Newspaper Will Sue over "fake news" Slur

[Iceweasel]

Nah, this is just America standing up to the fascist crap you guys support like good little cult followers. Suppressing and neutralizing the press is what authoritarian fascist do, or at least try to do. And that isn't just hollow name calling, it's verified and accepted history.

What ridiculous exaggeration of reality.

No one proposes to "suppress and neutralize the press". Rather, we want to hold them to a standard of honesty in reporting. I know that sounds like a radical idea to the left, who have owned the press for the past 8 years, but we'd like to give it a try.

Once AGAIN ---- DID this state senator cancel his hearing --- or did he not?

The newspaper says he did. And he did not dispute that. So what do you know that somehow neither of them knows?

Win, lose or case dismissed, the senator pays a price for calling the paper a provider of fake news. His canceling of the hearing is getting much more publicity and boostid into a bigger story by his ploy to label the local newspaper "fake news".

Problem is the media is not highly regarded. Most everyone knows they are biased. Trump would not have stood a prayer if the press was taken seriously.

You might be right. His historically low approval rating of 38% probably has nothing to do with the media reporting all his lies and stupid things he says.

...according to the biased media source. He's doing what he ran on and won the presidency so that number has no credibility. Like you.

 

[there4eyeM]

Journalists do not necessarily have a direct line to 'God'.

 

[80zephyr]

I think the newspaper is blowing smoke. All a good attorney has to do is find one erroneous story in the newspaper that was printed recently.

That would be fake news.

Game over.

Mark

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

I think the newspaper is blowing smoke. All a good attorney has to do is find one erroneous story in the newspaper that was printed recently.

That would be fake news.

Game over.

Mark

Nothing more than a face saving THREAT to sue. Just propaganda.

 

[bodecea]

Defending itself is a just thing for the newspaper. The decision will be informative.

It will be. Of course, the past behavior of the RW shows us that if the Paper wins their lawsuit it will be blamed on "activist judges" not on the law being correctly applied.

 

[Pogo]

How does calling them fake suppress them?

Perhaps you missed this line in the OP:

"The greatest asset of any newspaper or any news source is its credibility"
​

Is that not the case? Does this "newspaper" have any credibility? What's that? Oh that's just a reminder of what "fake news" actually is.​

It's really about shutting up any criticisms, period.

Right on, it's exactly about that. And when you equate a factual report --- the Senator cancelled a hearing --- with "Time Travelers are Changing Our History" ---- you're changing our history. By covering it up.

I didn't miss anything. You have all the analytical powers of a house fly. If someone calls an outfit fake how does that make it fake? You are implying the one comment can over ride the reputation the paper built up over the years.

The only reason they would get excited about it is if they knew it was true. It's the media trying to shut up all dissenters so they can continue to operate unchallenged. But many fake stories are out there, for you to be that ignorant at this point is without excuse ...so, housefly it is.

Is this a fake story?

Funny nobody can touch that question. Innit.

 

[bodecea]

Ah now we have snowflake newspapers too.

Nah, this is just America standing up to the fascist crap you guys support like good little cult followers. Suppressing and neutralizing the press is what authoritarian fascist do, or at least try to do. And that isn't just hollow name calling, it's verified and accepted history.

What ridiculous exaggeration of reality.

No one proposes to "suppress and neutralize the press". Rather, we want to hold them to a standard of honesty in reporting. I know that sounds like a radical idea to the left, who have owned the press for the past 8 years, but we'd like to give it a try.

Once AGAIN ---- DID this state senator cancel his hearing --- or did he not?

The newspaper says he did. And he did not dispute that. So what do you know that somehow neither of them knows?

i just happen to read that paper ----- it's local. It is a liberal biased piece of garbage who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face with a dead fish. It caters to the liberal idiots from the University Colorado-Boulder, that hot bed of progressive stupidity.

Once AGAIN ---- DID this state senator cancel his hearing --- or did he not?

Is the question some kind of mystery? Do you understand that the question is "are the facts wrong" -- it is not "are you butthurt"? No one cares about the latter. That's your issue.

This is just more of the same whining by the RW that complained about the Press showing the so-called president's own words.....and letting the stupidity shine.

 

[Pogo]

Defending itself is a just thing for the newspaper. The decision will be informative.

It will be. Of course, the past behavior of the RW shows us that if the Paper wins their lawsuit it will be blamed on "activist judges" not on the law being correctly applied.

The self-delusional equivalent of "Sweden is lying because we know better what's going on five thousand miles away than they do in their own country".

Humans....

 

[Iceweasel]

How does calling them fake suppress them?

Perhaps you missed this line in the OP:

"The greatest asset of any newspaper or any news source is its credibility"
​

Is that not the case? Does this "newspaper" have any credibility? What's that? Oh that's just a reminder of what "fake news" actually is.​

It's really about shutting up any criticisms, period.

Right on, it's exactly about that. And when you equate a factual report --- the Senator cancelled a hearing --- with "Time Travelers are Changing Our History" ---- you're changing our history. By covering it up.

I didn't miss anything. You have all the analytical powers of a house fly. If someone calls an outfit fake how does that make it fake? You are implying the one comment can over ride the reputation the paper built up over the years.

The only reason they would get excited about it is if they knew it was true. It's the media trying to shut up all dissenters so they can continue to operate unchallenged. But many fake stories are out there, for you to be that ignorant at this point is without excuse ...so, housefly it is.

Is this a fake story?

Funny nobody can touch that question. Innit.

I haven't because I don't care. It should obvious I was speaking about the bigger picture.

 

[Pogo]

Nah, this is just America standing up to the fascist crap you guys support like good little cult followers. Suppressing and neutralizing the press is what authoritarian fascist do, or at least try to do. And that isn't just hollow name calling, it's verified and accepted history.

What ridiculous exaggeration of reality.

No one proposes to "suppress and neutralize the press". Rather, we want to hold them to a standard of honesty in reporting. I know that sounds like a radical idea to the left, who have owned the press for the past 8 years, but we'd like to give it a try.

Once AGAIN ---- DID this state senator cancel his hearing --- or did he not?

The newspaper says he did. And he did not dispute that. So what do you know that somehow neither of them knows?

i just happen to read that paper ----- it's local. It is a liberal biased piece of garbage who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face with a dead fish. It caters to the liberal idiots from the University Colorado-Boulder, that hot bed of progressive stupidity.

Once AGAIN ---- DID this state senator cancel his hearing --- or did he not?

Is the question some kind of mystery? Do you understand that the question is "are the facts wrong" -- it is not "are you butthurt"? No one cares about the latter. That's your issue.

I have no idea ... did he CLAIM that he didn't cancel the meeting? I don't think so ...

Far as I know we have no indication that the factoid "he cancelled the hearing" is not true. Neither from the newspaper nor from the politician. In other words they have no area of disagreement on the factual. Actually the newspaper endorsed him when he ran for the office, for what that's worth.

In other other words he cannot dispute the fact, therefore he slurs the paper as "fake news" --- even though the news in question is in no way "fake". He's doing a mini-Rump self-delusion: he doesn't like the facts that he can't dispute, so he goes "la la la fake news" and hopes the general public will join him in his personal ostrich-hole.

Much the same as self-delusional posters here do when I post something factual and some wag posts "bullshit" -- but they can't demonstrate why. Basically wailing "waaaah --- I don't want that to be true, waaaah".

 

[Pogo]

What ridiculous exaggeration of reality.

No one proposes to "suppress and neutralize the press". Rather, we want to hold them to a standard of honesty in reporting. I know that sounds like a radical idea to the left, who have owned the press for the past 8 years, but we'd like to give it a try.

Once AGAIN ---- DID this state senator cancel his hearing --- or did he not?

The newspaper says he did. And he did not dispute that. So what do you know that somehow neither of them knows?

i just happen to read that paper ----- it's local. It is a liberal biased piece of garbage who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face with a dead fish. It caters to the liberal idiots from the University Colorado-Boulder, that hot bed of progressive stupidity.

Once AGAIN ---- DID this state senator cancel his hearing --- or did he not?

Is the question some kind of mystery? Do you understand that the question is "are the facts wrong" -- it is not "are you butthurt"? No one cares about the latter. That's your issue.

I have no idea ... did he CLAIM that he didn't cancel the meeting? I don't think so ...

Far as I know we have no indication that the factoid "he cancelled the hearing" is not true. Neither from the newspaper nor from the politician. In other words they have no area of disagreement on the factual. Actually the newspaper endorsed him when he ran for the office, for what that's worth.

In other other words he cannot dispute the fact, therefore he slurs the paper as "fake news" --- even though the news in question is in no way "fake". He's doing a mini-Rump self-delusion: he doesn't like the facts that he can't dispute, so he goes "la la la fake news" and hopes the general public will join him in his personal ostrich-hole.

Much the same as self-delusional posters here do when I post something factual and some wag posts "bullshit" -- but they can't demonstrate why. Basically wailing "waaaah --- I don't want that to be true, waaaah".

Now that invites another question ---

IF the newspaper printed that he cancelled a hearing, when in fact he had not done so, the newspaper would have been wrong and would have had to print a retraction.

--- So what does the senator have to do?

 

[80zephyr]

Defending itself is a just thing for the newspaper. The decision will be informative.

It will be. Of course, the past behavior of the RW shows us that if the Paper wins their lawsuit it will be blamed on "activist judges" not on the law being correctly applied.

The self-delusional equivalent of "Sweden is lying because we know better what's going on five thousand miles away than they do in their own country".

Humans....

We don't know, but the Swedes do, and they see a cover up by their government. Don't you realize they HAVE to cover it up? Admitting to it would cost political careers and send the immigrant population there into a frenzy.

Swedish Police: Government Covering Up Huge Migrant Crime Spree

Mark

 

[Pogo]

Defending itself is a just thing for the newspaper. The decision will be informative.

It will be. Of course, the past behavior of the RW shows us that if the Paper wins their lawsuit it will be blamed on "activist judges" not on the law being correctly applied.

The self-delusional equivalent of "Sweden is lying because we know better what's going on five thousand miles away than they do in their own country".

Humans....

We don't know, but the Swedes do, and they see a cover up by their government. Don't you realize they HAVE to cover it up? Admitting to it would cost political careers and send the immigrant population there into a frenzy.

Swedish Police: Government Covering Up Huge Migrant Crime Spree

Mark

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because we know better what's going on in Sweden than the Swedes living in Sweden do.

Of course............. that also means the Swedes know what's going on in your world better than you do.
Hey -- your logic.

 

[Spare_change]

What ridiculous exaggeration of reality.

No one proposes to "suppress and neutralize the press". Rather, we want to hold them to a standard of honesty in reporting. I know that sounds like a radical idea to the left, who have owned the press for the past 8 years, but we'd like to give it a try.

Once AGAIN ---- DID this state senator cancel his hearing --- or did he not?

The newspaper says he did. And he did not dispute that. So what do you know that somehow neither of them knows?

i just happen to read that paper ----- it's local. It is a liberal biased piece of garbage who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face with a dead fish. It caters to the liberal idiots from the University Colorado-Boulder, that hot bed of progressive stupidity.

Once AGAIN ---- DID this state senator cancel his hearing --- or did he not?

Is the question some kind of mystery? Do you understand that the question is "are the facts wrong" -- it is not "are you butthurt"? No one cares about the latter. That's your issue.

I have no idea ... did he CLAIM that he didn't cancel the meeting? I don't think so ...

Far as I know we have no indication that the factoid "he cancelled the hearing" is not true. Neither from the newspaper nor from the politician. In other words they have no area of disagreement on the factual. Actually the newspaper endorsed him when he ran for the office, for what that's worth.

In other other words he cannot dispute the fact, therefore he slurs the paper as "fake news" --- even though the news in question is in no way "fake". He's doing a mini-Rump self-delusion: he doesn't like the facts that he can't dispute, so he goes "la la la fake news" and hopes the general public will join him in his personal ostrich-hole.

Much the same as self-delusional posters here do when I post something factual and some wag posts "bullshit" -- but they can't demonstrate why. Basically wailing "waaaah --- I don't want that to be true, waaaah".

I don't see where he claimed that particular bit of data to be "fake news" - his accusation, accurately, was against the paper in general.

As far as I can tell --- the last time you posted something factual here was in 1943, The last time that you twisted facts to suit your own perverted sense of reality will probably be the very next time you post here.

 

[Divine Wind]

I think the newspaper is blowing smoke. All a good attorney has to do is find one erroneous story in the newspaper that was printed recently.

That would be fake news.

Game over.

Mark

Disagreed, but let the lawyers have fun with it.

BTW, there is a difference between an error and a lie AKA fake statement. If you make an error in a post, that's just a mistake, but if you deliberately falsify a post, that's a fucking lie. Same goes for newspapers, broadcasts, etc. There are mistakes, deliberate lies and opinions. Again, let the lawyers sort it out. My guess is the Senator will settle out of court.

 

[jillian]

>> Recently, Colorado state Republican Senator Ray Scott accused the local newspaper, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, of reporting fake news.

Scott took issue with an editorial in the paper calling out the Senator for cancelling a hearing on a state bill. The Senator responded to the editorial by tweeting that the Daily Sentinel publishes fake news.

The accusation has not sat well with the publisher of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Jay Seaton. He intends to sue the Senator and tells The Current's Laura Lynch about the damage this allegation has caused to the paper.

"The greatest asset of any newspaper or any news source is its credibility," says Seaton.

"I know that we've lost subscribers in response to that tweet. Now since then ... the response to the push back on that tweet has been quite positive. But the tweet itself did, I know, cause us real damage." << -- The Current​

Good for the Daily Sentinel. This Naziesque assault on discourse needs to be called out for what it is.

good for them..... the orange sociopath is going to have to be taught a lesson about the 1st amendment.

 

[jillian]

I think the newspaper is blowing smoke. All a good attorney has to do is find one erroneous story in the newspaper that was printed recently.

That would be fake news.

Game over.

Mark

Nothing more than a face saving THREAT to sue. Just propaganda.

is that what the orange sociopath is doing when he says he's going to sue the real media because they call him on his insane lies?

 

[Divine Wind]

I think the newspaper is blowing smoke. All a good attorney has to do is find one erroneous story in the newspaper that was printed recently.

That would be fake news.

Game over.

Mark

Nothing more than a face saving THREAT to sue. Just propaganda.

is that what the orange sociopath is doing when he says he's going to sue the real media because they call him on his insane lies?

Emotional rhetoric like yours is just adding to the noise, dear. Try a cold shower and a good night's rest.

 

[Divine Wind]

A good listing of the pros and cons of both filing suit by the newspaper and fighting the suit.

When A Politician Says 'Fake News' And A Newspaper Threatens To Sue Back

 

[Pogo]

>> Recently, Colorado state Republican Senator Ray Scott accused the local newspaper, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, of reporting fake news.

Scott took issue with an editorial in the paper calling out the Senator for cancelling a hearing on a state bill. The Senator responded to the editorial by tweeting that the Daily Sentinel publishes fake news.

The accusation has not sat well with the publisher of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Jay Seaton. He intends to sue the Senator and tells The Current's Laura Lynch about the damage this allegation has caused to the paper.

"The greatest asset of any newspaper or any news source is its credibility," says Seaton.

"I know that we've lost subscribers in response to that tweet. Now since then ... the response to the push back on that tweet has been quite positive. But the tweet itself did, I know, cause us real damage." << -- The Current​

Good for the Daily Sentinel. This Naziesque assault on discourse needs to be called out for what it is.

good for them..... the orange sociopath is going to have to be taught a lesson about the 1st amendment.

You'd think, for a guy so obsessed with "number one" that wouldn't be necessary. You'd think.