Fake News - what it is, what it isn't....

[Boss]

Learn how to evaluate and question and critically think before just accepting it and defending it. You can't censor media beyond libel/slander. But you can learn to be a bit more critical.

And I think this is something the left and right can both agree on. You need to be more critical in evaluating ANY news. Period! However, the emphasis here is personal responsibility. It's not up to anyone else to do this for you. It's not up to government to protect you from "fake news" ...it's YOUR responsibility to disseminate information on your own. We are never going to agree on some Czar of News Truth. That's the rabbit hole the left wants to go down and I will reject that.

Now you can certainly act like sugar won't melt in your mouth and claim,... no, no... that's not what I want at all... but those of us on the right are keen to your tactics... we're just not buying it. We know exactly where you're headed with this latest "cause" and we're nipping the fucker in the bud!

 

[Coyote]

Learn how to evaluate and question and critically think before just accepting it and defending it. You can't censor media beyond libel/slander. But you can learn to be a bit more critical.

And I think this is something the left and right can both agree on. You need to be more critical in evaluating ANY news. Period! However, the emphasis here is personal responsibility. It's not up to anyone else to do this for you. It's not up to government to protect you from "fake news" ...it's YOUR responsibility to disseminate information on your own. We are never going to agree on some Czar of News Truth. That's the rabbit hole the left wants to go down and I will reject that.

I don't hear many leftists calling for banning media. I think that's a bit of rightwing fake news.

Now you can certainly act like sugar won't melt in your mouth and claim,... no, no... that's not what I want at all... but those of us on the right are keen to your tactics... we're just not buying it. We know exactly where you're headed with this latest "cause" and we're nipping the fucker in the bud!

I don't care what you think and what you will or will not buy. You "know" exactly nothing. You just assume.

 

[Boss]

I don't hear many leftists calling for banning media.

Oh no, of course not... they don't want to ban media any more than they want to ban guns! That's just crazy talk! ...This is a classic example of how the left always plays.

 

[Coyote]

I don't hear many leftists calling for banning media.

Oh no, of course not... they don't want to ban media any more than they want to ban guns! That's just crazy talk! ...This is a classic example of how the left always plays.

 

[Coyote]

Try this on for size. The ACLU, which you guys always condemn as being leftist would certainly sue the shit out of anyone who started banning media.

 

[sealybobo]

View attachment 102119

You keep parroting the same bullshit, and it keeps getting ridiculed and refuted.

Get a a new fucking record bed wetter.

No its not. What you are doing is spreading more fake news. Fake news won the election. It was tweeted and shared more than real news. And it overwhelmingly favored Trump and hurt Hillary. Fake news.

Fake News Expert On How False Stories Spread And Why People Believe Them

 

[Boss]

Try this on for size. The ACLU, which you guys always condemn as being leftist would certainly sue the shit out of anyone who started banning media.

Sorry, I must've missed all the stories about the ACLU suing the shit out of YouTube and Facebook for removing content.

I don't think you want to ban media and I didn't say that. The liberal left wants to control the information the media can report. I believe in the free press so I am opposed to this. Are there people who report outrageous and erroneous stories? Sure there are... always have been. This is not something new that started in the 2016 election.

Just last week from Slate Magazine (one of your "trusted" news sources in your little graphic):

"Kellyanne Conway says working mothers shouldn't work in the White House."

This is a misrepresentation of what she actually said. She was speaking on her personal view as a mother, that she didn't feel it appropriate for HER. Her comment was taken out of context deliberately and presented as if she was making some social statement she never made. THAT is FAKE NEWS!

 

[Boss]

View attachment 102119

You keep parroting the same bullshit, and it keeps getting ridiculed and refuted.

Get a a new fucking record bed wetter.

No its not. What you are doing is spreading more fake news. Fake news won the election. It was tweeted and shared more than real news. And it overwhelmingly favored Trump and hurt Hillary. Fake news.

Fake News Expert On How False Stories Spread And Why People Believe Them

You are a fucking idiot. Fake news didn't win the election... Hillary being a corrupt piece of shit candidate is why she lost. Hillary failing to connect with working class Americans in flyover country is why she lost. It wasn't that most of America is sexist.... wasn't because of Russian hackers... wasn't because of fake news... She was a crappy candidate who didn't inspire people.

I love how we now all of a sudden out of the clear fucking blue, have "Fake News Experts!"

When the left is not in power, they are hilarious!

 

[MisterBeale]

NPR is state media because it is run by the political and cultural elites, and it uses 28 to 35% tax payer funding.

Bullshit. NPR has nothing to do wth the State, nor does the vice versa apply. There is no such thing as "the political and cultural élites" as a quantifiable entity.

I think we are done here.

You are in denial.

I worked in broadcasting for thirty years, including dealing with the governmental side, and I know exactly what I'm talking about. A Googly Image is no more an argument than a strawman is.

Now if you've got some way to refute what I just said you would have posted it. Instead we get a Googly Image.

Voilà.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why?

Why is it okay for us to do it, but when it is done to us, we have to be self-righteous and pissed?

Stop right there. Freeze.

WHO said it was "okay for us to do it"? That's a blatant strawman argument.

Fair enough Pogo.

Have the Russians admitted to any election interference?

Irrelevant. It's a strawman argument, Russians or no Russians. So your argument isn't one.

I still haven't seen any concrete proof, only partisan allegations.

And the partisans want so badly to believe. Doesn't that in itself, qualify as "fake news?"

I've seen reports from both sides saying it was, and it wasn't the Russians.

Again, as in so many other examples, the story in this case is that the intelligence indicates that. Once again there's a crucial distinction between the news that "X happened" and the news that "Entity A says X happened" or in this case "entity A says it has seen indications that this happened". I don't know what it is that's elusive about that distinction.

Extreme example: Son of Sam told police he was taking orders from a dog. That doesn't mean Son of Sam was actually taking orders from a dog --- it means exactly what it says, that Son of Sam said he was taking orders from a dog. A dog giving orders is not a fact. That Son of Sam made the claim, IS.

In this case if intelligence indicates Russian hacking. the desire to not-believe it is not sufficient grounds to suppress it as "fake news". If definitive evidence of the hacking itself is not present, then that's in the future if the hacking itself is to become a real event. But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".

Again "fake news" is completely contrived, like the three million Amish. Doesn't apply here.

Intelligence indicates it could be the Russians. . . but then, it could be a myriad of any others as well.

Precisely, and that is what the corporate news, including NPR is doing. They are claiming Entity A says X happened when they say that Russians have spread fake stories or hacked the election. They won't offer solid proof. Nobody in the intelligence agencies will.

Nobody tells you who entity A is. Gee, I wonder why?

Far as I know Entity A is the CIA in this case. I didn't think that was a secret.
I simply used a generic to apply a general rule.

WHO in the CIA?

You know why I use "Googly images to respond to your posts?"

Because you have the intellectual acuity of a gnat sometimes.

I thought you had initially supported Sanders? Then you have the audacity to sit there and tell me that there is no such thing as political, cultural, and financial elites. You're acting like you are full of shit. I know you are smarter than rdean, guno, et. al.

You know as well as I know, if it weren't for these self-same elites, Sanders would have won the nomination. They controlled the press, they controlled the flow of information, they are the gatekeepers of the paradigm.

I would have thought you would've been familiar with Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" or Bernays' "Propaganda."

I don't know who you think you are discussing this with, but I am not some school kid. I know what the hell I am talking about. I had once thought you did. Apparently not.

If you want an ally in opposing nefarious bullshit that this Trump administration is going to pull, cut this crap out now.

 

[MisterBeale]

What LIBERAL ass clown came up with this???

See, this right here is why I have a serious problem with this "fake news" meme. You and your minions want to get rid of all those "outlier" sources so that our information is limited to your hand-picked liberal sources. No thank you... I think we'll stick to what we have.

Once AGAIN ---- where does she say she "wants to get rid of outlier sources"?

See what I mean about the irony of you charging somebody else with assumptions?

What LIBERAL ass clown came up with this???

See, this right here is why I have a serious problem with this "fake news" meme. You and your minions want to get rid of all those "outlier" sources so that our information is limited to your hand-picked liberal sources. No thank you... I think we'll stick to what we have.

Well, I went to the twitter account of the person that made it. She's just a Hollywood actress from the left coast, so there is your obvious bias. Vanessa Otero - IMDb

To that point, you have it called out, clearly a neo-liberal. That said, it can't be said that she doesn't have a sense of humor and isn't aware of her NWO bias.

Vanessa Otero on Twitter

"
TinyTachyon ‏@tinytachyon Dec 14


@vlotero

Bland

Neoliberal

Consensus

Is

Not

"Minimal

Bias"

1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes



Vanessa Otero ‏@vlotero
@tinytachyon

You.

Could.

Make.

Your.

Own.

Chart.

And.

It.

Would.

Be.

So.

Woke.

• Likes 4
• 
  

8:11 AM - 14 Dec 2016
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes


TinyTachyon ‏@tinytachyon 22h22 hours ago

1. 1. @vlotero i believe i have been owned, online
      
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

• Vanessa Otero ‏@vlotero 20h20 hours ago
  @tinytachyon All in good fun. Much love
  
  
  
  0 replies 0 retweets 1 like

 

[MisterBeale]

Learn how to evaluate and question and critically think before just accepting it and defending it. You can't censor media beyond libel/slander. But you can learn to be a bit more critical.

And I think this is something the left and right can both agree on. You need to be more critical in evaluating ANY news. Period! However, the emphasis here is personal responsibility. It's not up to anyone else to do this for you. It's not up to government to protect you from "fake news" ...it's YOUR responsibility to disseminate information on your own. We are never going to agree on some Czar of News Truth. That's the rabbit hole the left wants to go down and I will reject that.

I don't hear many leftists calling for banning media. I think that's a bit of rightwing fake news.

Now you can certainly act like sugar won't melt in your mouth and claim,... no, no... that's not what I want at all... but those of us on the right are keen to your tactics... we're just not buying it. We know exactly where you're headed with this latest "cause" and we're nipping the fucker in the bud!

I don't care what you think and what you will or will not buy. You "know" exactly nothing. You just assume.

The entire Congress is calling for a ban on media, not just the left, but the neo-cons as well. I already posted, and you already remarked on the Senate and House Bills that will ferret out any media that has been influenced by the Russians.

SO, you think the government should have the right to shut down RT, is that it?

Even though that chart you posted had Al jazeera right smack in the middle of it, is that it?

smdh.

 

[MisterBeale]

Try this on for size. The ACLU, which you guys always condemn as being leftist would certainly sue the shit out of anyone who started banning media.

Only the media that they like. . .

 

[MisterBeale]

....

Fair enough Pogo.

Have the Russians admitted to any election interference?

Irrelevant. It's a strawman argument, Russians or no Russians. So your argument isn't one.

I still haven't seen any concrete proof, only partisan allegations.

And the partisans want so badly to believe. Doesn't that in itself, qualify as "fake news?"

I've seen reports from both sides saying it was, and it wasn't the Russians.

Again, as in so many other examples, the story in this case is that the intelligence indicates that. Once again there's a crucial distinction between the news that "X happened" and the news that "Entity A says X happened" or in this case "entity A says it has seen indications that this happened". I don't know what it is that's elusive about that distinction.

Extreme example: Son of Sam told police he was taking orders from a dog. That doesn't mean Son of Sam was actually taking orders from a dog --- it means exactly what it says, that Son of Sam said he was taking orders from a dog. A dog giving orders is not a fact. That Son of Sam made the claim, IS.

In this case if intelligence indicates Russian hacking. the desire to not-believe it is not sufficient grounds to suppress it as "fake news". If definitive evidence of the hacking itself is not present, then that's in the future if the hacking itself is to become a real event. But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".

Again "fake news" is completely contrived, like the three million Amish. Doesn't apply here.

Intelligence indicates it could be the Russians. . . but then, it could be a myriad of any others as well.

Precisely, and that is what the corporate news, including NPR is doing. They are claiming Entity A says X happened when they say that Russians have spread fake stories or hacked the election. They won't offer solid proof. Nobody in the intelligence agencies will.

Nobody tells you who entity A is. Gee, I wonder why?

US officials: Putin personally involved in US election hack

Fake news.

It's a crap lie put out by partisans at the CIA, they even tell you that in the story.

Can't you read?

Here's the guy behind the partisan attack.

Get a clue.

A subtle takedown of Donald Trump by Homeland Security's Jeh Johnson

It's all bullshit, partisan motivated and FAKE NEWS.

What evidence do you have that it's fake news?

That's not how this works skipper.

You have to have evidence that this isn't some politically motivated attack upon American's freedom of Press, or on the legitimacy of the election.

Otherwise, it's a non-story. I've already proved that the source for your aritcle that you posted from CNBC is partisan, and more than likely bunk. I have kept repeating to you and Pogo ad nauseum, WHY won't any of these MSM sources reveal WHO is behind these accusations. The only thing I get back from you two is "unnamed source in the CIA, or the CIA."

The reason they won't reveal the name of the accuser, is for this very reason.


That is not how we do things in the United States. In this nation, you are supposed to know the name of the person leveling these accusations, and how they made this "assessment." As of yet, we have gotten neither.

All we have gotten since October is the same thing, ad nauseum, like a skipping record. If you are at all intellectually curious, this should make you curious, raise your hackles, and make you doubtful.

You don't care, you just swallow the bullshit they are feeding you b/c you hate Trump so much.


Listen, I don't trust him either. What I don't trust more? Folks trying to destroy the freedom in the Constitution.

 

[skye]

 

[Coyote]

Try this on for size. The ACLU, which you guys always condemn as being leftist would certainly sue the shit out of anyone who started banning media.

Sorry, I must've missed all the stories about the ACLU suing the shit out of YouTube and Facebook for removing content.

I don't think you want to ban media and I didn't say that. The liberal left wants to control the information the media can report. I believe in the free press so I am opposed to this. Are there people who report outrageous and erroneous stories? Sure there are... always have been. This is not something new that started in the 2016 election.

Just last week from Slate Magazine (one of your "trusted" news sources in your little graphic):

"Kellyanne Conway says working mothers shouldn't work in the White House."

This is a misrepresentation of what she actually said. She was speaking on her personal view as a mother, that she didn't feel it appropriate for HER. Her comment was taken out of context deliberately and presented as if she was making some social statement she never made. THAT is FAKE NEWS!

Several things - I don't want to control the information that gets reported, beyond existing laws. But let me point out something else here - ALL media is biased, even YOUR "trusted" sites. What determines how biased a site can be pretty subjective though usually the extremes are accurately defined, it's what's in the middle that is less so. The graphic I posted is one of many, all showing somewhat differing interpretations. I found it interesting - didn't agree with some of it's conclusions, thought some were more rightwing then presented.

Yes, that was a deliberate misrepresentation of what she said and what I WANT is people to be able to look at things like that, and track down the facts, question it. Look for the actual transcript of what she said. Now I wonder if you have the balls to do that with the rightwing spin on leftists?

 

[Coyote]

....

Irrelevant. It's a strawman argument, Russians or no Russians. So your argument isn't one.



Again, as in so many other examples, the story in this case is that the intelligence indicates that. Once again there's a crucial distinction between the news that "X happened" and the news that "Entity A says X happened" or in this case "entity A says it has seen indications that this happened". I don't know what it is that's elusive about that distinction.

Extreme example: Son of Sam told police he was taking orders from a dog. That doesn't mean Son of Sam was actually taking orders from a dog --- it means exactly what it says, that Son of Sam said he was taking orders from a dog. A dog giving orders is not a fact. That Son of Sam made the claim, IS.

In this case if intelligence indicates Russian hacking. the desire to not-believe it is not sufficient grounds to suppress it as "fake news". If definitive evidence of the hacking itself is not present, then that's in the future if the hacking itself is to become a real event. But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".

Again "fake news" is completely contrived, like the three million Amish. Doesn't apply here.

Intelligence indicates it could be the Russians. . . but then, it could be a myriad of any others as well.

Precisely, and that is what the corporate news, including NPR is doing. They are claiming Entity A says X happened when they say that Russians have spread fake stories or hacked the election. They won't offer solid proof. Nobody in the intelligence agencies will.

Nobody tells you who entity A is. Gee, I wonder why?

US officials: Putin personally involved in US election hack

Fake news.

It's a crap lie put out by partisans at the CIA, they even tell you that in the story.

Can't you read?

Here's the guy behind the partisan attack.

Get a clue.

A subtle takedown of Donald Trump by Homeland Security's Jeh Johnson

It's all bullshit, partisan motivated and FAKE NEWS.

What evidence do you have that it's fake news?

That's not how this works skipper.

You have to have evidence that this isn't some politically motivated attack upon American's freedom of Press, or on the legitimacy of the election.

Otherwise, it's a non-story. I've already proved that the source for your aritcle that you posted from CNBC is partisan, and more than likely bunk. I have kept repeating to you and Pogo ad nauseum, WHY won't any of these MSM sources reveal WHO is behind these accusations. The only thing I get back from you two is "unnamed source in the CIA, or the CIA."

The reason they won't reveal the name of the accuser, is for this very reason.


That is not how we do things in the United States. In this nation, you are supposed to know the name of the person leveling these accusations, and how they made this "assessment." As of yet, we have gotten neither.

All we have gotten since October is the same thing, ad nauseum, like a skipping record. If you are at all intellectually curious, this should make you curious, raise your hackles, and make you doubtful.

You don't care, you just swallow the bullshit they are feeding you b/c you hate Trump so much.


Listen, I don't trust him either. What I don't trust more? Folks trying to destroy the freedom in the Constitution.

"...You have to have evidence that this isn't some politically motivated attack upon American's freedom of Press, or on the legitimacy of the election...". Umh no. Skipper.

That's not how it works. You don't prove negatives.

YOU made a claim. (that it is false news) It's up to you to support your claim with evidence.

 

[Dr Grump]

Wrong. The best lies contain a little truth.

Horseshit.

 

[Coyote]

What LIBERAL ass clown came up with this???

See, this right here is why I have a serious problem with this "fake news" meme. You and your minions want to get rid of all those "outlier" sources so that our information is limited to your hand-picked liberal sources. No thank you... I think we'll stick to what we have.

Once AGAIN ---- where does she say she "wants to get rid of outlier sources"?

See what I mean about the irony of you charging somebody else with assumptions?

What LIBERAL ass clown came up with this???

See, this right here is why I have a serious problem with this "fake news" meme. You and your minions want to get rid of all those "outlier" sources so that our information is limited to your hand-picked liberal sources. No thank you... I think we'll stick to what we have.

Well, I went to the twitter account of the person that made it. She's just a Hollywood actress from the left coast, so there is your obvious bias. Vanessa Otero - IMDb

To that point, you have it called out, clearly a neo-liberal. That said, it can't be said that she doesn't have a sense of humor and isn't aware of her NWO bias.

Vanessa Otero on Twitter

"
TinyTachyon ‏@tinytachyon Dec 14


@vlotero

Bland

Neoliberal

Consensus

Is

Not

"Minimal

Bias"

1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes



Vanessa Otero ‏@vlotero
@tinytachyon

You.

Could.

Make.

Your.

Own.

Chart.

And.

It.

Would.

Be.

So.

Woke.

• Likes 4
• 
  

8:11 AM - 14 Dec 2016
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes


TinyTachyon ‏@tinytachyon 22h22 hours ago

1. 1. @vlotero i believe i have been owned, online
      
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

• Vanessa Otero ‏@vlotero 20h20 hours ago
  @tinytachyon All in good fun. Much love
  
  
  
  0 replies 0 retweets 1 like

So post another one then and we'll tear apart it's obvious bias

 

[Dr Grump]

Cool map!
Dimbart, Whirled Nuts and Drudge must be so far off the lower right they don't even show up.

Dimbart's in there...