all news is Fake News

My first problem in starting this thread was deciding which forum to post it in.

The media forums seem to be MSM oriented or "other" and this topic should address both...so here it is.

I can certainly relate to Trump...on many levels...and understand where he's coming from based on my personal experiences back in the late 60's early 70's

I quit watching a newscast on TV and would purposely avert my head when passing a news stand...in protest of the "fake news"...for near two decades...why?
I figured if they couldn't get the stories right about me and/or events I was a part of...not that there wasn't some truth to the reporting...how the hell can I believe anything else they write about? Fake news!

Now, considering my experience's are probably magnified thousand's fold for The Donald in his world...boy howdy...I wouldn't even want to hear about it for sure...

...problem is...he thrives on it!

And uses the concept as a tool...perverting obvious bias in the media into making it appear more threatening than it really is...get people to ignore biased "facts" so their own method of message delivery will ultimately become the sole source of information...call them fake...straight out of a Dictators playbook...also helps to have so-called judges, an intelligence operation with Nazi's, etcetera...present alternative facts.

All news is fake to some degree!


:coffeepap

AYSM said:

My first problem in starting this thread was deciding which forum to post it in.

The media forums seem to be MSM oriented or "other" and this topic should address both...so here it is.

I can certainly relate to Trump...on many levels...and understand where he's coming from based on my personal experiences back in the late 60's early 70's

I quit watching a newscast on TV and would purposely avert my head when passing a news stand...in protest of the "fake news"...for near two decades...why?
I figured if they couldn't get the stories right about me and/or events I was a part of...not that there wasn't some truth to the reporting...how the hell can I believe anything else they write about? Fake news!

Now, considering my experience's are probably magnified thousand's fold for The Donald in his world...boy howdy...I wouldn't even want to hear about it for sure...

...problem is...he thrives on it!

And uses the concept as a tool...perverting obvious bias in the media into making it appear more threatening than it really is...get people to ignore biased "facts" so their own method of message delivery will ultimately become the sole source of information...call them fake...straight out of a Dictators playbook...also helps to have so-called judges, an intelligence operation with Nazi's, etcetera...present alternative facts.

All news is fake to some degree!

Click to expand...

:coffeepap

Click to expand...

Well ... yeah.

bubbabgone said:

Well ... yeah.

Click to expand...

Good, here's a bit more...

So it used to be the news was primarily from NBC, ABC, and CBS...and then FOX grew into a fourth recognized national network toward the latter 80's if memory serves ...which became a part of creating a divide presenting a more conservative view...basically all news is the same except selectively presented and with a bias so people tend to choose that version they find more comfortable to hear.

As the country divides the viewership follows those who appeal to them...including other sources...granted, all along we might also be getting our news from other sources such as BBC or PBS (got a great PBS/Rush Limbaugh story I'll get to later which goes to his lying) anyway...we evolve and add social media...now consider this...

I follow MSNBC and CNN and Hannity for the most part...I'm aware of many other's...I don't watch Tucker much anymore primarily because he's always seeming to talk over the person he is interviewing, having tinnitus I can't make out multiple voices at the same time very well, so it becomes a waste of my time...it's not the newscaster I'm interested in hearing...I already have a pretty good idea how they are going to interpret an issue...apply appropriate bull**** filter and listen to the actual words of the interviewee.

OK...so the news that is most likely to attack Trump comes from the liberal side which has it's share of looney leftists...they crack me up...on the other side...I'll use Hannity as the example...it perhaps takes a bit longer but after his part of the program generally set aside, it appears, to attack Hillary to feed a certain obsession of his base...he gets around to reporting "Fake News"...that is to say...the same stuff MSNBC or CNN made a big liberal deal out of...it's called "Facts" with a conservative slant...take for instance...

The news that Don Jr. had a meeting with the Russians...we know he did...it was on the "Fake News" and the reason we know it is real news is because Don Jr. provided copies of the damn e-mails and said it happened...granted, they came along AFTER various denials from "alternative fact" tweet news...we also know it to be true because even Hannity addressed it...ask yourself this...how in the world...after all of this "Fake News" provided by the person in question...how can they take a poll and 32% of those polled didn't believe he did what he had finally already admitted to publically?

Who is hearing the real fake news and how are they getting it? It appears revisions for accuracy are not a part of their agenda.

AYSM said:

...
I follow MSNBC and CNN and Hannity for the most part...I don't watch Tucker...

OK...so the news that is most likely to attack Trump comes from the liberal side which has it's share of looney leftists...they crack me up...on the other side...I'll use Hannity as the example...it perhaps takes a bit longer but after his part of the program generally set aside, it appears, to attack Hillary to feed a certain obsession of his base...he gets around to reporting "Fake News"...that is to say...the same stuff MSNBC or CNN made a big liberal deal out of...it's called "Facts" with a conservative slant...take for instance.
.....

Click to expand...

I do the same, but generally avoid Hannity rather than Tucker. That's all one can do, listen to as many sides as possible.
And remember, media companies are trying to provide what they think you want to watch.

AYSM said:

My first problem in starting this thread was deciding which forum to post it in.

The media forums seem to be MSM oriented or "other" and this topic should address both...so here it is.

I can certainly relate to Trump...on many levels...and understand where he's coming from based on my personal experiences back in the late 60's early 70's

I quit watching a newscast on TV and would purposely avert my head when passing a news stand...in protest of the "fake news"...for near two decades...why?
I figured if they couldn't get the stories right about me and/or events I was a part of...not that there wasn't some truth to the reporting...how the hell can I believe anything else they write about? Fake news!

Now, considering my experience's are probably magnified thousand's fold for The Donald in his world...boy howdy...I wouldn't even want to hear about it for sure...

...problem is...he thrives on it!

And uses the concept as a tool...perverting obvious bias in the media into making it appear more threatening than it really is...get people to ignore biased "facts" so their own method of message delivery will ultimately become the sole source of information...call them fake...straight out of a Dictators playbook...also helps to have so-called judges, an intelligence operation with Nazi's, etcetera...present alternative facts.

All news is fake to some degree!


:coffeepap

Click to expand...

I agree with you that all news is fake to some degree. Moreso today than at ay other time in my recollection which is, actually, close to 137 years. What I notice more today than at any other time are the hyperbolic words. Clinton didn’t criticize Trump. The headline reads Clinton slams Trump... Thats one example. We see dozens.

The use of anonymous sources is is rampant. I think every use of anonymous sources should be followed by this parenthetical remark: “(This means we can lie because we are protected by the First Amendment and our right to withhold any actual names.)

I’m with you.

AYSM said:

All news is fake to some degree!

Click to expand...

I think the problem is the term “fake news” and how it has been used by all sorts of different people to refer to all sorts of different things, often with wilful dishonesty. I’m the first person to highlight the wide-ranging and long-established flaws and corruptions across the media industry but I don’t see any benefit in simply dismissing the whole thing out of hand with a simplistic throw-away phrase. For all those issues, there is plenty that is valid and true in the media (even if you have to dig a bit to get at it) and the simple dismissal allows people who don’t want those truths to be acknowledged to avoid addressing them.

“Fake news” was once a term to refer to actual fakes; the satirical and partisan frauds that have long existed but came to wider attention during the last US election but they were quickly conflated with all news media, primarily by political operators who didn’t want voters to realise that those satires and frauds covered all political persuasions, including their own. I think the term has become too corrupted to have any valid use now and should be avoided. If (when!) we have issues or concerns about particular reporting or a particular source, we should (and should be able to) express those in more specific and detailed ways that simply shouting “Fake News!” until they go away.

HonestJoe said:

“Fake news” was once a term to refer to actual fakes; the satirical and partisan frauds that have long existed but came to wider attention during the last US election but they were quickly conflated with all news media, primarily by political operators who didn’t want voters to realise that those satires and frauds covered all political persuasions, including their own. I think the term has become too corrupted to have any valid use now and should be avoided.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it should be avoided, however, Trump uses the term as a propaganda tool and uses it when he wants to obfuscate from realities too harsh for what his base might want to believe...some of them might come to realize that there is some basis in truth...if that were to happen, some might realize their support was a mistake...Trump will continue to tweet claims of "fake news" with his fake news tweets.

When I spoke of my personal experiences...

"I quit watching a newscast on TV and would purposely avert my head when passing a news stand...in protest of the "fake news"...for near two decades...why?
I figured if they couldn't get the stories right about me and/or events I was a part of...not that there wasn't some truth to the reporting...how the hell can I believe anything else they write about? Fake news!"

Take for instance...if I were quoted...perhaps there were a few words that were not reported correctly...that wouldn't necessarily make the report fake to a level of totally made up...some sort of witch hunt...it was more of a frustration in that the depth of the point perhaps was not made clear...or perhaps, a few of us being quoted and something someone else said was attributed to me or visa-versa...I could point to some inaccuracies that would result in greater perversions of the truth but for the most part, nothing ever reached the level of what is being suggested by Trump.

Back then, there was no FOX network so I wouldn't attribute the inaccuracies to political bias, granted, there has always been some among the three networks...that evolved to a greater degree when FOX came along.

Now we have social media which is a tool that can be used as a power of persuasion to generate actual fake news, without the legal department that the networks need to run things by to minimize laws suits from generating actual fake news where some details may get exaggerated from the particular bias of the reporter or anchor but the "facts" generally do have a basis in truth...granted there are exceptions in which false news reports can be exploited to highlight the "fake news" narrative to try and discredit the entire operation...create a divide and concur scenario...when a Network does it, a retraction will generally follow...when Trump does it...he doubles down.

He needs to turn his supporters away from news medias that take his claims such as "I never said that."...you make that sort of statement and you betcha you don't want anyone watching MSNBC or CNN because they are going to provide a number of examples that show once again the guy is a compulsive liar...we can't have that now, can we?

In these times, I have observed that, "Any news you don't want to agree with is "fake news."

To me, "fake news" is all that political propaganda, later learned to be paid-for-commie propaganda, that targeted our more gullible populous. (Ie: Trumpkins.)

They loved that stuff, all the while, calling the real news and fact checkers "fake." Fake news mostly works on fake people. The kind that like to piss on your head and tell you it's raining. You know. Like the President does.

Oh, and be careful watching Hannity and Tucker. You can only watch them for so long before you start rolling up your turds in to little do-do balls and then start eating them. They can take an otherwise sane person and turn them retarded pretty fast. Both are Masters of their craft of dumbing down good, honest Americans.

AYSM said:

....
Now we have social media which is a tool that can be used as a power of persuasion to generate actual fake news, without the legal department that the networks need to run things by to minimize laws suits from generating actual fake news...

Click to expand...

We had a debate on whether that would be a good thing, on a NYTimes forum back when this was starting, '96 or so.
I thought it would be great! I was wrong, so far anyway.

AYSM said:

Good, here's a bit more...

So it used to be the news was primarily from NBC, ABC, and CBS...and then FOX grew into a fourth recognized national network toward the latter 80's if memory serves ...which became a part of creating a divide presenting a more conservative view...basically all news is the same except selectively presented and with a bias so people tend to choose that version they find more comfortable to hear.

As the country divides the viewership follows those who appeal to them...including other sources...granted, all along we might also be getting our news from other sources such as BBC or PBS (got a great PBS/Rush Limbaugh story I'll get to later which goes to his lying) anyway...we evolve and add social media...now consider this...

I follow MSNBC and CNN and Hannity for the most part...I'm aware of many other's...

I don't watch Tucker much anymore primarily because he's always seeming to talk over the person he is interviewing,

Click to expand...

having tinnitus I can't make out multiple voices at the same time very well, so it becomes a waste of my time...it's not the newscaster I'm interested in hearing...I already have a pretty good idea how they are going to interpret an issue...apply appropriate bull**** filter and listen to the actual words of the interviewee.

OK...so the news that is most likely to attack Trump comes from the liberal side which has it's share of looney leftists...they crack me up...on the other side...I'll use Hannity as the example...it perhaps takes a bit longer but after his part of the program generally set aside, it appears, to attack Hillary to feed a certain obsession of his base...he gets around to reporting "Fake News"...that is to say...the same stuff MSNBC or CNN made a big liberal deal out of...it's called "Facts" with a conservative slant...take for instance...

The news that Don Jr. had a meeting with the Russians...we know he did...it was on the "Fake News" and the reason we know it is real news is because Don Jr. provided copies of the damn e-mails and said it happened...granted, they came along AFTER various denials from "alternative fact" tweet news...we also know it to be true because even Hannity addressed it...ask yourself this...how in the world...after all of this "Fake News" provided by the person in question...how can they take a poll and 32% of those polled didn't believe he did what he had finally already admitted to publically?

Who is hearing the real fake news and how are they getting it? It appears revisions for accuracy are not a part of their agenda.

Click to expand...

Something may be fake news not because what's reported as fact is false but rather because:
(a) it's too often under headlines written to support a particular narrative and
(b) because of the editorializing & speculation in the same piece meant to support the same narrative.

IOW... they're intended to lead the reader to conclusions not supported by the facts.
It's blurring Journalism with Opinion columns.

I can give you examples if you like.

As for Tucker, I believe your take is off-base.
After Tucker asks a question I've never seen any other interviewer have as much patience letting the guest respond while he waits for an answer to his question.
He will interrupt when it's clear the response is a bunch of prepared talking points that don't address what he asked ... he then repeats the question.
And there's no one else who invites more dissenting opinions on their show that he does. Practically the whole hour.
Tucker I will watch but, personally, I don't go near Hannity.

Captain America said:

...
To me, "fake news" is all that political propaganda, later learned to be paid-for-commie propaganda, that targeted our more gullible populous. (Ie: Trumpkins.)

They loved that stuff, all the while, calling the real news and fact checkers "fake." Fake news mostly works on fake people. The kind that like to piss on your head and tell you it's raining. You know. Like the President does.
...

Click to expand...

Yeah, like the National Enquirer. Trump's favorite magazine.

Another one is 'The Star'.
Sometime in the 80's or 90's I saw it in the grocery line, they had a picture of a baby in a whole body diaper , saying some mothers were using them.

That was was from National Lampoon, I had a subscription. Like in real 'Fake News'.

Eureka! found it
This ad ran in Negligent Mother magazine.

Captain America said:

...
They loved that stuff, all the while, calling the real news and fact checkers "fake." ...

Click to expand...

I read an article George Orwell wrote about newspapers of his day that made a similar point. He categorized them by intellectual value, as compared to other content.
Sadly, I can't find it now.

Is all news fake news? No. Most newsworthy happenings are being discussed to death by too many so called experts to fill a 24 hr news cycle. Agenda driven reporting fills the rest.

CletusWilbury said:

I read an article George Orwell wrote about newspapers of his day that made a similar point. He categorized them by intellectual value, as compared to other content.
Sadly, I can't find it now.

Click to expand...

That would be interesting to read...funny you should mention Orwell...shortly after the election I was at the gym in discussion with a couple of nice millennials...she was aware of Animal Farm...he was not...we were trying to get him to understand the concept Orwell was addressing...he didn't bother to read it as he said he would...oh well...I'd love to read that if you run across it.

Most news isn't fake news. It's actual news. Similarly, most "fake news" accusers are actual numb skulls.

JackA said:

Most news isn't fake news. It's actual news. Similarly, most "fake news" accusers are actual numb skulls.

Click to expand...

You are correct. Some make mistakes, like this one that irritated me as I was working on the census and they never corrected it
ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census

The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count ...

Click to expand...

They weren't participating in the count, they were just part of the wide recruitment outreach for potential census workers. It's still sitting there, uncorrected.

CletusWilbury said:

You are correct. Some make mistakes, like this one that irritated me as I was working on the census and they never corrected it
ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census



They weren't participating in the count, they were just part of the wide recruitment outreach for potential census workers. It's still sitting there, uncorrected.

Click to expand...

Except it's Fox, not news.

AYSM said:

That would be interesting to read......

Click to expand...

This isn't it, but it relates:
The Freedom of the Press
Orwell's Proposed Preface to ‘Animal Farm’

another:
BOYS' WEEKLIES AND FRANK RICHARDS'S REPLY (1940)

CletusWilbury said:

You are correct. Some make mistakes, like this one that irritated me as I was working on the census and they never corrected it
ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census

excerpt: "The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count ..."

They weren't participating in the count, they were just part of the wide recruitment outreach for potential census workers. It's still sitting there, uncorrected.

Click to expand...

I can understand your frustration because of your involvement...you distinguish between the actual gathering of information and the recruiting those that do so...

I see the lead going to bias perhaps but technically, recruitment is a form of participation...they also go on to cite some voicing concerns...however...in all fairness...further down the article...there were the relevant quotes that provided the bigger picture more relevant per your perspective...I'd call it more of a bias than fake...problem is...there are people like Trump that can't absorb more than the first few paragraphs, so they just understand the biased part and don't understand the whole picture, tweet tweet...FOX has it's influence and they can claim they are "fair and balanced".

AYSM said:

...
I see the lead going to bias perhaps but technically, recruitment is a form of participation...they also go on to cite some voicing concerns...however...in all fairness...further down the article...there were the relevant quotes that provided the bigger picture more relevant per your perspective...I'd call it more of a bias than fake.....FOX has it's influence and they can claim they are "fair and balanced".

Click to expand...

I agree it was biased, and FOX can 'claim' anything they want.

I am getting the impression that all news outlets are Democratic.

barb012 said:

I am getting the impression that all news outlets are Democratic.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting biased toward the Dems or should I take that literally?

excerpt:

Charles “Sid” Heal, a retired Los Angeles County sheriff’s commander and tactical expert, said the new timeline “changes the whole perspective of the shooting.”

Click to expand...

Police change timeline, say Vegas gunman shot security guard 6 minutes before opening fire on concert

As others have pointed out, the problem is the deliberate misuse of the term "fake news" as a method of convincing a base to simply ignore everything they don't want to hear, but "fake news" actually means news that is quite literally fabricated.

"Fake news" is someone running an article saying that Obama is a Lizard Man who converted to Islam.



I would not say that all news is partially "fake news". That suggests that every time some reporter types up an article, he/she deliberately inserts factual statements they just plain made up on the spot.

There is instead some sloppy news; a statement of true facts followed by unwarranted speculation, or perhaps reliance on a source that the reporter should have discovered was not credible.

And then there's plenty of biased news. This colors the tone of the article, the facts that are emphasized, the facts that are de-emphasized, and facts that are omitted at times. But that's not "fake news". It's real news that's simply skewed. Not perfectly neutral.




But the people who say "fake news" a lot aren't interested in that. What they're really saying is "I don't want to change my opinion on this subject, so I'm just going to ignore what you said." The reason they say "fake news" instead of that longer sentence is simply a matter of group signalling to other people so committed to whatever cause that they too ought to ignore the bad facts.

Mr Person said:

As others have pointed out, the problem is the deliberate misuse of the term "fake news" as a method of convincing a base to simply ignore everything they don't want to hear, but "fake news" actually means news that is quite literally fabricated.

"Fake news" is someone running an article saying that Obama is a Lizard Man who converted to Islam.



I would not say that all news is partially "fake news". That suggests that every time some reporter types up an article, he/she deliberately inserts factual statements they just plain made up on the spot.

There is instead some sloppy news; a statement of true facts followed by unwarranted speculation, or perhaps reliance on a source that the reporter should have discovered was not credible.

And then there's plenty of biased news. This colors the tone of the article, the facts that are emphasized, the facts that are de-emphasized, and facts that are omitted at times. But that's not "fake news". It's real news that's simply skewed. Not perfectly neutral.




But the people who say "fake news" a lot aren't interested in that. What they're really saying is "I don't want to change my opinion on this subject, so I'm just going to ignore what you said." The reason they say "fake news" instead of that longer sentence is simply a matter of group signalling to other people so committed to whatever cause that they too ought to ignore the bad facts.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Trump appears to now claim he invented the term, which of course he didn't...he merely perverted the term to promote his propaganda agenda.

In another thread I was told, "...it is my understanding that the governor has been complimentary about the aid he is receiving from the United States."

I've heard the same thing...from Trump...so I got curious because it didn't ring true so I searched the web...now I'll be the first to admit that I am not as proficient at it as some so I ask for help...can anyone link to the governor stating such publically? Or is it just hearsay generated by Trump?

During the timeframe I searched and found two references to quotes by the governor...

Gov. Ricardo Rosselló said, “We are U.S. citizens that just a few weeks ago went to the aid of other U.S. citizens even as we’re going through our fiscal downturn and as we were hit by another storm. Now, we’ve been essentially devastated. Complete destruction of the power infrastructure, severe destruction of the housing infrastructure, food and water are needed. My petition is that we were there once for our brothers and sisters, our other U.S. citizens, now it’s time that U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico are taken care of adequately, properly.”

Puerto Rico Governor Pleads For Help As Trump Abandons US Hurricane Victims

“This has been an unprecedented disaster, not only for Puerto Rico, but for all of the region,” Rosselló told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“We need more help. We need more help with resources. We need more help with people being deployed so that we can get logistical support elsewhere,” Rosselló continued.


“And we need Congress to take action so we can have an aid package that is real for the American citizens that live in Puerto Rico and that is flexible so that we can take immediate action...”

Puerto Rico governor's plea: ?We need more help? | TheHill


Neither of those quotes seems to support "...it is my understanding that the governor has been complimentary about the aid he is receiving from the United States."

Fake News? What is the source?