CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[Circe]

The "old" standard remain. New standards have been added to them. There's nothing amiss about that.

Oh, Xelor --- are you saying you are HAPPY about the catastrophe that has happened to news reporting? It is your thread --- are you on the side of there being no problem at all with "fake news"?

ON EDIT --- whoops, it's Foxfyre's thread, sorry Foxfyre. I errored......I gather from a post or two here that we are now verbing "error"?

 

[usmbguest5318]

The "old" standard remain. New standards have been added to them. There's nothing amiss about that.

Oh, Xelor --- are you saying you are HAPPY about the catastrophe that has happened to news reporting? It is your thread --- are you on the side of there being no problem at all with "fake news"?

are you saying you are HAPPY about the catastrophe that has happened to news reporting?

No.

It is your thread

No, it isn't.

 

[usmbguest5318]

it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

Interpretation of what the facts imply, portend, contradict, etc. is by definition commentary on the news. As commentary, it is not news; thus it is neither fake news nor not-fake news. As it's not news at all, what it is is something other than news. It's not even trying to be news, yet folks who call it seem to think otherwise and make themselves look asinine by calling it fake news.

"Fake news" is a new idiom: you don't like idioms, or maybe the amazingly rapid changes in language going on now? As a descriptionist, not a prescriptionist, re language, I love the new language usages, most of them. I don't like "pornstache," which I saw just this month of December in TWO novels sequentially! Apparently it's some kind of mustache, and I would pay money not to google a picture of that construction. Improvements in communication (the Internet) always change the language almost out of recognition, and here it goes again.

you don't like idioms, or maybe the amazingly rapid changes in language going on now?

I'm okay with idioms.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The "old" standard remain. New standards have been added to them. There's nothing amiss about that.

Oh, Xelor --- are you saying you are HAPPY about the catastrophe that has happened to news reporting? It is your thread --- are you on the side of there being no problem at all with "fake news"?

ON EDIT --- whoops, it's Foxfyre's thread, sorry Foxfyre. I errored......I gather from a post or two here that we are now verbing "error"?

NP. It happens.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I gather from a post or two here that we are now verbing "error"?

LOL.

Touché..

 

[Syriusly]

I am putting this in the CDZ as I would like a serious, civil discussion re the serious business of media coverage that is:

1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
3. Fake news in that it is information created or repeated that is patently false.

Based on posts and people recruited to be talking heads on television, it seems obvious some think this syndrome doesn't exist at all or it is purely an invention of Fox News. Others are diligently pointing out that it does exist and is mean, cruel, hateful, and detrimental to us as a society.

So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.

The poll is set so that people can change their vote if they change their mind during the discussion.

While I think that even the term "Fake News' is mostly a propaganda term used primarily by the right to discredit legitimate media so that when media reports things like Watergate that Americans won't be able to distinguish real news from Fake News- there is indeed Fake news being promoted by the Media.

One of the prime examples was Fox New's story alleging Seth Rich who was murdered- was the one who leaked the emails.

Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
Fox News' story, which took flight online and ran in segments across major shows, breathed fresh life into the rumors. Fox reported that the leaks came from inside the party and not from hackers linked to Russia — despite the conclusions of the nation's most senior intelligence officials. The network suggested that Democrats might have been connected to Rich's death and that a cover-up had thwarted the official investigation.


The network cited an unnamed FBI official. And the report relied heavily on Wheeler, a former police detective, hired months earlier on behalf of the Riches by Butowsky.

Fox's report went sideways shortly after it was posted online and aired on Fox & Friends. It was denounced by the Rich family, D.C. police, Democratic Party officials and even, privately, by some journalists within the network. Within hours, Wheeler told other news outlets that Fox News had put words in his mouth.


Despite those concerns, Wheeler appeared on the shows of Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News star Sean Hannity, who devoted significant time to the story that night and in subsequent days. In speaking with Wheeler, Hannity said: "If this is true and Seth Rich gave WikiLeaks the DNC e-mails ... this blows the whole Russia collusion narrative completely out of the water."

A week later, on May 23, Fox retracted the story, saying the reporting process failed to live up to its standards. Hannity said he would take a break from talking about Rich's death out of respect for the family.

Already posted example of Fox Fake news.

Fox is currently being sued by 'source' that Fox said it relied upon
Donald Trump Clung to ‘Birther’ Lie for Years, and Still Isn’t Apologetic
On May 16, the Fox News Channel broke what it called a "bombshell" story about an unsolved homicide: the July 2016 shooting of 27-year-old Democratic Party staffer Seth Rich.

Unfounded conspiracy theories involving Rich abounded in the months after his death, in part because WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cryptically suggested that Rich's death may have been related to the leaks of tens of thousands of emails from Democratic Party officials and their allies at the peak of the presidential campaign.

Fox News' story, which took flight online and ran in segments across major shows, breathed fresh life into the rumors. Fox reported that the leaks came from inside the party and not from hackers linked to Russia — despite the conclusions of the nation's most senior intelligence officials. The network suggested that Democrats might have been connected to Rich's death and that a cover-up had thwarted the official investigation.

The network cited an unnamed FBI official. And the report relied heavily on Wheeler, a former police detective, hired months earlier on behalf of the Riches by Butowsky.

Fox's report went sideways shortly after it was posted online and aired on Fox & Friends. It was denounced by the Rich family, D.C. police, Democratic Party officials and even, privately, by some journalists within the network. Within hours, Wheeler told other news outlets that Fox News had put words in his mouth.

Despite those concerns, Wheeler appeared on the shows of Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News star Sean Hannity, who devoted significant time to the story that night and in subsequent days. In speaking with Wheeler, Hannity said: "If this is true and Seth Rich gave WikiLeaks the DNC e-mails ... this blows the whole Russia collusion narrative completely out of the water."

A week later, on May 23, Fox retracted the story, saying the reporting process failed to live up to its standards. Hannity said he would take a break from talking about Rich's death out of respect for the family. And there it has largely stood — until now.

According to the lawsuit, Trump press secretary Sean Spicer meets at the White House with Wheeler and Butowsky to review the Rich story a month before Fox News ran the piece.

On May 14, about 36 hours before Fox News' story appears, Butowsky leaves a voicemail for Wheeler, saying, "We have the full, uh, attention of the White House on this. And tomorrow, let's close this deal, whatever we've got to do."

Butowsky also texts Wheeler: "Not to add any more pressure but the president just read the article. He wants the article out immediately. It's now all up to you."

Spicer confirms meeting with the two but denies claims about the president.

"Ed's been a longtime supporter of the president and asked to meet to catch up," Spicer tells NPR on Monday night.

Wheeler did play his own role in furthering the story. But he contends that he regretted it the same day it aired. His suit alleges Fox News defamed him by manufacturing two false quotations attributed to him and ruining his reputation by blaming him as the deceptive story fell apart

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban..

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," it said.

His campaign statements were in fact part of the basis for most of the law suits challenging his temporary ban. And you didn't mention that fact at all.

In fact- in the (Left) mainstream media, the stated reasons why Trump was ordered the temporary ban were almost always part of the lead.

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
The executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump border policy: Who's affected?
Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?
On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries
But what is the order, dubbed the "Muslim ban" by those rallying against it, and who exactly does it affect?

Here are some key points from the full text explained.

What is the order?

• 
  
  
  • It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
  • There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
  • And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension

• 
  
  
  • The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
  • Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in. And when it is dishonestly reported publicly, it becomes another example of fake news.

NBC news, uncharacteristically perhaps, did some commendable reporting in this collection of Trump statements on the subject.
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, Deportations

Fox- I appreciate the chance to discuss this in a rational forum at USMB. I deleted the other parts of your post, not to censor you, but to winnow out your opinion on who Trump is to get back to the ban.

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in.

You are not supporting this claim. Nor are you really responding to my post. I pointed out that the actual news articles after Trump announced his bans generally did report it accurately- and that the news articles themselves didn't call it a 'racial' thing. I posted two citations with examples to show my point.

Generally the news cited what Trump actually said- accurately reporting what Trump said was the intention of his ban. Now many people in the United States disagreed with Trump- accurately also mentioning Trump's campaign rhetoric where he promised to ban all Muslims from coming to the United States- and the news often quoted those people- which is just covering both sides of the story.

I have mentioned my doubts about the ban itself in earlier posts- but I think it would be better for the discussion if we stayed away from policy disputes- and instead focused on the topic- which is generally 'fake news'.

So was there 'Fake News' generated about the ban? Yes it was called by many a Muslim ban- but that came either from editorial pieces- which of course are not the news- or from those who opposed Trump's policies- and whom the newspapers quoted and reported. That doesn't make it "Fake News".

You have made a claim that: But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

So far this appears to be only your unsubstantiated opinion. Personally I think it displays a bias on your part. Because of your terms 'most' and 'almost no mention'- AND because you left out the reason why so many considered this to be part of a bigger plan- Trump's own campaign rhetoric.

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, fake news is not necessarily made up news. You can be 100% accurate in reporting but if you report in a way to give the reader/audience a false impression, it then becomes fake news. To take one statement of context and made a huge deal out of it after many other statements significantly qualify that one is just plain dishonest. No honorable, ethical journalist would do it. Instead he/she should report that 'the President raised eyebrows today when he said (whatever)' but it should be noted that he subsequently expanded on the comment with qualifications of. . . .

Putting out the first sentence with no qualifications is accurate, but dishonest nevertheless. When there is a back story that provides context, it must always be included when we know that an extemporaneous statement is not what somebody likely intended.

It was like when President Obama said something to the effect that John McCain had not questioned his Muslim faith, George Stephanopoulos quickly corrected him, "your Christian faith" and then Obama corrected himself. Stephanopoulos knew Muslim faith is not what the President intended to say and he made sure that the statement did not become the story. That is responsible journalism.

Some who have never believed President Obama was a Christian might speculate on that as a Freudian slip and the unethical would even take the one comment out of its full context and present it that way. Honorable people, however, leave room for the fact that it was in inadvertent misspeak in an extemporaneous response.



Another example I think somebody already provided.

When a tired President Obama on the campaign trail quipped that he had visited 57 states with three or four more to go, honorable people might tease him a bit about it but understood that he simply misspoke. (He actually meant 27 states.) The media pretty much correctly did not make any big deal out of it because most of the media supported President Obama.

But when Sarah Palin misspoke and said North Korea when any honest person would know she meant South Korea, the media and pundits were vicious in their rush to condemn her as clueless, ignorant, uneducated, etc. etc. etc. And again their criticism was using an actual quote from her but dishonestly used it to attack and discredit Palin.

So you can be accurate and report an actual event but report it dishonestly and with malice. And in so doing it becomes fake news.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am putting this in the CDZ as I would like a serious, civil discussion re the serious business of media coverage that is:

1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
3. Fake news in that it is information created or repeated that is patently false.

Based on posts and people recruited to be talking heads on television, it seems obvious some think this syndrome doesn't exist at all or it is purely an invention of Fox News. Others are diligently pointing out that it does exist and is mean, cruel, hateful, and detrimental to us as a society.

So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.

The poll is set so that people can change their vote if they change their mind during the discussion.

While I think that even the term "Fake News' is mostly a propaganda term used primarily by the right to discredit legitimate media so that when media reports things like Watergate that Americans won't be able to distinguish real news from Fake News- there is indeed Fake news being promoted by the Media.

One of the prime examples was Fox New's story alleging Seth Rich who was murdered- was the one who leaked the emails.

Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
Fox News' story, which took flight online and ran in segments across major shows, breathed fresh life into the rumors. Fox reported that the leaks came from inside the party and not from hackers linked to Russia — despite the conclusions of the nation's most senior intelligence officials. The network suggested that Democrats might have been connected to Rich's death and that a cover-up had thwarted the official investigation.


The network cited an unnamed FBI official. And the report relied heavily on Wheeler, a former police detective, hired months earlier on behalf of the Riches by Butowsky.

Fox's report went sideways shortly after it was posted online and aired on Fox & Friends. It was denounced by the Rich family, D.C. police, Democratic Party officials and even, privately, by some journalists within the network. Within hours, Wheeler told other news outlets that Fox News had put words in his mouth.


Despite those concerns, Wheeler appeared on the shows of Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News star Sean Hannity, who devoted significant time to the story that night and in subsequent days. In speaking with Wheeler, Hannity said: "If this is true and Seth Rich gave WikiLeaks the DNC e-mails ... this blows the whole Russia collusion narrative completely out of the water."

A week later, on May 23, Fox retracted the story, saying the reporting process failed to live up to its standards. Hannity said he would take a break from talking about Rich's death out of respect for the family.

Already posted example of Fox Fake news.

Fox is currently being sued by 'source' that Fox said it relied upon
Donald Trump Clung to ‘Birther’ Lie for Years, and Still Isn’t Apologetic
On May 16, the Fox News Channel broke what it called a "bombshell" story about an unsolved homicide: the July 2016 shooting of 27-year-old Democratic Party staffer Seth Rich.

Unfounded conspiracy theories involving Rich abounded in the months after his death, in part because WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cryptically suggested that Rich's death may have been related to the leaks of tens of thousands of emails from Democratic Party officials and their allies at the peak of the presidential campaign.

Fox News' story, which took flight online and ran in segments across major shows, breathed fresh life into the rumors. Fox reported that the leaks came from inside the party and not from hackers linked to Russia — despite the conclusions of the nation's most senior intelligence officials. The network suggested that Democrats might have been connected to Rich's death and that a cover-up had thwarted the official investigation.

The network cited an unnamed FBI official. And the report relied heavily on Wheeler, a former police detective, hired months earlier on behalf of the Riches by Butowsky.

Fox's report went sideways shortly after it was posted online and aired on Fox & Friends. It was denounced by the Rich family, D.C. police, Democratic Party officials and even, privately, by some journalists within the network. Within hours, Wheeler told other news outlets that Fox News had put words in his mouth.

Despite those concerns, Wheeler appeared on the shows of Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News star Sean Hannity, who devoted significant time to the story that night and in subsequent days. In speaking with Wheeler, Hannity said: "If this is true and Seth Rich gave WikiLeaks the DNC e-mails ... this blows the whole Russia collusion narrative completely out of the water."

A week later, on May 23, Fox retracted the story, saying the reporting process failed to live up to its standards. Hannity said he would take a break from talking about Rich's death out of respect for the family. And there it has largely stood — until now.

According to the lawsuit, Trump press secretary Sean Spicer meets at the White House with Wheeler and Butowsky to review the Rich story a month before Fox News ran the piece.

On May 14, about 36 hours before Fox News' story appears, Butowsky leaves a voicemail for Wheeler, saying, "We have the full, uh, attention of the White House on this. And tomorrow, let's close this deal, whatever we've got to do."

Butowsky also texts Wheeler: "Not to add any more pressure but the president just read the article. He wants the article out immediately. It's now all up to you."

Spicer confirms meeting with the two but denies claims about the president.

"Ed's been a longtime supporter of the president and asked to meet to catch up," Spicer tells NPR on Monday night.

Wheeler did play his own role in furthering the story. But he contends that he regretted it the same day it aired. His suit alleges Fox News defamed him by manufacturing two false quotations attributed to him and ruining his reputation by blaming him as the deceptive story fell apart

Fox may indeed have been chasing shadows and ghosts in that story--we don't know who shot Seth Rich or why do we?--but the fact that all his personal possessions were still with his body does suggest that the robbery motive theory isn't really solid either. Fox used all on the record sources for their reports and did not target anybody specifically.

We can have legitimate and valid disagreement on whether they should have spent so much time and effort on any particular story, but they were not engaging in fake news. Others may have taken their reports and made fake news out of them, but Fox I do not believe was guilty of fake news in that story. If you can find statements put out by Fox that were deliberately false or misleading by all means post them and if valid, I will acknowledge them.

Commentary by others who don't like Fox News, without direct quotations/video in full context, doesn't qualify as credible witness.

 

[Circe]

So you don't trust any of it anymore.
So you don't believe any of the news about anything anymore.

The news reported about a horrible Amtrak accident outside of Seattle last week- do you not trust that?

What do you do- exactly- to stay 'informed'?

The news about the train derailment was not political, so I do trust it. MOST news has a political component now, and so is slanted and completely useless. So are a lot of other topics, such as how wonderful it is supposed to be that Muslims are swarming into Europe and Burma and Thailand etc., etc., and blowing things up. Or climate change: that doesn't even exist but it's wildly political "news." Or whole tranny families, that's somehow political. Supposed to be a wonderful thing by the left, no doubt.

What do I do to stay "informed"? (I am wondering why you put quotes around that word: an insult, presumably, implying that as I'm on the right I am unlikely to be informed about anything.) Glad you asked that.

On November 9, 2016, I woke to the sad fact that the whole entire news media and all its minions, such as pollsters and columnists, had been lying to me all year. I was happy Trump won, of course, but seriously traumatized by loss of trust in institutions I had believed in, like American journalism. I know, more fool me, but I had trusted them --- I had done half an hour of math every week all late summer with the RealClearPolitics polls, and it turned out they were one and all totally wrong.

So I made some rules about what NOT to do anymore.

1. No more polls: ever. Stop reading any article that refers to a poll.
2. Any columnist who rails obscenely or viciously about Trump or anyone else is a villain: never read them again.
3. I canceled some seven periodicals, and they all deserved it.
4. Never read any article about naked savages: they put in stuff about fights between herders in Nigeria and the presidential runoff in Mongolia (yes! I saw that headline!) because of the hunger of the 24/7 news cycle and their need to capture and keep our eyes to sell stuff to us.
5. Never read any article about two-headed babies: I mean all the pieces about lurid disgusting stuff that is just clickbait for stupids. I'm not that stupid.
6. Never watch cable or network news: it's an incredible time waste and also propaganda.
7. Any article with "will" in the headline, don't read: nobody knows the future, so they're just lying timewasters.

So what DO I do? I have subscribed to a number of heavy rightward periodicals with think pieces, like American Affairs and the New Criterion. Not really satisfying the news addiction, though. Too many publications are leftwing or right anti-Trump, so the heck with them. I do read the Wall Street Journal; the politics are quite unreliable but the business news is interesting.
Mainly, I try to not be so addicted to news. Why care? We are mainly interested in terror attacks and big death events, and we can satisfy our curiosity pretty quickly about those.

Okay, I'm very upset about news ethics having collapsed, and I have no good personal solution so far. It's a betrayal. I figure it will continue to degrade until some big political event occurs splitting the two sides.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If the fake news would be 50/50 for dem and repub it would be one thing, but finding fake news from CNN about Obama is about as rare as finding water on Mars. With all fake news being against Trump. it becomes a bias. Which we knew about already.

Nobody errors 100% for one side or the other. That's no longer an error when its 100% against one candidate or person.

LOL- there was plenty of Fake News about Obama- from Fox and Infowars and Breitbart. Just as there is Fake News from Fox in support of Trump.

Certainly there is a bias CNN against Trump- just as Fox has a huge bias towards Trump.

Has CNN or Fox erred 100% for one side or another? Or is it that Trump only notices when the error makes him look bad?

Please post some of the 'fake news' from Fox. We have been posting examples from other media entities, so surely you can easily find an example or two to expose Fox?

• Not what you requested, but worth including -- Fox News' Shepard Smith: 'Why is it lie after lie after lie?' on Russia meeting
  
• This Is How Fox News Brainwashes Its Viewers: Our In-Depth Investigation of the Propaganda Cycle

Please post some of the 'fake news' from Fox.

• Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
  • Source behind Fox News' Seth Rich 'scoop' was apparently fed the story by Fox News' reporter
  • https://nypost.com/2017/08/01/fox-news-accused-of-making-up-quotes-in-dnc-murder-story/
    
  • Fox News is defending its Seth Rich murder story after retracting fake news article
    
  • Fox News allegedly made fake news to protect Trump
    
  • Lawsuit: President Trump reviewed bogus Fox News story before its release
• At Fox News, the Colonel Who Wasn't
  
• Retired ‘Navy SEAL’ praising Trump on Fox News was a fake
  
  • Glass artist who claimed to be a Navy SEAL exposed after appearing on Fox News
• Video footage manipulation
  
• 50 Fox News lies in one minute
  
  
• MSNBC, Fox, CNN move the needle on our Truth-O-Meter scorecards
  
• Fox News Sued for the Right to Lie
• 
  
  
• Fox News Falsely Warned People Of An Upcoming "Antifa Apocalypse"
  
• Fox News’ Shepard Smith debunks his network’s Hillary Clinton “uranium scandal” story, infuriates viewers – The Denver Post
  
• #FoxNewsFacts Trends Worldwide After Fox 'Expert' Completely Makes Up Fake Story
  
• Fox News Interview With Fake Expert on Sweden Further Baffles Swedes
  
  • http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/20/donal...error-attack-based-on-fox-news-story-6459840/
    
  • http://www.news.com.au/world/presid...y/news-story/22c2657d96f0c1c778b24b8501a377a9
• http://politicaldig.com/fox-news-ma...mp-look-good-twitter-users-respond-viciously/
  
• Fox News claimed Morgan Freeman made racist remarks.
  
  
  
  
  
  Click here to find out what Morgan Freeman in fact said.
• https://thinkprogress.org/fox-fudge...ieves-scientists-falsify-global-170f67d5b5c3/
• https://thinkprogress.org/foxs-fuzz...pport-palin-huckabee-and-romney-6b5293868b6f/
• Screen shots of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox covering the shooting in AZ
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  
  

 

[Circe]

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, fake news is not necessarily made up news. You can be 100% accurate in reporting but if you report in a way to give the reader/audience a specific impression, it then becomes fake news. To take one statement of context and made a huge deal out of it after many other statements significantly qualify that one is just plain dishonest. No honorable, ethical journalist would do it. Instead he/she should report that 'the President raised eyebrows today when he said (whatever)' but it should be noted that he subsequently expanded on the comment....

It seems perfectly simple to me, since the election. Fake news is propaganda: it's a betrayal, with malice aforethought, and it's vile. All of it. I don't care what side. Both sides are doing it.

So you can be accurate and report an actual event but report it dishonestly and with malice. And in so doing it becomes fake news.

Exactly.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the fake news would be 50/50 for dem and repub it would be one thing, but finding fake news from CNN about Obama is about as rare as finding water on Mars. With all fake news being against Trump. it becomes a bias. Which we knew about already.

Nobody errors 100% for one side or the other. That's no longer an error when its 100% against one candidate or person.

LOL- there was plenty of Fake News about Obama- from Fox and Infowars and Breitbart. Just as there is Fake News from Fox in support of Trump.

Certainly there is a bias CNN against Trump- just as Fox has a huge bias towards Trump.

Has CNN or Fox erred 100% for one side or another? Or is it that Trump only notices when the error makes him look bad?

Please post some of the 'fake news' from Fox. We have been posting examples from other media entities, so surely you can easily find an example or two to expose Fox?

• Not what you requested, but worth including -- Fox News' Shepard Smith: 'Why is it lie after lie after lie?' on Russia meeting
  
• This Is How Fox News Brainwashes Its Viewers: Our In-Depth Investigation of the Propaganda Cycle

Please post some of the 'fake news' from Fox.

• Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
  • Source behind Fox News' Seth Rich 'scoop' was apparently fed the story by Fox News' reporter
  • https://nypost.com/2017/08/01/fox-news-accused-of-making-up-quotes-in-dnc-murder-story/
    
  • Fox News is defending its Seth Rich murder story after retracting fake news article
    
  • Fox News allegedly made fake news to protect Trump
    
  • Lawsuit: President Trump reviewed bogus Fox News story before its release
• At Fox News, the Colonel Who Wasn't
  
• Retired ‘Navy SEAL’ praising Trump on Fox News was a fake
  • Glass artist who claimed to be a Navy SEAL exposed after appearing on Fox News
• Video footage manipulation
  
• 50 Fox News lies in one minute
  
  
• MSNBC, Fox, CNN move the needle on our Truth-O-Meter scorecards
  
• Fox News Sued for the Right to Lie
• 
  
  
• Fox News Falsely Warned People Of An Upcoming "Antifa Apocalypse"
  
• Fox News’ Shepard Smith debunks his network’s Hillary Clinton “uranium scandal” story, infuriates viewers – The Denver Post
  
• #FoxNewsFacts Trends Worldwide After Fox 'Expert' Completely Makes Up Fake Story
  
• Fox News Interview With Fake Expert on Sweden Further Baffles Swedes
  • Donald Trump made up Sweden terror attack based on Fox News story | Metro News
    
  • Trump: ‘Last night in Sweden’
• Fox News Makes Up BS Story To Make Trump Look Good, Twitter Users Respond Viciously
  
• Fox News claimed Morgan Freeman made racist remarks.
  
  
  
  
  
  Click here to find out what Morgan Freeman in fact said.
• Fox fudges poll numbers to claim 120 percent of the public believes scientists falsify global warming data.
• Fox’s Fuzzy Math: 193 Percent Of The Public Support Palin, Huckabee, And Romney
• Screen shots of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox covering the shooting in AZ
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  
  

Forgive me but your first two links were so off putting as evidence of fake news, I didn't bother to look at any of the others. I don't want pundit or Trump hater's opinions of fake news please. And whether or not Trump lies is the stuff of opinion, not evidence of fake news.

Give me the links to actual reports and show how they were misleading or dishonest with real evidence, not somebody's opinion. And if these could be presented in some manageable form instead of a wall of 'stuff', that would be appreciated.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, fake news is not necessarily made up news. You can be 100% accurate in reporting but if you report in a way to give the reader/audience a specific impression, it then becomes fake news. To take one statement of context and made a huge deal out of it after many other statements significantly qualify that one is just plain dishonest. No honorable, ethical journalist would do it. Instead he/she should report that 'the President raised eyebrows today when he said (whatever)' but it should be noted that he subsequently expanded on the comment....

It seems perfectly simple to me, since the election. Fake news is propaganda: it's a betrayal, with malice aforethought, and it's vile. All of it. I don't care what side. Both sides are doing it.

So you can be accurate and report an actual event but report it dishonestly and with malice. And in so doing it becomes fake news.

Exactly.

Yes there are numbnuts and idiots on all sides of the sociopolitical spectrum and they all spout a lot of nonsense and garbage. But when so much of the mainstream media is so obviously and blatantly in a state of advocacy for one side and so opposed to the other that it makes no effort to accurately and comprehensively inform but rather seeks to influence, it becomes a dangerous thing.

 

[Circe]

Yes there are numbnuts and idiots on all sides of the sociopolitical spectrum and they all spout a lot of nonsense and garbage. But when so much of the mainstream media is so obviously and blatantly in a state of advocacy for one side and so opposed to the other that it makes no effort to accurately and comprehensively inform but rather seeks to influence, it becomes a dangerous thing.

You seem to be saying that the overwhelmingly left bias of the news people makes their advocacy -- propaganda, I would say -- a much greater problem than rightwing propaganda because there is just so much more of it.

An interesting implication is that maybe the rightwing biased media became even worse than they used to be because they wanted to combat the left propaganda. Possible. But I would say --- what about the anti-Trump right? They're if anything worse than the left media! Betrayal. I hate them. I subscribed all those years to the WSJ and THIS is what they do to me? Darn. So I've thrown them all into the same trash can and I do think that's where they all belong. It's a comprehensive betrayal of journalistic ethics and the American people, and there's hardly an honest person among them --- actually, I can't think of any. I mean, I love Lou Dobbs, what a teddy bear, but no one could reasonably call him unbiased. And he's doing a NEWS show!!

You know what I've really done? It's about this new word "curated." I came back onto forums after a several-year gap, because forums are curating news. Including breaking news. So I get my news now from forums, and can talk about it too. A bargain at the price -- it's free or voluntary donations. The bias is obvious, nobody is pretending to be neutral, and that is working for me. I'd still like to take an honest newspaper, but that was then, this is now, things change.

 

[task0778]

You gotta be careful about accepting at face value what somebody reports as news. Most source and outlets have a business reason if not an ideological one to tilt one way or another and so the stories you hear or read may not be as fair and balanced as they should be. The sad fact is that you cannot trust the media to be 100% truthful and complete; sometimes you don't get the whole story and some stories you don't get at all. But I'm not sure that hasn't pretty much always been the case, going back to our nation's founding the newspapers and magazines were in many cases just as slanted then as they are now, to appeal to the majority of readers they serve. Is it any worse now or is it more a case of a wider range/volume and greater number of news sources?

So, all I can see is to double check; how ell sourced is the report and are other outlets saying the same thing? No need to jump the shark is there, does it not make sense to make sure of what is true and keep an open mind? Especially if the source has a somewhat questionable history of being a little bit fast and loose with the truth.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes there are numbnuts and idiots on all sides of the sociopolitical spectrum and they all spout a lot of nonsense and garbage. But when so much of the mainstream media is so obviously and blatantly in a state of advocacy for one side and so opposed to the other that it makes no effort to accurately and comprehensively inform but rather seeks to influence, it becomes a dangerous thing.

You seem to be saying that the overwhelmingly left bias of the news people makes their advocacy -- propaganda, I would say -- a much greater problem than rightwing propaganda because there is just so much more of it.

An interesting implication is that maybe the rightwing biased media became even worse than they used to be because they wanted to combat the left propaganda. Possible. But I would say --- what about the anti-Trump right? They're if anything worse than the left media! Betrayal. I hate them. I subscribed all those years to the WSJ and THIS is what they do to me? Darn. So I've thrown them all into the same trash can and I do think that's where they all belong. It's a comprehensive betrayal of journalistic ethics and the American people, and there's hardly an honest person among them --- actually, I can't think of any. I mean, I love Lou Dobbs, what a teddy bear, but no one could reasonably call him unbiased. And he's doing a NEWS show!!

You know what I've really done? It's about this new word "curated." I came back onto forums after a several-year gap, because forums are curating news. Including breaking news. So I get my news now from forums, and can talk about it too. A bargain at the price -- it's free or voluntary donations. The bias is obvious, nobody is pretending to be neutral, and that is working for me. I'd still like to take an honest newspaper, but that was then, this is now, things change.

There have been any number of studies that clearly demonstrate the left bias of most of the mainstream media. Most people in the business who are willing to declare their political affiliation are democrats. There is a good historical perspective of how this came to be, but that is irrelevant to the reality itself.

A person can be ideologically left or right and still be 100% objective, honest, honorable, and ethical in how information is presented as news. William Raspberry, one of my all time favorite journalists, RIP, was one of the best. Decidedly leftist and a definite advocate for the leftist or leftist position most of the time, he was 100% fair, honest, honorable, and ethical in presenting his understanding of the facts and point of view. Even when I strongly disagreed with his perspective or conclusion, I had to admire his professionalism and scholarship.

It isn't their political leanings that make a media organization/person dishonest. It is HOW they present the news/information that they present. It becomes obvious to the practiced eye when error or malice or distortion was unintended. All the cable channels for instance, when covering a breaking story on some fatal disaster, drive me nuts when they keep reporting how many were affected, died, were injured, were involved as the incomplete information is fed to them and thus their story is constantly changing. They, along with most everybody else, usually eventually get it right but you can't count on it being right in those initial reports. No intent to deceive, no malice involved, but simply an intent to be on top of the story. I do think Fox is more likely to be the first to report some facts that others avoid as long as possible due to dictates of political correctness.

If Fox was as blatantly dishonest as CNN and MSNBC often are, as obviously out to GET somebody not just on one of their programs but on all of them, I would be as critical as Fox as I am anybody else. But they just aren't. They are far more likely to provide the back story, the qualifying information, and give both sides of the story than are the other cable channels or most of the other networks for that matter. And even though editorially they are almost all right of center, if somebody on the right is in the wrong, they don't hesitate to lead a newscast with that information.

The media probably did have some influence in President Trump getting elected. He was brilliant in just what tweet or Facebook post to put out there to generate hours and hours more coverage than Hillary got. She simply was not as newsworthy as him. Her campaign rally crowds were sometimes embarrassingly small, and she rarely had anything interesting or provocative to offer. So even though most of the coverage was deliberately negative about Trump, he got the coverage. And the fair minded who voted for him were smart enough to see through the media attempts to sink him.

And the rest, as they say, has become history.

 

[Circe]

There have been any number of studies that clearly demonstrate the left bias of most of the mainstream media. Most people in the business who are willing to declare their political affiliation are democrats. There is a good historical perspective of how this came to be, but that is irrelevant to the reality itself.

Well, sure. I think everyone knows that.

All the cable channels for instance, when covering a breaking story on some fatal disaster, drive me nuts when they keep reporting how many were affected, died, were injured, were involved as the incomplete information is fed to them and thus their story is constantly changing. They, along with most everybody else, usually eventually get it right but you can't count on it being right in those initial reports. No intent to deceive, no malice involved, but simply an intent to be on top of the story. I do think Fox is more likely to be the first to report some facts that others avoid as long as possible due to dictates of political correctness.

Drives me crazy, too. Three dead. No, 11 dead. No, 53 dead. Darn! Get it right! I first noticed this during 9/11 coverage --- migod, the false news that never happened, the bad numbers: I sort of lost a lot of my faith in journalism that day.

I devised a new rule for myself, which is when it's big wait three days to believe anything. Because they won't have it sorted out till then.

If Fox was as blatantly dishonest as CNN and MSNBC often are, as obviously out to GET somebody not just on one of their programs but on all of them, I would be as critical as Fox as I am anybody else. But they just aren't. They are far more likely to provide the back story, the qualifying information, and give both sides of the story than are the other cable channels or most of the other networks for that matter. And even though editorially they are almost all right of center, if somebody on the right is in the wrong, they don't hesitate to lead a newscast with that information.

Well, now that you mention it, if we do feel we have to listen to the news because of a terrorism attack or Catalonia going out or something, we always watch Fox or Fox Business. CNN is not bad for numbers, like the Alabama election returns --- but once they start Saying Bad Things we switch out.

The media probably did have some influence in President Trump getting elected. He was brilliant in just what tweet or Facebook post to put out there to generate hours and hours more coverage than Hillary got. She simply was not as newsworthy as him. Her campaign rally crowds were sometimes embarrassingly small, and she rarely had anything interesting or provocative to offer. So even though most of the coverage was deliberately negative about Trump, he got the coverage. And the fair minded who voted for him were smart enough to see through the media attempts to sink him.

And the rest, as they say, has become history.

So far I have read seven books about that election --- I really was traumatized by the betrayals. And those are just the early books. I'll read more once the scholars get into the game. This is big, you know. Yes, I can see you know.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If the fake news would be 50/50 for dem and repub it would be one thing, but finding fake news from CNN about Obama is about as rare as finding water on Mars. With all fake news being against Trump. it becomes a bias. Which we knew about already.

Nobody errors 100% for one side or the other. That's no longer an error when its 100% against one candidate or person.

LOL- there was plenty of Fake News about Obama- from Fox and Infowars and Breitbart. Just as there is Fake News from Fox in support of Trump.

Certainly there is a bias CNN against Trump- just as Fox has a huge bias towards Trump.

Has CNN or Fox erred 100% for one side or another? Or is it that Trump only notices when the error makes him look bad?

Please post some of the 'fake news' from Fox. We have been posting examples from other media entities, so surely you can easily find an example or two to expose Fox?

• Not what you requested, but worth including -- Fox News' Shepard Smith: 'Why is it lie after lie after lie?' on Russia meeting
  
• This Is How Fox News Brainwashes Its Viewers: Our In-Depth Investigation of the Propaganda Cycle

Please post some of the 'fake news' from Fox.

• Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
  • Source behind Fox News' Seth Rich 'scoop' was apparently fed the story by Fox News' reporter
  • https://nypost.com/2017/08/01/fox-news-accused-of-making-up-quotes-in-dnc-murder-story/
    
  • Fox News is defending its Seth Rich murder story after retracting fake news article
    
  • Fox News allegedly made fake news to protect Trump
    
  • Lawsuit: President Trump reviewed bogus Fox News story before its release
• At Fox News, the Colonel Who Wasn't
  
• Retired ‘Navy SEAL’ praising Trump on Fox News was a fake
  • Glass artist who claimed to be a Navy SEAL exposed after appearing on Fox News
• Video footage manipulation
  
• 50 Fox News lies in one minute
  
  
• MSNBC, Fox, CNN move the needle on our Truth-O-Meter scorecards
  
• Fox News Sued for the Right to Lie
• 
  
  
• Fox News Falsely Warned People Of An Upcoming "Antifa Apocalypse"
  
• Fox News’ Shepard Smith debunks his network’s Hillary Clinton “uranium scandal” story, infuriates viewers – The Denver Post
  
• #FoxNewsFacts Trends Worldwide After Fox 'Expert' Completely Makes Up Fake Story
  
• Fox News Interview With Fake Expert on Sweden Further Baffles Swedes
  • Donald Trump made up Sweden terror attack based on Fox News story | Metro News
    
  • Trump: ‘Last night in Sweden’
• Fox News Makes Up BS Story To Make Trump Look Good, Twitter Users Respond Viciously
  
• Fox News claimed Morgan Freeman made racist remarks.
  
  
  
  
  
  Click here to find out what Morgan Freeman in fact said.
• Fox fudges poll numbers to claim 120 percent of the public believes scientists falsify global warming data.
• Fox’s Fuzzy Math: 193 Percent Of The Public Support Palin, Huckabee, And Romney
• Screen shots of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox covering the shooting in AZ
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  
  

Forgive me but your first two links were so off putting as evidence of fake news, I didn't bother to look at any of the others. I don't want pundit or Trump hater's opinions of fake news please. And whether or not Trump lies is the stuff of opinion, not evidence of fake news.

Give me the links to actual reports and show how they were misleading or dishonest with real evidence, not somebody's opinion. And if these could be presented in some manageable form instead of a wall of 'stuff', that would be appreciated.

I don't want pundit or Trump hater's opinions of fake news please.

Do you actually think the stories about Seth Rich and the Colonel who was not are editorials? Apparently so....Wow!

Insofar as you appear disposed to consider a an account of what's what as an editorial rather than as news, why TF did you ask? (BTW, you don't need to answer that question for my benefit; I no longer care what your answer might be.) WTH did you think people here were going to do, post first hand video/audio of the lie and first hand video/audio of whatever shows the words to be a lie? Intransigence isn't something for which I can give absolution.

 

[Syriusly]

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban..

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," it said.

His campaign statements were in fact part of the basis for most of the law suits challenging his temporary ban. And you didn't mention that fact at all.

In fact- in the (Left) mainstream media, the stated reasons why Trump was ordered the temporary ban were almost always part of the lead.

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
The executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump border policy: Who's affected?
Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?
On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries
But what is the order, dubbed the "Muslim ban" by those rallying against it, and who exactly does it affect?

Here are some key points from the full text explained.

What is the order?

• 
  
  
  • It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
  • There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
  • And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension

• 
  
  
  • The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
  • Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in. And when it is dishonestly reported publicly, it becomes another example of fake news.

NBC news, uncharacteristically perhaps, did some commendable reporting in this collection of Trump statements on the subject.
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, Deportations

Fox- I appreciate the chance to discuss this in a rational forum at USMB. I deleted the other parts of your post, not to censor you, but to winnow out your opinion on who Trump is to get back to the ban.

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in.

You are not supporting this claim. Nor are you really responding to my post. I pointed out that the actual news articles after Trump announced his bans generally did report it accurately- and that the news articles themselves didn't call it a 'racial' thing. I posted two citations with examples to show my point.

Generally the news cited what Trump actually said- accurately reporting what Trump said was the intention of his ban. Now many people in the United States disagreed with Trump- accurately also mentioning Trump's campaign rhetoric where he promised to ban all Muslims from coming to the United States- and the news often quoted those people- which is just covering both sides of the story.

I have mentioned my doubts about the ban itself in earlier posts- but I think it would be better for the discussion if we stayed away from policy disputes- and instead focused on the topic- which is generally 'fake news'.

So was there 'Fake News' generated about the ban? Yes it was called by many a Muslim ban- but that came either from editorial pieces- which of course are not the news- or from those who opposed Trump's policies- and whom the newspapers quoted and reported. That doesn't make it "Fake News".

You have made a claim that: But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

So far this appears to be only your unsubstantiated opinion. Personally I think it displays a bias on your part. Because of your terms 'most' and 'almost no mention'- AND because you left out the reason why so many considered this to be part of a bigger plan- Trump's own campaign rhetoric.

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, fake news is not necessarily made up news. You can be 100% accurate in reporting but if you report in a way to give the reader/audience a false impression, it then becomes fake news. To take one statement of context and made a huge deal out of it after many other statements significantly qualify that one is just plain dishonest. No honorable, ethical journalist would do it. Instead he/she should report that 'the President raised eyebrows today when he said (whatever)' but it should be noted that he subsequently expanded on the comment with qualifications of. . . .

Putting out the first sentence with no qualifications is accurate, but dishonest nevertheless. When there is a back story that provides context, it must always be included when we know that an extemporaneous statement is not what somebody likely intended.

It was like when President Obama said something to the effect that John McCain had not questioned his Muslim faith, George Stephanopoulos quickly corrected him, "your Christian faith" and then Obama corrected himself. Stephanopoulos knew Muslim faith is not what the President intended to say and he made sure that the statement did not become the story. That is responsible journalism.

Some who have never believed President Obama was a Christian might speculate on that as a Freudian slip and the unethical would even take the one comment out of its full context and present it that way. Honorable people, however, leave room for the fact that it was in inadvertent misspeak in an extemporaneous response.



Another example I think somebody already provided.

When a tired President Obama on the campaign trail quipped that he had visited 57 states with three or four more to go, honorable people might tease him a bit about it but understood that he simply misspoke. (He actually meant 27 states.) The media pretty much correctly did not make any big deal out of it because most of the media supported President Obama.

But when Sarah Palin misspoke and said North Korea when any honest person would know she meant South Korea, the media and pundits were vicious in their rush to condemn her as clueless, ignorant, uneducated, etc. etc. etc. And again their criticism was using an actual quote from her but dishonestly used it to attack and discredit Palin.

So you can be accurate and report an actual event but report it dishonestly and with malice. And in so doing it becomes fake news.

Look I appreciate you giving me your thoughts on what is Fake News and what is not Fake News.

But you really weren't responding to my post.

You claimed that the media:
But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

And I said:

So far this appears to be only your unsubstantiated opinion. Personally I think it displays a bias on your part. Because of your terms 'most' and 'almost no mention'- AND because you left out the reason why so many considered this to be part of a bigger plan- Trump's own campaign rhetoric.

Your reply to my post doesn't seem to have anything to do with my post- because my post is challenging your claim. You haven't substantiated that most of the mainstream media claimed what you claimed. You have just asked us to accept your conclusion.

You have some interesting opinions in your post- some of which I might dispute, some I might not- but if I go down that trail- it just leads away from my challenge to you.

You have made a claim- substantiate it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You have made a claim- substantiate it.

If I may, and were I to have written that statement, I'd have written "..soundly substantiate it." People can and will say all manners of things in support of their assertions. That one supports an assertion with something does not make that something be sound support for the assertion. I would have written that because I have no tolerance for poorly developed arguments, and people who make them, because as I see it, discursive integrity requires that if one cannot (or is unwilling to) soundly support one's claim, one should refrain from making it. Put another way, not everything one thinks of to say is soundly founded such that it merits being said.

​

As I wrote earlier, "don't start none, won't be none." So it goes with contretemps resulting from baseless claims and the unsound arguments presented to support them.