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:
    2,503
    Thanks Received:
    224
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Aeaea
    Ratings:
    +499
    It seems perfectly simple to me, since the election. Fake news is propaganda: it's a betrayal, with malice aforethought, and it's vile. All of it. I don't care what side. Both sides are doing it.


    Exactly.
     
  2. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    51,265
    Thanks Received:
    12,775
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,963
    Forgive me but your first two links were so off putting as evidence of fake news, I didn't bother to look at any of the others. I don't want pundit or Trump hater's opinions of fake news please. And whether or not Trump lies is the stuff of opinion, not evidence of fake news.

    Give me the links to actual reports and show how they were misleading or dishonest with real evidence, not somebody's opinion. And if these could be presented in some manageable form instead of a wall of 'stuff', that would be appreciated.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    51,265
    Thanks Received:
    12,775
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,963
    Yes there are numbnuts and idiots on all sides of the sociopolitical spectrum and they all spout a lot of nonsense and garbage. But when so much of the mainstream media is so obviously and blatantly in a state of advocacy for one side and so opposed to the other that it makes no effort to accurately and comprehensively inform but rather seeks to influence, it becomes a dangerous thing.
     
  4. Circe
    Offline

    Circe Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,503
    Thanks Received:
    224
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Aeaea
    Ratings:
    +499
    You seem to be saying that the overwhelmingly left bias of the news people makes their advocacy -- propaganda, I would say -- a much greater problem than rightwing propaganda because there is just so much more of it.

    An interesting implication is that maybe the rightwing biased media became even worse than they used to be because they wanted to combat the left propaganda. Possible. But I would say --- what about the anti-Trump right? They're if anything worse than the left media! Betrayal. I hate them. I subscribed all those years to the WSJ and THIS is what they do to me? Darn. So I've thrown them all into the same trash can and I do think that's where they all belong. It's a comprehensive betrayal of journalistic ethics and the American people, and there's hardly an honest person among them --- actually, I can't think of any. I mean, I love Lou Dobbs, what a teddy bear, but no one could reasonably call him unbiased. And he's doing a NEWS show!!

    You know what I've really done? It's about this new word "curated." I came back onto forums after a several-year gap, because forums are curating news. Including breaking news. So I get my news now from forums, and can talk about it too. A bargain at the price -- it's free or voluntary donations. The bias is obvious, nobody is pretending to be neutral, and that is working for me. I'd still like to take an honest newspaper, but that was then, this is now, things change.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Silver Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    2,091
    Thanks Received:
    444
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +1,864
    You gotta be careful about accepting at face value what somebody reports as news. Most source and outlets have a business reason if not an ideological one to tilt one way or another and so the stories you hear or read may not be as fair and balanced as they should be. The sad fact is that you cannot trust the media to be 100% truthful and complete; sometimes you don't get the whole story and some stories you don't get at all. But I'm not sure that hasn't pretty much always been the case, going back to our nation's founding the newspapers and magazines were in many cases just as slanted then as they are now, to appeal to the majority of readers they serve. Is it any worse now or is it more a case of a wider range/volume and greater number of news sources?

    So, all I can see is to double check; how ell sourced is the report and are other outlets saying the same thing? No need to jump the shark is there, does it not make sense to make sure of what is true and keep an open mind? Especially if the source has a somewhat questionable history of being a little bit fast and loose with the truth.
     
  6. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    51,265
    Thanks Received:
    12,775
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,963
    There have been any number of studies that clearly demonstrate the left bias of most of the mainstream media. Most people in the business who are willing to declare their political affiliation are democrats. There is a good historical perspective of how this came to be, but that is irrelevant to the reality itself.

    A person can be ideologically left or right and still be 100% objective, honest, honorable, and ethical in how information is presented as news. William Raspberry, one of my all time favorite journalists, RIP, was one of the best. Decidedly leftist and a definite advocate for the leftist or leftist position most of the time, he was 100% fair, honest, honorable, and ethical in presenting his understanding of the facts and point of view. Even when I strongly disagreed with his perspective or conclusion, I had to admire his professionalism and scholarship.

    It isn't their political leanings that make a media organization/person dishonest. It is HOW they present the news/information that they present. It becomes obvious to the practiced eye when error or malice or distortion was unintended. All the cable channels for instance, when covering a breaking story on some fatal disaster, drive me nuts when they keep reporting how many were affected, died, were injured, were involved as the incomplete information is fed to them and thus their story is constantly changing. They, along with most everybody else, usually eventually get it right but you can't count on it being right in those initial reports. No intent to deceive, no malice involved, but simply an intent to be on top of the story. I do think Fox is more likely to be the first to report some facts that others avoid as long as possible due to dictates of political correctness.

    If Fox was as blatantly dishonest as CNN and MSNBC often are, as obviously out to GET somebody not just on one of their programs but on all of them, I would be as critical as Fox as I am anybody else. But they just aren't. They are far more likely to provide the back story, the qualifying information, and give both sides of the story than are the other cable channels or most of the other networks for that matter. And even though editorially they are almost all right of center, if somebody on the right is in the wrong, they don't hesitate to lead a newscast with that information.

    The media probably did have some influence in President Trump getting elected. He was brilliant in just what tweet or Facebook post to put out there to generate hours and hours more coverage than Hillary got. She simply was not as newsworthy as him. Her campaign rally crowds were sometimes embarrassingly small, and she rarely had anything interesting or provocative to offer. So even though most of the coverage was deliberately negative about Trump, he got the coverage. And the fair minded who voted for him were smart enough to see through the media attempts to sink him.

    And the rest, as they say, has become history.
     
  7. Circe
    Offline

    Circe Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,503
    Thanks Received:
    224
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Aeaea
    Ratings:
    +499
    Well, sure. I think everyone knows that.

    Drives me crazy, too. Three dead. No, 11 dead. No, 53 dead. Darn! Get it right! I first noticed this during 9/11 coverage --- migod, the false news that never happened, the bad numbers: I sort of lost a lot of my faith in journalism that day.

    I devised a new rule for myself, which is when it's big wait three days to believe anything. Because they won't have it sorted out till then.

    Well, now that you mention it, if we do feel we have to listen to the news because of a terrorism attack or Catalonia going out or something, we always watch Fox or Fox Business. CNN is not bad for numbers, like the Alabama election returns --- but once they start Saying Bad Things we switch out.


    So far I have read seven books about that election --- I really was traumatized by the betrayals. And those are just the early books. I'll read more once the scholars get into the game. This is big, you know. Yes, I can see you know.
     
  8. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    9,068
    Thanks Received:
    1,330
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,719
    Do you actually think the stories about Seth Rich and the Colonel who was not are editorials? Apparently so....Wow!

    Insofar as you appear disposed to consider a an account of what's what as an editorial rather than as news, why TF did you ask? (BTW, you don't need to answer that question for my benefit; I no longer care what your answer might be.) WTH did you think people here were going to do, post first hand video/audio of the lie and first hand video/audio of whatever shows the words to be a lie? Intransigence isn't something for which I can give absolution.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
  9. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    44,069
    Thanks Received:
    5,730
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +16,628
    Look I appreciate you giving me your thoughts on what is Fake News and what is not Fake News.

    But you really weren't responding to my post.

    You claimed that the media:
    But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

    And I said:

    So far this appears to be only your unsubstantiated opinion. Personally I think it displays a bias on your part. Because of your terms 'most' and 'almost no mention'- AND because you left out the reason why so many considered this to be part of a bigger plan- Trump's own campaign rhetoric.

    Your reply to my post doesn't seem to have anything to do with my post- because my post is challenging your claim. You haven't substantiated that most of the mainstream media claimed what you claimed. You have just asked us to accept your conclusion.

    You have some interesting opinions in your post- some of which I might dispute, some I might not- but if I go down that trail- it just leads away from my challenge to you.

    You have made a claim- substantiate it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    9,068
    Thanks Received:
    1,330
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,719
    If I may, and were I to have written that statement, I'd have written "..soundly substantiate it." People can and will say all manners of things in support of their assertions. That one supports an assertion with something does not make that something be sound support for the assertion. I would have written that because I have no tolerance for poorly developed arguments, and people who make them, because as I see it, discursive integrity requires that if one cannot (or is unwilling to) soundly support one's claim, one should refrain from making it. Put another way, not everything one thinks of to say is soundly founded such that it merits being said.


    As I wrote earlier, "don't start none, won't be none." So it goes with contretemps resulting from baseless claims and the unsound arguments presented to support them.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

best cameras