CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[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.

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.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that article.
This is what I see wrong with it. Breitbart put a heavy slant on it for careless readers. They are clever enough to imbed the truth in there, though, to keep from being sued. This is how Breitbart rolls.

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

 

[OldLady]

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?

Search Alex and look 'em up yourself.

 

[oldsoul]

Not only are conservatives attacking accurate, legitimate reporting as being ‘fake,’ rightwing media have become the purveyors of fake news, contriving lies and misinformation on sites such as Breitbart, DailyCaller and Conservapedia in an effort to attack political opponents and energize the conservative base.

Do you realise, however accurate you MAY be, that you are sounding exactly like those whom you are "calling out"? You rail on those who have a differing bias than you, and hold those whom you agree with as basically infallible. Is that not the definition of hypocrisy?

I would dare to say that most, if not ALL media outlets, especially the MSM, are heavily biased one way or another. Therefore they are ALL equally susceptible to erroneously reporting stories that are untrue. The reason for this is the highly competitive, saturated nature of their industry. In an attempt to get the "scoop" first, they will post/print/talk about a story before fully vetting both the story AND the source. Thus, we have "fake news". However, as has been pointed out before, this is not new. One could write an encyclopedia on "fake news" just in our country, that would require several volumes and date back to the founding, and before.

The real problem here, for me, is the blatant and INTENTIONAL reporting of information that is patently false, which also is not new. Especially when it is a pattern, such as CNN. Fox, ABC, NBC and others are just as guilty. For those who think that CNN, or any other outlet, is unbiased, and reports fairly, ask yourself these questions:

• How does their record of accuracy in the past year compare to when Obama was in office?
• How many inaccurate stories benefit each "side" of the political aisle?
• How often, and to what extent, do they cover stories that refute stories they have run before?

Fully and truthfully answering those questions will, generally, reveal any bias and what that bias is.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

Um, did you not ask for examples, which were then supplied? And now you are attempting to characterise the post, you requested, as a derailment of your OP? Wow, just wow.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

Um, the last I checked, when one is POTUS, what one says is, correctly, implied as a political statement of policy, not opinion. That is, unless it is stated as one's opinion. Let me give an example to clarify:
Policy statement: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Opinion statement: "I think Mr. Gorbachev should tear down this wall."
I trust you can appreciate the difference. When one holds an office of such importance and sway as POTUS, EVERYTHING one says, and how one says it, is important.

 

[Circe]

[
This is what I see wrong with it. Breitbart put a heavy slant on it for careless readers. They are clever enough to imbed the truth in there, though, to keep from being sued. This is how Breitbart rolls.

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

Yeah.....................................when Breitbart wrote about the alteration made in Moore's yearbook note they made a big hoorah about her "altering" it and not admitting it. That was true.........but what they never specified was that she added the date and the signer, supposedly. If they had said that, people could have thought, oh, well, she just documented it later for causing him trouble, and discounted the change she made.

But I noticed how careful they were NOT to say what change she had made and waited for more real news about it to come out, which it did, from Fox. So now I know Breitbart is into timely October Surprise-type propaganda and I am not clear they are morally better than CNN, just on the winning side right now. The news as Breitbart slanted it did sail across the media and probably added a LOT to Moore's winning edge.

I want the plain news, honestly. I'm not getting it from either side.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Is it really the fault of the media outlets, or the citizens flocking toward confirmation bias support?

The media will give the consumers what they want. A significant portion of the citizenship has always been government lemmings, and so the vast majority of the media slants toward giving biased information to the left wing.

When the conservatives finally managed to get their voice heard above the din and break into the monopoly that the left had on information dissemination, the media began to offer up some confirmation bias toward that group.

I see a lot of progressives screaming that the right wing simply looks for sources of information that give them their worldview.

Yet, they fail to notice that almost 4 to 1 media outlets are left leaning. So, in reality, who is seeking out information that confirms their biases? The answer is clearly the left flock to news outlets that confirm their worldview far more than the right.

Is it a problem? Of course. Yet, I don't think the problem is with the media per se, so much as it is with us.

For sure a dishonest media catering to people who want their prejudices/biases/beliefs confirmed and don't much care whether they are actually legitimate does put all pretty much in the same barrel. But if the media did its job with fairness, ethical principles, and intellectual honesty, maybe there wouldn't be so many people with illegitimate prejudices/biases/beliefs?

I mean the media is in the business of gathering facts and information and has the resources to do so that the average citizen does not.

It is because the media is feeding the gross dishonesty, even egging it on, that I rate media dishonesty/bias as an extreme problem. What society can exist for long if it is only exposed to lies/misleading information presented by those who profit from those lies and that misinformation?

College Education Is a Fraud and Must Be Replaced With Highly Paid Professional Training

The word media is plural. To anyone truly educated, which means self-educated, the copycatted ignorance of Mediaspeak is as bad as hearing them say,, "Trump don't got no reason to say them things about us." So I resent your robotic assurance that your opinion should be looked up to.

Graduates with a Journalism degree are defective in grammar, logic, and history. Being isolated from common life in the escapist university, they are also defective in common knowledge. For example, they wrote that I had served 32 months in Vietnam when instead that was the time I served in the Marine Corps. A fellow veteran would think I must have served in a safe rear area there, because where I actually was, the chances of finishing my 13-month tour alive were only 50%.

Working without pay in college and therefore living like a teenager afraid to grow up made you desperately and immaturely seek a father figure. That's the only reason for your silly admiration of your bosses in the "news"room. If anyone calls you on your smug pomposity, you will fold

I would no more comment on your military service as if I knew what went on there than I would comment on somebody's experience in a news room where I also had no experience. I however have extensive experience in newspapers and some in television and radio back when I can assure you those graduating from journalism school were literate, could spell and write complete sentences, and were very well schooled in English, political science, history, geography, and ethics and were pretty ready to go to work immediately in their first media job.

So if I am speaking with robotic smug pomposity here, are you then engaging in hyperbole when bragging on your military experience? Or am I safe in thanking you for your service?

Jurinalists Give Us Trickle-Down Information

You push a typical rule-inventing authoritarianism in pretending that your experience with those no-talent pests must silences those who haven't worked with that conceited clique. That is not logical; you are slanting your perspective in favor of your former co-workers. You flaunt more irrationality in thinking that if I can say you are biased in favor of your experience, you can therefore say I am biased in favor of mine. It's not the form that matters but the content, so similar claims don't belong to the same set.

The logical conclusion is that those who graduate from Journalism School didn't never belonged there, but this dysfunctional regime promotes wannabes. The degreed flunkies passed exams and got credit for that temporary knowledge, but they were incapable of retaining what they seemed to learn because of their mediocre IQs.

Like all Americans, I have extensive experience with being bombarded by the media's fuzzy thinking, sheltered and ignorant attitude, and invariably missing the point. They are Know-It-All Nobodies, but they and their fellow Diploma Dumbos monopolize what we are told. The fake-alternative media preach in the same ungrammatical and illogical language, so they are mere copycats assigned to create the illusion of diversity. Their mumbling and stumbling points must also be disqualified.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think the problem is actually more extensive than that, if anything.

They are actually involved in manufacturing news rather than reporting it, and pitting people against one another quite intentionally. I won't speculate on their reasons for this ("Soros, cough cough, Soros"), but they have been fanning the flames trying to start a race war, and having tired of that momentarily, have now moved to gender. They are CREATING discord and doing so by very design.

I would be the first to agree that the vast majority of the MSM are active surrogates and activists for Democrats and other leftists first. Any responsible journalism takes a far back seat to that. Which of course makes any disinformation they put out even more serious in its affect on the nation overall.

Ahhh...I get it now...so, an axe to grind will always find a stone. I made the mistake of thinking you had asked an unbiased question..not that you had already formed the opinion that the left IS the problem. My bad.

If that's what you got out of my post--that I have a partisan ax to grind--then no, you don't get it. I admit my own prejudice that the leftist media is far more likely to engage in intentional disinformation than the media on the right. But I would also say that is probably at least in part because there is so much more leftist media than there is on the right.

But whoever puts out deliberate or careless disinformation to mislead the public is equally guilty regardless of who the organization promoted in politics.

So do you have any examples, in context, of right leaning media that has intentionally put out misleading information? I would welcome such examples if you have them.

Fair enough..I guess..first..what do we consider right leaning Media..Fox and Breitbart..or Gateway Pundit and Infowars? I won't bring up ZeroHedge...only the truly lost would read them.

You appear to be looking for the out and out lie..rather than the partisan slant, right? My definition of fake news includes egregious slant...

Five lies that are ricocheting around the right-wing media bubble

Big Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions

Big Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions

The real issue...is that unless one finds a total smoking gun lie....it is hard to blame media..if Trump lies..and the media covers it..is the media lying?

One of the ironies of the MSM..is that they do police themselves..and when fault is found..consequences ensue..but does the right give any credit at all these efforts, NO..they do not--because the narrative of left-wing media bias is essential to them.

Yes, partisan advocacy is nothing new and, while I think it belongs strictly in opinion pieces, I don't get as angry about that as I do out and out misrepresentation and deceptive reporting that doesn't belong anywhere in an honorable Fourth Estate.

FYI, I rank Media Matters as one of the most despicable and dishonest organizations out there and I would not look to them for honest information about anything. I would entertain some direct quotes from Breitbart that might qualify as erroneous news because I have caught them in that a couple of times myself. But I want direct sources for such criticisms and Media Matters is not to be trusted for that.

A Cretin's Credentials

The biggest dishonesty is their pretending they have a right to their jobs just because they shuffled and slid through the ignorant regime's requirements for the job. We have a word like wannabe which implies that the person doesn't get what he wants; we need a word like "shouldntabeen" for these no-talent flunkies.

I'm not only suggesting that the requirements must change, I'm suggesting that most journalists shouldn't have been allowed to pursue that career. Since natural talent doesn't matter in this decadent age, most of them get hired because they'll do anything to control other people's perceptions by replacing them with their own ignorant, conceited, conformist, submissive, and narrow-minded take that they share with other shouldntabeens huddled with them in their newsroom sanctuary from reality.

 

[oldsoul]

I want the plain news, honestly. I'm not getting it from either side.

Interesting thought. I had that attitude at one time, not so long ago, as well. Trouble is, I was looking at it all wrong. If a "news" outlet has a clear "side" they are not a true news outlet, they are a pundit outlet (ie. Fox, CNN). That is not to say that a true news outlet must remain perfectly neutral. Not at all, just be honest about it, and put the pundit/opinion pieces where they belong, and ensure it is clear that is what you are presenting it as. It is, however, ever more difficult to find a true news outlet. One that is honest about their opinion /pundit pieces and at least attempts to remain unbiased on the rest. It is, of course, impossible to remain totally unbiased, therefore it is imperative to consume ALL news with the appropriate filter. When reading/watching/listening to a right-leaning outlet know that they will likely favor the right, and the opposite is true as well. It does not, necessarily, mean they are dishonest, just biased. However, a line is crossed when the bias turns to partisanship. By that I mean that it becomes clear very quickly, and easily that they are incorporating opinion/punditry, that is not even feigning impartiality, into the "news" pieces.

That said, I would say that getting the "plain news, honestly" has been a very difficult task for decades, if not quite a bit longer. Even Walter Cronkite had his moments of pure partisanship, and even outright falsehoods. But, hey, nobody's perfect. He was still a legendary newsman, loved, and trusted by many, and for good reason...most of the time.

 

[oldsoul]

1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
3. Fake news in that it is information created or repeated that is patently false.

There is one storyline that seems to be so under-reported on, that it seems to fit ALL THREE!!!
That is MODERN SLAVERY.
Let me break it down for you:

1. How much reporting have you seen/heard?
2. Modern slavery exists, and is so under-reported on, that it elevates to the point of incompetence, IMHO.
3. Lying by omission, is still lying.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ghting-back/&usg=AOvVaw18BGc5IlSNFNqNZXCRWoKe
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ding-n801226&usg=AOvVaw2S_PhbiQbb1b3aZ8yBDI7j

https://circa.brightspotcdn.com/dim...-b1b6-40ee-86e7-d971b614362f-ISISGraphic1.png
And it's not just ISIS:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...g/index.html&usg=AOvVaw273ReUo1yJLVvDKCep6fm2
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...e.org/states&usg=AOvVaw1jBhxTWTeQGbzyra667AQR

 

[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?

Search Alex and look 'em up yourself.

OR you could actually provide proof for you allegations.

 

[OldLady]

[
This is what I see wrong with it. Breitbart put a heavy slant on it for careless readers. They are clever enough to imbed the truth in there, though, to keep from being sued. This is how Breitbart rolls.

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

Yeah.....................................when Breitbart wrote about the alteration made in Moore's yearbook note they made a big hoorah about her "altering" it and not admitting it. That was true.........but what they never specified was that she added the date and the signer, supposedly. If they had said that, people could have thought, oh, well, she just documented it later for causing him trouble, and discounted the change she made.

But I noticed how careful they were NOT to say what change she had made and waited for more real news about it to come out, which it did, from Fox. So now I know Breitbart is into timely October Surprise-type propaganda and I am not clear they are morally better than CNN, just on the winning side right now. The news as Breitbart slanted it did sail across the media and probably added a LOT to Moore's winning edge.

I want the plain news, honestly. I'm not getting it from either side.

There are a lot more straight shooters for news than Breitbart or CNN.
Someone long ago taught me that the closest we can come to the truth is to read a lot of sources (reputable ones) and listen to the reliable news on tv and radio. It's a little work, but if you care what's true, it's good to explore a lot of sources, and not ones you catch out in blatant lies or manipulations.

 

[OldLady]

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?

Search Alex and look 'em up yourself.

OR you could actually provide proof for you allegations.

OR you could stop being lazy, Leo.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that article.

This is what I see wrong with it. Breitbart put a heavy slant on it for careless readers. They are clever enough to imbed the truth in there, though, to keep from being sued. This is how Breitbart rolls.

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

"Heavy slant" is a huge understatement as goes that article:

• Gonzalez admitted to setting a fire at Maxwell Farms Park. He set the fire during the weekend of October 17, 2017.
• "The fire was so small a responding sheriff’s deputy was able to mostly put it out before firefighters arrived."
• "Gonzales, who was reportedly wearing a trench coat, was carrying a lighter and fire extinguisher, [Sheriff] Giordano said."
  • "Gonzales often sleeps in the park and is well-known to law enforcement, Giordano said. 'They asked him if he started the fire, and he said he started the fire to warm himself up.' "

Did Breitbart see fit to include any of those details? No! Did ICE Acting Director Homan consider any of those details? Apparently not. It appears all he wanted to do was foment or perpetuate animosity toward immigrants. Breitbart is just fine with helping Homan and others vituperate, be it implicitly or explicitly.

 

[Leo123]

There are a lot more straight shooters for news than Breitbart or CNN.
Someone long ago taught me that the closest we can come to the truth is to read a lot of sources (reputable ones) and listen to the reliable news on tv and radio. It's a little work, but if you care what's true, it's good to explore a lot of sources, and not ones you catch out in blatant lies or manipulations.

'Reputable' and 'reliable' are the operative words. Frankly those terms are meaningless in the political reportage. I do agree that the best thing to do is access different sources, especially those one disagrees with.

 

[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.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that article.

This is what I see wrong with it. Breitbart put a heavy slant on it for careless readers. They are clever enough to imbed the truth in there, though, to keep from being sued. This is how Breitbart rolls.

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

"Heavy slant" is a huge understatement as goes that article:

• Gonzalez admitted to setting a fire at Maxwell Farms Park. He set the fire during the weekend of October 17, 2017.
• "The fire was so small a responding sheriff’s deputy was able to mostly put it out before firefighters arrived."
• "Gonzales, who was reportedly wearing a trench coat, was carrying a lighter and fire extinguisher, [Sheriff] Giordano said."
  • "Gonzales often sleeps in the park and is well-known to law enforcement, Giordano said. 'They asked him if he started the fire, and he said he started the fire to warm himself up.' "

Did Breitbart see fit to include any of those details? No! Did ICE Acting Director Homan consider any of those details? Apparently not. It appears all he wanted to do was foment or perpetuate animosity toward immigrants. Breitbart is just fine with helping Homan and others vituperate, be it implicitly or explicitly.

Breitbart and Homan's version as well as another non-rightwing source I have linked coincide pretty well. Were you there? Do you know if Breitbart had any way to know what the sheriff would subsequently say when Breitbart posted their story?

Instead of the Sacramento Bee reporting what happened as they understood it they instead seemed to be doing a hit piece on Breitbart readers and on Breitbart who did give a straight non prejudicial news story that neither accused nor blamed anybody but accurately reported what was known at the time. They were very clear that it was uncertain what involvement, if any, the person may have had in the wildfires. The man was arrested for arson. And the size of the fire does not matter as most, maybe all wildfires start out as small fires. And anybody setting fires in California these days is likely to be suspect.

In this case I give the points to Breitbart for responsible journalism and the Sacramento Bee a solid F for prejudicial editorializing in what should have been a straight news story.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that article.

This is what I see wrong with it. Breitbart put a heavy slant on it for careless readers. They are clever enough to imbed the truth in there, though, to keep from being sued. This is how Breitbart rolls.

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

"Heavy slant" is a huge understatement as goes that article:

• Gonzalez admitted to setting a fire at Maxwell Farms Park. He set the fire during the weekend of October 17, 2017.
• "The fire was so small a responding sheriff’s deputy was able to mostly put it out before firefighters arrived."
• "Gonzales, who was reportedly wearing a trench coat, was carrying a lighter and fire extinguisher, [Sheriff] Giordano said."
  • "Gonzales often sleeps in the park and is well-known to law enforcement, Giordano said. 'They asked him if he started the fire, and he said he started the fire to warm himself up.' "

Did Breitbart see fit to include any of those details? No! Did ICE Acting Director Homan consider any of those details? Apparently not. It appears all he wanted to do was foment or perpetuate animosity toward immigrants. Breitbart is just fine with helping Homan and others vituperate, be it implicitly or explicitly.

Breitbart and Homan's version as well as another non-rightwing source I have linked coincide pretty well. Were you there? Do you know if Breitbart had any way to know what the sheriff would subsequently say when Breitbart posted their story?

Instead of the Sacramento Bee reporting what happened as they understood it they instead seemed to be doing a hit piece on Breitbart readers and on Breitbart who did give a straight non prejudicial news story that neither accused nor blamed anybody but accurately reported what was known at the time. They were very clear that it was uncertain what involvement, if any, the person may have had in the wildfires. The man was arrested for arson. And the size of the fire does not matter as most, maybe all wildfires start out as small fires. And anybody setting fires in California these days is likely to be suspect.

In this case I give the points to Breitbart for responsible journalism and the Sacramento Bee a solid F for prejudicial editorializing in what should have been a straight news story.

Breitbart and Homan's version as well as another non-rightwing source I have linked coincide pretty well. Were you there? Do you know if Breitbart had any way to know what the sheriff would subsequently say when Breitbart posted their story?

Did you read the linked content I provided that included copious details from people who were there?

You know, just because one can formulate a questions to ask does not make actually asking them a sage thing to do.

 

[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.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that article.

This is what I see wrong with it. Breitbart put a heavy slant on it for careless readers. They are clever enough to imbed the truth in there, though, to keep from being sued. This is how Breitbart rolls.

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

"Heavy slant" is a huge understatement as goes that article:

• Gonzalez admitted to setting a fire at Maxwell Farms Park. He set the fire during the weekend of October 17, 2017.
• "The fire was so small a responding sheriff’s deputy was able to mostly put it out before firefighters arrived."
• "Gonzales, who was reportedly wearing a trench coat, was carrying a lighter and fire extinguisher, [Sheriff] Giordano said."
  • "Gonzales often sleeps in the park and is well-known to law enforcement, Giordano said. 'They asked him if he started the fire, and he said he started the fire to warm himself up.' "

Did Breitbart see fit to include any of those details? No! Did ICE Acting Director Homan consider any of those details? Apparently not. It appears all he wanted to do was foment or perpetuate animosity toward immigrants. Breitbart is just fine with helping Homan and others vituperate, be it implicitly or explicitly.

Breitbart and Homan's version as well as another non-rightwing source I have linked coincide pretty well. Were you there? Do you know if Breitbart had any way to know what the sheriff would subsequently say when Breitbart posted their story?

Instead of the Sacramento Bee reporting what happened as they understood it they instead seemed to be doing a hit piece on Breitbart readers and on Breitbart who did give a straight non prejudicial news story that neither accused nor blamed anybody but accurately reported what was known at the time. They were very clear that it was uncertain what involvement, if any, the person may have had in the wildfires. The man was arrested for arson. And the size of the fire does not matter as most, maybe all wildfires start out as small fires. And anybody setting fires in California these days is likely to be suspect.

In this case I give the points to Breitbart for responsible journalism and the Sacramento Bee a solid F for prejudicial editorializing in what should have been a straight news story.

Breitbart and Homan's version as well as another non-rightwing source I have linked coincide pretty well. Were you there? Do you know if Breitbart had any way to know what the sheriff would subsequently say when Breitbart posted their story?

Did you read the linked content I provided that included copious details from people who were there?

You know, just because one can formulate a questions to ask does not make actually asking them a sage thing to do.

I read the Breitbart article. It was objective non judgmental journalism. I have ready other accounts of the incident. And I read the Sacramento Bee story. The latter is really pitiful journalism.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that article.

This is what I see wrong with it. Breitbart put a heavy slant on it for careless readers. They are clever enough to imbed the truth in there, though, to keep from being sued. This is how Breitbart rolls.

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

"Heavy slant" is a huge understatement as goes that article:

• Gonzalez admitted to setting a fire at Maxwell Farms Park. He set the fire during the weekend of October 17, 2017.
• "The fire was so small a responding sheriff’s deputy was able to mostly put it out before firefighters arrived."
• "Gonzales, who was reportedly wearing a trench coat, was carrying a lighter and fire extinguisher, [Sheriff] Giordano said."
  • "Gonzales often sleeps in the park and is well-known to law enforcement, Giordano said. 'They asked him if he started the fire, and he said he started the fire to warm himself up.' "

Did Breitbart see fit to include any of those details? No! Did ICE Acting Director Homan consider any of those details? Apparently not. It appears all he wanted to do was foment or perpetuate animosity toward immigrants. Breitbart is just fine with helping Homan and others vituperate, be it implicitly or explicitly.

Breitbart and Homan's version as well as another non-rightwing source I have linked coincide pretty well. Were you there? Do you know if Breitbart had any way to know what the sheriff would subsequently say when Breitbart posted their story?

Instead of the Sacramento Bee reporting what happened as they understood it they instead seemed to be doing a hit piece on Breitbart readers and on Breitbart who did give a straight non prejudicial news story that neither accused nor blamed anybody but accurately reported what was known at the time. They were very clear that it was uncertain what involvement, if any, the person may have had in the wildfires. The man was arrested for arson. And the size of the fire does not matter as most, maybe all wildfires start out as small fires. And anybody setting fires in California these days is likely to be suspect.

In this case I give the points to Breitbart for responsible journalism and the Sacramento Bee a solid F for prejudicial editorializing in what should have been a straight news story.

Breitbart and Homan's version as well as another non-rightwing source I have linked coincide pretty well. Were you there? Do you know if Breitbart had any way to know what the sheriff would subsequently say when Breitbart posted their story?

Did you read the linked content I provided that included copious details from people who were there?

You know, just because one can formulate a questions to ask does not make actually asking them a sage thing to do.

I read the Breitbart article. It was objective non judgmental journalism. I have ready other accounts of the incident. And I read the Sacramento Bee story. The latter is really pitiful journalism.

 

[Toronado3800]

I am putting this in the CDZ as I would like a serious, civil discussion re the serious business of media coverage that is:

1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
3. Fake news in that it is information created or repeated that is patently false.

Based on posts and people recruited to be talking heads on television, it seems obvious some think this syndrome doesn't exist at all or it is purely an invention of Fox News. Others are diligently pointing out that it does exist and is mean, cruel, hateful, and detrimental to us as a society.

So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.

The poll is set so that people can change their vote if they change their mind during the discussion.

Fake news was not invented by Fox News. They may be a good example of it from the last 20 years but they hardly invented it. We can go back to the Yellow Journalism days or the American Revolution to search for papers and pamphlets which really supported a cause like Fox News does.

To me there is a line further out than Fox (or General Electric in the recent past or CNN or whatever hippies if you like) venture.

Follow me for a 1/4 mile.

Back in 1998 if I met someone online they were probably a top 10 percenter so to say. Now if I'm on Facebook I hate to say it but I am electronically surrounded by a group who seems less informed than our fellow posters on the USMB.

That does not mean people on Facebook don't have opinions. It means they are easily duped by whatever video or link they see. Me, if it doesn't come from the AP or Fox or CNN or NBC or some news source I recognize I put Duck Duck Go or Google to work trying to find a reasonable news outlet which has pushed the story. If KOA in Denver or KMOX here or even Rush Limbaugh haven't mentioned it something is amiss. Most (God I wish I could type many or some here) people treat all sources of news as equal.

So a news reporter making $40,000 a year for the Post Dispatch may just report on the closing of a homeless shelter with a liberal bias because they had to stand there and watch the bottom 1% go pee on themselves in the cold. It happened though.

A news reporter for General Electric corp might report the positive side of of some corporate tax reform law. But it isn't untrue. Reganomics and FDR's deficit spending all had good and bad effects.

A reporter for Fox is obviously going to present whatever Trump said as the reason N. Korea has not nuked us but there is some truth there. N. Korea has not nuked us and Trump did say whatever Fox reported I'm sure.

Fake news is some guy with access to a computer dressing up some girl and having her report Hillary is killing babies in pizza shops or Trump is the second coming of the anti-christ. And people re-post it like morons. You and me know its not true. Not everyone who votes realizes it though.