• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is worse? "Fake news" or "LBO news"?

Of the two, which is worse? "Fake news" or "LBO news"?

  • "Fake news"

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • "LBO news" (see post #1 for definition)

    Votes: 7 100.0%
  • Total voters
    7
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Which is worse? "Fake news" or "LBO news"?

"LBO news" is what I call "Lie-By-Omission news". News that is partially truthful, but also a lie-by-omission due to what they don't include. They'll tell you only the parts that they want you to know, and leave out parts that might cause you to go the other direction.

Common LBO news outlets would be Fox News (the most famous and vilified), Breitbart, TruthOut, DailyKOS, Alternet, Occupy Democrats, and so on. (Yes, liberal LBO news outlets are greater in number, but market share and influence is roughly equal.)

Some recent high-profile incidents notwithstanding regarding fake news and it's effects, I find LBO news to be much more insidious and detrimental to our overall civility and discourse. They also feed our current atmosphere of hyper-partisanship, and that is not doing us any favors.

Fake news attracts a few crackpots, to be sure, but most people are at least somewhat skeptical when the really outrageous stuff is presented. I mean, even most conservatives do not believe that Hillary Clinton was involved in a child sex ring. I mean, c'mon.

LBO news, on the other hand, appeals to whole slews of people who are almost salivating at the chance to further their own agenda and point-of-view, but are otherwise intelligent and basically decent people. They only hear what they want to hear, so they latch onto any reasonably sounding (to them) report and run with it as if it is complete gospel and proves their side is the righteous side. If you continually share any of these sources as your citations, then you are part of the problem of hyper-partisanship, and it doesn't matter which side of the political aisle you are on.

An example of how LBO news influences thought and perception: Physical attacks after the recent election. A radio host that I respect, who is basically middle-of-the road, was telling the story of his adult son who is extremely liberal. His son laps up all the information presented by the liberal LBO sites mentioned above, and was under the impression that all the physical violence was all one-sided... Trump supporters and conservatives attacking liberals. He honestly believed that because that's all he saw.

The radio host, being more moderate, had been seeing scores of reports from both sides and in both directions. He talked with his son, showed him some of the videos and news stories, as a matter of balance, and the son was shocked. His son said, "I had no idea. I never saw any reports like this."

He didn't see anything because he consciously chose to have his bias confirmed, rather than be truly informed. This is a great example of why I find LBO news sites to be far more detrimental than fake news sites.

Now, are LBO news sites lying? Maybe sometimes, but not automatically and not necessarily. There's usually at least a kernel of truth in there. Sometimes everything they say is true, just incomplete. Where they are being deceptive... intentionally deceptive, in my opinion... is in what they DON'T say.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Which is worse? "Fake news" or "LBO news"?

"LBO news" is what I call "Lie-by-omission news". News that is partially truthful, but also a lie-by-omission due to what they don't include. They'll tell you only the parts that they want you to know, and leave out parts that might cause you to go the other direction.

Common LBO news outlets would be Fox News (the most famous and vilified), Breitbart, TruthOut, DailyKOS, Alternet, Occupy Democrats, and so on. (Yes, liberal LBO news outlets are greater in number, but market share and influence is roughly equal.)

Some recent high-profile incidents notwithstanding regarding fake news and it's effects, I find LBO news to be much more insidious and detrimental to our overall civility and discourse. They also feed our current atmosphere of hyper-partisanship, and that is not doing us any favors.

Fake news attracts a few crackpots, to be sure, but most people are at least somewhat skeptical when the really outrageous stuff is presented. I mean, even most conservatives do not believe that Hillary Clinton was involved in a child sex ring. I mean, c'mon.

LBO news, on the other hand, appeals whole slews of people are almost salivating at the chance to further their own agenda and point-of-view, but are otherwise intelligent and basically decent people. They only hear what they want to hear, so they latch onto any reasonably sounding (to them) report and run with it as if it is complete gospel and proves their side is the righteous side. If you continually share any of these sources as your citations, then you are part of the problem of hyper-partisanship, and it doesn't matter which side of the political aisle you are on.

An example of how LBO news influences thought and perception: Physical attacks after the recent election. A radio host that I respect, who is basically middle-of-the road, was telling the story of his adult son who is extremely liberal. His son laps up all the information presented by the liberal LBO sites mentioned above, and was under the impression that all the physical violence was all one-sided... Trump supporters and conservatives attacking liberals. He honestly believed that because that's all he saw.

The radio host, being more moderate, had been seeing scores of reports from both sides and in both directions. He talked with his son, showed him some of the videos and news stories, as a matter of balance, and the son was shocked. His son said, "I had no idea. I never saw any reports like this."

He didn't see anything because he consciously chose to have his bias confirmed, rather than be truly informed. This is a great example of why I find LBO news sites to be far more detrimental than fake news sites.

Now, are LBO news sites lying? Maybe sometimes, but not automatically and not necessarily. There's usually at least a kernel of truth in there. Sometimes everything they say is true, just incomplete. Where they are being deceptive... intentionally deceptive, in my opinion... is in what they DON'T say.
Click to expand...

news is news. what does it matter
 
radcen said:
Which is worse? "Fake news" or "LBO news"?

"LBO news" is what I call "Lie-By-Omission news". News that is partially truthful, but also a lie-by-omission due to what they don't include. They'll tell you only the parts that they want you to know, and leave out parts that might cause you to go the other direction.

Common LBO news outlets would be Fox News (the most famous and vilified), Breitbart, TruthOut, DailyKOS, Alternet, Occupy Democrats, and so on. (Yes, liberal LBO news outlets are greater in number, but market share and influence is roughly equal.)

Some recent high-profile incidents notwithstanding regarding fake news and it's effects, I find LBO news to be much more insidious and detrimental to our overall civility and discourse. They also feed our current atmosphere of hyper-partisanship, and that is not doing us any favors.

Fake news attracts a few crackpots, to be sure, but most people are at least somewhat skeptical when the really outrageous stuff is presented. I mean, even most conservatives do not believe that Hillary Clinton was involved in a child sex ring. I mean, c'mon.

LBO news, on the other hand, appeals to whole slews of people who are almost salivating at the chance to further their own agenda and point-of-view, but are otherwise intelligent and basically decent people. They only hear what they want to hear, so they latch onto any reasonably sounding (to them) report and run with it as if it is complete gospel and proves their side is the righteous side. If you continually share any of these sources as your citations, then you are part of the problem of hyper-partisanship, and it doesn't matter which side of the political aisle you are on.

An example of how LBO news influences thought and perception: Physical attacks after the recent election. A radio host that I respect, who is basically middle-of-the road, was telling the story of his adult son who is extremely liberal. His son laps up all the information presented by the liberal LBO sites mentioned above, and was under the impression that all the physical violence was all one-sided... Trump supporters and conservatives attacking liberals. He honestly believed that because that's all he saw.

The radio host, being more moderate, had been seeing scores of reports from both sides and in both directions. He talked with his son, showed him some of the videos and news stories, as a matter of balance, and the son was shocked. His son said, "I had no idea. I never saw any reports like this."

He didn't see anything because he consciously chose to have his bias confirmed, rather than be truly informed. This is a great example of why I find LBO news sites to be far more detrimental than fake news sites.

Now, are LBO news sites lying? Maybe sometimes, but not automatically and not necessarily. There's usually at least a kernel of truth in there. Sometimes everything they say is true, just incomplete. Where they are being deceptive... intentionally deceptive, in my opinion... is in what they DON'T say.
Click to expand...

I'd say fake news is worse than LBO news, because the former can be akin to slander in many cases, and can seriously harm one's reputation.
 
I agree that most media bias is by omission but also that most of that ommision is unvoidable for two good reasons: 1) news must be current (othewise it is history) thus you need your unlimited staff to be everywhere at once and 2) your program slot is only X minutes (or column inches) long.

Your example of covering politically motivated "attacks" (in a given time period) is a good one. Is the idea to show which are more "unruly"? Do you sample those at the 3 times per week massive Trump rallies and then try to compare them to those at Clinton's once per week public campaign events that may attract 200 folks? Do you present them as per capita figures or as absolute numbers? If 10 Trump "supporters" at each event out of 3 crowds of 30K (each) "acted up" is that worse than if 2 Clinton "supporters" out of a crowd of 200 did so - or is it really the other way around?
 
"Fake News" is garbage presented as "news". An instant of my time wasted figuring out that it's garbage is an instant too much.

What you list as LBO sources are, to me, just partisan sources. I know they are partisan going in, so I know that I'll need to do some DD on anything presented before accepting it. I can handle that. I guess that means that to me the "Fake" is worse. YMMV.

The problem with both is that they get echoed over and over by people who either believe they are repeating fact or are simply using it as partisan mud to throw.
 
Sometimes fake news is pretty easy to debunk with a small amount of research.
 
radcen said:
Which is worse? "Fake news" or "LBO news"?

"LBO news" is what I call "Lie-By-Omission news". News that is partially truthful, but also a lie-by-omission due to what they don't include. They'll tell you only the parts that they want you to know, and leave out parts that might cause you to go the other direction.

Common LBO news outlets would be Fox News (the most famous and vilified), Breitbart, TruthOut, DailyKOS, Alternet, Occupy Democrats, and so on. (Yes, liberal LBO news outlets are greater in number, but market share and influence is roughly equal.)

Some recent high-profile incidents notwithstanding regarding fake news and it's effects, I find LBO news to be much more insidious and detrimental to our overall civility and discourse. They also feed our current atmosphere of hyper-partisanship, and that is not doing us any favors.

Fake news attracts a few crackpots, to be sure, but most people are at least somewhat skeptical when the really outrageous stuff is presented. I mean, even most conservatives do not believe that Hillary Clinton was involved in a child sex ring. I mean, c'mon.

LBO news, on the other hand, appeals to whole slews of people who are almost salivating at the chance to further their own agenda and point-of-view, but are otherwise intelligent and basically decent people. They only hear what they want to hear, so they latch onto any reasonably sounding (to them) report and run with it as if it is complete gospel and proves their side is the righteous side. If you continually share any of these sources as your citations, then you are part of the problem of hyper-partisanship, and it doesn't matter which side of the political aisle you are on.

An example of how LBO news influences thought and perception: Physical attacks after the recent election. A radio host that I respect, who is basically middle-of-the road, was telling the story of his adult son who is extremely liberal. His son laps up all the information presented by the liberal LBO sites mentioned above, and was under the impression that all the physical violence was all one-sided... Trump supporters and conservatives attacking liberals. He honestly believed that because that's all he saw.

The radio host, being more moderate, had been seeing scores of reports from both sides and in both directions. He talked with his son, showed him some of the videos and news stories, as a matter of balance, and the son was shocked. His son said, "I had no idea. I never saw any reports like this."

He didn't see anything because he consciously chose to have his bias confirmed, rather than be truly informed. This is a great example of why I find LBO news sites to be far more detrimental than fake news sites.

Now, are LBO news sites lying? Maybe sometimes, but not automatically and not necessarily. There's usually at least a kernel of truth in there. Sometimes everything they say is true, just incomplete. Where they are being deceptive... intentionally deceptive, in my opinion... is in what they DON'T say.
Click to expand...
From my view they are both bad.
RetiredNSmilin said:
Sometimes fake news is pretty easy to debunk with a small amount of research.
Click to expand...

As to which one is worse, I have to agree with RetiredNSmilin here, the Fake News is pretty easy to spot (for most), weed out with a few Google searches.

In this LBO is worse, and it's also what the biased media practice the most.
 
radcen said:
Which is worse? "Fake news" or "LBO news"?

"LBO news" is what I call "Lie-By-Omission news". News that is partially truthful, but also a lie-by-omission due to what they don't include. They'll tell you only the parts that they want you to know, and leave out parts that might cause you to go the other direction.

Common LBO news outlets would be Fox News (the most famous and vilified), Breitbart, TruthOut, DailyKOS, Alternet, Occupy Democrats, and so on. (Yes, liberal LBO news outlets are greater in number, but market share and influence is roughly equal.)

Some recent high-profile incidents notwithstanding regarding fake news and it's effects, I find LBO news to be much more insidious and detrimental to our overall civility and discourse. They also feed our current atmosphere of hyper-partisanship, and that is not doing us any favors.

Fake news attracts a few crackpots, to be sure, but most people are at least somewhat skeptical when the really outrageous stuff is presented. I mean, even most conservatives do not believe that Hillary Clinton was involved in a child sex ring. I mean, c'mon.

LBO news, on the other hand, appeals to whole slews of people who are almost salivating at the chance to further their own agenda and point-of-view, but are otherwise intelligent and basically decent people. They only hear what they want to hear, so they latch onto any reasonably sounding (to them) report and run with it as if it is complete gospel and proves their side is the righteous side. If you continually share any of these sources as your citations, then you are part of the problem of hyper-partisanship, and it doesn't matter which side of the political aisle you are on.

An example of how LBO news influences thought and perception: Physical attacks after the recent election. A radio host that I respect, who is basically middle-of-the road, was telling the story of his adult son who is extremely liberal. His son laps up all the information presented by the liberal LBO sites mentioned above, and was under the impression that all the physical violence was all one-sided... Trump supporters and conservatives attacking liberals. He honestly believed that because that's all he saw.

The radio host, being more moderate, had been seeing scores of reports from both sides and in both directions. He talked with his son, showed him some of the videos and news stories, as a matter of balance, and the son was shocked. His son said, "I had no idea. I never saw any reports like this."

He didn't see anything because he consciously chose to have his bias confirmed, rather than be truly informed. This is a great example of why I find LBO news sites to be far more detrimental than fake news sites.

Now, are LBO news sites lying? Maybe sometimes, but not automatically and not necessarily. There's usually at least a kernel of truth in there. Sometimes everything they say is true, just incomplete. Where they are being deceptive... intentionally deceptive, in my opinion... is in what they DON'T say.
Click to expand...

I find it necessary in either case to double check news. Even high quality media that try to be objective aren't always for whatever reasons.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I agree that most media bias is by omission but also that most of that ommision is unvoidable for two good reasons: 1) news must be current (othewise it is history) thus you need your unlimited staff to be everywhere at once and 2) your program slot is only X minutes (or column inches) long.

Your example of covering politically motivated "attacks" (in a given time period) is a good one. Is the idea to show which are more "unruly"? Do you sample those at the 3 times per week massive Trump rallies and then try to compare them to those at Clinton's once per week public campaign events that may attract 200 folks? Do you present them as per capita figures or as absolute numbers? If 10 Trump "supporters" at each event out of 3 crowds of 30K (each) "acted up" is that worse than if 2 Clinton "supporters" out of a crowd of 200 did so - or is it really the other way around?
Click to expand...
The media made a huge deal about about Trump protestors getting escorted out of Trump rallies and really lost their minds if a protestor was attacked. They were mum when Trump supporters were literally getting guns pointed at them and in two cases got shot, and were subject to more violent physical actions. Now you expect me to believe that the MSM was fair in all this?

There has been no media coverage about the Trump supporter who was killed by an illegal immigrant in Georgia. Absolutely none. Said illegal immigrant likely fled to Sanctuary City DALTON to receive government benefits as a reward for the murder that liberals support. Trump supporters are facing genocide.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Which is worse? "Fake news" or "LBO news"?

Common LBO news outlets would be Fox News (the most famous and vilified), Breitbart, TruthOut, DailyKOS, Alternet, Occupy Democrats, and so on. (Yes, liberal LBO news outlets are greater in number, but market share and influence is roughly equal.)
Click to expand...

Breitbart, TruthOut, DailyKOS, Alternet, Occupy Democrats, etc... are all biased websites where there is no expectation of receiving unbiased, unopinionated news. When it comes to Fox News, their presentation of the hard news is not famous for omitting facts from their stories as you claim.

To answer your question, both are dishonest and equally as bad. You only get "fake" news from the internet, which is easily debunked, while the major news organisations that people actually trust for accuracy like the NY Times, WAPO, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc... often omit things from their stories that would shine a bad light on the left. So take your pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom