The reason I posted this is because the guy was a guest on the show and I found it amusing that their own GUEST thought the story was fake news. Had the host let him finish, I think he was making another kind of point. But he lost his cool and cut the guy off.
What they were talking about was not fake news in and of itself. But their panel was editorializing and opinionating. It was NOT broadcasting a news story. I'm fairly certain that's what the guy meant. Instead of the host flipping, he should have let his invited guest finish his thought.
Very poor host.
So what you're saying here is that "fake" can mean whatever the hell the dear leader's syncophants want it to mean? It's a definition-less word now?
"Fake" has a meaning. It means "not real." Conjucted with the news, as in "fake news," it means, as Lemon said, intentionally fake stories.
I agree with you that the panel was editorializing. But you know what?
That's a legitimate form of journalism. It's a standard part of almost every free news organization on earth. Journalism is about disseminating information and stimulating democratic conversation. Making forums for editorializing accomplishes the latter goal. If that's what Dennard had a problem with, then he clearly just doesn't understand what the hell journalism is. If that's what
you have a problem with, then you don't either.
Lemon did a perfectly good job of that, even making sure that Dennard got his chance to speak and giving him a completely neutral opening question.
It is not journalistically wrong to editorialize. The topic was the cost of protecting the Trump family, which is objectively rather high due to some of his travel habits. That is a fact. Then he asked the panel what they think could or should be done about that. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
A journalist has an obligation to call out lies whenever they become aware of them, and Dennard told a bald-faced lie. Lemon did his journalistic job by pointing out the lie, and then giving a true definition according to every damn dictionary in the English language. He then gave him another opportunity to stop lying, and he decided not to.
A journalist is under no obligation to continue entertaining -- and if anything, has a counter-obligation to dismiss -- someone who is doing nothing but lying to them. I certainly never wasted my time with people who lied to me when I was doing this job.
You are advocating that journalism needs to make equal time for lies as it does for truths. Ironically enough, you are advocating against democratic conversation, and for fake news.
