A Great Example of False Journalism

[there4eyeM]

Hmm....being mayor of Dagsboro, Delaware is equivalent to being President of the most powerful and influential country that has ever existed, and our expectations of transparency and assurances regarding conflicts of interest are the same?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Slightly more voters find the White House more truthful than the media, according to the latest Fox News Poll.

In addition, most feel the press is tougher on President Trump than it was on President Obama. But that may be a positive development, as a majority thinks aggressive coverage of the presidency is good for the country.

By a slim 45-42 percent margin, more voters say they trust the Trump administration to “tell the public the truth” than the reporters who cover the White House. Ten percent say neither.

READ THE FULL POLL RESULTS

The poll, released Friday, was conducted Saturday through Monday evenings. That was before Trump told reporters at a press conference Thursday, “the public doesn’t believe you people anymore.”

Expand / Contract


The Fox poll last asked a similar question in June 2006. At that time, “news reporters” were more trusted than “government officials” by a 40-25 percent margin, with 26 percent saying neither.

Some 68 percent think the press has been “tougher” on Trump than Obama. That’s more than three times the number who think reporters are giving him an “easier” time (18 percent). Another 12 percent see treatment of the two as the same.

Expand / Contract


People want tough press coverage. A majority, 55 percent, thinks it’s better for the country if the news media “cover the president aggressively.” Thirty-eight percent feel it would be better if reporters gave the president the “benefit of the doubt.”

There are the expected partisan differences. Eight in 10 Republicans (81 percent) trust the Trump administration more to tell the truth, while roughly the same portion of Democrats trust the media (79 percent). Independents are twice as likely to put their faith in Trump as the press (52-26 percent), while 16 percent say neither.

Almost all Republicans (92 percent) and most independents (74 percent) perceive coverage as tougher on Trump. Some Democrats agree: 42 percent say it’s been tougher, 34 percent easier, and 21 percent the same.

If you average the numbers in this chart: 31% trust the media. Democrats much moreso than others.


Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

 

[there4eyeM]

Trusting the media is for those too lazy to think. The most the media have ever served is to give a sense of what is happening. It is then to the reader to educate him/her self on an issue. A lot of news can be gleaned, for example, from threads here on USMB. No one message can be 'trusted', but put them together and a reasonable impression can be gleaned.

 

[Slade3200]

Trusting the media is for those too lazy to think. The most the media have ever served is to give a sense of what is happening. It is then to the reader to educate him/her self on an issue. A lot of news can be gleaned, for example, from threads here on USMB. No one message can be 'trusted', but put them together and a reasonable impression can be gleaned.

Agreed... so with that considered do you think the ops premise that the CNN story is fake?

 

[there4eyeM]

Trusting the media is for those too lazy to think. The most the media have ever served is to give a sense of what is happening. It is then to the reader to educate him/her self on an issue. A lot of news can be gleaned, for example, from threads here on USMB. No one message can be 'trusted', but put them together and a reasonable impression can be gleaned.

Agreed... so with that considered do you think the ops premise that the CNN story is fake?

Seeing how the current debate is going and how information has been so distorted in every sense (and it is far from clear what is going on with conflicts of interest due to lack of clarification on the President's part), no, it does not qualify as fake news..

 

[Slade3200]

Trusting the media is for those too lazy to think. The most the media have ever served is to give a sense of what is happening. It is then to the reader to educate him/her self on an issue. A lot of news can be gleaned, for example, from threads here on USMB. No one message can be 'trusted', but put them together and a reasonable impression can be gleaned.

Agreed... so with that considered do you think the ops premise that the CNN story is fake?

Seeing how the current debate is going and how information has been so distorted in every sense (and it is far from clear what is going on with conflicts of interest due to lack of clarification on the President's part), no, it does not qualify as fake news..

Agreed. We should all be skeptical of the news, vet it, and demand more honesty... but it is also quite dangerous to label everything that doesn't fall in line with our political agendas as "fake news". Too many are doing this as of late

 

[Mac1958]

The media has been outed, but they're still too enclosed in their vacuum to see it.

Worse, they're the only ones who can fix this.
.

 

[there4eyeM]

Having worked in journalism, and having seen the problems inherent, it is clear that the image and impression people had and have of the media is unrealistic.

 

[Spare_change]

Last time I checked Trump didn't divest from his businesses he just removed himself as the person in charge. You surely can find better examples to make your point. This one was a big swing and a miss

Quit whining --- you guys just grasp at straws.

He is an INDIVIDUAL - as such, he cannot be issued a trademark.

You fools are so easily misled. If I owned stock in Trump International, does that mean that I was issued a trademark????????

Haha, if you are Donald Trump and Trimp International got a trademark then I think it's fair to say that Donnie got it. You pick a strange arguement

My point is not the issue of the trademark ... my point is that the story written portrays false facts. Trump himself can NOT get a trademark - only his company can. By portraying it as he did, the writer is attempting to lead the reader to believe that Trump got some quid pro quo (thus leading you to think that he must have given China something in order to get something).

So, in effect, the writer has led you to believe a false fact. You will notice that, in the article cited, the author is very aware of what he is doing ... he says "Donald Trump and his company..." But, we know only the company got the trademark as, obviously, does the writer. Frankly, it's a pretty amateurish attempt - his journalism professor would not be proud.

To further explain .... there is "false" journalism and "yellow" journalism. False journalism gives you false facts in an attempt to lead you to a false conclusion. Yellow journalism is an attempt to taint (thus, the "yellow") true facts to influence you to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.

"Donald Trump received a trademark" is a false fact - thus, false journalism.

"Nancy Pelosi, the much ridiculed minority leader in the House, claims that the floods in California are a direct result of global warming.". The use of the phrase "... much ridiculed leader... " is an attempt to influence your belief in Pelosi's credibility.

 

[Spare_change]

From CNN:

Under the headline:

China grants Trump a trademark he's been seeking for a decade
The Chinese government has granted President Trump and his business something they had been seeking for more than a decade: trademark protection for the use of the Trump name in the construction industry.

We, of course, know this is false. President Trump doesn't have any businesses, so HE can't be granted a trademark. Trump's sons are running the company, so THEIR company got the trademark.

Further, we know that Chinese trademarks are only assigned to companies, so HE can't be granted a trademark.

CNN has intentionally distorted the story to give you an entirely different perception of reality.

A fine example of distorting the truth in order to further a political agenda.

China grants Trump a trademark he's been seeking for a decade

You are false. Trump has not completely divested from all of his businesses which is why he has violated the Emolument amendment of the Constitution since day one.
Which makes your claim of CNN " intentionally distorting " the story more than funny.
Don't believe me ? ... here's your fuhrer proclaiming he won't. Lol
Trump says won't divest from his business while president

What is hilarious to me is that leftards and neocons are so use to career politicians that have been sucking off the public teat that they can't comprehend the fact that Trump doesn't need the money from this job nor does he need to use this position to enrich himself. According to leftard logic? The mayor of a town or the governor of a state that has a business has to sell it "post haste"....how fucking stupid is that? If Trump uses his position to give contracts to his business? Then (and only then) you can bitch and I will join you....until then? You are simply behaving like a whiny little bitch.

Any opinion on the false claim from the OP of the fake news story?

The story stands ... your ignorance doesn't.

The story that your OP claimed was fake news stands? Do you even know what you are arguing for anymore?

Yep --- I know exactly what I'm arguing for. My journalism professors would be proud.

 

[Spare_change]

Hmm....being mayor of Dagsboro, Delaware is equivalent to being President of the most powerful and influential country that has ever existed, and our expectations of transparency and assurances regarding conflicts of interest are the same?

Damn well should be ....

 

[Spare_change]

Trusting the media is for those too lazy to think. The most the media have ever served is to give a sense of what is happening. It is then to the reader to educate him/her self on an issue. A lot of news can be gleaned, for example, from threads here on USMB. No one message can be 'trusted', but put them together and a reasonable impression can be gleaned.

Agreed... so with that considered do you think the ops premise that the CNN story is fake?

Seeing how the current debate is going and how information has been so distorted in every sense (and it is far from clear what is going on with conflicts of interest due to lack of clarification on the President's part), no, it does not qualify as fake news..

Agreed. We should all be skeptical of the news, vet it, and demand more honesty... but it is also quite dangerous to label everything that doesn't fall in line with our political agendas as "fake news". Too many are doing this as of late

Most wouldn't recognize "fake news" if it hit them upside the head.

You will notice I didn't call this fake news ... because it isn't. It is, however, a classic example of false journalism.

 

[Spare_change]

Trusting the media is for those too lazy to think. The most the media have ever served is to give a sense of what is happening. It is then to the reader to educate him/her self on an issue. A lot of news can be gleaned, for example, from threads here on USMB. No one message can be 'trusted', but put them together and a reasonable impression can be gleaned.

Agreed... so with that considered do you think the ops premise that the CNN story is fake?

Seeing how the current debate is going and how information has been so distorted in every sense (and it is far from clear what is going on with conflicts of interest due to lack of clarification on the President's part), no, it does not qualify as fake news..

It is not fake news ... fake news is a made-up story for which no facts exist.

False journalism is a misrepresentation of the facts in play.

Yellow journalism is a distortion of the facts.

 

[Spare_change]

Slightly more voters find the White House more truthful than the media, according to the latest Fox News Poll.

In addition, most feel the press is tougher on President Trump than it was on President Obama. But that may be a positive development, as a majority thinks aggressive coverage of the presidency is good for the country.

By a slim 45-42 percent margin, more voters say they trust the Trump administration to “tell the public the truth” than the reporters who cover the White House. Ten percent say neither.

READ THE FULL POLL RESULTS

The poll, released Friday, was conducted Saturday through Monday evenings. That was before Trump told reporters at a press conference Thursday, “the public doesn’t believe you people anymore.”

Expand / Contract


The Fox poll last asked a similar question in June 2006. At that time, “news reporters” were more trusted than “government officials” by a 40-25 percent margin, with 26 percent saying neither.

Some 68 percent think the press has been “tougher” on Trump than Obama. That’s more than three times the number who think reporters are giving him an “easier” time (18 percent). Another 12 percent see treatment of the two as the same.

Expand / Contract


People want tough press coverage. A majority, 55 percent, thinks it’s better for the country if the news media “cover the president aggressively.” Thirty-eight percent feel it would be better if reporters gave the president the “benefit of the doubt.”

There are the expected partisan differences. Eight in 10 Republicans (81 percent) trust the Trump administration more to tell the truth, while roughly the same portion of Democrats trust the media (79 percent). Independents are twice as likely to put their faith in Trump as the press (52-26 percent), while 16 percent say neither.

Almost all Republicans (92 percent) and most independents (74 percent) perceive coverage as tougher on Trump. Some Democrats agree: 42 percent say it’s been tougher, 34 percent easier, and 21 percent the same.

If you average the numbers in this chart: 31% trust the media. Democrats much moreso than others.


Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

Given that the media is in the tank for Democrats, I find the split unsurprising.

If you want to have somebody like you, say what he wants to hear.