CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Foxfyre, Dec 9, 2017.

?

How serious is fake/biased/erroneous news in modern times?

  1. 1. Not serious at all

  2. 2. Somewhat serious

  3. 3. Serious

  4. 4. Extremely serious.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Circe
    Offline

    Circe Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    3,105
    Thanks Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Aeaea
    Ratings:
    +844

    ON EDIT --- whoops, it's Foxfyre's thread, sorry Foxfyre. I errored......I gather from a post or two here that we are now verbing "error"?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766
    No.

    No, it isn't.
     
  3. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766
    I'm okay with idioms.
     
  4. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766

    NP. It happens.
     
  5. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766
    LOL.

    Touché..
     
  6. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    48,600
    Thanks Received:
    6,197
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +18,757
    Already posted example of Fox Fake news.

    Fox is currently being sued by 'source' that Fox said it relied upon
    Donald Trump Clung to ‘Birther’ Lie for Years, and Still Isn’t Apologetic
    On May 16, the Fox News Channel broke what it called a "bombshell" story about an unsolved homicide: the July 2016 shooting of 27-year-old Democratic Party staffer Seth Rich.

    Unfounded conspiracy theories involving Rich abounded in the months after his death, in part because WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cryptically suggested that Rich's death may have been related to the leaks of tens of thousands of emails from Democratic Party officials and their allies at the peak of the presidential campaign.

    Fox News' story, which took flight online and ran in segments across major shows, breathed fresh life into the rumors. Fox reported that the leaks came from inside the party and not from hackers linked to Russia — despite the conclusions of the nation's most senior intelligence officials. The network suggested that Democrats might have been connected to Rich's death and that a cover-up had thwarted the official investigation.

    The network cited an unnamed FBI official. And the report relied heavily on Wheeler, a former police detective, hired months earlier on behalf of the Riches by Butowsky.

    Fox's report went sideways shortly after it was posted online and aired on Fox & Friends. It was denounced by the Rich family, D.C. police, Democratic Party officials and even, privately, by some journalists within the network. Within hours, Wheeler told other news outlets that Fox News had put words in his mouth.

    Despite those concerns, Wheeler appeared on the shows of Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News star Sean Hannity, who devoted significant time to the story that night and in subsequent days. In speaking with Wheeler, Hannity said: "If this is true and Seth Rich gave WikiLeaks the DNC e-mails ... this blows the whole Russia collusion narrative completely out of the water."

    A week later, on May 23, Fox retracted the story, saying the reporting process failed to live up to its standards. Hannity said he would take a break from talking about Rich's death out of respect for the family. And there it has largely stood — until now.

    According to the lawsuit, Trump press secretary Sean Spicer meets at the White House with Wheeler and Butowsky to review the Rich story a month before Fox News ran the piece.

    On May 14, about 36 hours before Fox News' story appears, Butowsky leaves a voicemail for Wheeler, saying, "We have the full, uh, attention of the White House on this. And tomorrow, let's close this deal, whatever we've got to do."

    Butowsky also texts Wheeler: "Not to add any more pressure but the president just read the article. He wants the article out immediately. It's now all up to you."

    Spicer confirms meeting with the two but denies claims about the president.

    "Ed's been a longtime supporter of the president and asked to meet to catch up," Spicer tells NPR on Monday night.

    Wheeler did play his own role in furthering the story. But he contends that he regretted it the same day it aired. His suit alleges Fox News defamed him by manufacturing two false quotations attributed to him and ruining his reputation by blaming him as the deceptive story fell apart
     
  7. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    52,661
    Thanks Received:
    13,370
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +20,456
    Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, fake news is not necessarily made up news. You can be 100% accurate in reporting but if you report in a way to give the reader/audience a false impression, it then becomes fake news. To take one statement of context and made a huge deal out of it after many other statements significantly qualify that one is just plain dishonest. No honorable, ethical journalist would do it. Instead he/she should report that 'the President raised eyebrows today when he said (whatever)' but it should be noted that he subsequently expanded on the comment with qualifications of. . . .

    Putting out the first sentence with no qualifications is accurate, but dishonest nevertheless. When there is a back story that provides context, it must always be included when we know that an extemporaneous statement is not what somebody likely intended.

    It was like when President Obama said something to the effect that John McCain had not questioned his Muslim faith, George Stephanopoulos quickly corrected him, "your Christian faith" and then Obama corrected himself. Stephanopoulos knew Muslim faith is not what the President intended to say and he made sure that the statement did not become the story. That is responsible journalism.

    Some who have never believed President Obama was a Christian might speculate on that as a Freudian slip and the unethical would even take the one comment out of its full context and present it that way. Honorable people, however, leave room for the fact that it was in inadvertent misspeak in an extemporaneous response.



    Another example I think somebody already provided.

    When a tired President Obama on the campaign trail quipped that he had visited 57 states with three or four more to go, honorable people might tease him a bit about it but understood that he simply misspoke. (He actually meant 27 states.) The media pretty much correctly did not make any big deal out of it because most of the media supported President Obama.

    But when Sarah Palin misspoke and said North Korea when any honest person would know she meant South Korea, the media and pundits were vicious in their rush to condemn her as clueless, ignorant, uneducated, etc. etc. etc. And again their criticism was using an actual quote from her but dishonestly used it to attack and discredit Palin.

    So you can be accurate and report an actual event but report it dishonestly and with malice. And in so doing it becomes fake news.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
  8. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    52,661
    Thanks Received:
    13,370
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +20,456
    Fox may indeed have been chasing shadows and ghosts in that story--we don't know who shot Seth Rich or why do we?--but the fact that all his personal possessions were still with his body does suggest that the robbery motive theory isn't really solid either. Fox used all on the record sources for their reports and did not target anybody specifically.

    We can have legitimate and valid disagreement on whether they should have spent so much time and effort on any particular story, but they were not engaging in fake news. Others may have taken their reports and made fake news out of them, but Fox I do not believe was guilty of fake news in that story. If you can find statements put out by Fox that were deliberately false or misleading by all means post them and if valid, I will acknowledge them.

    Commentary by others who don't like Fox News, without direct quotations/video in full context, doesn't qualify as credible witness.
     
  9. Circe
    Offline

    Circe Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    3,105
    Thanks Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Aeaea
    Ratings:
    +844

    The news about the train derailment was not political, so I do trust it. MOST news has a political component now, and so is slanted and completely useless. So are a lot of other topics, such as how wonderful it is supposed to be that Muslims are swarming into Europe and Burma and Thailand etc., etc., and blowing things up. Or climate change: that doesn't even exist but it's wildly political "news." Or whole tranny families, that's somehow political. Supposed to be a wonderful thing by the left, no doubt.

    What do I do to stay "informed"? (I am wondering why you put quotes around that word: an insult, presumably, implying that as I'm on the right I am unlikely to be informed about anything.) Glad you asked that.

    On November 9, 2016, I woke to the sad fact that the whole entire news media and all its minions, such as pollsters and columnists, had been lying to me all year. I was happy Trump won, of course, but seriously traumatized by loss of trust in institutions I had believed in, like American journalism. I know, more fool me, but I had trusted them --- I had done half an hour of math every week all late summer with the RealClearPolitics polls, and it turned out they were one and all totally wrong.

    So I made some rules about what NOT to do anymore.

    1. No more polls: ever. Stop reading any article that refers to a poll.
    2. Any columnist who rails obscenely or viciously about Trump or anyone else is a villain: never read them again.
    3. I canceled some seven periodicals, and they all deserved it.
    4. Never read any article about naked savages: they put in stuff about fights between herders in Nigeria and the presidential runoff in Mongolia (yes! I saw that headline!) because of the hunger of the 24/7 news cycle and their need to capture and keep our eyes to sell stuff to us.
    5. Never read any article about two-headed babies: I mean all the pieces about lurid disgusting stuff that is just clickbait for stupids. I'm not that stupid.
    6. Never watch cable or network news: it's an incredible time waste and also propaganda.
    7. Any article with "will" in the headline, don't read: nobody knows the future, so they're just lying timewasters.

    So what DO I do? I have subscribed to a number of heavy rightward periodicals with think pieces, like American Affairs and the New Criterion. Not really satisfying the news addiction, though. Too many publications are leftwing or right anti-Trump, so the heck with them. I do read the Wall Street Journal; the politics are quite unreliable but the business news is interesting.
    Mainly, I try to not be so addicted to news. Why care? We are mainly interested in terror attacks and big death events, and we can satisfy our curiosity pretty quickly about those.

    Okay, I'm very upset about news ethics having collapsed, and I have no good personal solution so far. It's a betrayal. I figure it will continue to degrade until some big political event occurs splitting the two sides.
     
  10. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

best cameras