A guide for parsing the news and propaganda from liberal to conservative

[JakeStarkey]

No, sakigago, I did not reset the goal. You did just above. The goal of course requires being informed on what all the sites are posting. The hard left and the alt right cucks prefer their own little echo chambers.

And you make a googfy "all leftist statement" about the minimalist groupings. Trot along.

 

[sakinago]

The following description makes some sense from Liberal Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories to Conservative Utter Garbage/Liberal Theories. I am interested what board members think of the Mainstream (minimal partisan bias) list: The Wall Street Journal, etc.

Sorry Jake, I just noticed that you intended for this to be a clean discussion.

I don't really have a problem with the graph on strictly partisan terms. It's not an issue that I am overly sensitive to.

Thanks for that. Partisanship I understand. The purveyance of deliberate 'fake news' should be abhorrent in our society.

We live in a free society, if you disagree with something someone has written you are free to ignore it or speak out against it. But I find witch hunts abhorrent and can not tolerate any attempts to silence people and you are not free to do so.

No one is silencing anyone, but people have the right to feel confident in what they are reading or hearing or studying. An informed, objective voter is the heart of a successful election. We saw a failure and the result of that failure.

Where is the right to feel that in the constitution? There's a reason free speech is the first amendment and its right here.

Where were all the calls of fake news when all we heard for months was hands up don't shoot, and that wasn't the case at all? Where were the calls of fake news when it was just a random protest over an obscure video no one saw on YouTube? There's a reason 67% of Americans don't trust mainstream media anymore. Fake news is just a buzzword for the main stream media so they can try to tell people "only listen to us."

And to the trump people mocking the left for the buzzword "fake news", y'all were doing the same thing weeks before the election. Simple matter is, people have to figure out for themselves where their news is coming from, and do they're own due diligence, not regurgitate every little phrase they hear.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again, you ask a question that has nothing to do with the OP.

When you do, I can continue the convo with you, sag.

 

[sakinago]

Once again, you ask a question that has nothing to do with the OP.

When you do, I can continue the convo with you, sag.

Fake news didn't get trump elected, that's a ridiculous claim. No one cared about the fake moon landing conspiracies till now.

What question has nothing to do with the OP? You're OP is suggesting that this is a new trend, and suggesting that government should have some sort of control on what they think is real news...do you really want trump to have that power? I sure as hell don't. You're OP is also claiming that your chart is the truth, when it's nothing more than opinion. And news flash 67% of the country does not trust those "minimal bias" outlets...or are they just uninformed voters? These are all fair subjects to your OP. You brought them up.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

How does my OP suggested this is a "new" trend? You are not as good with language as you seem to believe. And the way 'you' believe is immaterial to me.

One needs to be well read in order to parse the propaganda, particularly the level that the alt right displayed in this election.

Uninformed readers? You better believe it. They don't read enough.

You may have your opinion, of course, but you are not the judge what may be a fair subject in this thread. I am.

 

[sakinago]

How does my OP suggested this is a "new" trend? You are not as good with language as you seem to believe. And the way 'you' believe is immaterial to me.

One needs to be well read in order to parse the propaganda, particularly the level that the alt right displayed in this election.

Uninformed readers? You better believe it. They don't read enough.

You may have your opinion, of course, but you are not the judge what may be a fair subject in this thread. I am.

It's a new trend because there's word zero from the left on "fake news" pre-election...why is that? Word zero on fake news when the rolling stone rape case comes out, of course the sites that pushed that story (without zero vetting btw) as legit aren't going to call themselves fake news. The media has been failing this country for a long time. And if you consider what that graph claims as "minimal bias" your just as much in an echo chamber as the people watching Fox News say it's completely fair and balanced. If your pushing the same narrative that's suggest Hillary lost because of fake news, you're in an echo chamber. She was a terrible candidate, so was trump, but what this election has showed is that main stream media are finally (and justly) seeing the effects of what happens when you are reporting from your own bubble.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure, sak. Your analysis is screwy, and you have been unable to satisfy a reasonable man's standard for your presumption. However, if you believe the graph is wrong, fine, for what you think is immaterial to me. It is a good graph, and can stand until a better one comes along.

There were bubbles, on the left and the right, and that you can't see it is not my issue to resolve.

 

[sakinago]

Sure, sak. Your analysis is screwy, and you have been unable to satisfy a reasonable man's standard for your presumption. However, if you believe the graph is wrong, fine, for what you think is immaterial to me. It is a good graph, and can stand until a better one comes along.

There were bubbles, on the left and the right, and that you can't see it is not my issue to resolve.

67% of the country does not trust the mainstream media, how is that screwy? That's their own fault. That's also a perfect demonstration that they are operating in a bubble, yet your claiming they are "minimal bias" outlets. And your reasoning for it is an appeal to ignorance "until I see something better, this works." You're in one of those bubbles, bubbles don't need logical fallacies to maintain their point of view. The only people that need to make a graph like that, are the people pushing the fake news narrative...which is the mainstream media.

And I see them just fine as I spoke out against news outlets on the right many many times. I don't mind a bias as long as there's fairness and consistency, of which there isn't a whole lot of that when it comes to brietbart, or a lot of Fox News anchors. Your really reaching out on the claim I don't see it. I don't buy a lot of stuff I hear, I try to verify. One of the things I did buy from main stream media, is that trump was probably going to lose...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[martybegan]

The following description makes some sense from Liberal Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories to Conservative Utter Garbage/Liberal Theories. I am interested what board members think of the Mainstream (minimal partisan bias) list: The Wall Street Journal, etc.

That Briebart is with infowars, and Occupy democrats isnt off the left side of the chart shows this for what it is, more left partisan attempts at equivocation.

And CNN in the center? Really? The Times in the center, Really?

Worthless Chart is Worthless.

Breitbart and Infowars are in the pink on the Right and so is Occupy Democrats on the left.

Either you can't read a chart of you are being deliberately a deliverer of 'fake news.'

The defenders of the Fake News of the conservatives are loud this morning.

How is Briebart "fake" news. briebart doesn't shy away from the fact that it is biased, but to put it at the level of infowars and Occupy democrats is proof of bias in the chart, even if puitting CNN and the Times in the "middle" isn't enough of a giveaway.

The chart is more fake than Briebart ever is.

I mean...brietbart was so pro trump, they actually teamed up with the Hillary camp to go after trumps main competitors during the nomination. And now their CEO is a chief of staff... that's pretty unheard of. Their chief editor left because of how biased it was. Trump could punch a lady in the face, and brietbart would be asking "Why didn't the secret service stop this women from charging into trumps fist?"


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Having a bias does not make something "fake news". And at least Briebart doesn't claim it is neutral, like many MSM organizations do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty understands the media situation far better than Sak: strange things do occur.

 

[sakinago]

The following description makes some sense from Liberal Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories to Conservative Utter Garbage/Liberal Theories. I am interested what board members think of the Mainstream (minimal partisan bias) list: The Wall Street Journal, etc.

That Briebart is with infowars, and Occupy democrats isnt off the left side of the chart shows this for what it is, more left partisan attempts at equivocation.

And CNN in the center? Really? The Times in the center, Really?

Worthless Chart is Worthless.

Breitbart and Infowars are in the pink on the Right and so is Occupy Democrats on the left.

Either you can't read a chart of you are being deliberately a deliverer of 'fake news.'

The defenders of the Fake News of the conservatives are loud this morning.

How is Briebart "fake" news. briebart doesn't shy away from the fact that it is biased, but to put it at the level of infowars and Occupy democrats is proof of bias in the chart, even if puitting CNN and the Times in the "middle" isn't enough of a giveaway.

The chart is more fake than Briebart ever is.

I mean...brietbart was so pro trump, they actually teamed up with the Hillary camp to go after trumps main competitors during the nomination. And now their CEO is a chief of staff... that's pretty unheard of. Their chief editor left because of how biased it was. Trump could punch a lady in the face, and brietbart would be asking "Why didn't the secret service stop this women from charging into trumps fist?"


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Having a bias does not make something "fake news". And at least Briebart doesn't claim it is neutral, like many MSM organizations do.

Unless you're on the right, then you're lumped in to fake news. Brietbart is just as misleading as the mainstream, just in the other direction. Fake news is just a buzzword the left is pushing to try to regain a hold on the public without changing their MO. Fake news is nothing new, it's been going on since the Gutenberg printing press. Fake news is also pushed out by the mainstream media often (see Muslim women claims trump supporters verbally assaulted her on NY subway), but they'd never utter that term when referring to themselves. But have no problem attributing it to outlets on the right. Again it's up to the American public to vet for themselves, and only listening to the mainstream media isn't good enough, as 67% of the public have already decided.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

sak, have fun, but you have missed the point of the OP.

 

[sakinago]

sak, have fun, but you have missed the point of the OP.

I get the point of the OP...and the point of the entire narrative here, more so than you do. The goal of this narrative is to show cases of clearly hoax news stories that were click bait stories, then lump in real news sites with a right leaning bias into fake news sites. Then they say see we told you first, we exposed all this misleading propaganda to you, so you should trust us. Then they say you have a right not to be tricked by these stories, we should do something about it...would you be so kind to give the answer jake of what should be done about it?

Biased news publications have been around forever, that's not at all a problem. You create a problem for yourself as a news outlet when you try to market yourself as minimal bias, even though it's obviously not the case.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you don't, sak, as that has been shown above. You amuse me. You can't simply admit you did not get it at first. That's OK.

 

[sakinago]

No, you don't, sak, as that has been shown above. You amuse me. You can't simply admit you did not get it at first. That's OK.

Look at my first post on this thread


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you don't, sak, as that has been shown above. You amuse me. You can't simply admit you did not get it at first. That's OK.

Look at my first post on this thread Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have, and, nope. Let it go, sak.

 

[sakinago]

No, you don't, sak, as that has been shown above. You amuse me. You can't simply admit you did not get it at first. That's OK.

Look at my first post on this thread Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have, and, nope. Let it go, sak.

Let what go? Your OP is not a doctoral thesis, it's an often repeated subject. Stop acting like it is, and don't act like child in response to what you don't like to hear. This fake projection of superiority, the name calling straight out of middle school, the power tripping over content you'll allow, it's all a childish tantrum. So enlighten me, or grow up.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let what go? Your OP is not a doctoral thesis, it's an often repeated subject. Stop acting like it is, and don't act like child in response to what you don't like to hear. This fake projection of superiority, the name calling straight out of middle school, the power tripping over content you'll allow, it's all a childish tantrum. So enlighten me, or grow up.

Quit acting as if you are savant on the matter, for you are not any sort of authority on the matter.

 

[sakinago]

Let what go? Your OP is not a doctoral thesis, it's an often repeated subject. Stop acting like it is, and don't act like child in response to what you don't like to hear. This fake projection of superiority, the name calling straight out of middle school, the power tripping over content you'll allow, it's all a childish tantrum. So enlighten me, or grow up.

Quit acting as if you are savant on the matter, for you are not any sort of authority on the matter.

I'm using actual statistics, and known facts to back up what I say, not charts based on opinion. It doesn't take a savant to know that the news pushes flashy stories with conflict since they're ratings based. You don't have to be psychic to know "minimal bias" outlets happen to be full of democratic donors, and often attend their fundraisers. And if you take a breath and think for a second, you'll realize that this isn't a new trend, fake news has been around forever, biased outlets have been around forever. It's just a different agenda being pushed at this specific time, ask yourself why.

You said people have the right to know the info their getting isn't fake, what's your suggestion to insure that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let what go? Your OP is not a doctoral thesis, it's an often repeated subject. Stop acting like it is, and don't act like child in response to what you don't like to hear. This fake projection of superiority, the name calling straight out of middle school, the power tripping over content you'll allow, it's all a childish tantrum. So enlighten me, or grow up.

Quit acting as if you are savant on the matter, for you are not any sort of authority on the matter.

I'm using actual statistics, and known facts to back up what I say, not charts based on opinion. It doesn't take a savant to know that the news pushes flashy stories with conflict since they're ratings based. You don't have to be psychic to know "minimal bias" outlets happen to be full of democratic donors, and often attend their fundraisers. And if you take a breath and think for a second, you'll realize that this isn't a new trend, fake news has been around forever, biased outlets have been around forever. It's just a different agenda being pushed at this specific time, ask yourself why.

You said people have the right to know the info their getting isn't fake, what's your suggestion to insure that?

Your interp of such, sure. I have already answered you question. You simply don't like being told to reconsider your theory. Many grad students don't.