Fake News/Media Syndrome

Perotista said:

From my view point, Fox has gone from being as you stated, Pro conservative to pro Trump. Prior to Trump's election conservatism and the RNC were basically one. Now Trump waged a war against the RNC and what was once more traditional conservatism or conservatism represented by the Republican Party. This I say as all during the Primaries Trump supporters referred to him as a populist, a nationalist and even a nativist. Almost every name but a conservative.

I never considered Trump a conservative, although it appears most people do today. I never considered him a Republican either. An opportunist, yes, but not an Republican. I think, at least for the time being that Trump has taken over the Republican Party. Taken from those lifelong Republicans who put their hearts and souls into the party. I don't think Trumpism will last. He's is even being fought by some Republicans in congress. Now this could be because once Trump won the nomination, he never tried to unify the party behind him. I suppose he viewed those Republican never -Trumpers just as much as an enemy as any Democrat to include Hillary Clinton.

This is a bit off the subject, but it is interesting that when it comes to Trump's job approval or even his favorability among Republicans, the polls show approximately 45% of all republicans strongly approve of the job he is doing or view him favorable with another 35% of Republicans somewhat approve of his job performance or view him somewhat favorably. That is an 80% favorable rating among Republicans, but there are that 35% who somewhat approve or view him favorably that could switch fairly easily from that column into the somewhat disapprove or view him somewhat unfavorably. I don't think Trump is that strong even within the GOP.

I could be wrong, I certainly been wrong before. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

I often have Fox news or talk radio running in the background when I'm are working around the house or on a project of some kind though I do spend some time on the leftwing news sources too. And I have not seen Fox News be at all pro Trump. I have heard as much questioning or negative commenting on the President as I have heard positive, affirmation, correction of erroneous reporting from other news sources. The only difference between Fox and the other news sources is that Fox reports the positive and corrects the fallacious reporting and points it out which the others don't do. And there is a lot of positive stuff to report too, but you would never know it if you don't watch Fox or listen to talk radio.

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...

You can't be taken seriously as being anti-fake news as long as you continue to support Donald the biggest generator of fake news in America. He consistently lies on a daily basis and misrepresents the truth but you refuse to condemn him. This is about partisanship for you not truth or reality.

AlbqOwl said:

While there is some of your post I would agree with and some that I would disagree with, it still misses the point of this thread. I think a lot of them miss the boat on what the news of the day should be, but that is a different topic.

Here I am more interested that some intellectual honesty, ethics, and decency be utilized in what they do report. I think they deliberately use deceptive, dishonest, unethical practices to prompt the public into thinking a certain way about something and I think that is terribly terribly dangerous and wrong when they are allowed to get away with it. I can accept somebody really coming up with the wrong conclusion or a dubious opinion about something so long as they keep everything in context and present it honestly.

Click to expand...

"Coming up with a conclusion" is not particularly the job of the reporters. Sometimes it is unavoidable to do so.

If the car is halfway into the building, the skid marks lead from the road to the building and the building is now collapsed on top of the car, it is reasonable to conclude, as a reporter, that the car hit the building.

It is not reasonable to conclude, given only those facts, why the car happens to be there, what race, age or gender the driver was or if drugs were involved.

Similarly, in the recent reporting on the opening of the Museum in Mississippi which the President attended, the story was that the museum opened and that the president was there.

The story that I saw on the network news, might have been ABC, was that the "civil rights icon", John Lewis, did NOT attend. He did not attend because Trump was there, according to the reporting.

Why was that bit included in the story? Only one reason: The editorial staff made the decision to tell the story that way. Their GOAL is to smear Trump, not report the news.

According to CNN, the purpose of the museum described by its operators is to promote: "a greater understanding of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and its impact by highlighting the strength and sacrifices of its people."

Trump's attendance, editorially indicates one thing: He is in support of the message of the museum and wishes to help heal the deep and persistent wounds of our country's past.

Lewis's boycott, editorially, indicates one thing: He is motivated by hate and wishes to re-open and maintain the deep wounds of our country's past while performing a political hatchet job.

In my view, if Lewis was not such a racist jerk, he would have taken this opportunity to demonstrate with Trump for greater understanding of the historical and current issues this museum studies. What would MLK have done?

The media narrative, though, demands that Trump be presented as a racist and that Lewis be presented as a hero. In truth, the roles are the exact opposite in this and many other examples.

Trump to attend opening of civil rights museum in Mississippi - CNNPolitics

RabidAlpaca said:

You can't be taken seriously as being anti-fake news as long as you continue to support Donald the biggest generator of fake news in America. He consistently lies on a daily basis and misrepresents the truth but you refuse to condemn him. This is about partisanship for you not truth or reality.

Click to expand...

I can be very serious about anti-fake news so long as it is out there with very clear examples. Who I support has absolutely nothing to do with that nor does he have anything to do with that other than being the subject of some of it.

So once more I ask for a civil discussion about fake news being a problem. If you think it isn't, then fine. That's your opinion and I am sure you are a fair minded person who doesn't mind if those of us who wish to discuss the topic do so.

code1211 said:

"Coming up with a conclusion" is not particularly the job of the reporters. Sometimes it is unavoidable to do so.

If the car is halfway into the building, the skid marks lead from the road to the building and the building is now collapsed on top of the car, it is reasonable to conclude, as a reporter, that the car hit the building.

It is not reasonable to conclude, given only those facts, why the car happens to be there, what race, age or gender the driver was or if drugs were involved.

Similarly, in the recent reporting on the opening of the Museum in Mississippi which the President attended, the story was that the museum opened and that the president was there.

The story that I saw on the network news, might have been ABC, was that the "civil rights icon", John Lewis, did NOT attend. He did not attend because Trump was there, according to the reporting.

Why was that bit included in the story? Only one reason: The editorial staff made the decision to tell the story that way. Their GOAL is to smear Trump, not report the news.

According to CNN, the purpose of the museum described by its operators is to promote: "a greater understanding of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and its impact by highlighting the strength and sacrifices of its people."

Trump's attendance, editorially indicates one thing: He is in support of the message of the museum and wishes to help heal the deep and persistent wounds of our country's past.

Lewis's boycott, editorially, indicates one thing: He is motivated by hate and wishes to re-open and maintain the deep wounds of our country's past while performing a political hatchet job.

In my view, if Lewis was not such a racist jerk, he would have taken this opportunity to demonstrate with Trump for greater understanding of the historical and current issues this museum studies. What would MLK have done?

The media narrative, though, demands that Trump be presented as a racist and that Lewis be presented as a hero. In truth, the roles are the exact opposite in this and many other examples.

Trump to attend opening of civil rights museum in Mississippi - CNNPolitics

Click to expand...

This is a great example of maliciously biased reporting intended to give a certain impression, and I have no objection to that being included in the discussion. It isn't quite the same thing though as fake/erroneous news as in fact President Trump was there and in fact John Lewis was not. BUT. . .if the story was that Lewis did not attend because Trump was there and in fact Lewis did not attend because he had another commitment, THAT would in fact be fake news. As is the constant drumbeat that President Trump is racist, Islamophobic, sexist, etc. etc. etc. which also has no basis in fact and cannot be shown in any way with any intellectual honesty.

A real life example of fake news:

It was widely reported that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle did not want President and Mrs. Trump at their wedding specifically stating that Trump was a serious threat to human rights or some such as that. Nova Magazine originally published it and everybody else ran with it. Totally false which Windsor Castle and Prince Harry himself were quick to announce.

The fact is U.S. President's typically do not attend royal weddings because of the high level of security necessary and how that would be disruptive to the festivities. President Obama did not attend Prince Williams' wedding. President Reagan did not attend Charles and Diana's wedding. But most media outlets, the message boards, social media etc., even if they reported the raw facts correctly, did not add that qualification or said that it gave Prince Harry a comfortable 'out' as they almost certainly did not want him there. And therein you have media bias drawing a conclusion that the royal family denies as the case.

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...

What did you think when Sanders said that it didn't matter if the videos that Trump retweeted were fake so long as "the threat was real"?

Cardinal said:

What did you think when Sanders said that it didn't matter if the videos that Trump retweeted were fake so long as "the threat was real"?

Click to expand...

Well Sanders is probably right about that. If the President didn't know they were fake, he should get a wrap on the knuckles for being careless about not verifying that, but it doesn't constitute a federal offense or anything. There has been tons of news out there that got this fact or that fact wrong within the body of knowledge about things, but that isn't fake news as much as it is erroneous news. And politicians are as susceptible to getting stuff wrong too.

I think back to all the gaffes President Obama made about serious things, i.e. stating that the government was remiss in not taking Arabic translators out of Iraq and putting them in Afghanistan where they were more needed. Arabic isn't spoken in Afghanistan. Or when he said the U.N. Security Council should do something that it was then pointed out that such was not within their prerogative. Such thing are simply errors that he believed to be true when he said it. Such as when he said stronger gun laws would have prevented Adam Lanza, mass shooter, from buying a weapon. Lanza didn't buy any weapons. Or when he said he had visited 57 states with some more to go was simply a tired candidate misspeaking. More serious was when he didn't check the facts but repeated the false narrative that Darren Wilson acted improperly when he shot Michael Brown. That is repeating fake news that he almost certainly believed to be true. President Trump behaved similarly when he retweeted stuff that was manufactured. A good thing? Not at all. A big deal? No.

Mitt Romney wasn't lying when he said Obama and/or Clinton did not condemn the Benghazi attackers but rather sympathized with them which was not accurate. But Romney believed it was true at the time he said it. Obama and Clinton WERE lying, however, when they declared the attack was in retaliation for a video when they both knew better.

I am not condemning the media for getting it wrong now and then. People, including reporters and editors, are all human and we all make mistakes and we all believe things from time to time that turn out not to be so. But when they get it wrong, they and everybody else should admit their error as prominently as they made it rather than just quietly erasing it from the narrative as if they had never made it.

AlbqOwl said:

Well Sanders is probably right about that. If the President didn't know they were fake, he should get a wrap on the knuckles for being careless about not verifying that, but it doesn't constitute a federal offense or anything. There has been tons of news out there that got this fact or that fact wrong within the body of knowledge about things, but that isn't fake news as much as it is erroneous news. I think back to all the gaffes President Obama made about serious things, i.e. stating that the government was remiss in not taking Arabic translators out of Iraq and putting them in Afghanistan where they were more needed. Arabic isn't spoken in Afghanistan. Or when he said the U.N. Security Council should do something that is not within their prerogative. They are simply errors that he believed to be true when he said it. Such as when he said stronger gun laws would have prevented Adam Lanza, mass shooter, from buying a weapon. Lanza didn't buy any weapons. Or when he said he had visited 57 states with some more to go--that isn't a lie. It is simply a tired candidate misspeaking.

Mitt Romney wasn't lying when he said Obama and/or Clinton did not condemn the Benghazi attackers but rather sympathized with them which was not accurate. But Romney believed it was true at the time he said it. Obama and Clinton WERE lying, however, when they declared the attack was in retaliation for a video when they both knew better.

I am not condemning the media for getting it wrong here. People are all human and we all make mistakes and we all believe things from time to time that turn out not to be so. But when they get it wrong, they should admit their error as prominently as they made it rather than just quietly erasing it from the narrative as if they had never made it.

Click to expand...

So you are fine with lying when it's in the pursuit of a greater truth?

AlbqOwl said:

Well Sanders is probably right about that.

Click to expand...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand you lose.

AlbqOwl said:

While there is some of your post I would agree with and some that I would disagree with, it still misses the point of this thread. I think a lot of them miss the boat on what the news of the day should be, but that is a different topic.

Here I am more interested that some intellectual honesty, ethics, and decency be utilized in what they do report. I think they deliberately use deceptive, dishonest, unethical practices to prompt the public into thinking a certain way about something and I think that is terribly terribly dangerous and wrong when they are allowed to get away with it. I can accept somebody really coming up with the wrong conclusion or a dubious opinion about something so long as they keep everything in context and present it honestly.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the effort you're making here despite those who are determined to make this a partisan discussion. It's their raison d'etre. :roll:

As a former working journalist, I've been concerned for a long time about the decline in standards. Here is an example from SF Gate and multiple other sources:

Newsweek Magazine was forced to issue an embarrassing full retraction Tuesday for a piece that said Marlou Danley, the companion of Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock, had used two social security [sic] accounts and had two husbands at once.

One person familiar with Newsweek's internal operations said it had recently gone on a reporter hiring spree without a corresponding increase in editors, which led to journalistic sloppiness.

"Ther has been a hiring wave at Newsweek, [which] hired at least 10-20 new writers in the span of a month"... They don't really have as many editors, didn't really bulk up the editing staff as they did with the writing staff." Newsweek Retracts Story on Marilou Danley, Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock?s Companion - SFGate

Yes, Newsweek editors should have caught this. But the reporter was inexcusably unprofessional. From the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics:

Seek Truth and Report It

Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should [bolding mine]:

– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.

– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

AlbqOwl said:

Sigh. Did you miss the part that the post re CNN was an example and not intended to be all emcompassing of all media? If you post something about a specific burglary or a specific murder as an example of crime, are you obligated to mention all burglaries and all murders everywhere? The post was specifically about CNN. Other posts have been about other aspects of the media.

Click to expand...

Your OP only mentions Fox News and I showed you HOW they make fake news. So THEY have to be included. You only went for CNN and NYTimes. If you're going to be unbiased and desire a serious discussion, you have to cover the whole board or you're just posting partisan nonsense.

Cardinal said:

So you are fine with lying when it's in the pursuit of a greater truth?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that did I? I was pretty careful to define the difference between lying and error. A lot of folks here at DP need to learn that.

AlbqOwl said:

I didn't say that did I? I was pretty careful to define the difference between lying and error. A lot of folks here at DP need to learn that.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. And when Trump lied that Obama ordered an illegal wiretap on Trump Tower, was that acceptable to you?

AlbqOwl said:

I didn't say that did I? I was pretty careful to define the difference between lying and error. A lot of folks here at DP need to learn that.

Click to expand...

Here is a pretty good example/explanation. Posted by someone else in another thread.

nota bene said:

Thanks for the effort you're making here despite those who are determined to make this a partisan discussion. It's their raison d'etre. :roll:

As a former working journalist, I've been concerned for a long time about the decline in standards. Here is an example from SF Gate and multiple other sources:

Newsweek Magazine was forced to issue an embarrassing full retraction Tuesday for a piece that said Marlou Danley, the companion of Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock, had used two social security [sic] accounts and had two husbands at once.

One person familiar with Newsweek's internal operations said it had recently gone on a reporter hiring spree without a corresponding increase in editors, which led to journalistic sloppiness.

"Ther has been a hiring wave at Newsweek, [which] hired at least 10-20 new writers in the span of a month"... They don't really have as many editors, didn't really bulk up the editing staff as they did with the writing staff." Newsweek Retracts Story on Marilou Danley, Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock?s Companion - SFGate

Yes, Newsweek editors should have caught this. But the reporter was inexcusably unprofessional. From the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics:

Seek Truth and Report It

Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should [bolding mine]:

– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.

– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Click to expand...

Thank you. I posted a link to the SPJ code of ethics, formally adopted in 1961, a few pages back in this thread. And it clearly defined what was our code as journalists for quite some time. "Absence of malice" was the very strong standard applied when something negative was printed or broadcasted about anybody, no matter how despicable the offense or the person for that matter. Only verifiable and checked and rechecked facts necessary to the story are presented objectively and without any embellishment. Absence of malice was the rule, and how the reporter felt about it should be 100% undetectible.

Further anonymous sources could be consulted--think Woodward and Bernstein's "deep throat" contact from the FBI-- but those sources are useful only in what the reporter should pursue or where he/she should be looking for the truth. Woodward and Bernstein did not cite 'anonymous sources' in their Watergate investigation that was a truly legitimate investigation. Journalistic ethics are that anonymous source must never be the ONLY source. Only verifiable evidence and/or sources on the record should ever be cited in a story. The media violates that principle almost every day and that includes WAPO, NY Times, LA Times, etc. etc. etc. It is such a truly shoddy and often dishonest practice that I just want to scream every time they do. They use it as license to put out whatever fake news they want to put out there.

AlbqOwl said:

Can you give me a specific example or two of those publications putting out fake news or inaccurate information?

Click to expand...

Daily Caller's Charles C. Johnson cites 24-year-old fake Princeton newspaper to attack the David D. Kirkpatrick, the New York Times' Benghazi reporter.

https://www.snopes.com/2016/10/26/daily-caller-caught-lying-again/

https://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/0...e-rebuttal-cmd-alec-role-promoting-stand-your

So you have a hard right wing site that pushes fake stories. That site also points at left wing and MSM sites and screams, "fake news".

It's a problem, especially for people on the fringes who don't leave their little bubbles.

holbritter said:

Here is a pretty good example/explanation. Posted by someone else in another thread.

Click to expand...

Excellent, superb, on point, accurate! Will any of the Trump haters here watch that? I doubt it. And even if they do, I doubt they will acknowledge the truth of it or cease their own 'fake news' talking points, sound bites, slogans, etc. I was unaware of Atkinson's book but I'm going to look into it. If it is half as good as her short monologue here, it should be a good read.

<alt>doxygen said:

Daily Caller's Charles C. Johnson cites 24-year-old fake Princeton newspaper to attack the David D. Kirkpatrick, the New York Times' Benghazi reporter.

https://www.snopes.com/2016/10/26/daily-caller-caught-lying-again/

https://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/0...e-rebuttal-cmd-alec-role-promoting-stand-your

So you have a hard right wing site that pushes fake stories. That site also points at left wing and MSM sites and screams, "fake news".

It's a problem, especially for people on the fringes who don't leave their little bubbles.

Click to expand...

And you are citing left wing sites, two of which are devoted to attacking anything conservative, and none of which are using the original source in their criticism. Like MediaMatters, such sites are usually pretty loose with the truth and/or often inaccurately portray situations themselves. So this might indeed be examples of fake news--I don't know if they are wrong or not--but their own editorializing and inserting irrelevant stuff to bolster the impression the reader gets makes it suspect as accurately reported. I, for instance, have been inadvertently guilty of citing a dubious source but I owned up to it when it was pointed out. I try not to use any sites that are dedicated to taking down the left and generally serve no other purpose.

Again, I would like to be directed to the original source in context or at least have a full quotation in context with citation to determine whether something is fake news.

If the clips of Pfieffers comments about sex videos are accurately presented when in fact, as Snopes has also commented were a case of mistaken identity, then yes, he should own up to the error as prominently as he put out the erroneous information along with an apology to the lady. And if he in fact knew the information was erroneous, then that makes it fake news and he has no basis to complain about fake news being put out by somebody else.

AlbqOwl said:

usually pretty loose with the truth and/or often inaccurately portray situations themselves..

Click to expand...

Like the guy you support only not nearly as bad...

jet57 said:

Your OP only mentions Fox News and I showed you HOW they make fake news. So THEY have to be included. You only went for CNN and NYTimes. If you're going to be unbiased and desire a serious discussion, you have to cover the whole board or you're just posting partisan nonsense.

Click to expand...

I don't have to cover the whole board in a single post. Nor do you. Now you have two choices. Either discuss the topic as presented. Or find another thread to nitpick how somebody else does it.

Jetboogieman said:

Like the guy you support only not nearly as bad...

Click to expand...

Who I do and do not support is not the topic of this thread. Please take that kind of discussion to another thread.

AlbqOwl said:

Who I do and do not support is not the topic of this thread. Please take that kind of discussion to another thread.

Click to expand...

I don't see how its not relevent... I mean you want to make this big case about dishonesty yet you yourself support the most dishonest politician... Possibly in American history... That's not irrelevent if you're the one leading a charge on people pushing any kind of dishonesty or erroneous information on the public as the person does at lightning fast speeds.

Cardinal said:

Uh huh. And when Trump lied that Obama ordered an illegal wiretap on Trump Tower, was that acceptable to you?

Click to expand...

That still has to be determined. There is evidence that there was a wiretap of an entity in Trump Tower. We don't know who ordered it done but Trump, not being a polished politician, could easily have been using Obama and his administration interchangeably as many of us frequently do when it comes to activity within a specific administration. Should he have been more specific, yes. A deliberate lie? Sorry I don't see it that way.

AlbqOwl said:

A deliberate lie? Sorry I don't see it that way.

Click to expand...

And no matter what he says it seems you never will :shrug:

So you're not exactly a good judge when it comes to dishonesty it seems.

AlbqOwl said:

That still has to be determined. There is evidence that there was a wiretap of an entity in Trump Tower. We don't know who ordered it done but Trump, not being a polished politician, could easily have been using Obama and his administration interchangeably as many of us frequently do when it comes to activity within a specific administration. Should he have been more specific, yes. A deliberate lie? Sorry I don't see it that way.

Click to expand...

Sure. And when Trump and Spicer lied about the inauguration crowd size, that was fine with you?