Fake News/Media Syndrome

Mach said:

That is not evidence of bias. If they are accurately reporting on average, the character of the actions of the POTUS, and some are dramatically more negative than others, that's accurate reporting.
It would be a distortion if they intentionally played down negative stories, and searched high and low for a shred of positive to report (see Fox news).

Imagine you have 4 people that may be reported on during the normal news cycle, among all the other competing stories.
Two are largely normal guys, but both of a few important "scandals" during their administration.
One is a very popular guy that has relatively few scandals, even making it the administration's goal to keep a low profile
The last is a celebrity entertainer, entirely inexperienced in politics but claims to be the best at everything, that loves ratings and the headlines, and his in general an instigator, full-time tweeter and truth stretcher, etc., etc.

Who do you think without any mention of political lean, which ones would be more negatively and positively reported on? Clinton was good but had some scandal. Bush was goofy but Cheney and the neocons were scary...but they also used 9/11 to offset that. Obama was no-drama. Trump, well.

The fact is albqowl, a person who is seemingly a terrible person, is going to get reported on more negatively than a person who is pretty average or likable. A person who makes errors nonstop and has no filter and refuses any/all help to be diplomatic in their communication to the public, the world, etc., are likely to be jumped on by the news and public. It's as though you don't know this...but surely at your age your'e aware of these basic ways in which reality operates. That you claim this is "bias" is expected, but absurd.

Everyone knew Trump loved the spotlight going in. And he gets that by attacking people. He did that all through the campaign, and here you're saying we should ignore that, and say he's a swell guy. Funny.

Click to expand...

And yet those of us looking at it through lens that are not full of hatred, bitter partisanship, hatred of anything that isn't left or Democrat or Hillary know full well that the news that should be reported by a responsible media is nowhere near 95% negative.

NeverTrumpGOP said:

So What? What happened with Trump's investigation of Obama's BC? Did he find anything? Nope! See sigy below !

Click to expand...

I never said anything about Trump. He didn't start the rumor, he just repeated what he heard you Democrats saying, because you guys are constantly telling the world that anyone who disagrees with you is deplorable.

AlbqOwl said:

And yet those of us looking at it through lens that are not full of hatred, bitter partisanship, hatred of anything that isn't left or Democrat or Hillary know full well that the news that should be reported by a responsible media is nowhere near 95% negative.

Click to expand...

You're just repeating what you wrote, you didn't address that the news in large part reports on what's occurring and how it relates to mainstream opinion. A president tweeting lies, is currently considered news (and negative). A president lying about connections to Russia, is considered news (and negative). Firing Comey was news, and negative. Demonizing the FBI is news, and negative. Having the guy that championed the Birther movement as POTUS, is insane, and negative, and newsworthy. Trump's defense of Flynn despite all the warnings, and Flynn's lying to the FBI...what is it Albqowl?

Tell me, is that positive news? Should they just kick that one under the rug because you believe in your heart of hearts that the news should intentionally distort all that and only do about 50% negative news?

You're so ready to claim the entirety of mainstream media as irresponsible, derelict in their "duty" (which is profit by the way), but Trump...he's pretty well balanced and responsible, clocking in at around what..60% negative? You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

Mach said:

You're just repeating what you wrote, you didn't address that the news in large part reports on what's occurring and how it relates to mainstream opinion. A president tweeting lies, is currently considered news (and negative). A president lying about connections to Russia, is considered news (and negative). Firing Comey was news, and negative. Demonizing the FBI is news, and negative. Having the guy that championed the Birther movement as POTUS, is insane, and negative, and newsworthy. Trump's defense of Flynn despite all the warnings, and Flynn's lying to the FBI...what is it Albqowl?

Tell me, is that positive news? Should they just kick that one under the rug because you believe in your heart of hearts that the news should intentionally distort all that and only do about 50% negative news?

You're so ready to claim the entirety of mainstream media as irresponsible, derelict in their "duty" (which is profit by the way), but Trump...he's pretty well balanced and responsible, clocking in at around what..60% negative? You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

Click to expand...

Honest people don't equate with error as the same as lying unless the intention is to put out erroneous information and/or give an erroneous impression.

A tweeted question is not a lie.
A tweeted thought is not a lie.
A tweeted possibility is not a lie.
A tweeted opinion is not a lie.

To characterize such as a lie, however, is to lie.

Evenso, the President is NOT the media. There are countless threads out there on DP and all across the internet to discuss whether the President did or did not lie. This is not the thread for that discussion UNLESS it ties in with whether a news story re the President got what the president tweeted, said, did right or intentionally wrong.

The topic of this thread is fake news put out by the MEDIA and not wrong, erroneous, lies put out by individuals on social media and message boards.

Fake news is putting out false information citing 'anonymous sources.'

Fake news is deliberately mischaracterizing what a source said or did or extrapolating somebody's intention into something the person did not intend. (That DOES apply to many of President Trump's tweets.)

Fake news is omitting important extenuating facts or circumstances in a news story.

Fake news is arranging a news story to that any extenuating fact or circumstance is buried so deep in the story that most readers won't get that far.

Fake news is putting a misleading headline on a story on the theory most readers don't read past the headlines.

Fake news is choosing a photo that deliberately creates an impression different from what actually happened.

Fake news is burying anything positive under a sea of negativity, however non sequitur, so that the readers/audience won't see anything other than the negative.

And perhaps it isn't fake news, but it borders on it when a news source immediately looks for any negative response to a statement or event and features that as important enough to report, but blows off or ignores anything positive.

AlbqOwl said:

The degree of media bias is evident in a recent Pew poll cited in "The Washington Examiner:

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

And this despite the fact that President Trump's first year has yielded so many good things:

The first half of 2017:
President Trump?s Accomplishments (7.14.2017) - TheLead.com

And 81 major achievements in 2017:
Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed

Yet I would dare say that very few of us read or saw any of this in the MSM during 2017 or, if it was covered at all, anything positive was covered under a pile of restated negativism and/or unadulterated fake news.

Click to expand...

"Media bias"; source - "The Washington Examiner".


:lamo

jet57 said:

"Media bias"; source - "The Washington Examiner".


:lamo

Click to expand...

Dispute it if you can.

AlbqOwl said:

Dispute it if you can.

Click to expand...

Trump seven times more stupid that Obama.

Did the media "make up" all that stuff about Trump?

That's a yes or no question btw.

Addendum: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html

There's a start, since you'll want proof.

Shall I go on?

jet57 said:

Trump seven times more stupid that Obama.

Did the media "make up" all that stuff about Trump?

That's a yes or no question btw.

Addendum: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html

There's a start, since you'll want proof.

Shall I go on?

Click to expand...

Sorry but you didn't dispute or refute the point I made. Nice recitation of assigned talking points and standard tactical diversion though. I hope you have a splendid afternoon

AlbqOwl said:

Sorry but you didn't dispute or refute the point I made. Nice recitation of assigned talking points and standard tactical diversion though. I hope you have a splendid afternoon

Click to expand...

Your "point" was trashed. You used a right-wing rag to make a point that the press is mean to Trump and I showed WHY Trump or that right-wing rag doesn't like the press.

So again; did the media make all that up about Trump?

As a reminder this thread is not about:
--whether the media gets everything wrong
--whether the media gets everything wrong about the President
--whether the President lies and/or is wrong
--whether any other person lies and/or is wrong

This thread IS about whether the media--sometimes and/or often--irresponsibly puts out unsourced information that turns out to be fake/false/wrong on the face of it and/or so distorts and/or misrepresents and/or mischaracterizes the news they offer so that it gives a fake or wrong impression or instills wrong belief in readers and/or audience. And whether, if they do, is that a problem.

Currently, the unscientific straw poll for this thread suggests that roughly 35% of us do not consider fake news a problem or much of a problem. And roughly 65% of us consider it serious or extremely serious.

I've said it so many times I'm getting tired of writing it. The New York Times and the Post are not fake in any way. An average of once a month they make an error that is rarely serious and is corrected. That's not fake in any way, that's just news. Cable news and television in general gets stories wrong more often, which is 100% a product of the real fake news: Breitbart, the Gateway Pundit, The Huffington Post, etc.

And the "real fake" news comes out at lightning speed. If the police were given 2 hours to charge a suspect or they wouldn't get paid, we'd have prisons full of innocent people. That's what has happened with the media. People expect 100% accuracy but would never read a publication that only printed stories that took the time to be 100% sure every detail was accurate.

So what does it come down to? We're very, very stupid.

Absentglare said:

I fully agree that there are serious challenges to any sort of regulation of broadcast media for the sake of fairness. It's so questionably defined that whoever assumes power could bend it to their will, as you suggest.

Your historical narrative coincides with my own. There was a rise of right wing talk radio that eagerly explored the territory freshly unconstrained by the elimination of the fairness doctrine. And with the rise of talk radio, other media took it upon themselves to try to set the record straight, instead veering off in opposition. I'm afraid it's a case where, perhaps if we never had the fairness doctrine in the first place, we may not have been so susceptible to the shock of the floodgates opening.

There's a phenomenon that occurs, we tend to reposition ourselves in opposition to our adversaries. Like if you can imagine two arrows or vectors, one representing liberal, and one representing conservative. At first, they would be somewhat randomly oriented, but as time goes on, they would reposition themselves to oppose one another; the tension between them simply compels them to dig their heels in deeper.

In essence, there are forces pulling us apart, and forces holding us together. The forces holding us together have been losing, and horribly so. This is not sustainable. There is no corrective force that will solve this for us. We have to find the courage within ourselves to acknowledge the humanity of the other side, to view the other side as part of our whole, rather than an enemy to be opposed.

It's a hard path, and one we have strayed so very far from. But there is still hope...

Click to expand...

I agree. This is well spoken, but I have always considered it part of politics and human nature. There has been plenty right wing fake news, and it was very high when Obama was in office. Right wingers were doing open carry rallies, talking about their right to succeed or have a revolution. The tea party felt like a propaganda campaign was being ran against them.

Now it's polar opposite. Trump supporters talk like nationalists. Trump is all about loyalty to his administration. Imo it's the antithesis of small government. Liberals are organizing and using revolutionary language now.

We are living in a world of enemies. Sources say Putin likes seeing America behave this way. He keeps saying that this is evidence western democracies are doomed to fail. He is partly right.

The forces that hold us together is our constitution and form of government, which we need to respect and be educated on. Democratic governments like ours leads to these problems, which is groups of people struggling against each other. I view it as normal, and not necessarily a problem until we get to the point of not respecting everybody's rights and governments limits of power. I do think too many people are at the point of not carring for the rights of others. I also think too many people are manipulated by elites via the media, and they are being manipulated into doing what elites want them to do as opposed to knowing what is better for them.

So Putin is right, only if we do not respect the constitution and rights of others. And I believe if your side is in power, it's your job to be viligant and protect the rights of those who lost the election. No president should talk to any group of Americans like they are enemies, nor should any American. It's dangerous. What we should want, is protect the government we have.

ReverendHellh0und said:

Link to me that "most of them were"

Click to expand...

How can you assume a minority of Native Americans were not offended, or that a majority are Trump supporters? Look into the history, and pay attention that he did what he did in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson. A LOT of minorities think Trump is racist. I hang out with a lot of Muslim people and my neighbor's are Mexican. Almost everybody in those groups think Trump is racist.

I don't personally know a lot of Native Americans, but my brother does, and I know from their FB postings that they are not happy with Trump's stance on the Dakota access pipeline.

https://www.voanews.com/a/native-am...e-over-trump-pocahontas-comments/4140139.html

Not to mention, Trump's rallies are mostly all white. African Americans didn't vote for Hillary, but they didn't vote for Trump either. A lot of groups are up from grabs, but will not vote for the GOP.

Obama didn't say "and black people" he said his "grandmother" and she was a "typical white person". you just proved that the comment was racist. I dont know where you live that this is a common occurrance. It's not for me.

Click to expand...

At face value, it's not racist. I think it is true.... Black people have also been impacted by the same stereotypes of black males as criminal, super predators, etc. Obama didn't mention black people and their attitudes, who knows why. Perhaps it was a mistake, but you act like he is a deliberate act of malice towards white people. I don't think that his speech implies that. Obama admitted in the same speech that he struggled to see a difference in his white grandmother having racially flawed views versus his pastor. He has also said numerous times that racism is taught, and people aren't born to hate. Therefore, he is saying his grandmother was taught her fears and prejudice and so was his pastor. The difference is their color of skin.

His entire speech implied that people are more comfortable with stubble racism and prejudice when it's occurring within their own racial context, because you're more likely to feel empathy or forgive. Whereas, if you notice racism in somebody of a different racial group than you, you feel reviled, threatened, or offended, because you don't relate and it's obviously directed towards you. Your comfort level changes.

SheWolf said:

I agree. This is well spoken, but I have always considered it part of politics and human nature. There has been plenty right wing fake news, and it was very high when Obama was in office. Right wingers were doing open carry rallies, talking about their right to succeed or have a revolution. The tea party felt like a propaganda campaign was being ran against them.

Now it's polar opposite. Trump supporters talk like nationalists. Trump is all about loyalty to his administration. Imo it's the antithesis of small government. Liberals are organizing and using revolutionary language now.

We are living in a world of enemies. Sources say Putin likes seeing America behave this way. He keeps saying that this is evidence western democracies are doomed to fail. He is partly right.

The forces that hold us together is our constitution and form of government, which we need to respect and be educated on. Democratic governments like ours leads to these problems, which is groups of people struggling against each other. I view it as normal, and not necessarily a problem until we get to the point of not respecting everybody's rights and governments limits of power. I do think too many people are at the point of not carring for the rights of others. I also think too many people are manipulated by elites via the media, and they are being manipulated into doing what elites want them to do as opposed to knowing what is better for them.

So Putin is right, only if we do not respect the constitution and rights of others. And I believe if your side is in power, it's your job to be viligant and protect the rights of those who lost the election. No president should talk to any group of Americans like they are enemies, nor should any American. It's dangerous. What we should want, is protect the government we have.

Click to expand...

This true. Very true in fact. IMO, the Bush years began to polarize US politics to an extreme never seen before. Then came Obama. His presence in the Whitehouse further polarized things, as racists like McConnell and T-Baggers went wild in frustration from having a coloured guy in office. Then...Donny-Boy. The most polarizing character yet.

You people down there are having your chains yanked, and SheWolf seems to be one of the few who actually see this. Maybe y'all should put your swastikas and piss-balloons away, and work together for a change?

Enjoy the new year all...

Funny. Mr.45 has no problem speaking to the NYT.

SheWolf said:

How can you assume a minority of Native Americans were not offended, or that a majority are Trump supporters? Look into the history, and pay attention that he did what he did in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson. A LOT of minorities think Trump is racist. I hang out with a lot of Muslim people and my neighbor's are Mexican. Almost everybody in those groups think Trump is racist.

I don't personally know a lot of Native Americans, but my brother does, and I know from their FB postings that they are not happy with Trump's stance on the Dakota access pipeline.

https://www.voanews.com/a/native-am...e-over-trump-pocahontas-comments/4140139.html

Not to mention, Trump's rallies are mostly all white. African Americans didn't vote for Hillary, but they didn't vote for Trump either. A lot of groups are up from grabs, but will not vote for the GOP.

At face value, it's not racist. I think it is true.... Black people have also been impacted by the same stereotypes of black males as criminal, super predators, etc. Obama didn't mention black people and their attitudes, who knows why. Perhaps it was a mistake, but you act like he is a deliberate act of malice towards white people. I don't think that his speech implies that. Obama admitted in the same speech that he struggled to see a difference in his white grandmother having racially flawed views versus his pastor. He has also said numerous times that racism is taught, and people aren't born to hate. Therefore, he is saying his grandmother was taught her fears and prejudice and so was his pastor. The difference is their color of skin.

His entire speech implied that people are more comfortable with stubble racism and prejudice when it's occurring within their own racial context, because you're more likely to feel empathy or forgive. Whereas, if you notice racism in somebody of a different racial group than you, you feel reviled, threatened, or offended, because you don't relate and it's obviously directed towards you. Your comfort level changes.

Click to expand...

1. something being "mostly white" is not evidence of racism or anything else any more so than "98% of blacks voted for obama" would be evidence or Racism

2. I did not claim most, I responded that there is little evidence of what you claim.

3. if you have a hostile media constantly telling you something, people start to believe it.

4. if Trump said the reason that black people didn't vote for them because racism was "typical" among them, there would be 100 threads on how racist he was. You can't have it both ways.

5. You are correct, Obama did not mention that the black "subculture" (which is a subculture just like any other subculture) plays into any fears that not only a white person may have, but other black people have about young black males. I will again refer you to the cops newark episode where the black seargeant talks about this. Do I think he was being malicious? I am not so sure, between that and his comments on the cops "Acting stupidly" when his privileged friend screamed racism after being a douchebag kinda makes me think it wasn't as innocent as you think.

7. If black people and white people engage in the same suggested impressions on a certain sect of young black men, how is one subtle racism, and the other not?

ReverendHellh0und said:

1. something being "mostly white" is not evidence of racism or anything else any more so than "98% of blacks voted for obama" would be evidence or Racism

2. I did not claim most, I responded that there is little evidence of what you claim.

3. if you have a hostile media constantly telling you something, people start to believe it.

4. if Trump said the reason that black people didn't vote for them because racism was "typical" among them, there would be 100 threads on how racist he was. You can't have it both ways.

5. You are correct, Obama did not mention that the black "subculture" (which is a subculture just like any other subculture) plays into any fears that not only a white person may have, but other black people have about young black males. I will again refer you to the cops newark episode where the black seargeant talks about this. Do I think he was being malicious? I am not so sure, between that and his comments on the cops "Acting stupidly" when his privileged friend screamed racism after being a douchebag kinda makes me think it wasn't as innocent as you think.

7. If black people and white people engage in the same suggested impressions on a certain sect of young black men, how is one subtle racism, and the other not?

Click to expand...

1 and 4. I am not saying the GOP being mostly white is evidence of racism in itself. I am saying the GOP obviously has a problem reaching minorities, and there is reason why. Trump didn't say minorities won't vote for him because racism is typical among them, but the larger GOP has said similar things. When Obama won and he turned out the black vote, there was a flood of talking heads and posters on this board complaining about how they all voted for Obama just because he was black. Obama was the Affirmative Action president. He wasn't qualified, but he was black. Obama didn't deserve to be elected, and he won just because he was black. Rush Limbaugh went as far to say Colin endorsed him, because "it was about race."

The GOP and many republicans themselves have dabbled in the rhetoric.

African Americans didn't vote for Hillary. She was getting called out for her 90's speeches on super predators. As for Trump, he is just as guilty. Trump may have went after her in ads for her language, but all he did was suppress black voting. He didn't earn their vote, because of Trump's record. Look at what he did to the Central Park Five. He called on those young kids to be executed, took out a whole page in some news paper, and the kids turned out to be innocent. Everybody was freaking out thinking those kids were super predators.

When Hillary did it, it mattered, and it offended people, including a lot of African Americans. Trump doesn't get a pass.

2. Why do you say there is little evidence that Native Americans were offended? Many have publicly voiced taking offense. What would it take you make you pause and think perhaps Trump did offend a lot of people? You want them protesting in the streets?

3. Again, it's not the hostile media telling me people are offended by Trump, it's people offended by Trump telling me so. My husband travels to the ME and parts of Asia for his job. I spend most of my time with Muslims. I go to a Mosque sometimes. I know what an Iftar is, and I have taken part in it. I know Indian Muslims, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Arabs, Persians, etc. I know a lot of different types of people, and a lot of Muslims. I spend more time with Muslims and immigrants than I spend with Christians and non-immigrant Americans. The people I am around, talk about being offended by Trump. They think Trump is racist or at least thinks negatively about Islam.

We all know the mainstream criticism of Islam too, so you can't really convince me that there is not a issue in America regarding Muslim immigrants.

It is the same with the Mexican people in my neighborhood. They think Trump is racist. A couple I know has a teenage son. They said he literally cried the night Trump won. I know other immigrants who actually cried, because they were afraid.


5. You're welcome to your opinion, but I think you're taking Obama's comments out of character. He didn't say racism was better or worse in white people or black. It makes sense, because he is a bi racial.

7. I really don't know what you mean or what you're talking about.

AlbqOwl said:

I hope it is possible at DP to have 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 or represented in a way that is deliberately 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 whether in the mainstream media, on the internet, or on social media.

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.

Click to expand...

Sometimes there simply isn't very much positive to talk about. With Trump the positives stop at "has managed to conti he the economy in an upward trend". Other than that, he's campaign is being picked apart by a special prosecutor, his tax bill is wildly unpopular, has done nothing but run his mouth on foreign policy etc. Continuous lie after lie. When a crazy person ****s the bed don't expect to see much positive news coverage.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

roughdraft274 said:

Sometimes there simply isn't very much positive to talk about. With Trump the positives stop at "has managed to conti he the economy in an upward trend". Other than that, he's campaign is being picked apart by a special prosecutor, his tax bill is wildly unpopular, has done nothing but run his mouth on foreign policy etc. Continuous lie after lie. When a crazy person ****s the bed don't expect to see much positive news coverage.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The tax bill is 'wildly unpopular' as you describe it because the media has yet to be honest in anything about it and the pundits have made all these wild predictions of disaster that are put out there as news and many Americans don't have the time and inclination to ferret out better or more honest information for themselves.

A recent Pew poll determined that 95% of coverage of the Trump administration has been negative for all of 2017. That means that only a tiny fraction of anything positive has been featured if even that.

And it isn't as if there was nothing positive to report. The MSM just didn't except for Fox News and a few other honest news outlets.
Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed

It has been fun watching the MSM go into absolutely apoplectic meltdown this week over the announced intention to release the Fake News awards. You would think Santa Claus had died, that the world we know is ending, or at the very least our nation as we know it was being destroyed before our very eyes.

But they sure aren't talking much about the fake news that got the awards are they!

There are literally hundreds of such things that could have been chosen, but this is a good mix to illustrate the fake news syndrome. The 10 items chosen for the list are brilliant to show how vapid, dishonest, unprofessional, uncareful, and petty the MSM has become.

President Trump announces winners of '2017 Fake News Awards' | WJLA
https://gop.com/the-highly-anticipated-2017-fake-news-awards/

1. First on the list is Paul Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times who wrote in 2016 that the stock markets would "never" recover from the shock of Trump's election. (I don't know about you guys but my personal IRA that I rolled over from my 401K when I retired has been really really happy with President Trump.

2. ABC News' Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral with false report on President Trump and Russian collusion. (He was demoted at ABC over that one.)

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

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

5. Washington Post FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. Dishonest reporter showed picture of empty arena HOURS before crowd started pouring in.

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

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

8. Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand.

9. CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under investigation.

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