Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Oct 15 18:17:20 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Fake News Trophy
Mon Nov 27 12:18:26
Another day in America:

Trump: Media should get 'fake news trophy' for its distorted 'coverage of your favorite President (me)'

President Donald Trump lobbed a new attack at the news media on Monday, suggesting, seemingly tongue-in-cheek, that a “fake news trophy” be awarded to the TV network that features “the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me).”

“We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me),” Trump wrote on Twitter. “They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!”


the wanderer
Mon Nov 27 13:17:28
“with the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office.”
Mon Nov 27 16:35:28
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are."

"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."

"As for the reporters, "We must scorn them, else they will ruin us and our country. They are as much enemies to good government as the secesh, and between the two I like the secesh best, because they are a brave, open enemy and not a set of sneaking, croaking scoundrels.""

This is what General Sherman thought of the press.
Mon Nov 27 17:01:48
Sounds like Turkey’s Erdogan, but a lot worse.
Mon Nov 27 17:10:08
You are not fit to lead a democracy when you express so much hate of the free press as Trump and this Pedo Sherman does.

They distinguish themselves as enemies to freedom.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Mon Nov 27 19:38:38

I have a great design for the trophy.

Make it look like a human brain, put a big turd in it and then seal it so it doesn't stink.

Cherub Cow
Mon Nov 27 21:41:55
"You are not fit to lead a democracy when you express so much hate of the free press as Trump and this Pedo Sherman does."

Expressing hatred for the press is essential. Trying to silence them is a separate issue.
Tue Nov 28 06:52:35
He doesn't have to silence the press. He is doing what he can by sowing distrust of the News Media.

What the News Media should be doing is dedicating the first 5 min. of every news show to laying out all of the Twittermans newest lies and backing up their claims with provable facts.

Now that won't change the mind of the Hot Rods of the world but it would put on the record the lies of the Twitterman.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Nov 28 07:32:27

patom - What the News Media should be doing is dedicating the first 5 min. of every news show to laying out all of the Twittermans newest lies and backing up their claims with provable facts."

The news agencies will not do that because their first five minutes are dedicated to the lies that they have made up along with misinformation.

President Trump is trying to shame the news people, and the future news people, into telling the truth as they should be doing.

We are both old enough to remember Walter, and Chet and David, and Edward R, amongst other great journalists that were honest and trusted. So is Trump and I honestly believe his insults are intended to try to bring back such quality journalism.

Let's hope he is successful.

Tue Nov 28 09:52:12
"The news agencies will not do that because their first five minutes are dedicated to the lies that they have made up along with misinformation. "

So what are the lies?
Anarchist Prime
Tue Nov 28 10:01:52
"President Trump is trying to shame the news people, and the future news people, into telling the truth as they should be doing."

best joke of the year.
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 10:30:09
yeah... what are the lies?
Tue Nov 28 10:37:03
We have an alternative definition of ”lie”.
Tue Nov 28 11:18:01
No doubt tw participated in this twitter circlejerk


Anti-Trump fervor in the press has birthed many instances of sloppy, shoddy and downright dishonest journalism, but a story this week alleging the president behaved boorishly during a ceremony in Japan is so far the most egregious example of intentionally deceptive reporting since the Jan. 20 inauguration.

Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met this weekend in Tokyo to discuss trade and the growing threat of a nuclear-capable North Korea.

Anti-Trump fervor in the press has birthed many instances of sloppy, shoddy and downright dishonest journalism, but a story this week alleging the president behaved boorishly during a ceremony in Japan is so far the most egregious example of intentionally deceptive reporting since the Jan. 20 inauguration.

Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met this weekend in Tokyo to discuss trade and the growing threat of a nuclear-capable North Korea.

Simple enough stuff. There's no way this gets reported incorrectly, right? Wrong. The simple act of feeding the palace’s koi fish somehow became a fake news event in the U.S. this week, and we have CNN and a handful of others in the press to thank for that.

CNN published a headline Monday morning that read, “Trump feeds fish, winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond.”

That story included a tweet from CNN reporter Veronica Rocha, who wrote, “President Trump feeds fish with PM Shinzo Abe in Japan, then pours the entire box of food into the koi pond.”

Her note included footage of the ceremony — except that the clip she shared was edited so that it showed only Trump dumping out his fish food. CNN’s main Twitter account also circulated the edited video clip.

CNN was given an assist in getting this bogus story rolling by Bloomberg White House correspondent Justin Sink, who tweeted that Trump and Abe were “spooning fish food into the pond” when the U.S. president, “decided to just dump the whole box in for the fish.”

Things took off from there, as newsrooms rushed to report that Trump had made a great fool of himself in front of the Japanese.

“President Trump was criticized for throwing an entire box of fish food into a koi pond during his visit to Japan,” read a New York Daily News headline.

The Guardian did the most Guardian thing ever, publishing a story that warned overfeeding fish is extremely dangerous for their health.

“White House reporters, keen perhaps to pick up on a Trump gaffe, captured the moment when he upended his box on their smartphones and tweeted evidence of his questionable grasp of fish keeping,” the story read. “Some speculated that a poor palace employee would be dispatched to the scene to clean up the mess as soon as the two leaders disappeared inside.”

And so on.

Luckily, full video of the event eventually circulated online Monday morning, and the more honest reporters were quick to note that the original narrative spread by CNN and others was deeply misleading. Of course, we could've avoided this entire episode from the beginning if certain members of the press cared more about reporting the facts than dunking on an administration they don't like.

This stupid story is particularly rich considering certain CNN reporters talk a big game about being truth-tellers and guardians of fact over fiction. These same people also seem awfully upset whenever the president or anyone else in this administration refers to the cable network as "fake news."

Here's an idea: If you want to punch back on the president’s preferred pejorative for the press, maybe don’t spread actual fake news.
Tue Nov 28 11:25:22
Early November: Spike in Transgender Suicide Rates
After Trump’s electoral victory on November 8, rumors began circulating that multiple transgender teenagers had killed themselves in response to the election results. There was no basis to these rumors. Nobody was able to confirm them at the time, and nobody has been able to confirm in the three months since Trump was elected.

Nevertheless, the claim spread far and wide: Guardian writer and editor-at-large of Out Zach Stafford tweeted the rumor, which was retweeted more than 13,000 times before he deleted it. He later posted a tweet explaining why he deleted his original viral tweet; his explanatory tweet was shared a total of seven times. Meanwhile, PinkNews writer Dominic Preston wrote a report on the rumors, which garnered more than 12,000 shares on Facebook.

At Mic, Matthew Rodriguez wrote about the unsubstantiated allegations. His article was shared more than 55,000 times on Facebook. Urban legend debunker website Snopes wrote a report on the rumors and listed them as “unconfirmed” (rather than “false”). Snopes’s sources were two Facebook posts, since deleted, that offered no helpful information regarding the location, identity, or circumstances of any of the suicides. The Snopes report was shared 19,000 times.

At Reason, writer Elizabeth Nolan Brown searched multiple online databases to try to determine the identities or even the existence of the allegedly suicidal youth. She found nothing. As she put it: “[T]eenagers in 2016 don’t just die without anyone who knew them so much as mentioning their death online for days afterward.”

She is right. Just the same, the stories hyping this idea garnered at least nearly 100,000 shares on Facebook alone, contributing to the fear and hysteria surrounding Trump’s win.

ovember 22: The Tri-State Election Hacking Conspiracy Theory
On November 22, Gabriel Sherman posted a bombshell report at New York Magazine claiming that “a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers” were demanding a recount in three separate states because of “persuasive evidence that [the election] results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.” The evidence? Apparently, “in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots.”

The story went stratospherically viral. It was shared more than 145,000 times on Facebook alone. Sherman shared it on his Twitter feed several times, and people retweeted his links to the story nearly 9,000 times. Politico’s Eric Geller shared the story on Twitter as well. His tweet was retweeted just under 8,000 times. Dustin Volz from Reuters shared the link; he was retweeted nearly 2,000 times. MSNBC’s Joy Reid shared the story and was retweeted more than 4,000 times. New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman also shared the story and was retweeted about 1,600 times.

It wasn’t until the next day, November 23, that someone threw a little water on the fire. At FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver explained that it was “demographics, not hacking” that explained the curious voting numbers. “Anyone making allegations of a possible massive electoral hack should provide proof,” he wrote, “and we can’t find any.” Additionally, Silver pointed out that the New York Magazine article had misrepresented the argument of one of the computer scientists in question.

At that point, however, the damage had already been done: Sherman, along with his credulous tweeters and retweeters, had done a great deal to delegitimize the election results. Nobody was even listening to Silver, anyway: his post was shared a mere 380 times on Facebook, or about one-quarter of 1 percent as much as Sherman’s. This is how fake news works: the fake story always goes viral, while nobody reads or even hears about the correction.

Tue Nov 28 11:25:59
Oh sorry, didn't include the rest:

December 1: The 27-Cent Foreclosure
At Politico on December 1, Lorraine Woellert published a shocking essay claiming that Trump’s pick for secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, had overseen a company that “foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error.” According to Woellert: “After confusion over insurance coverage, a OneWest subsidiary sent [Ossie] Lofton a bill for $423.30. She sent a check for $423. The bank sent another bill, for 30 cents. Lofton, 90, sent a check for three cents. In November 2014, the bank foreclosed.”

The story received widespread coverage, being shared nearly 17,000 times on Facebook. The New York Times’s Steven Rattner shared it on Twitter (1,300 retweets), as did NBC News’s Brad Jaffy (1,200 retweets), the AP’s David Beard (1,900 retweets) and many others.

The problem? The central scandalous claims of Woellert’s article were simply untrue. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ted Frank pointed out, the woman in question was never foreclosed on, and never lost her home. Moreover, “It wasn’t Mnuchin’s bank that brought the suit.”

Politico eventually corrected these serious and glaring errors. But the damage was done: the story had been repeated by numerous media outlets including Huffington Post (shared 25,000 times on Facebook), the New York Post, Vanity Fair, and many others.

January 20: Nancy Sinatra’s Complaints about the Inaugural Ball
On the day of Trump’s inauguration, CNN claimed Nancy Sinatra was “not happy” with the fact that the president and first lady’s inaugural dance would be to the tune of Frank Sinatra’s “My Way.” The problem? Nancy Sinatra had never said any such thing. CNN later updated the article without explaining the mistake they had made.

January 20: The Nonexistent Climate Change Website ‘Purge’
Also on the day of the inauguration, New York Times writer Coral Davenport published an article on the Times’s website whose headline claimed that the Trump administration had “purged” any “climate change references” from the White House website. Within the article, Davenport acknowledged that the “purge” (or what she also called “online deletions”) was “not unexpected” but rather part of a routine turnover of digital authority between administrations.

To call this action a “purge” was thus at the height of intellectual dishonesty: Davenport was styling the whole thing as a kind of digital book-burn rather than a routine part of American government. But of course that was almost surely the point. The inflammatory headline was probably the only thing that most people read of the article, doubtlessly leading many readers (the article was shared nearly 50,000 times on Facebook) to believe something that simply wasn’t true.

January 20: The Great MLK Jr. Bust Controversy
On January 20, Time reporter Zeke Miller wrote that a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed from the White House. This caused a flurry of controversy on social media until Miller issued a correction. As Time put it, Miller had apparently not even asked anyone in the White House if the bust had been removed. He simply assumed it had been because “he had looked for it and had not seen it.”

January 20: Betsy DeVos, Grizzly Fighter
During her confirmation hearing, education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos was asked whether schools should be able to have guns on their campuses. As NBC News reported, DeVos felt it was “best left to locales and states to decide.” She pointed out that one school in Wyoming had a fence around it to protect the students from wildlife. “I would imagine,” she said, “that there’s probably a gun in the school to protect from potential grizzlies.”

This was an utterly noncontroversial stance to take. DeVos was simply pointing out that different states and localities have different needs, and attempting to mandate a nationwide one-size-fits-all policy for every American school is imprudent.

How did the media run with it? By lying through their teeth. “Betsy DeVos Says Guns Should Be Allowed in Schools. They Might Be Needed to Shoot Grizzlies” (Slate). “Betsy DeVos: Schools May Need Guns to Fight Off Bears” (The Daily Beast). “Citing grizzlies, education nominee says states should determine school gun policies” (CNN). “Betsy DeVos says guns in schools may be necessary to protect students from grizzly bears” (ThinkProgress.) “Betsy DeVos says guns shouldn’t be banned in schools … because grizzly bears” (Vox). “Betsy DeVos tells Senate hearing she supports guns in schools because of grizzly bears” (The Week). “Trump’s Education Pick Cites ‘Potential Grizzlies’ As A Reason To Have Guns In Schools” (BuzzFeed).

The intellectual dishonesty at play here is hard to overstate. DeVos never said or even intimated that every American school or even very many of them might need to shoot bears. She merely used one school as an example of the necessity of federalism and as-local-as-possible control of the education system.

Rather than report accurately on her stance, these media outlets created a fake news event to smear a reasonable woman’s perfectly reasonable opinion.

January 26: The ‘Resignations’ At the State Department
On January 26, the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin published what seemed to be a bombshell report declaring that “the State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned.” This resignation, according to Rogin, was “part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.” These resignations happened “suddenly” and “unexpectedly.” He styled it as a shocking shake-up of administrative protocol in the State Department, a kind of ad-hoc protest of the Trump administration.

The story immediately went sky-high viral. It was shared nearly 60,000 times on Facebook. Rogin himself tweeted the story out and was retweeted a staggering 11,000 times. Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum had it retweeted nearly 2,000 times; journalists and writers from Wired, The Guardian, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, ABC, Foreign Policy, and other publications tweeted the story out in shock.

There was just one problem: the story was more a load of bunk. As Vox pointed out, the headline of the piece was highly misleading: “the word ‘management’ strongly implied that all of America’s top diplomats were resigning, which was not the case.” (The Post later changed the word “management” to “administrative” without noting the change, although it left the “management” language intact in the article itself).

More importantly, Mark Toner, the acting spokesman for the State Department, put out a press release noting that “As is standard with every transition, the outgoing administration, in coordination with the incoming one, requested all politically appointed officers submit letters of resignation.” According to CNN, the officials were actually asked to leave by the Trump administration rather than stay on for the customary transitional few months. The entire premise of Rogin’s article was essentially nonexistent.

As always, the correction received far less attention than the fake news itself: Vox’s article, for instance, was shared around 9,500 times on Facebook, less than one-sixth the rate of Rogin’s piece. To this day, Rogin’s piece remains uncorrected regarding its faulty presumptions.

January 27: The Photoshopped Hands Affair
On January 27, Observer writer Dana Schwartz tweeted out a screenshot of Trump that, in her eyes, proved President Trump had “photoshopped his hands bigger” for a White House photograph. Her tweet immediately went viral, being shared upwards of 25,000 times. A similar tweet by Disney animator Joaquin Baldwin was shared nearly 9,000 times as well.

The conspiracy theory was eventually debunked, but not before it had been shared thousands upon thousands of times. Meanwhile, Schwartz tweeted that she did “not know for sure whether or not the hands were shopped.” Her correction tweet was shared a grand total of…11 times.

January 29: The Reuters Account Hoax
Following the Quebec City mosque massacre, the Daily Beast published a story that purported to identify the two shooters who had perpetrated the crime. The problem? The story’s source was a Reuters parody account on Twitter. Incredibly, nobody at the Daily Beast thought to check the source to any appreciable degree.

January 31: The White House-SCOTUS Twitter Mistake
Leading up to Trump announcing his first Supreme Court nomination, CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jeff Zeleny announced that the White House was “setting up [the] Supreme Court announcement as a prime-time contest.” He pointed to a pair of recently created “identical Twitter pages” for a theoretical justices Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, the two likeliest nominees for the court vacancy.

Zeleny’s sneering tweet—clearly meant to cast the Trump administration in an unflattering, circus-like light—was shared more than 1,100 times on Twitter. About 30 minutes later, however, he tweeted: “The Twitter accounts…were not set up by the White House, I’ve been told.” As always, the admission of mistake was shared far less than the original fake news: Zeleny’s correction was retweeted a paltry 159 times.

January 31: The Big Travel Ban Lie
On January 31, a Fox affiliate station out of Detroit reported that “A local business owner who flew to Iraq to bring his mother back home to the US for medical treatment said she was blocked from returning home under President Trump’s ban on immigration and travel from seven predominately Muslim nations. He said that while she was waiting for approval to fly home, she died from an illness.”

Like most other sensational news incidents, this one took off, big-time: it was shared countless times on Facebook, not just from the original article itself (123,000 shares) but via secondary reporting outlets such as the Huffington Post (nearly 9,000 shares). Credulous reporters and media personalities shared the story on Twitter to the tune of thousands and thousands of retweets, including: Christopher Hooks, Gideon Resnick, Daniel Dale, Sarah Silverman, Blake Hounshell, Brian Beutler, Garance Franke-Ruta, Keith Olbermann (he got 3,600 retweets on that one!), Matthew Yglesias, and Farhad Manjoo.

The story spread so far because it gratified all the biases of the liberal media elite: it proved that Trump’s “Muslim ban” was an evil, racist Hitler-esque mother-killer of an executive order.

There was just one problem: it was a lie. The man had lied about when his mother died. The Fox affiliate hadn’t bothered to do the necessary research to confirm or disprove the man’s account. The news station quietly corrected the story after giving rise to such wild, industrial-scale hysteria.

February 1: POTUS Threatens to Invade Mexico
On February 1, Yahoo News published an Associated Press report about a phone call President Trump shared with Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto. The report strongly implied that President Trump was considering “send[ing] U.S. troops” to curb Mexico’s “bad hombre” problem, although it acknowledged that the Mexican government disagreed with that interpretation. The White House later re-affirmed that Trump did not have any plan to “invade Mexico.”

Nevertheless, Jon Passantino, the deputy news director of BuzzFeed, shared this story on Twitter with the exclamation “WOW.” He was retweeted 2,700 times. Jon Favreau, a former speechwriter for Barack Obama, also shared the story, declaring: “I’m sorry, did our president just threaten to invade Mexico today??” Favreau was retweeted more than 8,000 times.

Meanwhile, the Yahoo News AP post was shared more than 17,000 times on Facebook; Time’s post of the misleading report was shared more than 66,000 times; ABC News posted the story and it was shared more than 20,000 times. On Twitter, the report—with the false implication that Trump’s comment was serious—was shared by media types such as ThinkProgress’s Judd Legum, the BBC’s Anthony Zurcher, Vox’s Matt Yglesias, Politico’s Shane Goldmacher, comedian Michael Ian Black, and many others.

February 2: Easing the Russian Sanctions
Last week, NBC News national correspondent Peter Alexander tweeted out the following: “BREAKING: US Treasury Dept easing Obama admin sanctions to allow companies to do transactions with Russia’s FSB, successor org to KGB.” His tweet immediately went viral, as it implied that the Trump administration was cozying up to Russia.

A short while later, Alexander posted another tweet: “Source familiar [with] sanctions says it’s a technical fix, planned under Obama, to avoid unintended consequences of cybersanctions.” As of this writing, Alexander’s fake news tweet has approximately 6,500 retweets; his clarifying tweet has fewer than 250.

At CNBC, Jacob Pramuk styled the change this way: “Trump administration modifies sanctions against Russian intelligence service.” The article makes it clear that, per Alexander’s source, “the change was a technical fix that was planned under Obama.” Nonetheless, the impetus was placed on the Trump adminsitration. CBS News wrote the story up in the same way. So did the New York Daily News.

In the end, unable to pin this (rather unremarkable) policy tweak on the Trump administration, the media have mostly moved on. As the Chicago Tribune put it, the whole affair was yet again an example of how “in the hyperactive Age of Trump, something that initially appeared to be a major change in policy turned into a nothing-burger.”

February 2: Renaming Black History Month
At the start of February, which is Black History Month in the United States, Trump proclaimed the month “National African American History Month.” Many outlets tried to spin the story in a bizarre way: TMZ claimed that a “senior administration official” said that Trump believed the term “black” to be outdated. “Every U.S. president since 1976 has designated February as Black History Month,” wrote TMZ. BET wrote the same thing.

The problem? It’s just not true. President Obama, for example, declared February “National African American History Month” as well. TMZ quickly updated their piece to fix their embarrassing error.

February 2: The House of Representatives’ Gun Control Measures
On February 2, the Associated Press touched off a political and media firestorm by tweeting: “BREAKING: House votes to roll back Obama rule on background checks for gun ownership.” The AP was retweeted a staggering 12,000 times.

The headlines that followed were legion: “House votes to rescind Obama gun background check rule” (Kyle Cheney, Politico); “House GOP aims to scrap Obama rule on gun background checks” (CNBC); “House scraps background check regulation” (Yahoo News); “House rolls back Obama gun background check rule” (CNN); “House votes to roll back Obama rule on background checks for gun ownership” (Washington Post).

Some headlines were more specific about the actual House vote but no less misleading; “House votes to end rule that prevents people with mental illness from buying guns” (the Independent); “Congress ends background checks for some gun buyers with mental illness” (the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette); “House Votes to Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales to the Severely Mentally Ill” (NPR).

The hysteria was far-reaching and frenetic. As you might have guessed, all of it was baseless. The House was actually voting to repeal a narrowly tailored rule from the Obama era. This rule mandated that the names of certain individuals who receive Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income and who use a representative to help manage these benefits due to a mental impairment be forwarded to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

If that sounds confusing, it essentially means that if someone who receives SSDI or SSI needs a third party to manage these benefits due to some sort of mental handicap, then—under the Obama rule—they may have been barred from purchasing a firearm. (It is thus incredibly misleading to suggest that the rule applied in some specific way to the “severely mentally ill.”)

As National Review’s Charlie Cooke pointed out, the Obama rule was opposed by the American Association of People With Disabilities; the ACLU; the Arc of the United States; the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network; the Consortium of Citizens With Disabilities; the National Coalition of Mental Health Recovery; and many, many other disability advocacy organizations and networks.

The media hysteria surrounding the repeal of this rule—the wildly misleading and deceitful headlines, the confused outrage over a vote that nobody understood—was a public disservice.

As Cooke wrote: “It is a rare day indeed on which the NRA, the GOP, the ACLU, and America’s mental health groups find themselves in agreement on a question of public policy, but when it happens it should at the very least prompt Americans to ask, ‘Why?’ That so many mainstream outlets tried to cheat them of the opportunity does not bode well for the future.”
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 11:27:19
A) that was a very minor story, don't recall it even being covered on the CNN TV channel, just print
B) “Trump feeds fish, winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond.” is true... and the story text notes Abe did something similar first
C) Trump still looks like more of an oaf in how he does it imo
Tue Nov 28 11:28:16
"Luckily, full video of the event eventually circulated online Monday morning"

So where is the full video? At whatreallyhappened.com ?

And why isn't this author explaining in his article what really happened? Did Trump dump the food to the fish or not? All he is saying is that CNN is wrong.
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 11:28:53
never heard about that transgender story which seems to relate to tweets & outlets i've also never heard of...
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 11:31:28
browsing through your list, which i don't know is even accurate as i don't recognize any of these stories, suggests these are not grounds to call everyone but Fox News fake
Tue Nov 28 11:32:02
"that was a very minor story, don't recall it even being covered on the CNN TV channel, just print "

It's only a headline on CNN.com, not a TV headline! ROFL
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 11:33:55
yeah... a CNN.com article that is accurate

what part is false?
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 11:36:11
go to CNN.com right now and tell me how every article is false... or 50% of them... or any amount to remotely justify claiming they are fake news

note how HR doesn't believe a single story if it has any anti-Trump feel & tell me Trump's bullshit isn't having an effect
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 11:44:03
you have a list picking stories out from numerous outlets and tweets all over the place spanning months

& the errors have been corrected by the respected places (i'm not even checking, but prove me wrong :p... i don't care about places like 'Mic' or other obscure sites, although maybe they have too not impugning them)

tell me when Trump has corrected himself on his 1000+ lies
Tue Nov 28 11:45:32
You honestly have no problem with a completely disingenuous headline so long as it's technically true. You take no issue with reporters at nationally syndicated media organizations tweeting complete conspiracy theories and outright lies to thousands of people. And even when they are false, so long as they're a minority in the volume of news, no issue.

You're fake news.
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 11:50:00
how Trump fed koi fish was not a top story of importance... & i never heard of that reporter... & that headline wasn't shockingly bad

Trump & his team are the ones who tweet conspiracy theories and outright lies to thousands of people

not sure what you're even talking about w/ regards to CNN, hopefully not koi-feeding
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 11:50:38
...well not thousands, millions... Trump might sue me if i say thousands
Tue Nov 28 11:53:21
"He does it too!"

How childish. A true bastion of journalistic integrity.
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 11:56:12
simple test:
if CNN is fake news you should have no trouble going to the site or channel right now & finding multiple examples

...as you could w/ National Enquirer (which Trump calls 'respected')

if you can't, it's not
Tue Nov 28 12:04:36
Donald Trump is the largest source of fake news.

Is he just being a cunty prick, trying to get himself awards? Is this because he didn't get time's man of the year?
Tue Nov 28 12:10:12
Didn't he win a medal while he was in Saudi Barbaria? Like, the Righteous Apostate of the Year-medal?
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 18:51:10
"Since Pres. Trump told the world to dismiss the reporting of CNN International via his Twitter feed, Libyan outlets are now questioning the veracity of a significant report by CNNi revealing that refugees are being bought and sold as slaves in Libya."

good job, lying childish mentally-ill unfit moron dickhead Trump!
Cherub Cow
Tue Nov 28 19:48:33
[patom]: "He is doing what he can by sowing distrust of the News Media."

Sadly, while Trump may be sowing distrust as a means of feeding his ego (his probable motivation is simply to make himself look good), this does not negate the fact that major media has taken extreme liberties with editing, narrative, and bias — i.e., yellow journalism, which Trump calls "Fake news".

• A popular tactic with Twitter is that an inaccurate or incomplete claim is made in an outraged tone and allowed to take hold in the reblogged sphere, and the "retraction" or complete story gets made later with far less salacious language, designed to be buried or excused since it is somehow "acceptable" to these hacks that their bias once again outweighed their integrity. ("It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission"? Certainly true when the lie goes viral and the retraction doesn't.)
• Another method is to control the narrative around facts — a dishonest way of corralling supporters with a shared perception of events (An assumed "we" which informs the language of the story; "'We' all know") rather than examining whether or not those events justify the perception. E.g., "Trump wore red, [and as we all know, red is racist]" (this being a paraphrase of Ellen Page's idiotic sentence, "[Brett Ratner] ‘outed’ me with no regard for my well-being, an act we all recognize as homophobic." — oh do 'we'?). A recent example that CNN and BBC have used frequently in their coverage of terrorist events is the narrative that all major terrorists were made into terrorists due to exposure to Western culture (the "radicalized in the West" narrative). This is designed to make the West into the enemy, putting agency and accountability on the West and minimizing the agency and accountability of the attacker. They did this as recently as the October 31st Saipov NYC truck attack. BBC and CNN similarly like to draw comparisons between Muslim terrorists and IRA terrorists — a narrative which is oft-sampled by BBC/CNN viewers and taken as fact rather than as an effect of psychological synchronicity or the selective narrative-making of bad conscience.
• Another method is to drop the distinction between factual news coverage and editorial coverage, like by giving editorials front page exposure and moving less opinionated sections to the periphery. E.g., "Repeal the Second Amendment", published by the New York Times in October 2017, or today's NY Times article, "How Far Will Sean Hannity Go?", a clickbait headline over a front page story which gives a kind of serial killer biography treatment to the Fox News pundit (i.e., "Look how normal he was growing up, [and now he's a Trump-supporting psychopath]").
• Another method is to focus attention on all possible sources of victimization created by a designated enemy. CNN does this on the regular, with today's front page being a great show: "Poor would lose billions under GOP plan". They even let you know who to blame right next to that: "The GOP senators who will decide tax reform" (i.e., "hate these people for their work in fucking the poor"). This is little better than Imgur spamming FCC chairman Ajit Pai's face every day while discussing the death of American porn habits.
• Another method is freely-incorporated biased language. On CNN's front page today is the clickbait story, "Analysis: Trump's secret? There is no secret", within which is biased language such as, "Trump seems blissfully unaware of that history," and, "What explains Trump's decision to provoke Pelosi and Schumer in advance of the meeting? Some of Trump's allies will insist that he is playing a strategic game that people like me are just too dumb to see. That by forcing Democrats to walk away from the table, Trump will improve his party's leverage. Or something." I.e., "'We' are so smart, but Trump and the GOP are so dumb dumb dumb. They have no strategic mind, but 'we' know better!" (This narrative may be true of Trump's lack of strategy, and I think it fits Trump's ego, but why is it on CNN's front page? Which leads to the biggest method, I think..:).
• A major method is controlling the front page: a news agency can always claim that it is simply reporting the "facts" from some "free press" platform of zero state control (a lie itself when it comes to CNN, which has acted as a DNC platform), yet it should not be ignored that editors decide which facts get reported and which ones get the headline treatment. There is the pretense and distraction that simply reporting the facts — regardless of the narrative manipulation — is an act of journalistic pride (e.g., Wolf Blitzer's "Loudest critics can't silence the facts" video editorial from today ( http://www...t-despite-attacks-wolf-sot.cnn )), yet the subtext has attack language. Blitzer's editorial, for example, outright aligns "Loudest critics" with Trump, and by going into all the "good reporting" that CNN does, it attempts to construct a narrative where Trump is against CNN's "humanitarian" coverage of natural disasters or of its coverage of international conflicts and all the sad puppy things happening in the world ("Read our subtext, CNN viewers!: 'Trump hates puppies!'") [roll footage of CNN reporters embedded with the troops, taking fire while still reporting ("Trump is against journalistic bravery!"); roll footage of CNN reporters saving an elderly woman from flood waters ("Trump would have us stop saving elderly/disabled women!"); roll footage of a CNN reporter saving someone with CPR ("Trump would have her die!"); roll footage of a CNN reporter emphasizing the "*people*" of Aleppo ("Trump doesn't care about the **people**!"); roll footage of CNN pushing a camera into a little girl's face as she cries for her absent father ("Trump doesn't care about this little girl!!")]. Nice montage, but very selective and pointed and politically-charged. Those were "facts", but the extreme depths of narrative with which they were covered and assembled (via the Kuleshov effect) was an act of yellow journalism.

[Forwyn]: "'He does it too!' [/] How childish. A true bastion of journalistic integrity."

.."He does it too!" is really the best selling point of this Trump coverage (this yellow journalism). I keep saying it, but CNN operates through a claim of "false equivalency fallacy" that disguises its "fallacy of relative privation". That is, it claims that "Trump/GOP are so much *worse*!", but it ignores that Trump's shit stinking does not stop its own shit from stinking. Fox News being shit does not stop CNN from being shit. GOP being shit does not stop DNC from being shit. All of it is still shit. At least be consistent and hate all of it.
werewolf dictator
Tue Nov 28 20:03:11
hillary and the fake news msm were first in usa to be vocally calling for the war in libya which is what brought chaos and slavery there.. while robert gates [and some others in government] opposed war.. with obama initially reluctant to go beyond “grave concern” statements until the hillary and fake news msm eventually won him over..

if you dont like slavery then your anger should be aimed towards hillary and fake news msm responsible for it
Anarchist Prime
Tue Nov 28 20:03:28
"Sadly, while Trump may be sowing distrust as a means of feeding his ego (his probable motivation is simply to make himself look good), this does not negate the fact that major media has taken extreme liberties with editing, narrative, and bias — i.e., yellow journalism, which Trump calls "Fake news". "

true dat
Tue Nov 28 20:11:48
The Federalist lol.

The quality of the journal like all conservative journals has completely plummeted.

All Forwyn has left is his white grievance against Fake News. What a sad little snowflake.
Tue Nov 28 20:20:20
80/20 for corporations/citizens

80% of the 1.5tn over 10 years goes to corporations. Primarily the corporate tax cut, from 35% to 20%

20% of the 1.5tn over 10 years goes to citizens. Primarily those who benefit from the repeal of the AMT, and estate tax.

The 2 single most expensive things that the GOP insist on that are not targeted toward corporations are estate taxes and AMT taxes. There is no tax cut in the tax cut bill for anyone not considered wealthy. And as you have read, the tax cut bill is likely to raise taxes on more than 50% of taxpayers, primarily the poor/middle class.

Biggest Fake News of all is that Forwyn thinks he will get a $2000 tax cut. ROFLMAO.
the wanderer
Tue Nov 28 23:32:38
Trump's 'fake news' crusade is way more dangerous than claiming bias... plus he claims sources don't exist, so he's not even meaning just bias

when Roy Moore accusations came out, there was tons of 'oh, it's Washington Post, fake news'... there is NO history of Washington Post creating fake news

Trump is actively harming the country, no doubt in my mind
Wed Nov 29 00:17:28
All these dumb people trying to creTe false equivalencies. The world is full of gradations. Almost all conservative lies and fails to meet the basic standards of journalism taht say the columbia school of journalism would teach. CNN is not perfect but it is hugely a step up from fox news. Fox news miht as well be trump news with how much it tries to disguise editorializing as journalism. At least cnn delineates like every other creeible news outlet.

What we have is a very stark divide between the educated and uneducated. The internet and social media has given rise to tons of stupid, loud people who think that their ignorance is the equal of actual truth. Repeating a lie to yourself and seeking echo chambers that confirm to those lies does not make your lie into truth. It just makes you more of a dumbass.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Wed Nov 29 00:37:58


You should do stand up. You could easily get very rich.

the wanderer
Wed Nov 29 10:18:31
our justice dept is rigged & corrupt
our intel agencies can't be trusted
our news agencies are fake
our election system is full of fraud

according to the President of the United States
Wed Nov 29 10:48:01
@ cherub:

See, I have a problem with bucketing everything as the same. Is getting blood drawn painful? Sure, you're having a needle stuck inside of you. Ouch. Is having your arm chopped off painful? Yeah. To say "well they both hurt, so they must be equal? All pain is the same!"

Well, no. Getting your arm chopped off is going to hurt a lot more and a lot longer than a needle prick from a blood draw. It's entirely reasonable to more or less ignore the pain of a needle prick compared to that of a severed limb. Sure, both painful. But not equal.

To go back to your comments, yeah some media outlets play a bit fast with publishing their stories. Others willfully, knowingly, purposely publishing false reports with the express intent to never tell the truth. To suggest that one stink is the same degree as the other stink... Well that is just not true. Not bring pooped on at all is ideal, but if I'm going to get poop on me, I'd definitely rather step in poop vs. get pushed into a pool of it.

I'm not exactly a fan of most news. But I will still go to the least tainted source I can find, every time.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share