (flood) to two different opposing sides.
I'm not a big fan of the current usage of the word "Truth". Today, all it means is "stuff that I agree with".
If we can't agree on facts, and as long as we're literally dividing ourselves by the agenda of the "news" we're exposing ourselves to, our divisions will increase. The internet and talk radio have changed everything; so this is a relatively recent phenomenon.
We've reached a point where we will only believe "news" items that we fancy, and where we can maintain a safe ideological space from that which we don't.
We're doing this to ourselves. This is destructive for a republic, and we're watching the resulting decay in real time. As we point the finger at the "other side". As usual.
.
Your post and that below yours by task0778 are both saying something similar. You imply that news can be and is "truth," but that idea is being challenged today and appropriately so.
I think there is no truth. There are only alliances. We are not interested in "truth," we are interested in our allies, and that is the "news" we want, info that helps our alliances. The news media used to have all sorts of rules and rituals to avoid this alliance thing and present what they called "facts" (opinions that want to be privileged and believed). But the news media went over to the dark side with the rest of the public over the last couple decades and during 2016, flump! it turned over completely into fake news favoring their leftwing allies, and since the right out-numbered them in critical areas, they turned out wrong about pretty much everything they "reported."
Unlike you, I am okay with all of this. It's what happened in the 1850s, too, and you can't stuff a genie back into its bottle. The nation is already disunited and on the us-vs-them system, and trying to force people to read fake news they have no reason at all to believe isn't going to stop the drift (flood) to two different opposing sides.
You imply that news can be and is "truth," but that idea is being challenged today and appropriately so.
What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.they turned out wrong
I think there is no truth.
We are not interested in "truth,"
I'm not a big fan of the current usage of the word "Truth". Today, all it means is "stuff that I agree with".We've reached a point where we will only believe "news" items that we fancy, and where we can maintain a safe ideological space from that which we don't.
We're doing this to ourselves. This is destructive for a republic, and we're watching the resulting decay in real time. As we point the finger at the "other side". As usual.
.
Your post and that below yours by task0778 are both saying something similar. You imply that news can be and is "truth," but that idea is being challenged today and appropriately so.
I think there is no truth. There are only alliances. We are not interested in "truth," we are interested in our allies, and that is the "news" we want, info that helps our alliances. The news media used to have all sorts of rules and rituals to avoid this alliance thing and present what they called "facts" (opinions that want to be privileged and believed). But the news media went over to the dark side with the rest of the public over the last couple decades and during 2016, flump! it turned over completely into fake news favoring their leftwing allies, and since the right out-numbered them in critical areas, they turned out wrong about pretty much everything they "reported."
Unlike you, I am okay with all of this. It's what happened in the 1850s, too, and you can't stuff a genie back into its bottle. The nation is already disunited and on the us-vs-them system, and trying to force people to read fake news they have no reason at all to believe isn't going to stop the drift (flood) to two different opposing sides.
If we can't agree on facts, and as long as we're literally dividing ourselves by the agenda of the "news" we're exposing ourselves to, our divisions will increase. The internet and talk radio have changed everything; so this is a relatively recent phenomenon.
.
I'm not a big fan of the current usage of the word "Truth". Today, all it means is "stuff that I agree with".
Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.
I think there is no truth.
Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.
