• 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!

Kellyanne Conway to Clinton: Don't blame 'fake news' for loss

j-mac

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
During a going-away ceremony for retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Thursday, Clinton raised alarms over the explosion of “fake news.”











​









​


29906170001_5240725368001_5240722267001-vs.jpg








​

Hillary Clinton said fake news is an "epidemic" and "a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly" while speaking on Capitol Hill for a portrait unveiling in honor of retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. (Dec. 8) AP



“It’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real world consequences,” she said likely referring to the fake news story about a Washington D.C. restaurant that prompted one man to come in with a gun to investigate the conspiracy theory.
“It’s a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly,” Clinton added.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/09/trump-aide-clinton-dont-blame-fake-news-for-loss/95192732/
Click to expand...


Fake news? How about those outlets like NBC that pushed the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative? Fake news?
 
"Smoking is Good for your Lungs"

OMG - the above statement is Fake News! Call the police! :roll:

Look, people can post whatever they want, including the above first line of my post. It's upto people to judge which sites they find credible or not. If someone sees something they feel is fake, they can call them out on it and discredit them. But I don't think they have a right censor them. Just call them out on it - raise public awareness, so that the news source is discredited.
 
j-mac said:
Fake news? How about those outlets like NBC that pushed the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative? Fake news?
Click to expand...

Folks might want to think about why they are not addressing that type of fake news and push that perspective every time that type of news is reported.
 
 
j-mac said:
Fake news? How about those outlets like NBC that pushed the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative? Fake news?
Click to expand...

"Benghazi was caused by a video".

Real, not fake news: "Hillary's chutzpah runneth over."

And of course shutting down "Faux News"
 
sanman said:
"Smoking is Good for your Lungs"

OMG - the above statement is Fake News! Call the police! :roll:

Look, people can post whatever they want, including the above first line of my post. It's upto people to judge which sites they find credible or not. If someone sees something they feel is fake, they can call them out on it and discredit them. But I don't think they have a right censor them. Just call them out on it - raise public awareness, so that the news source is discredited.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you. Free speech is being abused in this country in the name of the US Constitution. When lies are intentionally put out there for public consumption, there is no public good being served. Freedom of speech is meant to protect us from our GOVERNMENT. Not to protect a lying news site from civil liability.

I agree with those who say it is time to tackle this problem head on. The media should not be able to hide behind freedom of the press, freedom of speech, anonymous sources and the like. They need to be held accountable just like the rest of us.
 
j-mac said:
Fake news? How about those outlets like NBC that pushed the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative? Fake news?
Click to expand...

I seem to recall an administration telling us that a terror attack that resulted in the death of an ambassador and other embassy workers was, in fact, a response to an internet video, when later emails revealed that, in fact, they knew at the time that wasn't true.

Who was responsible for that fake news?


If you are only upset at fake news when it hurts your side, then you don't care about the truth, you care about partisan advantage.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't agree with you. Free speech is being abused in this country in the name of the US Constitution. When lies are intentionally put out there for public consumption, there is no public good being served. Freedom of speech is meant to protect us from our GOVERNMENT. Not to protect a lying news site from civil liability.

I agree with those who say it is time to tackle this problem head on. The media should not be able to hide behind freedom of the press, freedom of speech, anonymous sources and the like. They need to be held accountable just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Ohhh, and who gets to be the Ministry of Truth?? Who gets to be the Central Authority to determine which speech is acceptable, and which speech is vile, wicked lies?


What's wrong with simply just calling out someone publicly when they say something stupid / false / inaccurate / exagerrated / etc?

You can call for someone to issue a retraction, but you can't punish them for not doing so, nor can you punish them for expressing themselves.
 
sanman said:
Ohhh, and who gets to be the Ministry of Truth?? Who gets to be the Central Authority to determine which speech is acceptable, and which speech is vile, wicked lies?
Click to expand...

The person being slandered. Truth being the ultimate defense.

See? It's not that hard.
 
MaggieD said:
The person being slandered. Truth being the ultimate defense.

See? It's not that hard.
Click to expand...

Again, you're using circular definitions here. "Slander" - according to whom? "Truth" - according to whom?
What you feel is slander may not be what I feel is slander.
What you feel is truth may not be what I feel is truth.
Who's going to determine these things - the courts? Would you have the courts get involved everytime someone expresses themselves, or publishes an article?

When Trump was threatening to sue people for slandering him - Libs were screeching that he'd be the worst enemy of free speech.

Now the "Fake News" tribe on the Left are trying to do the very things they accused the Right of wanting.
 
j-mac said:
Fake news? How about those outlets like NBC that pushed the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative? Fake news?
Click to expand...

OMG, I can't believe liberals are doubling down on this.


Here's the deal. The journalists have been failing the American people for decades. When the MSM became fluffers for George W. Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq I lost faith in them and began to consume alternative media sources. But with this election I've pretty much given up on the MSM altogether.

Instead of whining about "FAKE NEWS" the MSM should get back to doing due diligence and stop relying on "anonymous sources" when they don't have to.
 
Last edited:
sanman said:
Again, you're using circular definitions here. "Slander" - according to whom? "Truth" - according to whom?
What you feel is slander may not be what I feel is slander.
What you feel is truth may not be what I feel is truth.
Who's going to determine these things - the courts? Would you have the courts get involved everytime someone expresses themselves, or publishes an article?
Click to expand...

I'm not involved in circular reasoning.

There is no such thing as truth according to whom. There is truth.

False news story example...

"According to an anonymous Secret Service source, President Obama was seen enticing young boys into the ante room of the Oval Office. One boy told this reporter that the President gave him alcohol and bribed him with video games to strip down and touch the President's privates."

Do you honestly think this speech should be protected? That is NOT what freedom of speech was EVER meant to represent.
 
I am not for stronger libel laws on speakers but I dont have a better idea either for how to take the stick to the failed journalism class.
 
sanman said:
Again, you're using circular definitions here. "Slander" - according to whom? "Truth" - according to whom?
What you feel is slander may not be what I feel is slander.
What you feel is truth may not be what I feel is truth.
Who's going to determine these things - the courts? Would you have the courts get involved everytime someone expresses themselves, or publishes an article?

When Trump was threatening to sue people for slandering him - Libs were screeching that he'd be the worst enemy of free speech.

Now the "Fake News" tribe on the Left are trying to do the very things they accused the Right of wanting.
Click to expand...

Courts determine that, not you.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm not involved in circular reasoning.

There is no such thing as truth according to whom. There is truth.

False news story example...

"According to an anonymous Secret Service source, President Obama was seen enticing young boys into the ante room of the Oval Office. One boy told this reporter that the President gave him alcohol and bribed him with video games to strip down and touch the President's privates."

Do you honestly think this speech should be protected? That is NOT what freedom of speech was EVER meant to represent.
Click to expand...

So what you do is you raise public awareness that someone is writing rotten articles against the person in question. Libel laws do allow you to fine them. But there's a difference between the right to expression and the right to credibility - the latter does not exist. So you can attack the credibility of whoever's posting the garbage, without infringing upon their right to post it.


American said:
Courts determine that, not you.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that courts can make determinations - but is it practical for courts to be stepping in everytime someone publishes an article? Libel laws typically have a high bar, requiring a lot of proof that the plaintiff was damaged by the false statements. Otherwise, then some will go around using the courts as their henchmen to attack their critics by nitpicking every statement.


Here, we're talking about people like Mark Zuckerberg claiming that he (his people) will decide which articles are legitimate or not. Look, there have already been complaints about staff with a Left-wing bias canceling all kinds of Facebook pages affiliated with right-wing opinions, while giving the Left a total free pass. You think that's good?
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I'm not involved in circular reasoning.

There is no such thing as truth according to whom. There is truth.

False news story example...

"According to an anonymous Secret Service source, President Obama was seen enticing young boys into the ante room of the Oval Office. One boy told this reporter that the President gave him alcohol and bribed him with video games to strip down and touch the President's privates."

Do you honestly think this speech should be protected? That is NOT what freedom of speech was EVER meant to represent.
Click to expand...

Libel laws exist.
 
MaggieD said:
Them that should be enough. So tell me why it isn't.
Click to expand...

So who should be able to sue for libel?

If some dumbass posts their article claiming that Obama molested children in the Oval Office, then should any old Obama supporter be able to sue for libel? It should be Obama himself filing the libel suit. Why the hell should you be able to collect the $$$ just because you're Obama's fan, when you're not the injured party? Makes no sense.

I think someone should have to be able to prove they're the injured party, before being able to sue someone else for libel, or getting an article removed/yanked.
 
MSM still runs with the Clinton budget surplus fake news story.

What they don't get is they are to blame. They have been so obviously one sides for so long that people have lost confidence in them.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't agree with you. Free speech is being abused in this country in the name of the US Constitution. When lies are intentionally put out there for public consumption, there is no public good being served. Freedom of speech is meant to protect us from our GOVERNMENT. Not to protect a lying news site from civil liability.

I agree with those who say it is time to tackle this problem head on. The media should not be able to hide behind freedom of the press, freedom of speech, anonymous sources and the like. They need to be held accountable just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself, as it would be the government that would be going after people. Oh, and you want to make lying illegal? How do we define that? Who gets to define it? How does it get stopped?
 
Fishking said:
You're contradicting yourself, as it would be the government that would be going after people. Oh, and you want to make lying illegal? How do we define that? Who gets to define it? How does it get stopped?
Click to expand...

But also, when we start legitimizing censorship, and empowering everyone and his dog to do it, then Zuckerberg, Google, Apple, etc will all be quietly suppressing/deleting news articles behind the scenes, without us even knowing it - all on the pretext of protecting us from "harmful news".

Look, I'm not a child - I'll read whatever it is and decide for myself whether that article was worth my time or whether it's BS.

What we don't want are Thought Police -- and the Fake News Police are the first step towards that.
Because then they will do the deciding on our behalf, and we won't get to decide ourselves - and they won't see any need to even tell us when they make their decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom