Fake news is extremely dangerous to our democracy

[francoHFW]

If you don't know 99% of the fake news comes from Fox Rush five or six greedy GOP billionaires, you're one of the dupes. Breaking... The rich don't pay enough in taxes. The Clinton Foundation was and it is a very good charity. Every Obama and Clinton scandal is a hoax. Our justice system works, is over-eager if anything. Our intelligence agencies know it was the video that was the trigger. Statistically there are no illegal voters, it's not worth the trouble or risk. The w Administration screwed up Iraq and wrecked the world economy. The GOP was pure obstruction under Obama. Etc etc

Everything the GOP does is bad, everything the Democrats do is good. Worn out old talking points, spoken like a good little partisan dupe.

any actual arguments, Dupe?
All the GOP has done the last 35 years is cut taxes on the rich, money for infrastructure, and services for the non rich and obstruct progress. And misinform the chumps.

 

[Windparadox]

`

`

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is it fake news that's dangerous, or voters who don't think?

You can't expect everyone to be as interested in politics as USMB's userbase is. Doesn't mean they're dumb. In the immortal words of Homer (simpson)

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

They vote. They should be informed.

Why should there be people out there who have no idea what they're doing, choosing the course of the country?

It's be great if voters were more informed and voted based on logic rather than emotion. I think it'd work out in favor for the political right. But I don't see any feasible way to force people to care enough to look at all sides of an issue.

No, it's a hard one really.

Other than forcing people to take some sort of test to see whether they understand certain things.. which could then be abused.

That idea would go over like a lead balloon considering that "merit based systems" are now being attacked as racist.

But yeah in the meantime I think it's important that we hold the media to account for taking advantage of gullible people, telling them what to think instead of how to think.

Yes, people want their rights without any responsibilities.

I find that quite offensive.

The media is far more accountable than the president right now.

 

[Mac1958]

There is "fake" news - absolutely contrived stories that support & push a political agenda - and then there is biased news - stories that have been manipulated to push a political agenda but presented under a traditional "news" format.

They're different. They're both bad for a democracy. And we're seeing the predictable results of that.

And we're not only allowing it, we're supporting it. Just another self-inflicted wound.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is "fake" news - absolutely contrived stories that support & push a political agenda - and then there is biased news - stories that have been manipulated to push a political agenda but presented under a traditional "news" format.

They're different. They're both bad for a democracy. And we're seeing the predictable results of that.

And we're not only allowing it, we're supporting it. Just another self-inflicted wound.
.

Can you have non-biased news?

Even the positioning in the media outlet itself, headline story or at the back, makes it biased or not.

 

[Mac1958]

There is "fake" news - absolutely contrived stories that support & push a political agenda - and then there is biased news - stories that have been manipulated to push a political agenda but presented under a traditional "news" format.

They're different. They're both bad for a democracy. And we're seeing the predictable results of that.

And we're not only allowing it, we're supporting it. Just another self-inflicted wound.
.

Can you have non-biased news?

Even the positioning in the media outlet itself, headline story or at the back, makes it biased or not.

Bias, like everything else, exists on a continuum. Responsible journalism commits itself to minimizing bias as much as possible.

Or it used to. Not currently.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is "fake" news - absolutely contrived stories that support & push a political agenda - and then there is biased news - stories that have been manipulated to push a political agenda but presented under a traditional "news" format.

They're different. They're both bad for a democracy. And we're seeing the predictable results of that.

And we're not only allowing it, we're supporting it. Just another self-inflicted wound.
.

Can you have non-biased news?

Even the positioning in the media outlet itself, headline story or at the back, makes it biased or not.

Bias, like everything else, exists on a continuum. Responsible journalism commits itself to minimizing bias as much as possible.

Or it used to. Not currently.
.

Well, I'd say a lot of journalists do hold themselves to a much higher standard than you think, and certain they're way ahead of how the president holds himself to account with all his fakery.

 

[Mac1958]

There is "fake" news - absolutely contrived stories that support & push a political agenda - and then there is biased news - stories that have been manipulated to push a political agenda but presented under a traditional "news" format.

They're different. They're both bad for a democracy. And we're seeing the predictable results of that.

And we're not only allowing it, we're supporting it. Just another self-inflicted wound.
.

Can you have non-biased news?

Even the positioning in the media outlet itself, headline story or at the back, makes it biased or not.

Bias, like everything else, exists on a continuum. Responsible journalism commits itself to minimizing bias as much as possible.

Or it used to. Not currently.
.

Well, I'd say a lot of journalists do hold themselves to a much higher standard than you think, and certain they're way ahead of how the president holds himself to account with all his fakery.

I was in the business for 18 years and I'm still involved on the periphery. I know exactly how the game is played. What we're seeing now is fraud and a mockery of journalism.

We'll have to disagree.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is "fake" news - absolutely contrived stories that support & push a political agenda - and then there is biased news - stories that have been manipulated to push a political agenda but presented under a traditional "news" format.

They're different. They're both bad for a democracy. And we're seeing the predictable results of that.

And we're not only allowing it, we're supporting it. Just another self-inflicted wound.
.

Can you have non-biased news?

Even the positioning in the media outlet itself, headline story or at the back, makes it biased or not.

Bias, like everything else, exists on a continuum. Responsible journalism commits itself to minimizing bias as much as possible.

Or it used to. Not currently.
.

Well, I'd say a lot of journalists do hold themselves to a much higher standard than you think, and certain they're way ahead of how the president holds himself to account with all his fakery.

I was in the business for 18 years and I'm still involved on the periphery. I know exactly how the game is played. What we're seeing now is fraud and a mockery of journalism.

We'll have to disagree.
.

You think Trump is more honest than the press?

Oh, I'm not saying the press is unbiased. I know a lot of crap they come out with.

However others are just doing the "It's not convenient for my argument, so I'm going to shout "fake news" because I haven't got a clue"

And Trump is one of those people.

 

[Mac1958]

There is "fake" news - absolutely contrived stories that support & push a political agenda - and then there is biased news - stories that have been manipulated to push a political agenda but presented under a traditional "news" format.

They're different. They're both bad for a democracy. And we're seeing the predictable results of that.

And we're not only allowing it, we're supporting it. Just another self-inflicted wound.
.

Can you have non-biased news?

Even the positioning in the media outlet itself, headline story or at the back, makes it biased or not.

Bias, like everything else, exists on a continuum. Responsible journalism commits itself to minimizing bias as much as possible.

Or it used to. Not currently.
.

Well, I'd say a lot of journalists do hold themselves to a much higher standard than you think, and certain they're way ahead of how the president holds himself to account with all his fakery.

I was in the business for 18 years and I'm still involved on the periphery. I know exactly how the game is played. What we're seeing now is fraud and a mockery of journalism.

We'll have to disagree.
.

You think Trump is more honest than the press?

Oh, I'm not saying the press is unbiased. I know a lot of crap they come out with.

However others are just doing the "It's not convenient for my argument, so I'm going to shout "fake news" because I haven't got a clue"

And Trump is one of those people.

Trump wouldn't know honesty if it bit him on the ass. It is essentially foreign to him. That has nothing to do with the way the press has behaved.

I agree that Trump asked for this, with the way he has gone after the press. So I'm sure that it has been tougher for them. But they have responded with tossing out all pretense, and they should be better than that.
.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Can you have non-biased news?

Even the positioning in the media outlet itself, headline story or at the back, makes it biased or not.

Bias, like everything else, exists on a continuum. Responsible journalism commits itself to minimizing bias as much as possible.

Or it used to. Not currently.
.

Well, I'd say a lot of journalists do hold themselves to a much higher standard than you think, and certain they're way ahead of how the president holds himself to account with all his fakery.

I was in the business for 18 years and I'm still involved on the periphery. I know exactly how the game is played. What we're seeing now is fraud and a mockery of journalism.

We'll have to disagree.
.

You think Trump is more honest than the press?

Oh, I'm not saying the press is unbiased. I know a lot of crap they come out with.

However others are just doing the "It's not convenient for my argument, so I'm going to shout "fake news" because I haven't got a clue"

And Trump is one of those people.

Trump wouldn't know honesty if it bit him on the ass. It is essentially foreign to him. That has nothing to do with the way the press has behaved.

I agree that Trump asked for this, with the way he has gone after the press. So I'm sure that it has been tougher for them. But they have responded with tossing out all pretense, and they should be better than that.
.
.

The press can be seen in many different ways.

First is to report the truth.

Second is to protect freedom.

They're often not compatible.

 

[Mac1958]

Bias, like everything else, exists on a continuum. Responsible journalism commits itself to minimizing bias as much as possible.

Or it used to. Not currently.
.

Well, I'd say a lot of journalists do hold themselves to a much higher standard than you think, and certain they're way ahead of how the president holds himself to account with all his fakery.

I was in the business for 18 years and I'm still involved on the periphery. I know exactly how the game is played. What we're seeing now is fraud and a mockery of journalism.

We'll have to disagree.
.

You think Trump is more honest than the press?

Oh, I'm not saying the press is unbiased. I know a lot of crap they come out with.

However others are just doing the "It's not convenient for my argument, so I'm going to shout "fake news" because I haven't got a clue"

And Trump is one of those people.

Trump wouldn't know honesty if it bit him on the ass. It is essentially foreign to him. That has nothing to do with the way the press has behaved.

I agree that Trump asked for this, with the way he has gone after the press. So I'm sure that it has been tougher for them. But they have responded with tossing out all pretense, and they should be better than that.
.
.

The press can be seen in many different ways.

First is to report the truth.

Second is to protect freedom.

They're often not compatible.

And what is "the truth", precisely?
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, I'd say a lot of journalists do hold themselves to a much higher standard than you think, and certain they're way ahead of how the president holds himself to account with all his fakery.

I was in the business for 18 years and I'm still involved on the periphery. I know exactly how the game is played. What we're seeing now is fraud and a mockery of journalism.

We'll have to disagree.
.

You think Trump is more honest than the press?

Oh, I'm not saying the press is unbiased. I know a lot of crap they come out with.

However others are just doing the "It's not convenient for my argument, so I'm going to shout "fake news" because I haven't got a clue"

And Trump is one of those people.

Trump wouldn't know honesty if it bit him on the ass. It is essentially foreign to him. That has nothing to do with the way the press has behaved.

I agree that Trump asked for this, with the way he has gone after the press. So I'm sure that it has been tougher for them. But they have responded with tossing out all pretense, and they should be better than that.
.
.

The press can be seen in many different ways.

First is to report the truth.

Second is to protect freedom.

They're often not compatible.

And what is "the truth", precisely?
.

Yes, I love this question.

I got called an anti-Semite for explaining that History wasn't the truth on this very forum.

 

[Mac1958]

I was in the business for 18 years and I'm still involved on the periphery. I know exactly how the game is played. What we're seeing now is fraud and a mockery of journalism.

We'll have to disagree.
.

You think Trump is more honest than the press?

Oh, I'm not saying the press is unbiased. I know a lot of crap they come out with.

However others are just doing the "It's not convenient for my argument, so I'm going to shout "fake news" because I haven't got a clue"

And Trump is one of those people.

Trump wouldn't know honesty if it bit him on the ass. It is essentially foreign to him. That has nothing to do with the way the press has behaved.

I agree that Trump asked for this, with the way he has gone after the press. So I'm sure that it has been tougher for them. But they have responded with tossing out all pretense, and they should be better than that.
.
.

The press can be seen in many different ways.

First is to report the truth.

Second is to protect freedom.

They're often not compatible.

And what is "the truth", precisely?
.

Yes, I love this question.

I got called an anti-Semite for explaining that History wasn't the truth on this very forum.

Yes, it's a tough question. But you actually put your finger on the problem.

It used to be that a journalist/reporter would tell you that their job was to present the whole story accurately. Now they'll tell you it's to report "the truth". And since 85% of journalists lean left, we're seeing the predictable result: They find their version of "the truth" and report it accordingly.

If that includes ignoring, avoiding or distorting contrary facts, so be it.

And that's the problem.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You think Trump is more honest than the press?

Oh, I'm not saying the press is unbiased. I know a lot of crap they come out with.

However others are just doing the "It's not convenient for my argument, so I'm going to shout "fake news" because I haven't got a clue"

And Trump is one of those people.

Trump wouldn't know honesty if it bit him on the ass. It is essentially foreign to him. That has nothing to do with the way the press has behaved.

I agree that Trump asked for this, with the way he has gone after the press. So I'm sure that it has been tougher for them. But they have responded with tossing out all pretense, and they should be better than that.
.
.

The press can be seen in many different ways.

First is to report the truth.

Second is to protect freedom.

They're often not compatible.

And what is "the truth", precisely?
.

Yes, I love this question.

I got called an anti-Semite for explaining that History wasn't the truth on this very forum.

Yes, it's a tough question. But you actually put your finger on the problem.

It used to be that a journalist/reporter would tell you that their job was to present the whole story accurately. Now they'll tell you it's to report "the truth". And since 85% of journalists lean left, we're seeing the predictable result: They find their version of "the truth" and report it accordingly.

And that's the problem.
.

The other problem is that people want things to be the truth. When it's not in their view of the truth, then they complain, and call it fake news.

Often the journalists are working with a lot of information. You make your argument, you can leave stuff out, twist it how you like, but nothing can be FAKE.

However many on this board see the truth as whatever they pulled out of their ass.

For example, on the 2A, there's a document which basically proves "bear arms" is "militia duty" and yet these people will ignore it and ignore it. They don't want this to be their truth, so they say it's not and hope it goes away.

Very few people on this board are able to make even a remotely credible argument that gets anywhere near being anything near to "the truth" but are very quick to criticize the media (who are much more truthful than they are).

 

[Mac1958]

Trump wouldn't know honesty if it bit him on the ass. It is essentially foreign to him. That has nothing to do with the way the press has behaved.

I agree that Trump asked for this, with the way he has gone after the press. So I'm sure that it has been tougher for them. But they have responded with tossing out all pretense, and they should be better than that.
.
.

The press can be seen in many different ways.

First is to report the truth.

Second is to protect freedom.

They're often not compatible.

And what is "the truth", precisely?
.

Yes, I love this question.

I got called an anti-Semite for explaining that History wasn't the truth on this very forum.

Yes, it's a tough question. But you actually put your finger on the problem.

It used to be that a journalist/reporter would tell you that their job was to present the whole story accurately. Now they'll tell you it's to report "the truth". And since 85% of journalists lean left, we're seeing the predictable result: They find their version of "the truth" and report it accordingly.

And that's the problem.
.

The other problem is that people want things to be the truth. When it's not in their view of the truth, then they complain, and call it fake news.

Often the journalists are working with a lot of information. You make your argument, you can leave stuff out, twist it how you like, but nothing can be FAKE.

However many on this board see the truth as whatever they pulled out of their ass.

For example, on the 2A, there's a document which basically proves "bear arms" is "militia duty" and yet these people will ignore it and ignore it. They don't want this to be their truth, so they say it's not and hope it goes away.

Very few people on this board are able to make even a remotely credible argument that gets anywhere near being anything near to "the truth" but are very quick to criticize the media (who are much more truthful than they are).

Primarily because of Trump's bully/Twitter pulpit, the Right has been able to successfully commandeer the term "fake news" to mean "stuff we don't like". Obviously the term originated during the Obama administration with sites like Breitbart and Alex Jones. But that's ancient history now.

But back to the major press, it has changed and is no longer even trying to hide its agenda. And worse, that just feeds the Right's narrative and contributes to this alternate fucking universe disaster we have. When you can't trust your press, a Democracy is in serious trouble. Literally. And here we are.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The press can be seen in many different ways.

First is to report the truth.

Second is to protect freedom.

They're often not compatible.

And what is "the truth", precisely?
.

Yes, I love this question.

I got called an anti-Semite for explaining that History wasn't the truth on this very forum.

Yes, it's a tough question. But you actually put your finger on the problem.

It used to be that a journalist/reporter would tell you that their job was to present the whole story accurately. Now they'll tell you it's to report "the truth". And since 85% of journalists lean left, we're seeing the predictable result: They find their version of "the truth" and report it accordingly.

And that's the problem.
.

The other problem is that people want things to be the truth. When it's not in their view of the truth, then they complain, and call it fake news.

Often the journalists are working with a lot of information. You make your argument, you can leave stuff out, twist it how you like, but nothing can be FAKE.

However many on this board see the truth as whatever they pulled out of their ass.

For example, on the 2A, there's a document which basically proves "bear arms" is "militia duty" and yet these people will ignore it and ignore it. They don't want this to be their truth, so they say it's not and hope it goes away.

Very few people on this board are able to make even a remotely credible argument that gets anywhere near being anything near to "the truth" but are very quick to criticize the media (who are much more truthful than they are).

Primarily because of Trump's bully/Twitter pulpit, the Right has been able to successfully commandeer the term "fake news" to mean "stuff we don't like". Obviously the term originated during the Obama administration with sites like Breitbart and Alex Jones. But that's ancient history now.

But back to the major press, it has changed and is no longer even trying to hide its agenda. And worse, that just feeds the Right's narrative and contributes to this alternate fucking universe disaster we have. When you can't trust your press, a Democracy is in serious trouble. Literally. And here we are.
.

Did it ever try and hide its agendas in the first place?

The only difference is that the internet is a place which makes it easier to find out the bias, the mistruths, the lies and the like.

Back in the past what they printed WAS THE TRUTH.

Now not so much because people have other sources.

 

[Mac1958]

And what is "the truth", precisely?
.

Yes, I love this question.

I got called an anti-Semite for explaining that History wasn't the truth on this very forum.

Yes, it's a tough question. But you actually put your finger on the problem.

It used to be that a journalist/reporter would tell you that their job was to present the whole story accurately. Now they'll tell you it's to report "the truth". And since 85% of journalists lean left, we're seeing the predictable result: They find their version of "the truth" and report it accordingly.

And that's the problem.
.

The other problem is that people want things to be the truth. When it's not in their view of the truth, then they complain, and call it fake news.

Often the journalists are working with a lot of information. You make your argument, you can leave stuff out, twist it how you like, but nothing can be FAKE.

However many on this board see the truth as whatever they pulled out of their ass.

For example, on the 2A, there's a document which basically proves "bear arms" is "militia duty" and yet these people will ignore it and ignore it. They don't want this to be their truth, so they say it's not and hope it goes away.

Very few people on this board are able to make even a remotely credible argument that gets anywhere near being anything near to "the truth" but are very quick to criticize the media (who are much more truthful than they are).

Primarily because of Trump's bully/Twitter pulpit, the Right has been able to successfully commandeer the term "fake news" to mean "stuff we don't like". Obviously the term originated during the Obama administration with sites like Breitbart and Alex Jones. But that's ancient history now.

But back to the major press, it has changed and is no longer even trying to hide its agenda. And worse, that just feeds the Right's narrative and contributes to this alternate fucking universe disaster we have. When you can't trust your press, a Democracy is in serious trouble. Literally. And here we are.
.

Did it ever try and hide its agendas in the first place?

The only difference is that the internet is a place which makes it easier to find out the bias, the mistruths, the lies and the like.

Back in the past what they printed WAS THE TRUTH.

Now not so much because people have other sources.

Yes, I think the major media did a much better job of hiding its agenda. Not even close. This is a travesty.

I have no idea what "the truth" is supposed to mean now. To me, it means accuracy, objectivity and thoroughness. Not arriving at, or making, conclusions. That's up to the consumer.

And yes, the explosion of the internet has played a significant role here.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I love this question.

I got called an anti-Semite for explaining that History wasn't the truth on this very forum.

Yes, it's a tough question. But you actually put your finger on the problem.

It used to be that a journalist/reporter would tell you that their job was to present the whole story accurately. Now they'll tell you it's to report "the truth". And since 85% of journalists lean left, we're seeing the predictable result: They find their version of "the truth" and report it accordingly.

And that's the problem.
.

The other problem is that people want things to be the truth. When it's not in their view of the truth, then they complain, and call it fake news.

Often the journalists are working with a lot of information. You make your argument, you can leave stuff out, twist it how you like, but nothing can be FAKE.

However many on this board see the truth as whatever they pulled out of their ass.

For example, on the 2A, there's a document which basically proves "bear arms" is "militia duty" and yet these people will ignore it and ignore it. They don't want this to be their truth, so they say it's not and hope it goes away.

Very few people on this board are able to make even a remotely credible argument that gets anywhere near being anything near to "the truth" but are very quick to criticize the media (who are much more truthful than they are).

Primarily because of Trump's bully/Twitter pulpit, the Right has been able to successfully commandeer the term "fake news" to mean "stuff we don't like". Obviously the term originated during the Obama administration with sites like Breitbart and Alex Jones. But that's ancient history now.

But back to the major press, it has changed and is no longer even trying to hide its agenda. And worse, that just feeds the Right's narrative and contributes to this alternate fucking universe disaster we have. When you can't trust your press, a Democracy is in serious trouble. Literally. And here we are.
.

Did it ever try and hide its agendas in the first place?

The only difference is that the internet is a place which makes it easier to find out the bias, the mistruths, the lies and the like.

Back in the past what they printed WAS THE TRUTH.

Now not so much because people have other sources.

Yes, I think the major media did a much better job of hiding its agenda. Not even close. This is a travesty.

I have no idea what "the truth" is supposed to mean now. To me, it means accuracy, objectivity and thoroughness. Not arriving at, or making, conclusions. That's up to the consumer.

And yes, the explosion of the internet has played a significant role here.
.

The truth is what someone wants you to think is true.

What truths can you really know?

Let's start with the most fundamental.

Do you exist? You can't prove you exist even. Maybe you're part of a computer program.

 

[Votto]

Turn off the TV, America.

There are two types of people today.

There are uninformed and misinformed people running around today.

Now run along and pick a side and ignore the one you are defending like a good little stooge.

In the interim, enjoy the massive spending bill both partys passed that does not fund a border wall like they always do.