CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[OldLady]

Fake news isn't a problem at all. That Trump and Trumpkins haven't any idea of what fake news is and is not, yet they persist in using that term and declaring thus any news they don't like, is the problem, and, yes, it's a big problem.

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact accurate?

Birtherism is the first thing that comes to mind--but I guess you are not talking about when Trump spread Fake news...

10 Times Trump Spread Fake News

Autism is caused by vaccinations is fake news..and Trump has spread it numerous times--but that isn't really what you called for either..Hmmmm..

All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact

The times he has claimed that he will not benefit from the new Tax Bill...that's the ticket..he very clearly will benefit--and he has claimed that reports that he will benefit.."fake news"

Tough call..you are not asking for the many, many times he lied..but the times he claimed someone else lied..and in fact, they were telling the truth.

There are plenty of threads referencing perception of lies told by the President. This thread is not about the President. This thread is about the media and whether or not biased/dishonest/erroneous reporting is a serious problem. Let's focus on that please.

You asked a question..I answered. For sure..if the President of the United States employs accusation of falsity as a matter of course..and the media reports it--whose fault is that?

The media is the issue..in this thread..but what also needs to be addressed..is that many people play the media..and wittingly..or not...it impacts the story.

Fake/false news is not reporting what the President said. Fake/false news is reporting what the President did not say as if he has said it, reporting it as policy when it was obviously intended as a joke, reporting it out of its full context so that it appears to be something other than was intended, etc. For example, reporting that in Pensacola last night, the President said that "everybody should have to stand for the National Anthem" when in fact he said "everybody should stand for the National Anthem" which is very different. Or reporting his opinion that pro football players who don't stand for the National Anthem should be benched or fired--an opinion I and millions of others share--as if he was stating what the national policy should be.

I've been taking exception to quite a lot of that sort of thing lately, though of course I can't remember them specifically now that I want to. People are speaking way too "loosely" and it is being repeated by folks who should know better, but maybe they didn't have time to actually watch the news or read the paper that morning for the actual source of the quote. So they don't know they're repeating an inaccurate statement.

The first statement by Trump regarding Roy Moore was one example -- tv commentators started saying Trump was "supporting" Roy Moore when in fact our crafty President had not used those words and was simply pointing out that Moore refutes the allegations and that he (Trump) does not agree with Doug Jones' stance on policy.

Okay, as for choosing what stories to report on:
This morning I news-surfed. CSPAN's Washington Journal, NBC early morning news, and Meet the Press all brought up an article from the Huffington Post that the President watches up to 8 hrs of television per day. HuffPo's source was an in depth article from the New York Times that mentioned that fact in passing while talking about the President's perception of the Presidency and his need to keep defending his place.
Meet the Press ran out of time but Chuck Todd laughingly promised he'd "get back to it" with his analysts.
Meet the Press also used as a lead "The President's Controversial Decision to Declare Jerusalem the Capital of Israel." Could we have left out the "controversial" adjective and still had a good story? I think so. Some will argue that since the other countries of the world don't agree with Trump's decision, it is patently "controversial." To me it is just one more unnecessary shot at Trump.

With all the stuff going on in the world, could we do something other than petty, trivial Trump-shaming? Sure, report on the Russia investigation, report on NoKo, the Middle East, the California fires, discuss immigration, the tax plan, -- see, there's plenty to talk about. Petty stuff like "The President watches 8 hours of tv a day" is just catty crap we don't need.

I can't stand Trump, and like Kate McKinnon's elf character on SNL last night, I am counting the days 'til we can vote him out. But fair is fair, so I get what Foxfyre is saying. I just think she is taking it too far. There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater, which it seems a lot of conservatives are doing these days.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Fake news isn't a problem at all. That Trump and Trumpkins haven't any idea of what fake news is and is not, yet they persist in using that term and declaring thus any news they don't like, is the problem, and, yes, it's a big problem.

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact inaccurate?

No, because the stuff he declares fake news is accurate; it's his mischaracterization of that news as fake that is inapt.

But this is the CDZ and I am hoping to keep the discussion civil and without attacking each other please. I will say though that so much of what Trump has been accused of as being 'lies' have in fact been mostly mischaracterized, misrepresented, taken out of context, or presented as something other than the humor he intended, and that results in an awful lot of fake news out there.[/QUOTE]

much of what Trump has been accused of as being 'lies' have in fact been mostly mischaracterized, misrepresented, taken out of context, or presented as something other than the humor he intended, and that results in an awful lot of fake news out there.

Really? Which of these things do you consider not lies? I consider all of them lies because Trump uttered the referenced statements and he had to know that not one of them was factually or contextually accurate.

• Claimed to know Putin, but he did not then nor does he now. In fact, his attestations over time go from knowing Putin "very well" to not knowing "who Putin is."
  • 2015 Radio Interview: (Hear the interview here.)
    Michael Savage: "Have you ever met Vladimir Putin?"
    Trump: "Yes."
  • Republican Debate: "I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes."
    • False: Here's the Deal With That Putin '60 Minutes' Episode Trump Mentioned
  • July 2016: "I never met Putin. I don't know who Putin is."
• His entire business career appears focused on creating the impression that this is one successful, brilliant, power guy. But he’s actually been a pretty mediocre businessman according to most yardsticks. (See also: Donald Trump’s business failings, explained)
• 
  
• “40 Wall Street… was the tallest, and then, when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest. And now it’s the tallest.”
• Trump: "Nobody has more respect for women than I do." (See also: (Almost) Every Sexist Thing Donald Trump Has Said | Care2 Causes)
• Trump: “I have the best temperament or certainly one of the best temperaments of anybody that’s ever run for the office of president. Ever.”

Not remotely likely.
Does Donald J. Trump Have the Temperament to Be President?​

• • Trump: “Look, I know more about renewables than any human being on earth.”
  • Trump: “I’m the best thing that’s ever happened to the Secret Service.”
  • Trump: “I will be the greatest jobs president God ever created.”
    • Not if he implements his proposed plans from the campaign.
      • Donald Trump's Tax Plan Could Cost the U.S. 11 Million Jobs
      • The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr. Trump’s Economic Policies
  • Trump: “I write a book called The Art of the Deal, the #1 selling business book of all time.”
  • Trump: "I know more about Cory [Booker] than he knows about himself.”
  • Trump: “40 Wall Street… was the tallest, and then, when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest. And now it’s the tallest.”
    • That boast wasn't even accurate. The building at 70 Pine was taller. (See also: 70 Pine - The Skyscraper Center and The Trump Building - The Skyscraper Center)
  • Trump: "Nobody reads the Bible more than me.”
    • Move over, pastors – your religious devotion is secondary to that of Trump, who most definitely was not trying to pander to Evangelical voters with this proclamation. Except that, when pressed, Trump could not name his favorite Bible verse or state a preference between the Old and New Testament, so he must not be giving the Bible a close read.
    • 'Two Corinthians': Donald Trump bungles biblical reference during speech at Christian school
  • Trump: “I know more about foreign policy than anybody running.”
    • Not remotely likely.
      • Donald Trump's 11 worst foreign policy gaffes
      • Ignored the "one China" protocol
  • Trump: "Of all the fellow celebrities you've met, which do you consider to be the most humble?" ME!"
  • Trump: "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world. Nobody knows more about taxes."
  • Trump: "I know words; I have the best words"
  • Linguists differ. They say he speaks like an 11 year-old.

Hell, the man often enough simply doesn't answer straightforward questions about points of fact. Take, for example, the example below where Trump was asked very simple questions about his team's interactions with Russian officials and surrogates.

• February 2017 -- White House press conference -- Trump responding to questions about his team's interactions with Russian officials and/or surrogates.
• Reporter: "During your campaign, did anyone from your team communicate with members of the Russian government or Russian intelligence? And if so, what was the nature of those conversations?"
  Trump: "Russia is fake news. This is fake news put out by the media."
  
  [That's a complete non-answer to the question; it's a response that does not answer the question that was asked.]
  Reporter: “Can you say definitively that nobody on your campaign had any contacts with the Russians during the campaign?”
  Trump: “I have nothing to do with Russia. I told you, I have no deals there, I have no anything.”
  
  [Would it have been so hard to, minimally state that he doesn't know what contacts others on his campaign team may or may not have had, if that were true? Would it have been so hard to at least mention his own contact? (see below)]
  Reporter: “I was just hoping that we could get a yes or no answer on these questions involving Russia. Can you say if you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?”
  Trump: "Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn’t. I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. And he called me on the inauguration, a few days ago … I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does. Now, Manafort has totally denied it. He denied it. Now people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while, but not for Russia. I think he represented Ukraine or people having to do with Ukraine, or people that -- whoever."

Now how hard would it have been for Trump to respond to the "yes/no" remark by simply saying something like, "Yes, people on my team met with Russian officials during the campaign. Perhaps you don't know these things, but I'll mention them. Don, Jr. spoke at a Kremlin foreign-policy dinner; J.D. Gordon attended a GOP convention event with the Russian Ambassador, and my campaign invited the Russian Ambassador to a private foreign policy speech I gave at the Mayflower Hotel in D.C?"

It'd have been super easy because by February 2017 all of those events had been covered and were widely known by anyone who pays attention to the news:

• Trump, Jr. spoke at a private dinner in Paris organized by an obscure pro-Russia group that promotes Kremlin foreign-policy initiatives and has since nominated Vladimir Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize.
  
  
  
  • I don't know if you or a family member of yours has a "globetrotting" professional life, but, prior to entering semi-retirement, I did and because I did, I can assure you that there's no way my kids, my parents, or even my housekeeper would not know that I'd left the country to go a dinner hosted by "so and so." I tell them so they know where I am in case of emergency, be it a calamity that happens where I've gone or one that happens in the States and they need to contact me or inform someone else of where I am and how to contact me. It's no different with each and every one of my colleagues.
    
    Accordingly, I doubt that Trump's statement that "To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does" being accurate. It strains credulity to think that Don, Jr., who was working on the Trump campaign,did not tell Trump, Sr. where he was going and why. Screw the campaign aspect of their relationship. That one is going abroad for "such and such" is just something one mentions to their loved ones....One'll tell them the itinerary, where one will take lodging, what airline, what one is doing there, etc. One will make similar declarations to one's relevant business associates. With Trump, Jr. being both a son and campaign team member of his father, it's highly implausible that Trump, Sr. didn't know.
• J.D. Gordon, a former national-security adviser to Trump, attended an event with the Russian ambassador at the GOP convention.
  
• Trump’s campaign hosted an invitation-only campaign speech on foreign policy that Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak attended. Trump was the major speaker at that event. How bad is Trump's amnesia? LOL

That those individuals attended those events is not fake news! Why Trump refused to simply recognize those events and contacts is anyone's guess, but the fact remains he did not. I guess Trump thinks that if he doesn't attest to something happening, it didn't happen? Perhaps he doesn't realize that intelligent people, most especially reporters and law enforcement personnel investigating a given matter, rarely ask questions for which they don't already have a good sense of what the answer will be? I don't know....I know only that the man repeatedly refuses to give truthful answers to simple questions.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I can't stand Trump, and like Kate McKinnon's elf character on SNL last night, I am counting the days 'til we can vote him out. But fair is fair, so I get what Foxfyre is saying. I just think she is taking it too far. There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater, which it seems a lot of conservatives are doing these days.

I actually share your views about Trump. The problem, as I see it, is that I seem to be in a particularly tiny minority among people in the ability to not like Trump while being able to see the obvious bias in the way the media treats him. For too many, their hatred of Trump prevents them from being able to see ANYTHING. I swear, it's like the Grand inquisitor holding up two fingers and demanding Winston Smith see three the way Trump derangement syndrome results in legions of those who are unwilling to acknowledge the obvious.

The mainstream media no longer reports on news, they create it. They decide what themes to promote, and tailor their accounts to these themes. Theirs is often a matter of omission as much as distortion. They do not report on culture, they have taken a very active role in CREATING it, and do this through any manner of subtle and not so subtle ways. They refer to a strong-armed criminal as a "gentle giant", and a fellow who just beat a man's head into the pavement as "just a kid". They are doing this for a reason, and that reason is narrative. All news reporting now has to fit the narrative, and THAT is what is wrong with our current state of journalism in this country.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The "bias" is in investigating only CNN. Fake News is news which is made up and spread with the intention of misleading the reader. When CNN corrects a mistake, the Daily Caller is still calling them "fake news." Why is that?

Because when it's done intentionally it's not a mistake, as you label it. They only redact their crap when they are called out on it. Intentionally misleading is fake news. It's an attempt to smear the president, which they are too stupid to realize, only doubles down Trump supporters and makes them less likely to believe a real story about Trump, should one ever surface.

Chicken little can only say the sky is falling so many times before people turn and walk away.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

Since the article ONLY involves CNN as "fake news," I'd say the Daily Caller is also involved in being "biased"
So let's add them to the list, shall we?

The article was about CNN specifically. It was about ONLY CNN and not any of the others that could have been included.

So what did the article get wrong? How does it show bias in any way?

The "bias" is in investigating only CNN. Fake News is news which is made up and spread with the intention of misleading the reader. When CNN corrects a mistake, the Daily Caller is still calling them "fake news." Why is that? Maybe we have a different definition of what "fake news" is.
I see strong bias by both CNN and Fox. I don't watch either one. Even PBS newshour, though, is biased in how they lead the discussion by their analysts. I don't remember a lot of analysts on Walter Cronkite's news. That was fine. If you want analysis, put it on opinion shows and keep it out of the news. THAT is where the news has gone wrong.
If you think about it, every news organization in the world has to sift through what to report in their half hour/hour or on their front page. Bias begins right there. Why must we hear about terrorist attacks in Pakistan? Ethnic cleansing in Myanmar? From the news, it sounds as if the world is going to hell in a hand basket, when actually this has been the longest relative stretch of peace in our history. It will be looked back upon as a Golden Age. Yet we see the sensational "bad news." It's all biased, Foxfyre. I'm sure you live your life and see all around you that we are a good people. When any politician tries to tell you that half of us are .... deplorables or hysterical bleeding hearts or "rapists, drug dealers and criminals," something is wrong. I know you know that. Don't let it fool you

Because they will quickly follow up with a new fake story to embarrass themselves......

 

[Circe]

Today the "news" is bordering on criminal. Look at the hit the stock market took over lies by the media.

Right --- last week there were THREE episodes of fake news that the guilty parties rescinded and corrected, and one dropped the Dow by 300 points. That's pretty awful.

It's all in aid of trying to get rid of Trump. I suppose we have a sort of sort civil war going on: a cold civil war. In war, truth is the first casualty.

 

[Circe]

I was extremely shocked by the election turning out the opposite what ALL, the WHOLE media swore it would, polls and all -- traumatized, really, so much so that I have just finished my seventh book on the 2016 election, trying to make my own sense of it.

I am happy with the result; what I am shocked by is that either the leftwing media lied the whole year, or they were sick unto death with confirmation bias and fooled themselves. I don't know which.

But I've made a number of changes to my news reading now that I know they are liars and damned liars. No more polls at all, ever: as soon as I see the word "poll" I stop reading the article. After Brexit and the U.S. presidential election, anyone who doesn't realize pollsters don't know what they are doing -- or are cheating us -- just isn't paying attention.

No future news. Any headline with "will" in it, or may or should or any future news is not news, that's fortunetelling.

No more opinion-mongers. I've got plenty of opinions all my own: I sure don't need a bunch of leftwing opinions pretending to be news. It's cheaper to buy opinion: no travel expenses, no interviews -- that's why op-eds now outnumber news articles. But they are totally worthless. I gave up all the columnists I used to read.

No more leftwing papers, like the Washington Post which went wholly over to the dark side, and no more reading articles that begin with a headline derrogating Trump. That's not news: that's propaganda and it's a worthless waste of time.

It's really hard finding any clean news now. I'm at a loss how to replace that idea of "real" news in my life. Actually, I'm thinking forums! Like this one.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact accurate?

Birtherism is the first thing that comes to mind--but I guess you are not talking about when Trump spread Fake news...

10 Times Trump Spread Fake News

Autism is caused by vaccinations is fake news..and Trump has spread it numerous times--but that isn't really what you called for either..Hmmmm..

All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact

The times he has claimed that he will not benefit from the new Tax Bill...that's the ticket..he very clearly will benefit--and he has claimed that reports that he will benefit.."fake news"

Tough call..you are not asking for the many, many times he lied..but the times he claimed someone else lied..and in fact, they were telling the truth.

There are plenty of threads referencing perception of lies told by the President. This thread is not about the President. This thread is about the media and whether or not biased/dishonest/erroneous reporting is a serious problem. Let's focus on that please.

You asked a question..I answered. For sure..if the President of the United States employs accusation of falsity as a matter of course..and the media reports it--whose fault is that?

The media is the issue..in this thread..but what also needs to be addressed..is that many people play the media..and wittingly..or not...it impacts the story.

Fake/false news is not reporting what the President said. Fake/false news is reporting what the President did not say as if he has said it, reporting it as policy when it was obviously intended as a joke, reporting it out of its full context so that it appears to be something other than was intended, etc. For example, reporting that in Pensacola last night, the President said that "everybody should have to stand for the National Anthem" when in fact he said "everybody should stand for the National Anthem" which is very different. Or reporting his opinion that pro football players who don't stand for the National Anthem should be benched or fired--an opinion I and millions of others share--as if he was stating what the national policy should be.

I've been taking exception to quite a lot of that sort of thing lately, though of course I can't remember them specifically now that I want to. People are speaking way too "loosely" and it is being repeated by folks who should know better, but maybe they didn't have time to actually watch the news or read the paper that morning for the actual source of the quote. So they don't know they're repeating an inaccurate statement.

The first statement by Trump regarding Roy Moore was one example -- tv commentators started saying Trump was "supporting" Roy Moore when in fact our crafty President had not used those words and was simply pointing out that Moore refutes the allegations and that he (Trump) does not agree with Doug Jones' stance on policy.

Okay, as for choosing what stories to report on:
This morning I news-surfed. CSPAN's Washington Journal, NBC early morning news, and Meet the Press all brought up an article from the Huffington Post that the President watches up to 8 hrs of television per day. HuffPo's source was an in depth article from the New York Times that mentioned that fact in passing while talking about the President's perception of the Presidency and his need to keep defending his place.
Meet the Press ran out of time but Chuck Todd laughingly promised he'd "get back to it" with his analysts.
Meet the Press also used as a lead "The President's Controversial Decision to Declare Jerusalem the Capital of Israel." Could we have left out the "controversial" adjective and still had a good story? I think so. Some will argue that since the other countries of the world don't agree with Trump's decision, it is patently "controversial." To me it is just one more unnecessary shot at Trump.

With all the stuff going on in the world, could we do something other than petty, trivial Trump-shaming? Sure, report on the Russia investigation, report on NoKo, the Middle East, the California fires, discuss immigration, the tax plan, -- see, there's plenty to talk about. Petty stuff like "The President watches 8 hours of tv a day" is just catty crap we don't need.

I can't stand Trump, and like Kate McKinnon's elf character on SNL last night, I am counting the days 'til we can vote him out. But fair is fair, so I get what Foxfyre is saying. I just think she is taking it too far. There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater, which it seems a lot of conservatives are doing these days.

With all the stuff going on in the world, could we do something other than petty, trivial Trump-shaming?

We could, but by his unprecedented plethora of inane, insensitive and ill informed remarks and outright lies, he deserves every bit of shaming that comes his way.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I just think she is taking it too far.

Taking things too far is the very definition of extremism. Taking things too far past reasonable or not taking them to the point of reasonableness is the very definition of irrationality. Extremism, irrationality, it makes no difference, neither is "a good thing;" neither is prudent, and anyone doing either has earned the recriminations they receive for doing so, especially when they experesed their irrational notions in public and used the force of their notoriety and/or formal power to spread such notions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fake news isn't a problem at all. That Trump and Trumpkins haven't any idea of what fake news is and is not, yet they persist in using that term and declaring thus any news they don't like, is the problem, and, yes, it's a big problem.

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact inaccurate?

No, because the stuff he declares fake news is accurate; it's his mischaracterization of that news as fake that is inapt.

But this is the CDZ and I am hoping to keep the discussion civil and without attacking each other please. I will say though that so much of what Trump has been accused of as being 'lies' have in fact been mostly mischaracterized, misrepresented, taken out of context, or presented as something other than the humor he intended, and that results in an awful lot of fake news out there.

much of what Trump has been accused of as being 'lies' have in fact been mostly mischaracterized, misrepresented, taken out of context, or presented as something other than the humor he intended, and that results in an awful lot of fake news out there.

Really? Which of these things do you consider not lies? I consider all of them lies because Trump uttered the referenced statements and he had to know that not one of them was factually or contextually accurate.

• Claimed to know Putin, but he did not then nor does he now. In fact, his attestations over time go from knowing Putin "very well" to not knowing "who Putin is."
  • 2015 Radio Interview: (Hear the interview here.)
    Michael Savage: "Have you ever met Vladimir Putin?"
    Trump: "Yes."
  • Republican Debate: "I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes."
    • False: Here's the Deal With That Putin '60 Minutes' Episode Trump Mentioned
  • July 2016: "I never met Putin. I don't know who Putin is."
• His entire business career appears focused on creating the impression that this is one successful, brilliant, power guy. But he’s actually been a pretty mediocre businessman according to most yardsticks. (See also: Donald Trump’s business failings, explained)
• 
  
• “40 Wall Street… was the tallest, and then, when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest. And now it’s the tallest.”
• Trump: "Nobody has more respect for women than I do." (See also: (Almost) Every Sexist Thing Donald Trump Has Said | Care2 Causes)
• Trump: “I have the best temperament or certainly one of the best temperaments of anybody that’s ever run for the office of president. Ever.”

Not remotely likely.
Does Donald J. Trump Have the Temperament to Be President?​

• • Trump: “Look, I know more about renewables than any human being on earth.”
  • Trump: “I’m the best thing that’s ever happened to the Secret Service.”
  • Trump: “I will be the greatest jobs president God ever created.”
    • Not if he implements his proposed plans from the campaign.
      • Donald Trump's Tax Plan Could Cost the U.S. 11 Million Jobs
      • The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr. Trump’s Economic Policies
  • Trump: “I write a book called The Art of the Deal, the #1 selling business book of all time.”
  • Trump: "I know more about Cory [Booker] than he knows about himself.”
  • Trump: “40 Wall Street… was the tallest, and then, when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest. And now it’s the tallest.”
    • That boast wasn't even accurate. The building at 70 Pine was taller. (See also: 70 Pine - The Skyscraper Center and The Trump Building - The Skyscraper Center)
  • Trump: "Nobody reads the Bible more than me.”
    • Move over, pastors – your religious devotion is secondary to that of Trump, who most definitely was not trying to pander to Evangelical voters with this proclamation. Except that, when pressed, Trump could not name his favorite Bible verse or state a preference between the Old and New Testament, so he must not be giving the Bible a close read.
    • 'Two Corinthians': Donald Trump bungles biblical reference during speech at Christian school
  • Trump: “I know more about foreign policy than anybody running.”
    • Not remotely likely.
      • Donald Trump's 11 worst foreign policy gaffes
      • Ignored the "one China" protocol
  • Trump: "Of all the fellow celebrities you've met, which do you consider to be the most humble?" ME!"
  • Trump: "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world. Nobody knows more about taxes."
  • Trump: "I know words; I have the best words"
  • Linguists differ. They say he speaks like an 11 year-old.

Hell, the man often enough simply doesn't answer straightforward questions about points of fact. Take, for example, the example below where Trump was asked very simple questions about his team's interactions with Russian officials and surrogates.

• February 2017 -- White House press conference -- Trump responding to questions about his team's interactions with Russian officials and/or surrogates.
• Reporter: "During your campaign, did anyone from your team communicate with members of the Russian government or Russian intelligence? And if so, what was the nature of those conversations?"
  Trump: "Russia is fake news. This is fake news put out by the media."
  
  [That's a complete non-answer to the question; it's a response that does not answer the question that was asked.]
  Reporter: “Can you say definitively that nobody on your campaign had any contacts with the Russians during the campaign?”
  Trump: “I have nothing to do with Russia. I told you, I have no deals there, I have no anything.”
  
  [Would it have been so hard to, minimally state that he doesn't know what contacts others on his campaign team may or may not have had, if that were true? Would it have been so hard to at least mention his own contact? (see below)]
  Reporter: “I was just hoping that we could get a yes or no answer on these questions involving Russia. Can you say if you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?”
  Trump: "Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn’t. I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. And he called me on the inauguration, a few days ago … I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does. Now, Manafort has totally denied it. He denied it. Now people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while, but not for Russia. I think he represented Ukraine or people having to do with Ukraine, or people that -- whoever."

Now how hard would it have been for Trump to respond to the "yes/no" remark by simply saying something like, "Yes, people on my team met with Russian officials during the campaign. Perhaps you don't know these things, but I'll mention them. Don, Jr. spoke at a Kremlin foreign-policy dinner; J.D. Gordon attended a GOP convention event with the Russian Ambassador, and my campaign invited the Russian Ambassador to a private foreign policy speech I gave at the Mayflower Hotel in D.C?"

It'd have been super easy because by February 2017 all of those events had been covered and were widely known by anyone who pays attention to the news:

• Trump, Jr. spoke at a private dinner in Paris organized by an obscure pro-Russia group that promotes Kremlin foreign-policy initiatives and has since nominated Vladimir Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize.
  
  
  
  • I don't know if you or a family member of yours has a "globetrotting" professional life, but, prior to entering semi-retirement, I did and because I did, I can assure you that there's no way my kids, my parents, or even my housekeeper would not know that I'd left the country to go a dinner hosted by "so and so." I tell them so they know where I am in case of emergency, be it a calamity that happens where I've gone or one that happens in the States and they need to contact me or inform someone else of where I am and how to contact me. It's no different with each and every one of my colleagues.
    
    Accordingly, I doubt that Trump's statement that "To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does" being accurate. It strains credulity to think that Don, Jr., who was working on the Trump campaign,did not tell Trump, Sr. where he was going and why. Screw the campaign aspect of their relationship. That one is going abroad for "such and such" is just something one mentions to their loved ones....One'll tell them the itinerary, where one will take lodging, what airline, what one is doing there, etc. One will make similar declarations to one's relevant business associates. With Trump, Jr. being both a son and campaign team member of his father, it's highly implausible that Trump, Sr. didn't know.
• J.D. Gordon, a former national-security adviser to Trump, attended an event with the Russian ambassador at the GOP convention.
  
• Trump’s campaign hosted an invitation-only campaign speech on foreign policy that Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak attended. Trump was the major speaker at that event. How bad is Trump's amnesia? LOL

That those individuals attended those events is not fake news! Why Trump refused to simply recognize those events and contacts is anyone's guess, but the fact remains he did not. I guess Trump thinks that if he doesn't attest to something happening, it didn't happen? Perhaps he doesn't realize that intelligent people, most especially reporters and law enforcement personnel investigating a given matter, rarely ask questions for which they don't already have a good sense of what the answer will be? I don't know....I know only that the man repeatedly refuses to give truthful answers to simple questions.[/QUOTE]

Coding is screwed up on this post but here is my response to it:
I'm not going to take time to review whether you have accurately portrayed the President here as what the President says right, wrong, good, bad, correct, incorrect, honest, dishonest is not the topic of this thread.

This thread is about fake/erroneous news misrepresenting or distorting or fabricating what the President actually did or did not say. Can we focus on that please?

 

[Foxfyre]

Birtherism is the first thing that comes to mind--but I guess you are not talking about when Trump spread Fake news...

10 Times Trump Spread Fake News

Autism is caused by vaccinations is fake news..and Trump has spread it numerous times--but that isn't really what you called for either..Hmmmm..

All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact

The times he has claimed that he will not benefit from the new Tax Bill...that's the ticket..he very clearly will benefit--and he has claimed that reports that he will benefit.."fake news"

Tough call..you are not asking for the many, many times he lied..but the times he claimed someone else lied..and in fact, they were telling the truth.

There are plenty of threads referencing perception of lies told by the President. This thread is not about the President. This thread is about the media and whether or not biased/dishonest/erroneous reporting is a serious problem. Let's focus on that please.

You asked a question..I answered. For sure..if the President of the United States employs accusation of falsity as a matter of course..and the media reports it--whose fault is that?

The media is the issue..in this thread..but what also needs to be addressed..is that many people play the media..and wittingly..or not...it impacts the story.

Fake/false news is not reporting what the President said. Fake/false news is reporting what the President did not say as if he has said it, reporting it as policy when it was obviously intended as a joke, reporting it out of its full context so that it appears to be something other than was intended, etc. For example, reporting that in Pensacola last night, the President said that "everybody should have to stand for the National Anthem" when in fact he said "everybody should stand for the National Anthem" which is very different. Or reporting his opinion that pro football players who don't stand for the National Anthem should be benched or fired--an opinion I and millions of others share--as if he was stating what the national policy should be.

I've been taking exception to quite a lot of that sort of thing lately, though of course I can't remember them specifically now that I want to. People are speaking way too "loosely" and it is being repeated by folks who should know better, but maybe they didn't have time to actually watch the news or read the paper that morning for the actual source of the quote. So they don't know they're repeating an inaccurate statement.

The first statement by Trump regarding Roy Moore was one example -- tv commentators started saying Trump was "supporting" Roy Moore when in fact our crafty President had not used those words and was simply pointing out that Moore refutes the allegations and that he (Trump) does not agree with Doug Jones' stance on policy.

Okay, as for choosing what stories to report on:
This morning I news-surfed. CSPAN's Washington Journal, NBC early morning news, and Meet the Press all brought up an article from the Huffington Post that the President watches up to 8 hrs of television per day. HuffPo's source was an in depth article from the New York Times that mentioned that fact in passing while talking about the President's perception of the Presidency and his need to keep defending his place.
Meet the Press ran out of time but Chuck Todd laughingly promised he'd "get back to it" with his analysts.
Meet the Press also used as a lead "The President's Controversial Decision to Declare Jerusalem the Capital of Israel." Could we have left out the "controversial" adjective and still had a good story? I think so. Some will argue that since the other countries of the world don't agree with Trump's decision, it is patently "controversial." To me it is just one more unnecessary shot at Trump.

With all the stuff going on in the world, could we do something other than petty, trivial Trump-shaming? Sure, report on the Russia investigation, report on NoKo, the Middle East, the California fires, discuss immigration, the tax plan, -- see, there's plenty to talk about. Petty stuff like "The President watches 8 hours of tv a day" is just catty crap we don't need.

I can't stand Trump, and like Kate McKinnon's elf character on SNL last night, I am counting the days 'til we can vote him out. But fair is fair, so I get what Foxfyre is saying. I just think she is taking it too far. There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater, which it seems a lot of conservatives are doing these days.

With all the stuff going on in the world, could we do something other than petty, trivial Trump-shaming?

We could, but by his unprecedented plethora of inane, insensitive and ill informed remarks and outright lies, he deserves every bit of shaming that comes his way.

The only shaming of the President that is appropriate for this thread is dishonest, inaccurate, misleading shaming by the media. Please concentrate on the topic. Thank you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

There are plenty of threads referencing perception of lies told by the President. This thread is not about the President. This thread is about the media and whether or not biased/dishonest/erroneous reporting is a serious problem. Let's focus on that please.

You asked a question..I answered. For sure..if the President of the United States employs accusation of falsity as a matter of course..and the media reports it--whose fault is that?

The media is the issue..in this thread..but what also needs to be addressed..is that many people play the media..and wittingly..or not...it impacts the story.

Fake/false news is not reporting what the President said. Fake/false news is reporting what the President did not say as if he has said it, reporting it as policy when it was obviously intended as a joke, reporting it out of its full context so that it appears to be something other than was intended, etc. For example, reporting that in Pensacola last night, the President said that "everybody should have to stand for the National Anthem" when in fact he said "everybody should stand for the National Anthem" which is very different. Or reporting his opinion that pro football players who don't stand for the National Anthem should be benched or fired--an opinion I and millions of others share--as if he was stating what the national policy should be.

I've been taking exception to quite a lot of that sort of thing lately, though of course I can't remember them specifically now that I want to. People are speaking way too "loosely" and it is being repeated by folks who should know better, but maybe they didn't have time to actually watch the news or read the paper that morning for the actual source of the quote. So they don't know they're repeating an inaccurate statement.

The first statement by Trump regarding Roy Moore was one example -- tv commentators started saying Trump was "supporting" Roy Moore when in fact our crafty President had not used those words and was simply pointing out that Moore refutes the allegations and that he (Trump) does not agree with Doug Jones' stance on policy.

Okay, as for choosing what stories to report on:
This morning I news-surfed. CSPAN's Washington Journal, NBC early morning news, and Meet the Press all brought up an article from the Huffington Post that the President watches up to 8 hrs of television per day. HuffPo's source was an in depth article from the New York Times that mentioned that fact in passing while talking about the President's perception of the Presidency and his need to keep defending his place.
Meet the Press ran out of time but Chuck Todd laughingly promised he'd "get back to it" with his analysts.
Meet the Press also used as a lead "The President's Controversial Decision to Declare Jerusalem the Capital of Israel." Could we have left out the "controversial" adjective and still had a good story? I think so. Some will argue that since the other countries of the world don't agree with Trump's decision, it is patently "controversial." To me it is just one more unnecessary shot at Trump.

With all the stuff going on in the world, could we do something other than petty, trivial Trump-shaming? Sure, report on the Russia investigation, report on NoKo, the Middle East, the California fires, discuss immigration, the tax plan, -- see, there's plenty to talk about. Petty stuff like "The President watches 8 hours of tv a day" is just catty crap we don't need.

I can't stand Trump, and like Kate McKinnon's elf character on SNL last night, I am counting the days 'til we can vote him out. But fair is fair, so I get what Foxfyre is saying. I just think she is taking it too far. There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater, which it seems a lot of conservatives are doing these days.

With all the stuff going on in the world, could we do something other than petty, trivial Trump-shaming?

We could, but by his unprecedented plethora of inane, insensitive and ill informed remarks and outright lies, he deserves every bit of shaming that comes his way.

The only shaming of the President that is appropriate for this thread is dishonest, inaccurate, misleading shaming by the media. Please concentrate on the topic. Thank you.

I did, and I did so prior to remarking on the shaming Trump has received.

Note: Apologies for messing up the first quote in that post. I didn't notice that I'd done so until it was too late for me to fix it.

 

[OldLady]

I was extremely shocked by the election turning out the opposite what ALL, the WHOLE media swore it would, polls and all -- traumatized, really, so much so that I have just finished my seventh book on the 2016 election, trying to make my own sense of it.

I am happy with the result; what I am shocked by is that either the leftwing media lied the whole year, or they were sick unto death with confirmation bias and fooled themselves. I don't know which.

But I've made a number of changes to my news reading now that I know they are liars and damned liars. No more polls at all, ever: as soon as I see the word "poll" I stop reading the article. After Brexit and the U.S. presidential election, anyone who doesn't realize pollsters don't know what they are doing -- or are cheating us -- just isn't paying attention.

No future news. Any headline with "will" in it, or may or should or any future news is not news, that's fortunetelling.

No more opinion-mongers. I've got plenty of opinions all my own: I sure don't need a bunch of leftwing opinions pretending to be news. It's cheaper to buy opinion: no travel expenses, no interviews -- that's why op-eds now outnumber news articles. But they are totally worthless. I gave up all the columnists I used to read.

No more leftwing papers, like the Washington Post which went wholly over to the dark side, and no more reading articles that begin with a headline derrogating Trump. That's not news: that's propaganda and it's a worthless waste of time.

It's really hard finding any clean news now. I'm at a loss how to replace that idea of "real" news in my life. Actually, I'm thinking forums! Like this one.

I'm at a loss how to replace that idea of "real" news in my life. Actually, I'm thinking forums! Like this one.
Ummm....that depends. The facts we have, even most of what Breitbart reports, starts with a major news article. Print journalism still fuels much of the news cycle. That is probably why, when you news surf, you find all the news programs leading with the same stories.
Print journalism should not be devalued. It is the closest to in-depth, trustworthy "news" that we've got. I don't know why it is suddenly such a big deal for people to handle the intrinsic bias in a newspaper or magazine without having an aneurysm over it. That is what's changed. If you rely solely on the 24 hour news stations, you've got no one to blame but yourself. And by the way, THEIR news comes from newpaper reports, too. Listen next time. It's true.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was extremely shocked by the election turning out the opposite what ALL, the WHOLE media swore it would, polls and all -- traumatized, really, so much so that I have just finished my seventh book on the 2016 election, trying to make my own sense of it.

I am happy with the result; what I am shocked by is that either the leftwing media lied the whole year, or they were sick unto death with confirmation bias and fooled themselves. I don't know which.

But I've made a number of changes to my news reading now that I know they are liars and damned liars. No more polls at all, ever: as soon as I see the word "poll" I stop reading the article. After Brexit and the U.S. presidential election, anyone who doesn't realize pollsters don't know what they are doing -- or are cheating us -- just isn't paying attention.

No future news. Any headline with "will" in it, or may or should or any future news is not news, that's fortunetelling.

No more opinion-mongers. I've got plenty of opinions all my own: I sure don't need a bunch of leftwing opinions pretending to be news. It's cheaper to buy opinion: no travel expenses, no interviews -- that's why op-eds now outnumber news articles. But they are totally worthless. I gave up all the columnists I used to read.

No more leftwing papers, like the Washington Post which went wholly over to the dark side, and no more reading articles that begin with a headline derrogating Trump. That's not news: that's propaganda and it's a worthless waste of time.

It's really hard finding any clean news now. I'm at a loss how to replace that idea of "real" news in my life. Actually, I'm thinking forums! Like this one.

I'm at a loss how to replace that idea of "real" news in my life. Actually, I'm thinking forums! Like this one.
Ummm....that depends. The facts we have, even most of what Breitbart reports, starts with a major news article. Print journalism still fuels much of the news cycle. That is probably why, when you news surf, you find all the news programs leading with the same stories.
Print journalism should not be devalued. It is the closest to in-depth, trustworthy "news" that we've got. I don't know why it is suddenly such a big deal for people to handle the intrinsic bias in a newspaper or magazine without having an aneurysm over it. That is what's changed. If you rely solely on the 24 hour news stations, you've got no one to blame but yourself. And by the way, THEIR news comes from newpaper reports, too. Listen next time. It's true.

As I see it, print media is just as culpable in participating in fake news as is radio and television.

Take this article in Breitbart for example:
ICE Director: Suspected Wine Country Arsonist Is Illegal Alien Mexican National - Breitbart

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that article. Breitbart took care to say 'illegal immigrant' instead of just 'immigrant' and stated that an ICE Director had confirmed that an illegal immigrant had started a fire, named that ICE Director, and further stated:

. . .Sonoma County is considered a sanctuary jurisdiction and does not fully cooperate with federal immigration officials. That includes not honoring ICE detainer requests. “ICE was never notified of Mr. Gonzalez’ various releases,” Homan wrote in the statement regarding Gonzalez.

There were several fires in the region, and it is not clear what role the fires Gonzales allegedly set played in the overall disaster.​

But Breitbart has been bashed time and again by various media sources accusing them of blaming an immigrant (not illegal immigrant) for the terrible California wildfires which the article does not in any way do.

Breitbart engaged in good journalism in that piece. Those articles accusing Breitbart were all fake news.

As one example, the story linked below does cite a sheriff engaging in fake news, but as it makes no effort to dispute the sheriff's version of the story, it is in itself fake news and based on derogatory editorial comment within it, is more of a hit piece on Breitbart than serious responsible journalism.

Breitbart fabricated fake story that illegal immigrant started deadly wildfires, says Sherriff

Disclaimer: Before somebody says I am defending Breitbart, I am indeed doing so re erroneous reporting on what Breitbart reported in one specific story. I am not intending here to broadly endorse or defend Breitbart in anything else.

 

[Leo123]

There is no real news. Stop being naive. Take in many different sources (including those you DISAGREE with) and MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!

 

[Leo123]

The only truly "fake news" I've seen recently has been right here, posted by Alex23. Some of his sites are beyond not credible.

Which sites are those?

 

[Foxfyre]

I was extremely shocked by the election turning out the opposite what ALL, the WHOLE media swore it would, polls and all -- traumatized, really, so much so that I have just finished my seventh book on the 2016 election, trying to make my own sense of it.

I am happy with the result; what I am shocked by is that either the leftwing media lied the whole year, or they were sick unto death with confirmation bias and fooled themselves. I don't know which.

But I've made a number of changes to my news reading now that I know they are liars and damned liars. No more polls at all, ever: as soon as I see the word "poll" I stop reading the article. After Brexit and the U.S. presidential election, anyone who doesn't realize pollsters don't know what they are doing -- or are cheating us -- just isn't paying attention.

No future news. Any headline with "will" in it, or may or should or any future news is not news, that's fortunetelling.

No more opinion-mongers. I've got plenty of opinions all my own: I sure don't need a bunch of leftwing opinions pretending to be news. It's cheaper to buy opinion: no travel expenses, no interviews -- that's why op-eds now outnumber news articles. But they are totally worthless. I gave up all the columnists I used to read.

No more leftwing papers, like the Washington Post which went wholly over to the dark side, and no more reading articles that begin with a headline derrogating Trump. That's not news: that's propaganda and it's a worthless waste of time.

It's really hard finding any clean news now. I'm at a loss how to replace that idea of "real" news in my life. Actually, I'm thinking forums! Like this one.

Actually we can get a sense of the truth with some diligent digging, some objective, non partisan, non "I hate whomever" analysis. I agree with you that those citing polls are usually just citing a poll that confirms the perspective they already hold. However, Rasmussen's polls do give you a sense of where the people that care stand--he runs 3-day average running polls of only likely voters. For instance the President's approval rating on Rasmussen hovers somewhere in the lower 40% area, sometimes creeping up higher and every now and then bumping up near or at 50% which he cautions could just be statistical noise and usually is because it drops back into the more constant range fairly quickly.

But despite below average personal poll ratings, his agenda items are getting very good ratings at Rasmussen--approval that is largely ignored by the huge lion's share of the MSM. When you get away from this tweet or that tweet or this gaffe or that insult to somebody--usually misrepresented by the MSM and turned into fake news--and focus on what really matters to people, most people appear to be appreciating a Trump presidency a whole lot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course, conservatives’ propensity for believing and propagating fake news is nothing new:

“Right-wingers' distrust of the mainstream press, coupled with conservative willingness to believe the unbelievable, is a venerable impulse. Historian Rick Perlstein wrote in 2012 about scammy email solicitations that have been commonplace among conservatives for decades.”

A short history of fake news: Conservatives believed all sorts of c...

Today’s fake news created and disseminated by the right is a variation on a very old conservative theme: repeat a lie often enough in the hope it’s perceived to be ‘true.’

 

[blackhawk]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

Brian Ross of ABC reporting that candidate Trump ordered Mike Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election when in fact that was after the election when Trump was President elect. The problem with this kind of stuff no matter who is doing it is it's getting to the point where the media is losing all credibility with the public and when the public no longer trust or believes the media that makes it easier for those in power to get away all kinds of crap. The media needs to remember it is their job to report the story and the facts accurately not create them to push their own agenda.

 

[Leo123]

I was extremely shocked by the election turning out the opposite what ALL, the WHOLE media swore it would, polls and all -- traumatized, really, so much so that I have just finished my seventh book on the 2016 election, trying to make my own sense of it.

I am happy with the result; what I am shocked by is that either the leftwing media lied the whole year, or they were sick unto death with confirmation bias and fooled themselves. I don't know which.

But I've made a number of changes to my news reading now that I know they are liars and damned liars. No more polls at all, ever: as soon as I see the word "poll" I stop reading the article. After Brexit and the U.S. presidential election, anyone who doesn't realize pollsters don't know what they are doing -- or are cheating us -- just isn't paying attention.

No future news. Any headline with "will" in it, or may or should or any future news is not news, that's fortunetelling.

No more opinion-mongers. I've got plenty of opinions all my own: I sure don't need a bunch of leftwing opinions pretending to be news. It's cheaper to buy opinion: no travel expenses, no interviews -- that's why op-eds now outnumber news articles. But they are totally worthless. I gave up all the columnists I used to read.

No more leftwing papers, like the Washington Post which went wholly over to the dark side, and no more reading articles that begin with a headline derrogating Trump. That's not news: that's propaganda and it's a worthless waste of time.

It's really hard finding any clean news now. I'm at a loss how to replace that idea of "real" news in my life. Actually, I'm thinking forums! Like this one.

Actually we can get a sense of the truth with some diligent digging, some objective, non partisan, non "I hate whomever" analysis. I agree with you that those citing polls are usually just citing a poll that confirms the perspective they already hold. However, Rasmussen's polls do give you a sense of where the people that care stand--he runs 3-day average running polls of only likely voters. For instance the President's approval rating on Rasmussen hovers somewhere in the lower 40% area, sometimes creeping up higher and every now and then bumping up near or at 50% which he cautions could just be statistical noise and usually is because it drops back into the more constant range fairly quickly.

But despite below average personal poll ratings, his agenda items are getting very good ratings at Rasmussen--approval that is largely ignored by the huge lion's share of the MSM. When you get away from this tweet or that tweet or this gaffe or that insult to somebody--usually misrepresented by the MSM and turned into fake news--and focus on what really matters to people, most people appear to be appreciating a Trump presidency a whole lot.

Nobody cares when the Clintons smash evidence and try to slander Bill's rape accusers, Nobody cared when Obama said stupid racist stuff. However, let Trump just TWEET something and the media does somersaults in order to cast what Trump said in the worst light possible.