• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

CNN guest calls CNN fake news

SmokeAndMirrors said:
No it doesn't. Editorials are a standard part of almost every free news organization on earth. Nothing in your little Wiki definition says editorials can't be used, provided they are based on facts and accountable to the people. You're simply wrong.

Furthermore, Lemon didn't editorialize. He gave the definition of a basic English word. Words do have objective meanings, you know.

It was unnecessary for Lemon to let him continue talking, because he had already told a lie that required correction. The story was not fake according to the damn English language.

What Labott did has nothing in common with what Lemon did. Lemon gave a definition for an English word. Labott gave her opinion on a story she was reporting on, which is a big no-no in the journalistic world. She deserved her suspension.

It is factually true that you lied, so no, I don't think it's poor. It's correct.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's it. You've called me a liar twice. Go insult someone else.
 
reinoe said:
Actually it looks like Don Lemon was the one reading from a script. The definition of "fake news" is subjective and I think it's remarkable that Don Lemon is now trying to define what "fake news" contains. Lot's of panelists follow a script, but the hosts moreso. When you see a bunch of hosts all parotting the same talking points they are also reading from a script. The one time Don Lemon feels the need to shut down a discussion is when CNN is being criticized, otherwise CNN is more than happy to allow people all the time they need to read their scriptures.
Click to expand...

"fake news" is a talking point deflection.
 
reinoe said:
"FAKE NEWS" is not a word. There is no definition. So that right there is false.
Click to expand...

It's two words strung together which have a clear meaning: that a news story is not real.

This story is real.

You cannot simply deny that the English language exists for your convenience. If you want a new word with no definition, make a new damn word with no definition.
 
MaggieD said:
Ok, that's it. You've called me a liar twice. Go insult someone else.
Click to expand...

I'm not insulting you by repeating what you've objectively done (not what I have called you, because I haven't called you anything). If you don't like it, stop doing it. You're doing it again even here, claiming I called you something when I never did.

If you're upset by people noticing and pointing out the things you do, stop doing them.
 
Helix said:
i saw a host shutting down a dishonest guest. was that the best way to handle it? that's up for debate. when he got shut down, he was repeating his script, so i suppose that's part of why Lemon cut him off.
Click to expand...

No, Lemon cut him off because he wasn't supporting the already established narrative.
 
Helix said:
"fake news" is a talking point deflection.
Click to expand...

Is it? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know, though, will we? Why? Because the commentator was never allowed to elaborate on his point.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yet, when it comes to what he says here, that a free press that is quite often adversarial is right on the money
Click to expand...

He's just mad because Trump isn't beating the MIC profit drums using Russia as the boogie man. That aside, there hasn't been any laws passed, just a calling out of the poor quality of the media so the press is still plenty free. This is evident as they obviously have no problem making up fake news stories to attack the administration.

The pathetic thing is that there are plenty of real things to criticize Trump over but they simply cannot help themselves.
 
Helix said:
"fake news" is a talking point deflection.
Click to expand...
Not always. CNN was engaging in fake news. You think that fake news is limited to false information. And while CNN has definitely engaged in false information, fake news can also include misleading headlines (muslim ban), spin and biased presentation, and here's the big on: omitting relevant facts or including irrelevant facts. The MSM like CNN is very much guilty of that last one. This particular story involved a lot of hype and hoopla based on a story of minimal importance. You see that they had four panelists to make it seem like this was a bigger deal than what it was. That's fake news.
 
MaggieD said:
Wow. This is hard to believe.
Click to expand...

When we've been on constant deployment rotations, having our buddies blown up, over a bunch of BS political reasons and corporate profits, we get sick of it and McCain is the one that pounds the drums for this stuff the most.

There is a reason why people like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders got the majority of military support.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
It's two words strung together which have a clear meaning: that a news story is not real.

This story is real.

You cannot simply deny that the English language exists for your convenience. If you want a new word with no definition, make a new damn word with no definition.
Click to expand...
See my response to Helix.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/off-...est-calls-cnn-fake-news-3.html#post1066903512

I bet if Fox News had a bunch of panelists discussing the mysterious deaths of all the people connected to the Clintons you would immediately decry such a story as fake news, but in this you're being conveniently obtuse.
 
Fishking said:
When we've been on constant deployment rotations, having our buddies blown up, over a bunch of BS political reasons and corporate profits, we get sick of it and McCain is the one that pounds the drums for this stuff the most.

There is a reason why people like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders got the majority of military support.
Click to expand...

I see. I'm not familiar with that side of him, Fishking.

And thank you very much for your service.
 
Fishking said:
He's just mad because Trump isn't beating the MIC profit drums using Russia as the boogie man. That aside, there hasn't been any laws passed, just a calling out of the poor quality of the media so the press is still plenty free. This is evident as they obviously have no problem making up fake news stories to attack the administration.

The pathetic thing is that there are plenty of real things to criticize Trump over but they simply cannot help themselves.
Click to expand...

Is that what you really believe?? When you back off, and look at the statement, no matter who said it, do you reject the statement in and of itself as being false?
 
reinoe said:
See my response to Helix.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/off-...est-calls-cnn-fake-news-3.html#post1066903512

I bet if Fox News had a bunch of panelists discussing the mysterious deaths of all the people connected to the Clintons you would immediately decry such a story as fake news, but in this you're being conveniently obtuse.
Click to expand...

Your link doesn't go to any particular post, so I'm not sure which you're referring to.

That would depend on whether these deaths were in fact mysterious, as shown by some actual real-world evidence.

I do recall some people saying that about Bush 2, and I felt differently about the various deaths being pointed to. Some I thought were suspicious, others I didn't. In no case did enough evidence surface for me to come to a conclusion about who exactly was responsible for the suspicious ones (there's plenty of people who could have done it besides a US official obviously, and I expect assassinations both between and within governments occur more than most of us know).

Just because you're partisan about which facts you accept doesn't mean we all are.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I'm not insulting you by repeating what you've objectively done (not what I have called you, because I haven't called you anything). If you don't like it, stop doing it. You're doing it again even here, claiming I called you something when I never did.

If you're upset by people noticing and pointing out the things you do, stop doing them.
Click to expand...


"Those are all objectively true things. You have done nothing but lie about them, just like Denard"

Uhm,yeah, that's saying someone lied.
 
holbritter said:
"Those are all objectively true things. You have done nothing but lie about them, just like Denard"

Uhm,yeah, that's saying someone lied.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I never called her anything. I said she lied, which she did.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Just because you're partisan about which facts you accept doesn't mean we all are.
Click to expand...

It's quite the opposite but thanks for trying desperately to create a coherent response. You failed, but A for effort. If the MSM wants to pepper their information with lies, bias, hyperbole, innuendo, selective exclusion of pertinant facts, selective inclusion of irrelevant facts, and spin so much so that the end result doesn't actually resemble the news: then the MSM shouldn't be pissed when they get called on it.

Don Lemon is trying to eat his cake and have it too. He want to portray this as an important news story but then leaves out many pertinent details while engaging in spin then he shouldn't be pissed about getting called on it.
 
reinoe said:
It's quite the opposite but thanks for trying desperately to create a coherent response. You failed, but A for effort. If the MSM wants to pepper their information with lies, bias, hyperbole, innuendo, selective exclusion of pertinant facts, selective inclusion of irrelevant facts, and spin so much so that the end result doesn't actually resemble the news: then the MSM shouldn't be pissed when they get called on it.

Don Lemon is trying to eat his cake and have it too. He want to portray this as an important news story but then leaves out many pertinent details while engaging in spin then he shouldn't be pissed about getting called on it.
Click to expand...

And you offer no explaination for how, just a loud whining of, "BAAHHH, YOU FAIL!!" :lol: Ok then.

If giving the English definition of a word is "bias," then sign me the hell up. Literacy prevents blind hackery.
 
MaggieD said:
I see. I'm not familiar with that side of him, Fishking.

And thank you very much for your service.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I don't speak for everyone, but there are definitely those who feel the same way, and I'm no lib or anything.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
And you offer no explaination for how, just a loud whining of, "BAAHHH, YOU FAIL!!" :lol: Ok then.

If giving the English definition of a word is "bias," then sign me the hell up. Literacy prevents blind hackery.
Click to expand...

I accept your concession.
 
KevinKohler said:
Is it? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know, though, will we? Why? Because the commentator was never allowed to elaborate on his point.
Click to expand...

when you're a guest on a cable news show, you have to do more than repeat talking points, or you can expect to be called on it.
 
Helix said:
when you're a guest on a cable news show, you have to do more than repeat talking points, or you can expect to be called on it.
Click to expand...

I think that you have to do more that repeat talking points that have shown to be false at that.
 
holbritter said:
Same thing. Semantics and anyone knows that.
Click to expand...

It's semantics with a shade of meaning, of the person who's trying trying to cast me as using a fallacy when I am in fact simply identifying what they've done.

Did she lie, or didn't she? Do words have definitions? Is asking "what do you think" giving an opinion? Are Trump's protection costs high?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom