90/10 Is Fake News

[bripat9643]

Secondly, if Trump didn’t lie so much, the media wouldn’t be pointing out his compulsive lying daily.

So if Trump stopped tweeting, the MSM would give him balanced coverage, Gulliber?

I don’t think it is so much about the tweeting... it is about the constant lies and the all out war he has waged against the media and our intel agencies. The fake news and deep state conspiracies. Those are what’s really fueling the fire

The media and our intel agencies have waged all out war on him. You're confused about the cause effect relationship here. The biggest conspircy theory on the planet is the one about "Russion collusion." If only you moron leftwingers could see how absurd you look babbling about conspiricy theories.

You're right about one thing: fake news is fueling the fire.

There would be no Russian collision if Trump and his team wouldn’t have lied about meetings they had with Russians on the heels of the Russian being caught interfering with the election. That’s what started this whole mess. And every lie and deflection and finger pointing accusation that Trump makes just fuels the fire.

Yes the press is critical of him. He called them the enemy of the people and talks shit about them every chance he gets. What do you think they are going to do? He provokes it and he likes it because it gives him an enemy to talk shit about when things get hot. He won the election by fire and fury, talking shit about Obama and politicians... well now he is in charge and he needs a new scapegoat. He has made the media and his political opponents that very thing. And puppets like you have taken the bait.

Spare me the crap about how it's all Trump's fault. Comey and McCabe and Brennan and Clapper all conspired to create the Russian collusion frame up long before Trump was even elected. The Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposition campaign. They compile a smear campaign against Trump from the get-go. They are the one responsible. They are the ones who tried to put Trump on trial the day he was elected. You have to be a certifiable dumbass to actually believe Trump is the one responsible.

The fake media is the enemy of the people. They are assisting a coup against Trump. Trump isn't "talking shit" about Obama, Hillary and the rest of the swamp crocodiles. He's stating the facts. They're criminals.

 

[jwoodie]

Why did you add 3 million votes to vote tally.

Sorry, I read from the wrong line (Hillary's total).

 

[Camp]

Why did you add 3 million votes to vote tally.

Sorry, I read from the wrong line (Hillary's total).

OK, we all make little mistakes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's right contards, when 90% of the MSM coverage of President Trump is negative because he is acting negatively, then arguing against it is fake news by definition.

Don't the 77 million who voted against Trump have a say?

 

[jwoodie]

There's still a large difference between reporting being biased or prejudiced and it being fake.

"There's still...reporting...being fake." Is this paraphrasing of your comment false or merely biased?

 

[Darkwind]

That's right libtards, when 90% of the MSM coverage of President Trump is negative, that is fake news by definition. Don't the 66 million people who voted for him have any legitimate views that should also be presented? Portrayal of a false consensus is the hallmark of propaganda.

When did negative and fake become synonyms?

When it comes wrapped in the package of 'Agenda'

 

[jwoodie]

Don't the 77 million who voted against Trump have a say?

Don't the 74 million who voted against Hillary have a say? If the MSM coverage of Trump was 60/40 (or even 70/30) negative, you might have a point. 90/10 negative coverage is indisputable evidence that they are political hacks rather that legitimate news outlets.

 

[Camp]

We have always had what today is called "fake news". Payne's Common Sense and Benjamin Franklyn's Pennsylvania Gazette were prime examples of citizens publishing news that other citizens considered "fake news".

The only difference between the fake news that America had since before it was a country and the fake news of today is we have a President that uses a standard tradition and history as a prop to dupe citizens and camouflage, disguise and deflect against his pathological serial lying and scams.

 

[Slade3200]

Secondly, if Trump didn’t lie so much, the media wouldn’t be pointing out his compulsive lying daily.

So if Trump stopped tweeting, the MSM would give him balanced coverage, Gulliber?

I don’t think it is so much about the tweeting... it is about the constant lies and the all out war he has waged against the media and our intel agencies. The fake news and deep state conspiracies. Those are what’s really fueling the fire

The media and our intel agencies have waged all out war on him. You're confused about the cause effect relationship here. The biggest conspircy theory on the planet is the one about "Russion collusion." If only you moron leftwingers could see how absurd you look babbling about conspiricy theories.

You're right about one thing: fake news is fueling the fire.

There would be no Russian collision if Trump and his team wouldn’t have lied about meetings they had with Russians on the heels of the Russian being caught interfering with the election. That’s what started this whole mess. And every lie and deflection and finger pointing accusation that Trump makes just fuels the fire.

Yes the press is critical of him. He called them the enemy of the people and talks shit about them every chance he gets. What do you think they are going to do? He provokes it and he likes it because it gives him an enemy to talk shit about when things get hot. He won the election by fire and fury, talking shit about Obama and politicians... well now he is in charge and he needs a new scapegoat. He has made the media and his political opponents that very thing. And puppets like you have taken the bait.

Spare me the crap about how it's all Trump's fault. Comey and McCabe and Brennan and Clapper all conspired to create the Russian collusion frame up long before Trump was even elected. The Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposition campaign. They compile a smear campaign against Trump from the get-go. They are the one responsible. They are the ones who tried to put Trump on trial the day he was elected. You have to be a certifiable dumbass to actually believe Trump is the one responsible.

The fake media is the enemy of the people. They are assisting a coup against Trump. Trump isn't "talking shit" about Obama, Hillary and the rest of the swamp crocodiles. He's stating the facts. They're criminals.

I can see you are completely drunk off the Koolaid. Try laying off the Rush and Alex Jones for a while. You sound like a nut.

 

[Slade3200]

Don't the 77 million who voted against Trump have a say?

Don't the 74 million who voted against Hillary have a say? If the MSM coverage of Trump was 60/40 (or even 70/30) negative, you might have a point. 90/10 negative coverage is indisputable evidence that they are political hacks rather that legitimate news outlets.

Let’s take a bigger look. Fox News is the counterbalance to the MSM right? Trump friendly? Do you know what their ratio of positive to negative stories about Trump is?

 

[jwoodie]

Let’s take a bigger look. Fox News is the counterbalance to the MSM right? Trump friendly? Do you know what their ratio of positive to negative stories about Trump is?

FNC's commentators are overwhelmingly pro-Trump, although its hard news side is more balanced. Do you think that one cable news channel counterbalances near-unanimity in the anti-Trump MSM? Even the Wall Street Journal is tepid in its positive coverage and quick to criticize Trump when the opportunity arises. And don't forget that CNN is often the only U.S. "news" station in airports and overseas.

 

[Slade3200]

Let’s take a bigger look. Fox News is the counterbalance to the MSM right? Trump friendly? Do you know what their ratio of positive to negative stories about Trump is?

FNC's commentators are overwhelmingly pro-Trump, although its hard news side is more balanced. Do you think that one cable news channel counterbalances near-unanimity in the anti-Trump MSM? Even the Wall Street Journal is tepid in its positive coverage and quick to criticize Trump when the opportunity arises. And don't forget that CNN is often the only U.S. "news" station in airports and overseas.

Fox is the largest news network in the US . But my question was about the ratio of positive to negative coverage. Do you know what Foxes ratio is?

 

[bripat9643]

Let’s take a bigger look. Fox News is the counterbalance to the MSM right? Trump friendly? Do you know what their ratio of positive to negative stories about Trump is?

FNC's commentators are overwhelmingly pro-Trump, although its hard news side is more balanced. Do you think that one cable news channel counterbalances near-unanimity in the anti-Trump MSM? Even the Wall Street Journal is tepid in its positive coverage and quick to criticize Trump when the opportunity arises. And don't forget that CNN is often the only U.S. "news" station in airports and overseas.

Fox is the largest news network in the US . But my question was about the ratio of positive to negative coverage. Do you know what Foxes ratio is?

It's the largest cable news network. ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS are all larger.

 

[Montrovant]

There's still a large difference between reporting being biased or prejudiced and it being fake.

"There's still...reporting...being fake." Is this paraphrasing of your comment false or merely biased?

That's not a paraphrase.

 

[Montrovant]

That's right libtards, when 90% of the MSM coverage of President Trump is negative, that is fake news by definition. Don't the 66 million people who voted for him have any legitimate views that should also be presented? Portrayal of a false consensus is the hallmark of propaganda.

When did negative and fake become synonyms?

When it comes wrapped in the package of 'Agenda'

Maybe I just have a different definition of 'fake news', or even the word 'fake'. To me, for something to be fake it has to be untrue or not real. Focusing on negative things, or coming to conclusions about something, do not constitute fake. Making up something that did not happen and reporting it as though it did, that would be fake. 'Trump Removed MLK Bust from the White House' was a fake story. It never happened. It isn't focusing on something bad that happened, or drawing a negative conclusion, it is stating something untrue as true.

I'm not saying that there have been no fake news stories about Trump. There have. However, just because the media shows Trump in a negative light does not make the stories they run fake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

'Fake News' to the far right means "I don't like it", not that it is not true.

 

[Darkwind]

That's right libtards, when 90% of the MSM coverage of President Trump is negative, that is fake news by definition. Don't the 66 million people who voted for him have any legitimate views that should also be presented? Portrayal of a false consensus is the hallmark of propaganda.

When did negative and fake become synonyms?

When it comes wrapped in the package of 'Agenda'

Maybe I just have a different definition of 'fake news', or even the word 'fake'. To me, for something to be fake it has to be untrue or not real. Focusing on negative things, or coming to conclusions about something, do not constitute fake. Making up something that did not happen and reporting it as though it did, that would be fake. 'Trump Removed MLK Bust from the White House' was a fake story. It never happened. It isn't focusing on something bad that happened, or drawing a negative conclusion, it is stating something untrue as true.

I'm not saying that there have been no fake news stories about Trump. There have. However, just because the media shows Trump in a negative light does not make the stories they run fake.

Here is how it is fake.

I can disagree with your ideology. I can then go and find things you say and do and twist them to be something other than what they are, but always with just a shred of truth in them so that I can point to it and say, "See, I'm just reporting the truth!".

Once in a while, and it would just be a guy twisting what is said and done to make him feel better about himself. When you do it always, then it becomes defamatory and false,

It is fake because it is agenda driven.

The media wants to influence the elections, so they do exactly that. Just enough truth to get them by, but huge lies of omission, twisting of facts, misleading people through headlines and commentary masquerading as news.

Yellow journalism.

Just because you can point to one little tidbit that has a glimmer of truth to it, does not make it legitimate information.

 

[Slade3200]

That's right libtards, when 90% of the MSM coverage of President Trump is negative, that is fake news by definition. Don't the 66 million people who voted for him have any legitimate views that should also be presented? Portrayal of a false consensus is the hallmark of propaganda.

When did negative and fake become synonyms?

When it comes wrapped in the package of 'Agenda'

Maybe I just have a different definition of 'fake news', or even the word 'fake'. To me, for something to be fake it has to be untrue or not real. Focusing on negative things, or coming to conclusions about something, do not constitute fake. Making up something that did not happen and reporting it as though it did, that would be fake. 'Trump Removed MLK Bust from the White House' was a fake story. It never happened. It isn't focusing on something bad that happened, or drawing a negative conclusion, it is stating something untrue as true.

I'm not saying that there have been no fake news stories about Trump. There have. However, just because the media shows Trump in a negative light does not make the stories they run fake.

Here is how it is fake.

I can disagree with your ideology. I can then go and find things you say and do and twist them to be something other than what they are, but always with just a shred of truth in them so that I can point to it and say, "See, I'm just reporting the truth!".

Once in a while, and it would just be a guy twisting what is said and done to make him feel better about himself. When you do it always, then it becomes defamatory and false,

It is fake because it is agenda driven.

The media wants to influence the elections, so they do exactly that. Just enough truth to get them by, but huge lies of omission, twisting of facts, misleading people through headlines and commentary masquerading as news.

Yellow journalism.

Just because you can point to one little tidbit that has a glimmer of truth to it, does not make it legitimate information.

I’d agree with that statement except for the fact that there is no twisting of the facts or huge lies of omission. Let’s take CNN for example. They are obviously at war with Trump. Trump calls them dishonest / fake news, CNN in return calls Trump on all his bullshit. I admits that they focus on negative stories very often but I don’t see them twisting facts or omitting information. I actually see them including trump surrogates in most programs to get their side of the story.

If you want to talk about twisting facts and lies of omission then why not talk about the White House who is pumping out complete crap on a daily basis?

I wish CNN would focus on more important issues than Trumps lies, dishonesty, and inappropriate behavior. I also wish I could trust the statements coming out of our White House and am glad there are people out there holding them accountable. Not in a dishonest way but by reporting the facts.

 

[Indeependent]

That's right libtards, when 90% of the MSM coverage of President Trump is negative, that is fake news by definition. Don't the 66 million people who voted for him have any legitimate views that should also be presented? Portrayal of a false consensus is the hallmark of propaganda.

We saw them already:

Charlottesville:
View attachment 193582
Charlottesville II:
View attachment 193583
Georgia
View attachment 193584
California:
View attachment 193587

All 50 of them.

 

[Montrovant]

That's right libtards, when 90% of the MSM coverage of President Trump is negative, that is fake news by definition. Don't the 66 million people who voted for him have any legitimate views that should also be presented? Portrayal of a false consensus is the hallmark of propaganda.

When did negative and fake become synonyms?

When it comes wrapped in the package of 'Agenda'

Maybe I just have a different definition of 'fake news', or even the word 'fake'. To me, for something to be fake it has to be untrue or not real. Focusing on negative things, or coming to conclusions about something, do not constitute fake. Making up something that did not happen and reporting it as though it did, that would be fake. 'Trump Removed MLK Bust from the White House' was a fake story. It never happened. It isn't focusing on something bad that happened, or drawing a negative conclusion, it is stating something untrue as true.

I'm not saying that there have been no fake news stories about Trump. There have. However, just because the media shows Trump in a negative light does not make the stories they run fake.

Here is how it is fake.

I can disagree with your ideology. I can then go and find things you say and do and twist them to be something other than what they are, but always with just a shred of truth in them so that I can point to it and say, "See, I'm just reporting the truth!".

Once in a while, and it would just be a guy twisting what is said and done to make him feel better about himself. When you do it always, then it becomes defamatory and false,

It is fake because it is agenda driven.

The media wants to influence the elections, so they do exactly that. Just enough truth to get them by, but huge lies of omission, twisting of facts, misleading people through headlines and commentary masquerading as news.

Yellow journalism.

Just because you can point to one little tidbit that has a glimmer of truth to it, does not make it legitimate information.

If the reporting is drawing conclusions about real statements or events, it isn't fake news IMO. I just don't agree with the need to use the label 'fake news' all the time. 'Agenda driven' seems like a perfectly reasonable label to use.