Newspaper Will Sue over "fake news" Slur

[JQPublic1]

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.

Yes, when people make up shit, we shouldn't call it fake. Just believe it.
Goddamn, what an idiot.

Wrong and mistaken news is easy to prove. Competitive news sources are more than happy to promote the wrong and mistaken news promoted by competitors. The courts are also a viable source for combating wrong and mistaken, or fake news.

The blanket assertion that the media promotes fake news is a propaganda method that has been used by authoritarian fascist regimes since Mussolini and Goebbels.

America has always dealt with the issue of wrong and mistaken news in its own way. Suddenly in the Trump era, an era of having a President that is a serial pathological liar, does the need to promote the fascist methods of suppressing and neutralizing news arise.

Trump lies a lot, but so does the media. I mean, seriously. You have to be one blind sumbitch not see it. Its EVERYWHERE

Er.... how do you know when the media is lying? You are just a clueless consumer like the rest of us. We don't know the truth until we investigate further through sources we deem credible. Media agents who lie or distort the truth don't last long.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

So, if you're unclear when you say something - oh, say, at a campaign rally - that's a mistake, not a lie, right? You know, like you meant to say you saw a report last night that talked about the immigrants and the Swedish crime rate, and it didn't come out quite like that .... that's a mistake (a misstatement, if you will) not a lie, right?

Being unclear is poor writing and is a mistake. Intentionally saying something false or passing along a known falsehood is to engage in lying.

You're dancing on the head of a pin. It's only a mistake if you didn't have a direct intention to mislead the reader.

Disagreed, sir. It's you who are dancing on a pin. I'm saying there are differences between mistakes, opinions and lies. You seem to want to draw a line between views you agree with as being truth and all others being fake news. Is that what you are trying to say or am I mistaken? What are you trying to say, sir?

Very simply, and very slowly ....

There are reporters, and news organizations, who will present facts wrapped in innuendo and lies, all with an express intent to discredit the president. One of the great sins of our current media methodology is the mistaken impression that every reporter has a right, and even a responsibility, to analyze whatever fact is presented that day. Given that over 90% of American media is either registered Democrat or demonstrated left leaning, the American people have no reason to expect, and are not getting, the unvarnished truth.

There was a time when the media went to great pains to present both sides of an issue to the American public, who then could make up their collective mind based on the opposing views. We no longer have that luxury. We now only have those who present the left - all-left view, and ridicule those who offer alternative analysis of the very same facts.

Trump has become the lightning rod of this bias. Media personalities will tell you, openly and gleefully, that Trump needs to be removed - by whatever means possible. They have dedicated themselves, and their influence with the American people, to make that happen.

Every word Trump says/tweets is run thru that filter of prejudice. Two quick examples:

Trump said that fake news agencies "was the enemy of the people" Reporters immediately reported that Trump said "news agencies was the enemy of the people.", which, of course, has now morphed into "media was the enemy of the people." (Go ahead - go all the way back and look it up.

It is common practice for the past 75 years for the White House to hold a "press gaggle" from time to time. Tradition dictates that the "gaggle" will consist of one newspaper reporter, one tv reporter, and one media camera. Spicer calls a meeting and sets up a press gaggle with 5 newspaper reporters, three tv reporters, and two media cameras. Rather than being hailed for increasing visibility to the press, they are excoriated not for what they did, but rather for who didn't make the list. What was a gesture to the press was perverted into an attack on the press. Don't believe? Look it up.

The time will come when the left will have to recognize the danger of the prejudiced press, because the time will come when that dog will turn on you.

TL; DR

Very simply, just because you disagree with someone's opinion doesn't make them liars. Just because a newspaper calls out an elected representative doesn't make them "fake news".

 

[Divine Wind]

Er.... how do you know when the media is lying? You are just a clueless consumer like the rest of us. We don't know the truth until we investigate further through sources we deem credible. Media agents who lie or distort the truth don't last long.

Good pointing out the hazard of single source references be it one newspaper or one news channel.

We, as individuals, should read several references on sensitive or crucial subjects. Since media is a business and businesses are competitive, they'll also check each other. Any media proved to intentionally lie or habitually makes amateurish mistakes will lose both their reputation and respectable customers. The New York Times, even coming from a LW city, is more respected than the National Enquirer. The Jayson Blair scandal badly hurt the NYT.

Repairing the Credibility Cracks After Jayson Blair
Jayson Blair, a young Times reporter, lied and faked and cheated his way through story after story — scores of them, for years. He fabricated sources, plagiarized material from other publications, and pretended to be places he never went. The problem, once fully investigated and made public by The Times itself, brought down not only the reporter but also The Times’s executive editor and managing editor. For a while, it even made The Times a laughingstock in late-night comedy routines.

“I think of Jayson Blair as an accident that ended my newspaper career in the same unpredictable way that a heart attack or a plane crash might have,” Howell Raines, that executive editor, wrote a year later in a long, fascinating piece for The Atlantic. Last week, when I interviewed him by phone, Mr. Raines made a similar comparison: “It was like stepping on a land mine.” The result, he said, “was heartbreaking for me.”

It was also, as the publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., put it, “a huge black eye” for The Times. Glenn Kramon, who was the business editor at the time and helped in the paper’s exhaustive investigation of Mr. Blair’s wrongdoings, remembers just how brutal that period was: “I didn’t realize how bad things had become until the P.R. guy from Enron called to tell us to hang in there.” And he remembers the emotions: “I felt anger on behalf of the 400 or so scrupulous, dedicated reporters who were incapable of such behavior.”

Continue reading the main story

Much has happened since, and The Times is in its second round of new editorial leadership. But even now, when newspaper companies are preoccupied with long-term survival, it is still a touchy subject.

After the scandal and a thorough internal analysis, Times management put safeguards in place. One was the role of the public editor — I am the fifth — to give readers a direct place, independent of The Times’s editing structure, to take complaints about journalistic integrity. Another was the creation of a full-time standards editor, an internal position within the newsroom hierarchy. Still another was a program to thoroughly and regularly evaluate journalists’ work.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Yes, when people make up shit, we shouldn't call it fake. Just believe it.
Goddamn, what an idiot.

Wrong and mistaken news is easy to prove. Competitive news sources are more than happy to promote the wrong and mistaken news promoted by competitors. The courts are also a viable source for combating wrong and mistaken, or fake news.

The blanket assertion that the media promotes fake news is a propaganda method that has been used by authoritarian fascist regimes since Mussolini and Goebbels.

America has always dealt with the issue of wrong and mistaken news in its own way. Suddenly in the Trump era, an era of having a President that is a serial pathological liar, does the need to promote the fascist methods of suppressing and neutralizing news arise.

Trump lies a lot, but so does the media. I mean, seriously. You have to be one blind sumbitch not see it. Its EVERYWHERE

Er.... how do you know when the media is lying? You are just a clueless consumer like the rest of us. We don't know the truth until we investigate further through sources we deem credible. Media agents who lie or distort the truth don't last long.

Unfortunately that conclusion isn't true. Fox Noise for example has been around over 20 years now, and still following "we distort, you abide" because it brings them a paycheck. Limblob's been doing it longer than that. Granted these are not strictly speaking "news" outlets, but those definitions have been deliberately obscured.

The distinction is between informing of something and selling something. People want to be informed, which is a neutral, but they will buy being scared to death, which is what the Fox Noises and Limblobs traffic in. "If it bleeds it leads" is a very old philosophy that predates electronic media.

I keep going back to a quote from one Roger Ailes, who noted, correctly, "if two guys are on a stage talking and one guy says 'I know how to bring peace to the Middle East....' and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, which one do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

So there's informing, and then there's selling bullshit. One of them makes money, the other doesn't.

 

[Spare_change]

So, if you're unclear when you say something - oh, say, at a campaign rally - that's a mistake, not a lie, right? You know, like you meant to say you saw a report last night that talked about the immigrants and the Swedish crime rate, and it didn't come out quite like that .... that's a mistake (a misstatement, if you will) not a lie, right?

Being unclear is poor writing and is a mistake. Intentionally saying something false or passing along a known falsehood is to engage in lying.

You're dancing on the head of a pin. It's only a mistake if you didn't have a direct intention to mislead the reader.

Disagreed, sir. It's you who are dancing on a pin. I'm saying there are differences between mistakes, opinions and lies. You seem to want to draw a line between views you agree with as being truth and all others being fake news. Is that what you are trying to say or am I mistaken? What are you trying to say, sir?

Very simply, and very slowly ....

There are reporters, and news organizations, who will present facts wrapped in innuendo and lies, all with an express intent to discredit the president. One of the great sins of our current media methodology is the mistaken impression that every reporter has a right, and even a responsibility, to analyze whatever fact is presented that day. Given that over 90% of American media is either registered Democrat or demonstrated left leaning, the American people have no reason to expect, and are not getting, the unvarnished truth.

There was a time when the media went to great pains to present both sides of an issue to the American public, who then could make up their collective mind based on the opposing views. We no longer have that luxury. We now only have those who present the left - all-left view, and ridicule those who offer alternative analysis of the very same facts.

Trump has become the lightning rod of this bias. Media personalities will tell you, openly and gleefully, that Trump needs to be removed - by whatever means possible. They have dedicated themselves, and their influence with the American people, to make that happen.

Every word Trump says/tweets is run thru that filter of prejudice. Two quick examples:

Trump said that fake news agencies "was the enemy of the people" Reporters immediately reported that Trump said "news agencies was the enemy of the people.", which, of course, has now morphed into "media was the enemy of the people." (Go ahead - go all the way back and look it up.

It is common practice for the past 75 years for the White House to hold a "press gaggle" from time to time. Tradition dictates that the "gaggle" will consist of one newspaper reporter, one tv reporter, and one media camera. Spicer calls a meeting and sets up a press gaggle with 5 newspaper reporters, three tv reporters, and two media cameras. Rather than being hailed for increasing visibility to the press, they are excoriated not for what they did, but rather for who didn't make the list. What was a gesture to the press was perverted into an attack on the press. Don't believe? Look it up.

The time will come when the left will have to recognize the danger of the prejudiced press, because the time will come when that dog will turn on you.

TL; DR

Very simply, just because you disagree with someone's opinion doesn't make them liars. Just because a newspaper calls out an elected representative doesn't make them "fake news".

Nope --- but actively misrepresenting the facts DOES qualify as "fake news".

 

[Divine Wind]

Nope --- but actively misrepresenting the facts DOES qualify as "fake news".

Correct. So what in the OP case constitutes "fake news"?

Sincerely awaiting your posting of facts in the case.

 

[Spare_change]

Nope --- but actively misrepresenting the facts DOES qualify as "fake news".

Correct. So what in the OP case constitutes "fake news"?

Sincerely awaiting your posting of facts in the case.

The article was accurate ---- that wasn't even remotely the question.

Since we don't have the facts of the root cause --- the claim that the paper publishes fake news --- we can't comment on the accusation. We have no way of judging whether the paper publishes "fake news" or not. In fact, if you actually read the article, the state senator didn't even say that this particular editorial was "fake news".

For what it's worth, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel published a subsequent editorial revising their position. Now, they aren't going to sue because "it is beneath the dignity of any member of the media to respond to scurrilous accusations".

None of that has to do with the discussion about WHAT constituted fake news .... the simple truth is, it has become a buzz phrase that the vast majority of the American people don't even understand.

 

[Divine Wind]

Nope --- but actively misrepresenting the facts DOES qualify as "fake news".

The article was accurate ---- that wasn't even remotely the question.

Since we don't have the facts of the root cause --- the claim that the paper publishes fake news --- we can't comment on the accusation. We have no way of judging whether the paper publishes "fake news" or not. In fact, if you actually read the article, the state senator didn't even say that this particular editorial was "fake news".

For what it's worth, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel published a subsequent editorial revising their position. Now, they aren't going to sue because "it is beneath the dignity of any member of the media to respond to scurrilous accusations".

None of that has to do with the discussion about WHAT constituted fake news .... the simple truth is, it has become a buzz phrase that the vast majority of the American people don't even understand.

Exactly the point; how could an "accurate" article be fake news? Answer: it can't because it isn't.

 

[Rambunctious]

Er.... how do you know when the media is lying?

Their lips are moving......

 

[Spare_change]

Nope --- but actively misrepresenting the facts DOES qualify as "fake news".

The article was accurate ---- that wasn't even remotely the question.

Since we don't have the facts of the root cause --- the claim that the paper publishes fake news --- we can't comment on the accusation. We have no way of judging whether the paper publishes "fake news" or not. In fact, if you actually read the article, the state senator didn't even say that this particular editorial was "fake news".

For what it's worth, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel published a subsequent editorial revising their position. Now, they aren't going to sue because "it is beneath the dignity of any member of the media to respond to scurrilous accusations".

None of that has to do with the discussion about WHAT constituted fake news .... the simple truth is, it has become a buzz phrase that the vast majority of the American people don't even understand.

Exactly the point; how could an "accurate" article be fake news? Answer: it can't because it isn't.

No, that wasn't the point ... but you have no intention of actually acknowledging the point of discussion, so I can think of no reason to waste further time on you.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Yes, when people make up shit, we shouldn't call it fake. Just believe it.
Goddamn, what an idiot.

Wrong and mistaken news is easy to prove. Competitive news sources are more than happy to promote the wrong and mistaken news promoted by competitors. The courts are also a viable source for combating wrong and mistaken, or fake news.

The blanket assertion that the media promotes fake news is a propaganda method that has been used by authoritarian fascist regimes since Mussolini and Goebbels.

America has always dealt with the issue of wrong and mistaken news in its own way. Suddenly in the Trump era, an era of having a President that is a serial pathological liar, does the need to promote the fascist methods of suppressing and neutralizing news arise.

Trump lies a lot, but so does the media. I mean, seriously. You have to be one blind sumbitch not see it. Its EVERYWHERE

Er.... how do you know when the media is lying? You are just a clueless consumer like the rest of us. We don't know the truth until we investigate further through sources we deem credible. Media agents who lie or distort the truth don't last long.

Unfortunately that conclusion isn't true. Fox Noise for example has been around over 20 years now, and still following "we distort, you abide" because it brings them a paycheck. Limblob's been doing it longer than that. Granted these are not strictly speaking "news" outlets, but those definitions have been deliberately obscured.

The distinction is between informing of something and selling something. People want to be informed, which is a neutral, but they will buy being scared to death, which is what the Fox Noises and Limblobs traffic in. "If it bleeds it leads" is a very old philosophy that predates electronic media.

I keep going back to a quote from one Roger Ailes, who noted, correctly, "if two guys are on a stage talking and one guy says 'I know how to bring peace to the Middle East....' and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, which one do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

So there's informing, and then there's selling bullshit. One of them makes money, the other doesn't.

Now you've put me in a quandary. I don't wish to end up defending Faux Noise or Rush Phlegm glob to counter your point so I'll let it ride.

 

[Divine Wind]

No, that wasn't the point ... but you have no intention of actually acknowledging the point of discussion, so I can think of no reason to waste further time on you.

The point of the discussion was the OP. Since I didn't give you the answers you wanted, it's obvious you want nothing further to do with me.

 

[Spare_change]

No, that wasn't the point ... but you have no intention of actually acknowledging the point of discussion, so I can think of no reason to waste further time on you.

The point of the discussion was the OP. Since I didn't give you the answers you wanted, it's obvious you want nothing further to do with me.

Boy, you got that right ... I deal with adults.

 

[Divine Wind]

Boy, you got that right ... I deal with adults.

Then you should act like one.