The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
19 Feb 2017, 11:20 am
19 Feb 2017, 12:35 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Feb 2017, 12:38 pm
Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I think there's quite a bit of confusion as to what constitutes "fake news", particularly among Trump supporters but also generally.
There's the ridiculous Trump definition, which is "anything which criticises me". There's the similarly ridiculous but less common definition, which is "news from outlets I don't like or presented in a way I don't like". And then there's the sensible original definition which has been overshadowed, publishers spreading hoaxes and disinformation with a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Reputable moderate outlets like CNN and the NYT might occasionally make mistakes, but they are reputable and achieve a level of accuracy which their loudest critics struggle with. Similarly, conservative outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the Chicago Tribune might not agree with you, but they're reputable, reliable, and broadly accurate - not "fake news". Then you have outlets like Fox and MSNBC, which lean a little towards being propaganda outlets but are still nearly always reporting on genuine events. Keep your brain attached and don't depend on them, but you can also be assured that what they say has some basis in fact. Even extreme outlets like Sputnik and Breitbart might publish a lot of highly opinionated crap, and have a less rigorous approach to fact checking, but when it comes down to it they're not fake news, they just report in a particularly biased and lazy manner - they're about as reliable as random people, which isn't great but is better than an informed liar.
The real "fake news" are the websites which spoof reliable ones (abc.com.co), or those with no concern for accuracy whatsoever (Denver Guardian). These are the ones reporting that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, that Hillary Clinton ran a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant, or that a woman was arrested for using her boss's desk as a toilet after winning the lottery. It does not include some guy Tweeting about MLK's bust being removed and then correcting himself, or people reporting Trump's unpopularity, or the BBC running fewer stories on an issue than you want them to.
You're always going to have a range of opinions in the news media (although Trump seems to be testing that; even most conservative outlets seem to be criticising him right now), that's not a problem, it's one of the benefits of the free press. As I see it, the biggest issue is confirmation bias (people only seeking out news from outlets who they agree with politically). Genuine fake news, and people's inability to distinguish lies from facts, is a real issue, but usually a lesser one.
There's the ridiculous Trump definition, which is "anything which criticises me". There's the similarly ridiculous but less common definition, which is "news from outlets I don't like or presented in a way I don't like". And then there's the sensible original definition which has been overshadowed, publishers spreading hoaxes and disinformation with a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Reputable moderate outlets like CNN and the NYT might occasionally make mistakes, but they are reputable and achieve a level of accuracy which their loudest critics struggle with. Similarly, conservative outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the Chicago Tribune might not agree with you, but they're reputable, reliable, and broadly accurate - not "fake news". Then you have outlets like Fox and MSNBC, which lean a little towards being propaganda outlets but are still nearly always reporting on genuine events. Keep your brain attached and don't depend on them, but you can also be assured that what they say has some basis in fact. Even extreme outlets like Sputnik and Breitbart might publish a lot of highly opinionated crap, and have a less rigorous approach to fact checking, but when it comes down to it they're not fake news, they just report in a particularly biased and lazy manner - they're about as reliable as random people, which isn't great but is better than an informed liar.
The real "fake news" are the websites which spoof reliable ones (abc.com.co), or those with no concern for accuracy whatsoever (Denver Guardian). These are the ones reporting that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, that Hillary Clinton ran a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant, or that a woman was arrested for using her boss's desk as a toilet after winning the lottery. It does not include some guy Tweeting about MLK's bust being removed and then correcting himself, or people reporting Trump's unpopularity, or the BBC running fewer stories on an issue than you want them to.
You're always going to have a range of opinions in the news media (although Trump seems to be testing that; even most conservative outlets seem to be criticising him right now), that's not a problem, it's one of the benefits of the free press. As I see it, the biggest issue is confirmation bias (people only seeking out news from outlets who they agree with politically). Genuine fake news, and people's inability to distinguish lies from facts, is a real issue, but usually a lesser one.
This isn't why the media made the term up for, they made it up to tar & feather sites like Breitbart and Drudge while insinuating some malicious Russian influence behind them before it backfired in their face. The media in it's stupidity really doesn't comprehend the bubble they live in, their hubris about 'fake news' showed their total lack of self-awareness and how distorted the perception of themselves is as it obviously was immediately seized upon & applied against them. Now they're scrambling pretending they only innocently meant spoof websites as if they had a serious effect on the election and warranted full scale media narrative push across platforms(this is how you know their is coordination in the media). They are not making mistakes, they are not journalists nor do they deserve the respect of one. It's ridiculous that the propagandists on CNN(reputable and moderate to who, you and no one else?
) try to say that calling them 'fake news' is like calling a black person the 'n-word'. 'Fake news' was never meant in the most literal sense and it's fun to make these people live by their own rules & squirm, Saul Alinsky can teach us all so much.So, you consider so called news outlets ranting and raving about a Clinton/Lady GaGa pedophile ring, or about massive voter fraud leading to Trump losing the popular vote, to be more reliable than CNN, or MSNBC?
19 Feb 2017, 12:51 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I think there's quite a bit of confusion as to what constitutes "fake news", particularly among Trump supporters but also generally.
There's the ridiculous Trump definition, which is "anything which criticises me". There's the similarly ridiculous but less common definition, which is "news from outlets I don't like or presented in a way I don't like". And then there's the sensible original definition which has been overshadowed, publishers spreading hoaxes and disinformation with a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Reputable moderate outlets like CNN and the NYT might occasionally make mistakes, but they are reputable and achieve a level of accuracy which their loudest critics struggle with. Similarly, conservative outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the Chicago Tribune might not agree with you, but they're reputable, reliable, and broadly accurate - not "fake news". Then you have outlets like Fox and MSNBC, which lean a little towards being propaganda outlets but are still nearly always reporting on genuine events. Keep your brain attached and don't depend on them, but you can also be assured that what they say has some basis in fact. Even extreme outlets like Sputnik and Breitbart might publish a lot of highly opinionated crap, and have a less rigorous approach to fact checking, but when it comes down to it they're not fake news, they just report in a particularly biased and lazy manner - they're about as reliable as random people, which isn't great but is better than an informed liar.
The real "fake news" are the websites which spoof reliable ones (abc.com.co), or those with no concern for accuracy whatsoever (Denver Guardian). These are the ones reporting that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, that Hillary Clinton ran a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant, or that a woman was arrested for using her boss's desk as a toilet after winning the lottery. It does not include some guy Tweeting about MLK's bust being removed and then correcting himself, or people reporting Trump's unpopularity, or the BBC running fewer stories on an issue than you want them to.
You're always going to have a range of opinions in the news media (although Trump seems to be testing that; even most conservative outlets seem to be criticising him right now), that's not a problem, it's one of the benefits of the free press. As I see it, the biggest issue is confirmation bias (people only seeking out news from outlets who they agree with politically). Genuine fake news, and people's inability to distinguish lies from facts, is a real issue, but usually a lesser one.
There's the ridiculous Trump definition, which is "anything which criticises me". There's the similarly ridiculous but less common definition, which is "news from outlets I don't like or presented in a way I don't like". And then there's the sensible original definition which has been overshadowed, publishers spreading hoaxes and disinformation with a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Reputable moderate outlets like CNN and the NYT might occasionally make mistakes, but they are reputable and achieve a level of accuracy which their loudest critics struggle with. Similarly, conservative outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the Chicago Tribune might not agree with you, but they're reputable, reliable, and broadly accurate - not "fake news". Then you have outlets like Fox and MSNBC, which lean a little towards being propaganda outlets but are still nearly always reporting on genuine events. Keep your brain attached and don't depend on them, but you can also be assured that what they say has some basis in fact. Even extreme outlets like Sputnik and Breitbart might publish a lot of highly opinionated crap, and have a less rigorous approach to fact checking, but when it comes down to it they're not fake news, they just report in a particularly biased and lazy manner - they're about as reliable as random people, which isn't great but is better than an informed liar.
The real "fake news" are the websites which spoof reliable ones (abc.com.co), or those with no concern for accuracy whatsoever (Denver Guardian). These are the ones reporting that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, that Hillary Clinton ran a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant, or that a woman was arrested for using her boss's desk as a toilet after winning the lottery. It does not include some guy Tweeting about MLK's bust being removed and then correcting himself, or people reporting Trump's unpopularity, or the BBC running fewer stories on an issue than you want them to.
You're always going to have a range of opinions in the news media (although Trump seems to be testing that; even most conservative outlets seem to be criticising him right now), that's not a problem, it's one of the benefits of the free press. As I see it, the biggest issue is confirmation bias (people only seeking out news from outlets who they agree with politically). Genuine fake news, and people's inability to distinguish lies from facts, is a real issue, but usually a lesser one.
This isn't why the media made the term up for, they made it up to tar & feather sites like Breitbart and Drudge while insinuating some malicious Russian influence behind them before it backfired in their face. The media in it's stupidity really doesn't comprehend the bubble they live in, their hubris about 'fake news' showed their total lack of self-awareness and how distorted the perception of themselves is as it obviously was immediately seized upon & applied against them. Now they're scrambling pretending they only innocently meant spoof websites as if they had a serious effect on the election and warranted full scale media narrative push across platforms(this is how you know their is coordination in the media). They are not making mistakes, they are not journalists nor do they deserve the respect of one. It's ridiculous that the propagandists on CNN(reputable and moderate to who, you and no one else?
) try to say that calling them 'fake news' is like calling a black person the 'n-word'. 'Fake news' was never meant in the most literal sense and it's fun to make these people live by their own rules & squirm, Saul Alinsky can teach us all so much.So, you consider so called news outlets ranting and raving about a Clinton/Lady GaGa pedophile ring, or about massive voter fraud leading to Trump losing the popular vote, to be more reliable than CNN, or MSNBC?
What news outlets were those, did they host any debates?
The voter fraud stuff has been more or less substantiated, whether or not it was enough to change the popular vote I don't know but it likely effected the outcome of local races. We're talking at least hundreds of thousands of illegal votes and possibly many more.
Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1028
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
19 Feb 2017, 12:52 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Feb 2017, 12:56 pm
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I think there's quite a bit of confusion as to what constitutes "fake news", particularly among Trump supporters but also generally.
There's the ridiculous Trump definition, which is "anything which criticises me". There's the similarly ridiculous but less common definition, which is "news from outlets I don't like or presented in a way I don't like". And then there's the sensible original definition which has been overshadowed, publishers spreading hoaxes and disinformation with a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Reputable moderate outlets like CNN and the NYT might occasionally make mistakes, but they are reputable and achieve a level of accuracy which their loudest critics struggle with. Similarly, conservative outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the Chicago Tribune might not agree with you, but they're reputable, reliable, and broadly accurate - not "fake news". Then you have outlets like Fox and MSNBC, which lean a little towards being propaganda outlets but are still nearly always reporting on genuine events. Keep your brain attached and don't depend on them, but you can also be assured that what they say has some basis in fact. Even extreme outlets like Sputnik and Breitbart might publish a lot of highly opinionated crap, and have a less rigorous approach to fact checking, but when it comes down to it they're not fake news, they just report in a particularly biased and lazy manner - they're about as reliable as random people, which isn't great but is better than an informed liar.
The real "fake news" are the websites which spoof reliable ones (abc.com.co), or those with no concern for accuracy whatsoever (Denver Guardian). These are the ones reporting that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, that Hillary Clinton ran a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant, or that a woman was arrested for using her boss's desk as a toilet after winning the lottery. It does not include some guy Tweeting about MLK's bust being removed and then correcting himself, or people reporting Trump's unpopularity, or the BBC running fewer stories on an issue than you want them to.
You're always going to have a range of opinions in the news media (although Trump seems to be testing that; even most conservative outlets seem to be criticising him right now), that's not a problem, it's one of the benefits of the free press. As I see it, the biggest issue is confirmation bias (people only seeking out news from outlets who they agree with politically). Genuine fake news, and people's inability to distinguish lies from facts, is a real issue, but usually a lesser one.
There's the ridiculous Trump definition, which is "anything which criticises me". There's the similarly ridiculous but less common definition, which is "news from outlets I don't like or presented in a way I don't like". And then there's the sensible original definition which has been overshadowed, publishers spreading hoaxes and disinformation with a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Reputable moderate outlets like CNN and the NYT might occasionally make mistakes, but they are reputable and achieve a level of accuracy which their loudest critics struggle with. Similarly, conservative outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the Chicago Tribune might not agree with you, but they're reputable, reliable, and broadly accurate - not "fake news". Then you have outlets like Fox and MSNBC, which lean a little towards being propaganda outlets but are still nearly always reporting on genuine events. Keep your brain attached and don't depend on them, but you can also be assured that what they say has some basis in fact. Even extreme outlets like Sputnik and Breitbart might publish a lot of highly opinionated crap, and have a less rigorous approach to fact checking, but when it comes down to it they're not fake news, they just report in a particularly biased and lazy manner - they're about as reliable as random people, which isn't great but is better than an informed liar.
The real "fake news" are the websites which spoof reliable ones (abc.com.co), or those with no concern for accuracy whatsoever (Denver Guardian). These are the ones reporting that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, that Hillary Clinton ran a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant, or that a woman was arrested for using her boss's desk as a toilet after winning the lottery. It does not include some guy Tweeting about MLK's bust being removed and then correcting himself, or people reporting Trump's unpopularity, or the BBC running fewer stories on an issue than you want them to.
You're always going to have a range of opinions in the news media (although Trump seems to be testing that; even most conservative outlets seem to be criticising him right now), that's not a problem, it's one of the benefits of the free press. As I see it, the biggest issue is confirmation bias (people only seeking out news from outlets who they agree with politically). Genuine fake news, and people's inability to distinguish lies from facts, is a real issue, but usually a lesser one.
This isn't why the media made the term up for, they made it up to tar & feather sites like Breitbart and Drudge while insinuating some malicious Russian influence behind them before it backfired in their face. The media in it's stupidity really doesn't comprehend the bubble they live in, their hubris about 'fake news' showed their total lack of self-awareness and how distorted the perception of themselves is as it obviously was immediately seized upon & applied against them. Now they're scrambling pretending they only innocently meant spoof websites as if they had a serious effect on the election and warranted full scale media narrative push across platforms(this is how you know their is coordination in the media). They are not making mistakes, they are not journalists nor do they deserve the respect of one. It's ridiculous that the propagandists on CNN(reputable and moderate to who, you and no one else?
) try to say that calling them 'fake news' is like calling a black person the 'n-word'. 'Fake news' was never meant in the most literal sense and it's fun to make these people live by their own rules & squirm, Saul Alinsky can teach us all so much.So, you consider so called news outlets ranting and raving about a Clinton/Lady GaGa pedophile ring, or about massive voter fraud leading to Trump losing the popular vote, to be more reliable than CNN, or MSNBC?
What news outlets were those, did they host any debates?
The voter fraud stuff has been more or less substantiated, whether or not it was enough to change the popular vote I don't know but it likely effected the outcome of local races. We're talking at least hundreds of thousands of illegal votes and possibly many more.
The worst offenders - no. Because until Trump's election, real fake news like Breitbart were recognized as the cranks and liars they are.
19 Feb 2017, 1:03 pm
19 Feb 2017, 1:13 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I think there's quite a bit of confusion as to what constitutes "fake news", particularly among Trump supporters but also generally.
There's the ridiculous Trump definition, which is "anything which criticises me". There's the similarly ridiculous but less common definition, which is "news from outlets I don't like or presented in a way I don't like". And then there's the sensible original definition which has been overshadowed, publishers spreading hoaxes and disinformation with a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Reputable moderate outlets like CNN and the NYT might occasionally make mistakes, but they are reputable and achieve a level of accuracy which their loudest critics struggle with. Similarly, conservative outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the Chicago Tribune might not agree with you, but they're reputable, reliable, and broadly accurate - not "fake news". Then you have outlets like Fox and MSNBC, which lean a little towards being propaganda outlets but are still nearly always reporting on genuine events. Keep your brain attached and don't depend on them, but you can also be assured that what they say has some basis in fact. Even extreme outlets like Sputnik and Breitbart might publish a lot of highly opinionated crap, and have a less rigorous approach to fact checking, but when it comes down to it they're not fake news, they just report in a particularly biased and lazy manner - they're about as reliable as random people, which isn't great but is better than an informed liar.
The real "fake news" are the websites which spoof reliable ones (abc.com.co), or those with no concern for accuracy whatsoever (Denver Guardian). These are the ones reporting that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, that Hillary Clinton ran a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant, or that a woman was arrested for using her boss's desk as a toilet after winning the lottery. It does not include some guy Tweeting about MLK's bust being removed and then correcting himself, or people reporting Trump's unpopularity, or the BBC running fewer stories on an issue than you want them to.
You're always going to have a range of opinions in the news media (although Trump seems to be testing that; even most conservative outlets seem to be criticising him right now), that's not a problem, it's one of the benefits of the free press. As I see it, the biggest issue is confirmation bias (people only seeking out news from outlets who they agree with politically). Genuine fake news, and people's inability to distinguish lies from facts, is a real issue, but usually a lesser one.
There's the ridiculous Trump definition, which is "anything which criticises me". There's the similarly ridiculous but less common definition, which is "news from outlets I don't like or presented in a way I don't like". And then there's the sensible original definition which has been overshadowed, publishers spreading hoaxes and disinformation with a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Reputable moderate outlets like CNN and the NYT might occasionally make mistakes, but they are reputable and achieve a level of accuracy which their loudest critics struggle with. Similarly, conservative outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the Chicago Tribune might not agree with you, but they're reputable, reliable, and broadly accurate - not "fake news". Then you have outlets like Fox and MSNBC, which lean a little towards being propaganda outlets but are still nearly always reporting on genuine events. Keep your brain attached and don't depend on them, but you can also be assured that what they say has some basis in fact. Even extreme outlets like Sputnik and Breitbart might publish a lot of highly opinionated crap, and have a less rigorous approach to fact checking, but when it comes down to it they're not fake news, they just report in a particularly biased and lazy manner - they're about as reliable as random people, which isn't great but is better than an informed liar.
The real "fake news" are the websites which spoof reliable ones (abc.com.co), or those with no concern for accuracy whatsoever (Denver Guardian). These are the ones reporting that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, that Hillary Clinton ran a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant, or that a woman was arrested for using her boss's desk as a toilet after winning the lottery. It does not include some guy Tweeting about MLK's bust being removed and then correcting himself, or people reporting Trump's unpopularity, or the BBC running fewer stories on an issue than you want them to.
You're always going to have a range of opinions in the news media (although Trump seems to be testing that; even most conservative outlets seem to be criticising him right now), that's not a problem, it's one of the benefits of the free press. As I see it, the biggest issue is confirmation bias (people only seeking out news from outlets who they agree with politically). Genuine fake news, and people's inability to distinguish lies from facts, is a real issue, but usually a lesser one.
This isn't why the media made the term up for, they made it up to tar & feather sites like Breitbart and Drudge while insinuating some malicious Russian influence behind them before it backfired in their face. The media in it's stupidity really doesn't comprehend the bubble they live in, their hubris about 'fake news' showed their total lack of self-awareness and how distorted the perception of themselves is as it obviously was immediately seized upon & applied against them. Now they're scrambling pretending they only innocently meant spoof websites as if they had a serious effect on the election and warranted full scale media narrative push across platforms(this is how you know their is coordination in the media). They are not making mistakes, they are not journalists nor do they deserve the respect of one. It's ridiculous that the propagandists on CNN(reputable and moderate to who, you and no one else?
) try to say that calling them 'fake news' is like calling a black person the 'n-word'. 'Fake news' was never meant in the most literal sense and it's fun to make these people live by their own rules & squirm, Saul Alinsky can teach us all so much.So, you consider so called news outlets ranting and raving about a Clinton/Lady GaGa pedophile ring, or about massive voter fraud leading to Trump losing the popular vote, to be more reliable than CNN, or MSNBC?
What news outlets were those, did they host any debates?
The voter fraud stuff has been more or less substantiated, whether or not it was enough to change the popular vote I don't know but it likely effected the outcome of local races. We're talking at least hundreds of thousands of illegal votes and possibly many more.
The worst offenders - no. Because until Trump's election, real fake news like Breitbart were recognized as the cranks and liars they are.
CNN said it was illegal for you to look at Wikileaks yourself and only the exalted ones in the media could tell you about it, did you believe that? Chris Cuomo is the same idiot that said fake news was the 'n-word' to journalists.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Feb 2017, 1:19 pm
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I think there's quite a bit of confusion as to what constitutes "fake news", particularly among Trump supporters but also generally.
There's the ridiculous Trump definition, which is "anything which criticises me". There's the similarly ridiculous but less common definition, which is "news from outlets I don't like or presented in a way I don't like". And then there's the sensible original definition which has been overshadowed, publishers spreading hoaxes and disinformation with a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Reputable moderate outlets like CNN and the NYT might occasionally make mistakes, but they are reputable and achieve a level of accuracy which their loudest critics struggle with. Similarly, conservative outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the Chicago Tribune might not agree with you, but they're reputable, reliable, and broadly accurate - not "fake news". Then you have outlets like Fox and MSNBC, which lean a little towards being propaganda outlets but are still nearly always reporting on genuine events. Keep your brain attached and don't depend on them, but you can also be assured that what they say has some basis in fact. Even extreme outlets like Sputnik and Breitbart might publish a lot of highly opinionated crap, and have a less rigorous approach to fact checking, but when it comes down to it they're not fake news, they just report in a particularly biased and lazy manner - they're about as reliable as random people, which isn't great but is better than an informed liar.
The real "fake news" are the websites which spoof reliable ones (abc.com.co), or those with no concern for accuracy whatsoever (Denver Guardian). These are the ones reporting that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, that Hillary Clinton ran a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant, or that a woman was arrested for using her boss's desk as a toilet after winning the lottery. It does not include some guy Tweeting about MLK's bust being removed and then correcting himself, or people reporting Trump's unpopularity, or the BBC running fewer stories on an issue than you want them to.
You're always going to have a range of opinions in the news media (although Trump seems to be testing that; even most conservative outlets seem to be criticising him right now), that's not a problem, it's one of the benefits of the free press. As I see it, the biggest issue is confirmation bias (people only seeking out news from outlets who they agree with politically). Genuine fake news, and people's inability to distinguish lies from facts, is a real issue, but usually a lesser one.
There's the ridiculous Trump definition, which is "anything which criticises me". There's the similarly ridiculous but less common definition, which is "news from outlets I don't like or presented in a way I don't like". And then there's the sensible original definition which has been overshadowed, publishers spreading hoaxes and disinformation with a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Reputable moderate outlets like CNN and the NYT might occasionally make mistakes, but they are reputable and achieve a level of accuracy which their loudest critics struggle with. Similarly, conservative outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the Chicago Tribune might not agree with you, but they're reputable, reliable, and broadly accurate - not "fake news". Then you have outlets like Fox and MSNBC, which lean a little towards being propaganda outlets but are still nearly always reporting on genuine events. Keep your brain attached and don't depend on them, but you can also be assured that what they say has some basis in fact. Even extreme outlets like Sputnik and Breitbart might publish a lot of highly opinionated crap, and have a less rigorous approach to fact checking, but when it comes down to it they're not fake news, they just report in a particularly biased and lazy manner - they're about as reliable as random people, which isn't great but is better than an informed liar.
The real "fake news" are the websites which spoof reliable ones (abc.com.co), or those with no concern for accuracy whatsoever (Denver Guardian). These are the ones reporting that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, that Hillary Clinton ran a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant, or that a woman was arrested for using her boss's desk as a toilet after winning the lottery. It does not include some guy Tweeting about MLK's bust being removed and then correcting himself, or people reporting Trump's unpopularity, or the BBC running fewer stories on an issue than you want them to.
You're always going to have a range of opinions in the news media (although Trump seems to be testing that; even most conservative outlets seem to be criticising him right now), that's not a problem, it's one of the benefits of the free press. As I see it, the biggest issue is confirmation bias (people only seeking out news from outlets who they agree with politically). Genuine fake news, and people's inability to distinguish lies from facts, is a real issue, but usually a lesser one.
This isn't why the media made the term up for, they made it up to tar & feather sites like Breitbart and Drudge while insinuating some malicious Russian influence behind them before it backfired in their face. The media in it's stupidity really doesn't comprehend the bubble they live in, their hubris about 'fake news' showed their total lack of self-awareness and how distorted the perception of themselves is as it obviously was immediately seized upon & applied against them. Now they're scrambling pretending they only innocently meant spoof websites as if they had a serious effect on the election and warranted full scale media narrative push across platforms(this is how you know their is coordination in the media). They are not making mistakes, they are not journalists nor do they deserve the respect of one. It's ridiculous that the propagandists on CNN(reputable and moderate to who, you and no one else?
) try to say that calling them 'fake news' is like calling a black person the 'n-word'. 'Fake news' was never meant in the most literal sense and it's fun to make these people live by their own rules & squirm, Saul Alinsky can teach us all so much.So, you consider so called news outlets ranting and raving about a Clinton/Lady GaGa pedophile ring, or about massive voter fraud leading to Trump losing the popular vote, to be more reliable than CNN, or MSNBC?
What news outlets were those, did they host any debates?
The voter fraud stuff has been more or less substantiated, whether or not it was enough to change the popular vote I don't know but it likely effected the outcome of local races. We're talking at least hundreds of thousands of illegal votes and possibly many more.
The worst offenders - no. Because until Trump's election, real fake news like Breitbart were recognized as the cranks and liars they are.
CNN said it was illegal for you to look at Wikileaks yourself and only the exalted ones in the media could tell you about it, did you believe that? Chris Cuomo is the same idiot that said fake news was the 'n-word' to journalists.
Cuomo makes a point that this was stolen information Wikileaks used. I didn't hear him say anything about us not being able to read Wikileaks.
19 Feb 2017, 1:27 pm
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
19 Feb 2017, 4:08 pm
Other news from a known fake source: Terrorists Strike in Sweden. 
19 Feb 2017, 4:13 pm
androbot01 wrote:
Other news from a known fake source: Terrorists Strike in Sweden.
Trump was referencing Sweden being the rape capital of the world after letting in hundreds of thousands of refugees, something a lot of Swedes are still in denial about.
19 Feb 2017, 4:21 pm
androbot01 wrote:
Other news from a known fake source: Terrorists Strike in Sweden.
It's never fake news when Trump, his friends and supporters mention it. It only applies to when others do it. That's their messed up logic!
These people have literally no shame and act like they are the only ones that matter. It's sickening.
19 Feb 2017, 4:24 pm
19 Feb 2017, 4:51 pm
Jacoby wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
Other news from a known fake source: Terrorists Strike in Sweden.
Trump was referencing Sweden being the rape capital of the world after letting in hundreds of thousands of refugees, something a lot of Swedes are still in denial about.
He was? The American, International and NZ media that I read all cited his comment on Sweden as specifically referencing events which were said to have occurred the night before.
Trump spin doctors might desperately try to reframe what he said so that it looks good for their hero, that is understandable given where they are coming from and what they are paid to say, though whether that does him any favours is debatable.
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
19 Feb 2017, 4:52 pm
Jacoby wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
Other news from a known fake source: Terrorists Strike in Sweden.
Trump was referencing Sweden being the rape capital of the world after letting in hundreds of thousands of refugees, something a lot of Swedes are still in denial about.
He specifically mentions something that happened "last night." What was it?
