The ORIGINAL "Fake News" goes to court

[iceberg]

Bulleshitte. Alex Jones is not the problem. Thre real problem is the alphabet media ...the msm. Not even to mention the N.Y.Times You are just not very knowledgable or you are flaming.

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

Oh, and by the way, thank you for a beautiful example of my point.

As your "source", you use that renowned news website "stillnessinthestorm.com", which used a FAKE headline. The headline does not describe her point. She doesn't use the term, THEY did.

Good gawd, people, come on.
.

Watch the video folks:

Her argument is flawed from the very beginning. In her first example, Richard Jewell, she uses the term "wrongly reported". They were wrong. They didn't make it up.

Clearly she has an agenda, and that's a blatant example.

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and just making something up?
.

was bush wrong about WMD or did he lie? kinda depends on who you ask huh?

so what would her agenda be?

in 2014, rolling stone frat gang rape that was pretty much made up. who's fault is that now? the writer or the editor or the mag? answer? all of the above. yet this is where things started getting really lazy for journalism and people wrote based off their feelz vs facts.

this was also long before 2016 so she is just illustrating how far back being wrong can go. if you wish to discredit all else she says cause you disagree here, your loss.

but she makes a lot of valid points about fake news in the last 2 years. if you want to think she has an agenda, great. but offer up someone who has done more research into this cause if you just don't like what she says and call her fake now, isn't that the very problem she is describing and a huge contributor to it?

I made my point. The term was created in response to the websites I listed.

It appears that, in one universe, that just never happened.

That's just amazing to me, and more than a little concerning.
.

you didn't list any website that i caught other than "far right".

i would *strongly disagree* with anyone who was of the mindset that only the far right or any ONE group would engage in fake news. like i keep saying, when you let YOUR side do it, you simply ok it for the OTHER side, only that's where we seem to get mad as a society and culture. it's ok if *we* do stupid shit but if *they* do it it must be stopped.

we need to broaden our mindset and hold ourselves accountable for what we do LONG BEFORE we hold someone else accountable.

 

[Mac1958]

Oh, and by the way, thank you for a beautiful example of my point.

As your "source", you use that renowned news website "stillnessinthestorm.com", which used a FAKE headline. The headline does not describe her point. She doesn't use the term, THEY did.

Good gawd, people, come on.
.

Watch the video folks:

Her argument is flawed from the very beginning. In her first example, Richard Jewell, she uses the term "wrongly reported". They were wrong. They didn't make it up.

Clearly she has an agenda, and that's a blatant example.

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and just making something up?
.

was bush wrong about WMD or did he lie? kinda depends on who you ask huh?

so what would her agenda be?

in 2014, rolling stone frat gang rape that was pretty much made up. who's fault is that now? the writer or the editor or the mag? answer? all of the above. yet this is where things started getting really lazy for journalism and people wrote based off their feelz vs facts.

this was also long before 2016 so she is just illustrating how far back being wrong can go. if you wish to discredit all else she says cause you disagree here, your loss.

but she makes a lot of valid points about fake news in the last 2 years. if you want to think she has an agenda, great. but offer up someone who has done more research into this cause if you just don't like what she says and call her fake now, isn't that the very problem she is describing and a huge contributor to it?

I made my point. The term was created in response to the websites I listed.

It appears that, in one universe, that just never happened.

That's just amazing to me, and more than a little concerning.
.

you didn't list any website that i caught other than "far right".

i would *strongly disagree* with anyone who was of the mindset that only the far right or any ONE group would engage in fake news. like i keep saying, when you let YOUR side do it, you simply ok it for the OTHER side, only that's where we seem to get mad as a society and culture. it's ok if *we* do stupid shit but if *they* do it it must be stopped.

we need to broaden our mindset and hold ourselves accountable for what we do LONG BEFORE we hold someone else accountable.

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Anyone who watches Alex Jones and takes him seriously are like cult members. Best way to deal with those types is just ignore them.

Yes, the same way we dealt with the supermarket tabloids. Occasionally they would get a scoop and they were much more agressive getting their stories going thru peoples trash and so fodrth. So they could not be entirelly discounted but when they were really on to something that was not difficult to see. They were very blatant with their fake stuff...people understood it for what it was...entertainment.

But the msm has camouflaged itself with respectability for so long many cannot see through their b.s. They think well because it is in the N.Y. times it is the gospel truth. How many times now have they been publicly humiliated for lying? Not even to mention all they times they have not been caught and the same thing goes for the whole bunch of them...propagandists. Trump is absolutely correct...now the big honcho from the N.Y. Times runs to Trump whining oh please stop calling us fake news. How pathetic.

 

[iceberg]

Watch the video folks:

Her argument is flawed from the very beginning. In her first example, Richard Jewell, she uses the term "wrongly reported". They were wrong. They didn't make it up.

Clearly she has an agenda, and that's a blatant example.

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and just making something up?
.

was bush wrong about WMD or did he lie? kinda depends on who you ask huh?

so what would her agenda be?

in 2014, rolling stone frat gang rape that was pretty much made up. who's fault is that now? the writer or the editor or the mag? answer? all of the above. yet this is where things started getting really lazy for journalism and people wrote based off their feelz vs facts.

this was also long before 2016 so she is just illustrating how far back being wrong can go. if you wish to discredit all else she says cause you disagree here, your loss.

but she makes a lot of valid points about fake news in the last 2 years. if you want to think she has an agenda, great. but offer up someone who has done more research into this cause if you just don't like what she says and call her fake now, isn't that the very problem she is describing and a huge contributor to it?

I made my point. The term was created in response to the websites I listed.

It appears that, in one universe, that just never happened.

That's just amazing to me, and more than a little concerning.
.

you didn't list any website that i caught other than "far right".

i would *strongly disagree* with anyone who was of the mindset that only the far right or any ONE group would engage in fake news. like i keep saying, when you let YOUR side do it, you simply ok it for the OTHER side, only that's where we seem to get mad as a society and culture. it's ok if *we* do stupid shit but if *they* do it it must be stopped.

we need to broaden our mindset and hold ourselves accountable for what we do LONG BEFORE we hold someone else accountable.

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

 

[Mac1958]

Her argument is flawed from the very beginning. In her first example, Richard Jewell, she uses the term "wrongly reported". They were wrong. They didn't make it up.

Clearly she has an agenda, and that's a blatant example.

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and just making something up?
.

was bush wrong about WMD or did he lie? kinda depends on who you ask huh?

so what would her agenda be?

in 2014, rolling stone frat gang rape that was pretty much made up. who's fault is that now? the writer or the editor or the mag? answer? all of the above. yet this is where things started getting really lazy for journalism and people wrote based off their feelz vs facts.

this was also long before 2016 so she is just illustrating how far back being wrong can go. if you wish to discredit all else she says cause you disagree here, your loss.

but she makes a lot of valid points about fake news in the last 2 years. if you want to think she has an agenda, great. but offer up someone who has done more research into this cause if you just don't like what she says and call her fake now, isn't that the very problem she is describing and a huge contributor to it?

I made my point. The term was created in response to the websites I listed.

It appears that, in one universe, that just never happened.

That's just amazing to me, and more than a little concerning.
.

you didn't list any website that i caught other than "far right".

i would *strongly disagree* with anyone who was of the mindset that only the far right or any ONE group would engage in fake news. like i keep saying, when you let YOUR side do it, you simply ok it for the OTHER side, only that's where we seem to get mad as a society and culture. it's ok if *we* do stupid shit but if *they* do it it must be stopped.

we need to broaden our mindset and hold ourselves accountable for what we do LONG BEFORE we hold someone else accountable.

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

I'll try one more time. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong.

Sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and WND were labeled "fake news" in the 2010-2015 time frame for making up stories and conspiracies.

Am I right on that, or am I wrong?
.

 

[Some Guy]

Anyone who watches Alex Jones and takes him seriously are like cult members. Best way to deal with those types is just ignore them.

Yes, the same way we dealt with the supermarket tabloids. Occasionally they would get a scoop and they were much more agressive getting their stories going thru peoples trash and so fodrth. So they could not be entirelly discounted but when they were really on to something that was not difficult to see. They were very blatant with their fake stuff...people understood it for what it was...entertainment.

But the msm has camouflaged itself with respectability for so long many cannot see through their b.s. They think well because it is in the N.Y. times it is the gospel truth. How many times now have they been publicly humiliated for lying? Not even to mention all they times they have not been caught and the same thing goes for the whole bunch of them...propagandists. Trump is absolutely correct...now the big honcho from the N.Y. Times runs to Trump whining oh please stop calling us fake news. How pathetic.

Trump goes overboard with his rhetoric. Big shocker, i know. So, no one is wholly wrong for saying that Trump's "they're enemies of the people" rhetoric goes too far. Nearly all of Trump's rhetoric goes too far.

If Trump would say that "Many news sources out there that you might think are infallible in their reporting just simply aren't. There's certain publications across the political spectrum that have their biases and will tell you what they want you to hear, will not tell you what they do not want you to hear and will frame their stories in ways designed to influence you to aligning with their opinion on given topics. When it comes to getting your news, you should have a variety of sources you go to to get different perspectives on the same stories in order to make up your mind."

That's 100% accurate. But Trump isn't interested in that. He's got his agenda, which is to bias people against any source that's critical of him. He's just as dishonest as any left news publications in that respect.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Her argument is flawed from the very beginning. In her first example, Richard Jewell, she uses the term "wrongly reported". They were wrong. They didn't make it up.

Clearly she has an agenda, and that's a blatant example.

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and just making something up?
.

was bush wrong about WMD or did he lie? kinda depends on who you ask huh?

so what would her agenda be?

in 2014, rolling stone frat gang rape that was pretty much made up. who's fault is that now? the writer or the editor or the mag? answer? all of the above. yet this is where things started getting really lazy for journalism and people wrote based off their feelz vs facts.

this was also long before 2016 so she is just illustrating how far back being wrong can go. if you wish to discredit all else she says cause you disagree here, your loss.

but she makes a lot of valid points about fake news in the last 2 years. if you want to think she has an agenda, great. but offer up someone who has done more research into this cause if you just don't like what she says and call her fake now, isn't that the very problem she is describing and a huge contributor to it?

I made my point. The term was created in response to the websites I listed.

It appears that, in one universe, that just never happened.

That's just amazing to me, and more than a little concerning.
.

you didn't list any website that i caught other than "far right".

i would *strongly disagree* with anyone who was of the mindset that only the far right or any ONE group would engage in fake news. like i keep saying, when you let YOUR side do it, you simply ok it for the OTHER side, only that's where we seem to get mad as a society and culture. it's ok if *we* do stupid shit but if *they* do it it must be stopped.

we need to broaden our mindset and hold ourselves accountable for what we do LONG BEFORE we hold someone else accountable.

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

Absolutely and they do have a code of ethics supposedly...must be so old that most of them have never heard of it...they certainly come no where near to abiding by it.

SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

 

[iceberg]

was bush wrong about WMD or did he lie? kinda depends on who you ask huh?

so what would her agenda be?

in 2014, rolling stone frat gang rape that was pretty much made up. who's fault is that now? the writer or the editor or the mag? answer? all of the above. yet this is where things started getting really lazy for journalism and people wrote based off their feelz vs facts.

this was also long before 2016 so she is just illustrating how far back being wrong can go. if you wish to discredit all else she says cause you disagree here, your loss.

but she makes a lot of valid points about fake news in the last 2 years. if you want to think she has an agenda, great. but offer up someone who has done more research into this cause if you just don't like what she says and call her fake now, isn't that the very problem she is describing and a huge contributor to it?

I made my point. The term was created in response to the websites I listed.

It appears that, in one universe, that just never happened.

That's just amazing to me, and more than a little concerning.
.

you didn't list any website that i caught other than "far right".

i would *strongly disagree* with anyone who was of the mindset that only the far right or any ONE group would engage in fake news. like i keep saying, when you let YOUR side do it, you simply ok it for the OTHER side, only that's where we seem to get mad as a society and culture. it's ok if *we* do stupid shit but if *they* do it it must be stopped.

we need to broaden our mindset and hold ourselves accountable for what we do LONG BEFORE we hold someone else accountable.

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

I'll try one more time. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong.

Sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and WND were labeled "fake news" in the 2010-2015 time frame for making up stories and conspiracies.

Am I right on that, or am I wrong?
.

dunno. i've not followed those sites to tell you. i think breitbart may be right leaning but that doesn't mean they're lying. feel free to find some examples of their stories they wrote that were fake/lie, and not just "wrong".

infowars and other HEY LOOK THE WORLD IS ENDING SITES!!!!

duh. but most people can walk by the national enquirer and realize aliens likely didn't take the big tittied women to the heavens and rape her with a shetland pony. i've already said "fake news" has been around since the dawn of time. my point was and has been when did it become a political weapon by the politicians.

that would be around 2016 as sharyl indicates. if you have other proof, lay it out and we'll talk about it. but its hard to call her wrong because we've had fake news before this when she says fake news has been around forever.

 

[Mac1958]

I made my point. The term was created in response to the websites I listed.

It appears that, in one universe, that just never happened.

That's just amazing to me, and more than a little concerning.
.

you didn't list any website that i caught other than "far right".

i would *strongly disagree* with anyone who was of the mindset that only the far right or any ONE group would engage in fake news. like i keep saying, when you let YOUR side do it, you simply ok it for the OTHER side, only that's where we seem to get mad as a society and culture. it's ok if *we* do stupid shit but if *they* do it it must be stopped.

we need to broaden our mindset and hold ourselves accountable for what we do LONG BEFORE we hold someone else accountable.

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

I'll try one more time. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong.

Sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and WND were labeled "fake news" in the 2010-2015 time frame for making up stories and conspiracies.

Am I right on that, or am I wrong?
.

dunno. i've not followed those sites to tell you. i think breitbart may be right leaning but that doesn't mean they're lying. feel free to find some examples of their stories they wrote that were fake/lie, and not just "wrong".

infowars and other HEY LOOK THE WORLD IS ENDING SITES!!!!

duh. but most people can walk by the national enquirer and realize aliens likely didn't take the big tittied women to the heavens and rape her with a shetland pony. i've already said "fake news" has been around since the dawn of time. my point was and has been when did it become a political weapon by the politicians.

that would be around 2016 as sharyl indicates. if you have other proof, lay it out and we'll talk about it. but its hard to call her wrong because we've had fake news before this when she says fake news has been around forever.

Okay, never mind.
.

 

[iceberg]

you didn't list any website that i caught other than "far right".

i would *strongly disagree* with anyone who was of the mindset that only the far right or any ONE group would engage in fake news. like i keep saying, when you let YOUR side do it, you simply ok it for the OTHER side, only that's where we seem to get mad as a society and culture. it's ok if *we* do stupid shit but if *they* do it it must be stopped.

we need to broaden our mindset and hold ourselves accountable for what we do LONG BEFORE we hold someone else accountable.

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

I'll try one more time. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong.

Sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and WND were labeled "fake news" in the 2010-2015 time frame for making up stories and conspiracies.

Am I right on that, or am I wrong?
.

dunno. i've not followed those sites to tell you. i think breitbart may be right leaning but that doesn't mean they're lying. feel free to find some examples of their stories they wrote that were fake/lie, and not just "wrong".

infowars and other HEY LOOK THE WORLD IS ENDING SITES!!!!

duh. but most people can walk by the national enquirer and realize aliens likely didn't take the big tittied women to the heavens and rape her with a shetland pony. i've already said "fake news" has been around since the dawn of time. my point was and has been when did it become a political weapon by the politicians.

that would be around 2016 as sharyl indicates. if you have other proof, lay it out and we'll talk about it. but its hard to call her wrong because we've had fake news before this when she says fake news has been around forever.

Okay, never mind.
.

so you can't dig back further than she has but she is wrong?

look, i don't disagree at all we've had fake news forever. that was never her point. if she's wrong give me some homework proof of it cause she has done her homework and research. she has a history of not posting "feelz" type news, but evidence, proof, and again, digging for the facts as they are, not as some would hope.

you want to discredit her, feel free. but it's going to take more than the atlanta bombing you don't like how she put to prove her wrong.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Anyone who watches Alex Jones and takes him seriously are like cult members. Best way to deal with those types is just ignore them.

Yes, the same way we dealt with the supermarket tabloids. Occasionally they would get a scoop and they were much more agressive getting their stories going thru peoples trash and so fodrth. So they could not be entirelly discounted but when they were really on to something that was not difficult to see. They were very blatant with their fake stuff...people understood it for what it was...entertainment.

But the msm has camouflaged itself with respectability for so long many cannot see through their b.s. They think well because it is in the N.Y. times it is the gospel truth. How many times now have they been publicly humiliated for lying? Not even to mention all they times they have not been caught and the same thing goes for the whole bunch of them...propagandists. Trump is absolutely correct...now the big honcho from the N.Y. Times runs to Trump whining oh please stop calling us fake news. How pathetic.

Trump goes overboard with his rhetoric. Big shocker, i know. So, no one is wholly wrong for saying that Trump's "they're enemies of the people" rhetoric goes too far. Nearly all of Trump's rhetoric goes too far.

If Trump would say that "Many news sources out there that you might think are infallible in their reporting just simply aren't. There's certain publications across the political spectrum that have their biases and will tell you what they want you to hear, will not tell you what they do not want you to hear and will frame their stories in ways designed to influence you to aligning with their opinion on given topics. When it comes to getting your news, you should have a variety of sources you go to to get different perspectives on the same stories in order to make up your mind."

That's 100% accurate. But Trump isn't interested in that. He's got his agenda, which is to bias people against any source that's critical of him. He's just as dishonest as any left news publications in that respect.

I disagree--the msm news is definitely the enemy of America. I do not think Trump ever knowingly lies...sometimes he might be given bad infor or make an occasional mistake on the facts like most do occasionally.

However the msm knowingly spins, distorts and outright lies. And they have been caught at it many times: From the N.Y. Times on down. Terribly biased. Trump should be thanked for outing the fake news.

 

[Crepitus]

As we know, the original definition of fake news was the non-stop flood of fantastical conspiracy theories spewed by sites like Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart, et al.

Then Trump was able to successfully commandeer the word via Twitter and his "speeches".

Anyway, ol' Alex Jones will need to defend himself on some stuff:

Alex Jones faces existential courtroom battle over limits of fake news
.

Bulleshitte. Alex Jones is not the problem. Thre real problem is the alphabet media ...the msm. Not even to mention the N.Y.Times You are just not very knowledgable or you are flaming.

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

Wow, tRump did a thorough job on you guys.

 

[NightFox]

you didn't list any website that i caught other than "far right".

i would *strongly disagree* with anyone who was of the mindset that only the far right or any ONE group would engage in fake news. like i keep saying, when you let YOUR side do it, you simply ok it for the OTHER side, only that's where we seem to get mad as a society and culture. it's ok if *we* do stupid shit but if *they* do it it must be stopped.

we need to broaden our mindset and hold ourselves accountable for what we do LONG BEFORE we hold someone else accountable.

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

I'll try one more time. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong.

Sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and WND were labeled "fake news" in the 2010-2015 time frame for making up stories and conspiracies.

Am I right on that, or am I wrong?
.

dunno. i've not followed those sites to tell you. i think breitbart may be right leaning but that doesn't mean they're lying. feel free to find some examples of their stories they wrote that were fake/lie, and not just "wrong".

infowars and other HEY LOOK THE WORLD IS ENDING SITES!!!!

duh. but most people can walk by the national enquirer and realize aliens likely didn't take the big tittied women to the heavens and rape her with a shetland pony. i've already said "fake news" has been around since the dawn of time. my point was and has been when did it become a political weapon by the politicians.

that would be around 2016 as sharyl indicates. if you have other proof, lay it out and we'll talk about it. but its hard to call her wrong because we've had fake news before this when she says fake news has been around forever.

Okay, never mind.
.

Lemme guess Mac, the revelations regarding the accuracy of alien activity with respect to big tittied women and shetland ponies completely destroyed your will to continue....

I felt the same way when I found out Santa Claus was a scam, It's rough when your fantasies get completely obliterated.

 

[iceberg]

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

I'll try one more time. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong.

Sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and WND were labeled "fake news" in the 2010-2015 time frame for making up stories and conspiracies.

Am I right on that, or am I wrong?
.

dunno. i've not followed those sites to tell you. i think breitbart may be right leaning but that doesn't mean they're lying. feel free to find some examples of their stories they wrote that were fake/lie, and not just "wrong".

infowars and other HEY LOOK THE WORLD IS ENDING SITES!!!!

duh. but most people can walk by the national enquirer and realize aliens likely didn't take the big tittied women to the heavens and rape her with a shetland pony. i've already said "fake news" has been around since the dawn of time. my point was and has been when did it become a political weapon by the politicians.

that would be around 2016 as sharyl indicates. if you have other proof, lay it out and we'll talk about it. but its hard to call her wrong because we've had fake news before this when she says fake news has been around forever.

Okay, never mind.
.

Lemme guess Mac, the revelations regarding the accuracy of alien activity with respect to big tittied women and shetland ponies completely destroyed your will to continue....

I felt the same way when I found out Santa Claus was a scam, It's rough when your fantasies get completely obliterated.

so glad i wasn't drinking anything when i read that. i'd be cleaning off my monitor.

 

[Mac1958]

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

I'll try one more time. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong.

Sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and WND were labeled "fake news" in the 2010-2015 time frame for making up stories and conspiracies.

Am I right on that, or am I wrong?
.

dunno. i've not followed those sites to tell you. i think breitbart may be right leaning but that doesn't mean they're lying. feel free to find some examples of their stories they wrote that were fake/lie, and not just "wrong".

infowars and other HEY LOOK THE WORLD IS ENDING SITES!!!!

duh. but most people can walk by the national enquirer and realize aliens likely didn't take the big tittied women to the heavens and rape her with a shetland pony. i've already said "fake news" has been around since the dawn of time. my point was and has been when did it become a political weapon by the politicians.

that would be around 2016 as sharyl indicates. if you have other proof, lay it out and we'll talk about it. but its hard to call her wrong because we've had fake news before this when she says fake news has been around forever.

Okay, never mind.
.

so you can't dig back further than she has but she is wrong?

look, i don't disagree at all we've had fake news forever. that was never her point. if she's wrong give me some homework proof of it cause she has done her homework and research. she has a history of not posting "feelz" type news, but evidence, proof, and again, digging for the facts as they are, not as some would hope.

you want to discredit her, feel free. but it's going to take more than the atlanta bombing you don't like how she put to prove her wrong.

This isn't about that reporter. I made one clear point, and I can't even get people to admit it.

I have the same problem with lefties who insist that PC doesn't exist. I don't beat dead horses any more.
.

 

[Some Guy]

Anyone who watches Alex Jones and takes him seriously are like cult members. Best way to deal with those types is just ignore them.

Yes, the same way we dealt with the supermarket tabloids. Occasionally they would get a scoop and they were much more agressive getting their stories going thru peoples trash and so fodrth. So they could not be entirelly discounted but when they were really on to something that was not difficult to see. They were very blatant with their fake stuff...people understood it for what it was...entertainment.

But the msm has camouflaged itself with respectability for so long many cannot see through their b.s. They think well because it is in the N.Y. times it is the gospel truth. How many times now have they been publicly humiliated for lying? Not even to mention all they times they have not been caught and the same thing goes for the whole bunch of them...propagandists. Trump is absolutely correct...now the big honcho from the N.Y. Times runs to Trump whining oh please stop calling us fake news. How pathetic.

Trump goes overboard with his rhetoric. Big shocker, i know. So, no one is wholly wrong for saying that Trump's "they're enemies of the people" rhetoric goes too far. Nearly all of Trump's rhetoric goes too far.

If Trump would say that "Many news sources out there that you might think are infallible in their reporting just simply aren't. There's certain publications across the political spectrum that have their biases and will tell you what they want you to hear, will not tell you what they do not want you to hear and will frame their stories in ways designed to influence you to aligning with their opinion on given topics. When it comes to getting your news, you should have a variety of sources you go to to get different perspectives on the same stories in order to make up your mind."

That's 100% accurate. But Trump isn't interested in that. He's got his agenda, which is to bias people against any source that's critical of him. He's just as dishonest as any left news publications in that respect.

I disagree--the msm news is definitely the enemy of America. I do not think Trump ever knowingly lies...sometimes he might be given bad infor or make an occasional mistake on the facts like most do occasionally.

However the msm knowingly spins, distorts and outright lies. And they have been caught at it many times: From the N.Y. Times on down. Terribly biased. Trump should be thanked for outing the fake news.

If you really think the media is the "enemy of the people" then you're just as ignorant as the dumbass leftists.

But strangely enough, you're right about Trump having outed the left wing bias among the mainstream media though. They've willfully shown and stepped up their clear bias against conservatives, not just Trump. They've shown incapable of responding like rational adults when someone (Trump) acts like a child. It's basically shined a gigantic spotlight on how fucking childish and stupid so many people controlling the levers of power in this country truly are. Hopefully sanity, intelligence and rationale makes a comeback in the wake of all this madness.

 

[Dana7360]

Regardless of the suit, corporate media cannot be trusted.

If you think it can be, you are a sucker.


How You Can Be Absolutely Certain That Mainstream Media Lies About Everything

Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group

Fox news is corporate media.

Are you saying that they can't be trusted?

 

[Mac1958]

I listed Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart. I'm just pointing out what actually happened. What they were called.

I assumed we were all in the same universe, and that we all knew that.
.

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

I'll try one more time. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong.

Sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and WND were labeled "fake news" in the 2010-2015 time frame for making up stories and conspiracies.

Am I right on that, or am I wrong?
.

dunno. i've not followed those sites to tell you. i think breitbart may be right leaning but that doesn't mean they're lying. feel free to find some examples of their stories they wrote that were fake/lie, and not just "wrong".

infowars and other HEY LOOK THE WORLD IS ENDING SITES!!!!

duh. but most people can walk by the national enquirer and realize aliens likely didn't take the big tittied women to the heavens and rape her with a shetland pony. i've already said "fake news" has been around since the dawn of time. my point was and has been when did it become a political weapon by the politicians.

that would be around 2016 as sharyl indicates. if you have other proof, lay it out and we'll talk about it. but its hard to call her wrong because we've had fake news before this when she says fake news has been around forever.

Okay, never mind.
.

Lemme guess Mac, the revelations regarding the accuracy of alien activity with respect to big tittied women and shetland ponies completely destroyed your will to continue....

I felt the same way when I found out Santa Claus was a scam, It's rough when your fantasies get completely obliterated.

Hey, I'm told I'm wrong in my OP.

So I don't exist in this universe.

This really is amazing.
.

 

[iceberg]

hell i'll see you those sites and raise you occupydemocrats.org - talk about a haven for fake news. but i can also give you lots of examples from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS - and on and on and on. it's not just the fringe sites doing it and if you think so, then yes, we most certainly disagree on this point.

like i said earlier, i've seen CNN put up cell phone footage of an incident they have zero knowledge of ahead of time and sit there and tell you what the police were thinking, saying and doing by simply watching a cell phone video. no need to talk to the police, witnesses, the people doing the filming - just say incendiary things about police and call it news.

i'm all for holding those people accountable but we can't stop there. the big boys need to cut this shit out also.

I'll try one more time. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong.

Sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and WND were labeled "fake news" in the 2010-2015 time frame for making up stories and conspiracies.

Am I right on that, or am I wrong?
.

dunno. i've not followed those sites to tell you. i think breitbart may be right leaning but that doesn't mean they're lying. feel free to find some examples of their stories they wrote that were fake/lie, and not just "wrong".

infowars and other HEY LOOK THE WORLD IS ENDING SITES!!!!

duh. but most people can walk by the national enquirer and realize aliens likely didn't take the big tittied women to the heavens and rape her with a shetland pony. i've already said "fake news" has been around since the dawn of time. my point was and has been when did it become a political weapon by the politicians.

that would be around 2016 as sharyl indicates. if you have other proof, lay it out and we'll talk about it. but its hard to call her wrong because we've had fake news before this when she says fake news has been around forever.

Okay, never mind.
.

so you can't dig back further than she has but she is wrong?

look, i don't disagree at all we've had fake news forever. that was never her point. if she's wrong give me some homework proof of it cause she has done her homework and research. she has a history of not posting "feelz" type news, but evidence, proof, and again, digging for the facts as they are, not as some would hope.

you want to discredit her, feel free. but it's going to take more than the atlanta bombing you don't like how she put to prove her wrong.

This isn't about that reporter. I made one clear point, and I can't even get people to admit it.

I have the same problem with lefties who insist that PC doesn't exist. I don't beat dead horses any more.
.

i'd argue that point too. most topics in here fall back to dead horses and we're in a lot of those topics just the same.

the point wasn't that clear. you blew off her entire work because you didn't like the first 30 seconds of it.

 

[Mac1958]

I'll try one more time. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong.

Sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and WND were labeled "fake news" in the 2010-2015 time frame for making up stories and conspiracies.

Am I right on that, or am I wrong?
.

dunno. i've not followed those sites to tell you. i think breitbart may be right leaning but that doesn't mean they're lying. feel free to find some examples of their stories they wrote that were fake/lie, and not just "wrong".

infowars and other HEY LOOK THE WORLD IS ENDING SITES!!!!

duh. but most people can walk by the national enquirer and realize aliens likely didn't take the big tittied women to the heavens and rape her with a shetland pony. i've already said "fake news" has been around since the dawn of time. my point was and has been when did it become a political weapon by the politicians.

that would be around 2016 as sharyl indicates. if you have other proof, lay it out and we'll talk about it. but its hard to call her wrong because we've had fake news before this when she says fake news has been around forever.

Okay, never mind.
.

so you can't dig back further than she has but she is wrong?

look, i don't disagree at all we've had fake news forever. that was never her point. if she's wrong give me some homework proof of it cause she has done her homework and research. she has a history of not posting "feelz" type news, but evidence, proof, and again, digging for the facts as they are, not as some would hope.

you want to discredit her, feel free. but it's going to take more than the atlanta bombing you don't like how she put to prove her wrong.

This isn't about that reporter. I made one clear point, and I can't even get people to admit it.

I have the same problem with lefties who insist that PC doesn't exist. I don't beat dead horses any more.
.

i'd argue that point too. most topics in here fall back to dead horses and we're in a lot of those topics just the same.

the point wasn't that clear. you blew off her entire work because you didn't like the first 30 seconds of it.

Again, this isn't about that reporter.

I'm out of words. This place blows my mind.
.