CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[Foxfyre]

Another entry I just ran across in the fake news division:

As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, John Kelly was chatting with reporters re the Democratic memo in response to the Nunes memo, and said in effect that the President had not read it yet as he had just received it and would be briefed on it later that day. It was quite lengthy.

Much of the comment was that the President will be briefed on the report later that day, but here is Jud Legum's dishonestly spun take that of course went viral in the I-Hate-Anything-Trump circles as such misstatements usually do:

Judd Legum‏Verified account @JuddLegum
White House says 10-page memo is ‘too lengthy’ for Trump to read https://goo.gl/YdUM5B

Judd Legum is Editor in Chief of "Think Progress" and he also included that lie in the Think Progress article linked in the Twitter post.

 

[Foxfyre]

And today on CNN:
Rob Porter scandal: Everywhere but Fox News]

And I will quote this before they change it:

. . .
The Trump administration is reeling over domestic violence allegations against a top White House aide, Rob Porter. But you might not know it if you watch Fox News, where the disturbing story has been largely, and conspicuously, absent.

While virtually all other news outlets have provided extensive coverage of Porter, the White House staff secretary who resigned Wednesday after allegations that he physically abused two ex-wives were made public, Fox has all but ignored the subject. . .​

And on Fox:
White House aide Rob Porter's exit moved up, amid questions over handling of abuse claims

 

[hazlnut]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Oh by the way, if you consider the examples mentioned in the OP and beyond to be 'partisan', by all means post your counter examples and make this a non-partisan thread. For example, I presume all the anti-Trump people consider Fox News to be fake news and accuse it of lying all the time but they almost never post a link so we can check their complaint for accuracy. Be my guest to find examples where Fox News or the Daily Caller or anybody else got it wrong, but please post your sources with links so that we can check their accuracy and the full context.

As long as it can be verified, anything is fair game.

And this isn't addressed only to hazlnut. It is a challenge to anybody.

 

[hazlnut]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

 

[MarathonMike]

What is obvious to anyone that watches CNN or the rest of the 'Resistance Movement', they look at President Trump as their enemy whom they must defeat.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. Unless you can do that, however, they are perfectly valid to use to illustrate what I mean by 'fake news'. I was very clear that I didn't look only to CNN for such samples, and have posted others in this thread as well.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

I have.

You dissemble.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. Unless you can do that, however, they are perfectly valid to use to illustrate what I mean by 'fake news'. I was very clear that I didn't look only to CNN for such samples, and have posted others in this thread as well.

Well lets try this one more time

Here is the list that you claim that was 'fake news by CNN

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017
Hmmm lets look at some of them?

#1
Comey Testimony
CNN ran a story on June 6 that claimed former FBI Director James Comey would use his testimony the next day to refute President Donald Trump’s claim that Comey had assured him three separate times that he was not under FBI investigation. That story was debunked the same day when Comey’s prepared remarks were released to the public, showing that Comey would actually confirm, rather than refute, Trump’s assertion.

So what was the CNN article? Was CNN lying? No.
Was CNN deliberately presenting "Fake News"?
CNN had reported what was expected- and turned out to not be true- and issued a correction- how is that 'Fake News' to anyone but a blatant partisan?

 

[Syriusly]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .

Example #2- which is

First of all- lets remember who your 'source' is- which is the Daily Caller- itself a Conservative news site- so hardly unbiased themselves

Lets look at #3- because their bias seems to be pretty clear here
Fake news about fake news
The Daily Caller- itself a conservative news site- claims that CNN was spreading "Fake New about Fake News with this headline:
Mainstream Media Reporting About Twitter ‘Fake News’ Is 100% FALSE

CNN reported that fake news on Twitter was higher in swing states. The report was accompanied by the chyron, “How ‘Fake News’ Spread During Election Week.”

The study CNN cited comes from the Oxford Internet Institute, titled, “Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States?”


The study’s authors’ do not, however, label their study as necessarily being about “fake news.” Instead, the researchers use the term “junk news.”


The bulk of “Polarizing and Conspiracy Content” comes from so-called “junk news” websites, which makes up 79 percent of the content.

Except- the Daily Caller is lying. While the researchers do use the term "Junk News"- they also extensively used the term "Fake News".

It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.

CNN correctly talked about how the article that they were citing talked about Junk News
Here is what CNN said- and which your 'source' calls "100% False!"
Fake election news wasn't just for Facebook feeds. Twitter had its share as well.
"Polarizing and conspiratorial junk news" was as prevalent on Twitter as news from legitimate outlets in the days immediately before and after the US presidential election, a new study out of the University of Oxford released Thursday suggests.


Researchers from the university's Computational Propaganda Project examined more than 7 million tweets sent between November 1-11, 2016, which contained hashtags related to politics and the election. The study has yet to be peer reviewed and the team acknowledged limitations to its methodology.


They split content into categories including professional news, professional political content -- like that from a candidate's campaign -- and "polarizing and conspiracy content" which included objectively fake news websites, Russian sources of political news and WikiLeaks. Oxford researchers said the categories were not intended to be comprehensive.


They found that "polarizing and conspiracy" sources accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced news organizations also accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced political material accounted for 10%. Other political content, including activist blogs and political satire, made up the remaining 50%


Researchers assigned each tweet a location based on Twitter users' biographical information. This allowed them to estimate how fake and polarizing content was shared across individual states -- what they call the "junk news index." The researchers acknowledged that volunteered location information could be misleading in some cases.

And here are some excerpts from the report:
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-cont...17/09/Polarizing-Content-and-Swing-States.pdf

Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

I have.

You dissemble.

Really? Where did you do that? What post number please.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .

Example #2- which is

First of all- lets remember who your 'source' is- which is the Daily Caller- itself a Conservative news site- so hardly unbiased themselves

Lets look at #3- because their bias seems to be pretty clear here
Fake news about fake news
The Daily Caller- itself a conservative news site- claims that CNN was spreading "Fake New about Fake News with this headline:
Mainstream Media Reporting About Twitter ‘Fake News’ Is 100% FALSE

CNN reported that fake news on Twitter was higher in swing states. The report was accompanied by the chyron, “How ‘Fake News’ Spread During Election Week.”

The study CNN cited comes from the Oxford Internet Institute, titled, “Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States?”


The study’s authors’ do not, however, label their study as necessarily being about “fake news.” Instead, the researchers use the term “junk news.”


The bulk of “Polarizing and Conspiracy Content” comes from so-called “junk news” websites, which makes up 79 percent of the content.

Except- the Daily Caller is lying. While the researchers do use the term "Junk News"- they also extensively used the term "Fake News".

It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.

CNN correctly talked about how the article that they were citing talked about Junk News
Here is what CNN said- and which your 'source' calls "100% False!"
Fake election news wasn't just for Facebook feeds. Twitter had its share as well.
"Polarizing and conspiratorial junk news" was as prevalent on Twitter as news from legitimate outlets in the days immediately before and after the US presidential election, a new study out of the University of Oxford released Thursday suggests.


Researchers from the university's Computational Propaganda Project examined more than 7 million tweets sent between November 1-11, 2016, which contained hashtags related to politics and the election. The study has yet to be peer reviewed and the team acknowledged limitations to its methodology.


They split content into categories including professional news, professional political content -- like that from a candidate's campaign -- and "polarizing and conspiracy content" which included objectively fake news websites, Russian sources of political news and WikiLeaks. Oxford researchers said the categories were not intended to be comprehensive.


They found that "polarizing and conspiracy" sources accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced news organizations also accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced political material accounted for 10%. Other political content, including activist blogs and political satire, made up the remaining 50%


Researchers assigned each tweet a location based on Twitter users' biographical information. This allowed them to estimate how fake and polarizing content was shared across individual states -- what they call the "junk news index." The researchers acknowledged that volunteered location information could be misleading in some cases.

And here are some excerpts from the report:
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-cont...17/09/Polarizing-Content-and-Swing-States.pdf
View attachment 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970

Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?

Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.

. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.​

Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes. The faulty information or dishonest spin on it will almost immediately go viral with tweets and Facebook posts and threads ad nauseum on message boards, none of which is usually corrected after the story is quietly and without any fanfare corrected. Had CNN done their research to begin with, they wouldn't have put the fake story out there in the first place. Correcting it later is the right thing to do, but it doesn't excuse the maliciously sloppy story or undo the damage they did with it.

It was made worse being so partisan motivated. They never would have put such a story out on President Obama without strongly fact checking it first.

When I was a working reporter on any of the newspapers I worked for, had I written a story the way CNN's initial story that was so inaccurate and damaging was, I would have been out of a job that very hour.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. Unless you can do that, however, they are perfectly valid to use to illustrate what I mean by 'fake news'. I was very clear that I didn't look only to CNN for such samples, and have posted others in this thread as well.

Well lets try this one more time

Here is the list that you claim that was 'fake news by CNN

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017
Hmmm lets look at some of them?

#1
Comey Testimony
CNN ran a story on June 6 that claimed former FBI Director James Comey would use his testimony the next day to refute President Donald Trump’s claim that Comey had assured him three separate times that he was not under FBI investigation. That story was debunked the same day when Comey’s prepared remarks were released to the public, showing that Comey would actually confirm, rather than refute, Trump’s assertion.

So what was the CNN article? Was CNN lying? No.
Was CNN deliberately presenting "Fake News"?
CNN had reported what was expected- and turned out to not be true- and issued a correction- how is that 'Fake News' to anyone but a blatant partisan?
View attachment 176961

See my Post #273.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .

Okay- now to address the "Daily Callers" 6th item- this is a really fun one- another example of the Daily Caller spreading Fake News

Trump Is (Not) Ignorant Of Japanese Cars

In the second false narrative that CNN spread during Trump’s Japan visit, the network took the president’s words out of context to make him appear ignorant of the fact that Japan makes cars in the United States. “Trump asks Japan to build cars in the U.S. It already does,” CNN Money’s Daniel Shane wrote.

Did CNN print 'Fake News"? Was there a falsehood in the CNN article? Nope.

Daily Caller just doesn't like how it made Trump look- but CNN didn't misrepresent anything.

Trump wants Japan to build more cars in the U.S.

President Trump delivered a rebuke to Japan Inc. on Monday.
"Try building your cars in the United States instead of shipping them over. Is that possible to ask? That's not rude. Is that rude? I don't think so," Trump told executives from local automakers during a trip to Japan.


At the same time, Trump thanked Japanese automakers for "building new plants and doing expansions" of existing facilities in the United States. He praised Toyota (TM) and Mazda (MZDAF) for planning a new $1.6 billion manufacturing plant in the U.S.

Trump wants Japan to build more cars in the U.S.

Frankly- the only one creating "Fake News' in this case was the Daily Caller.

 

[Syriusly]

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .

Example #2- which is

First of all- lets remember who your 'source' is- which is the Daily Caller- itself a Conservative news site- so hardly unbiased themselves

Lets look at #3- because their bias seems to be pretty clear here
Fake news about fake news
The Daily Caller- itself a conservative news site- claims that CNN was spreading "Fake New about Fake News with this headline:
Mainstream Media Reporting About Twitter ‘Fake News’ Is 100% FALSE

CNN reported that fake news on Twitter was higher in swing states. The report was accompanied by the chyron, “How ‘Fake News’ Spread During Election Week.”

The study CNN cited comes from the Oxford Internet Institute, titled, “Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States?”


The study’s authors’ do not, however, label their study as necessarily being about “fake news.” Instead, the researchers use the term “junk news.”


The bulk of “Polarizing and Conspiracy Content” comes from so-called “junk news” websites, which makes up 79 percent of the content.

Except- the Daily Caller is lying. While the researchers do use the term "Junk News"- they also extensively used the term "Fake News".

It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.

CNN correctly talked about how the article that they were citing talked about Junk News
Here is what CNN said- and which your 'source' calls "100% False!"
Fake election news wasn't just for Facebook feeds. Twitter had its share as well.
"Polarizing and conspiratorial junk news" was as prevalent on Twitter as news from legitimate outlets in the days immediately before and after the US presidential election, a new study out of the University of Oxford released Thursday suggests.


Researchers from the university's Computational Propaganda Project examined more than 7 million tweets sent between November 1-11, 2016, which contained hashtags related to politics and the election. The study has yet to be peer reviewed and the team acknowledged limitations to its methodology.


They split content into categories including professional news, professional political content -- like that from a candidate's campaign -- and "polarizing and conspiracy content" which included objectively fake news websites, Russian sources of political news and WikiLeaks. Oxford researchers said the categories were not intended to be comprehensive.


They found that "polarizing and conspiracy" sources accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced news organizations also accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced political material accounted for 10%. Other political content, including activist blogs and political satire, made up the remaining 50%


Researchers assigned each tweet a location based on Twitter users' biographical information. This allowed them to estimate how fake and polarizing content was shared across individual states -- what they call the "junk news index." The researchers acknowledged that volunteered location information could be misleading in some cases.

And here are some excerpts from the report:
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-cont...17/09/Polarizing-Content-and-Swing-States.pdf
View attachment 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970

Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?

Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.

. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.​

Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.

LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.

He didn't say it.

Then they corrected what they reported.

So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?

Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?

And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?

 

[Syriusly]

You've just made this a partisan thread--

You want an objective discussion of "fake news" then you can't post things influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. And certainly not a link to the Daily Caller. You can't use partisan sources critical of the other side as proof of "fake news". They're partisan, they're agenda is obvious and therefore they can not be credible when it comes to a critical review of the "opposition".

Define straight news as based on facts; unbiased. Not opinion shows or editorial segments of a news hour.

Fake news would be reporting false information -- who, what, when -- not based on any reality or proof.

Partisan spin shows repeat misleading versions of facts, lying by omission. They take a news story and put their spin on it by leaving out details, context, or exaggerating certain aspects. Too many techniques to list, but they typically don't entirely fabricate a who, what, where info.

Trump claims any story that makes him look bad is "fake". I have yet to hear him offer an articulate explanation of which aspect of any story he calls fake is made up or false. He never offers any proof of the fakeness. Just insults and telling his fans that "anonymous" sources are not real.

Of course the NYT anonymous sources are real. To the extent the sources have an agenda or are lying then that's on the NYT to vet them. The process is strict and rigorous. The Times has been duped in the past.

There are likely aspects of some Trump stories that aren't 100% accurate. Trump will never come out and tell us which details specifically a news story got wrong, because then he'd have to admit the points or details that are true.

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .

Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?

Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on..

Yet you didn't reply to the Daily Caller Fake News I pointed out

Example #2- which is

First of all- lets remember who your 'source' is- which is the Daily Caller- itself a Conservative news site- so hardly unbiased themselves

Lets look at #3- because their bias seems to be pretty clear here
Fake news about fake news
The Daily Caller- itself a conservative news site- claims that CNN was spreading "Fake New about Fake News with this headline:
Mainstream Media Reporting About Twitter ‘Fake News’ Is 100% FALSE

CNN reported that fake news on Twitter was higher in swing states. The report was accompanied by the chyron, “How ‘Fake News’ Spread During Election Week.”

The study CNN cited comes from the Oxford Internet Institute, titled, “Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States?”


The study’s authors’ do not, however, label their study as necessarily being about “fake news.” Instead, the researchers use the term “junk news.”


The bulk of “Polarizing and Conspiracy Content” comes from so-called “junk news” websites, which makes up 79 percent of the content.

Except- the Daily Caller is lying. While the researchers do use the term "Junk News"- they also extensively used the term "Fake News".

It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.

CNN correctly talked about how the article that they were citing talked about Junk News
Here is what CNN said- and which your 'source' calls "100% False!"
Fake election news wasn't just for Facebook feeds. Twitter had its share as well.
"Polarizing and conspiratorial junk news" was as prevalent on Twitter as news from legitimate outlets in the days immediately before and after the US presidential election, a new study out of the University of Oxford released Thursday suggests.


Researchers from the university's Computational Propaganda Project examined more than 7 million tweets sent between November 1-11, 2016, which contained hashtags related to politics and the election. The study has yet to be peer reviewed and the team acknowledged limitations to its methodology.


They split content into categories including professional news, professional political content -- like that from a candidate's campaign -- and "polarizing and conspiracy content" which included objectively fake news websites, Russian sources of political news and WikiLeaks. Oxford researchers said the categories were not intended to be comprehensive.


They found that "polarizing and conspiracy" sources accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced news organizations also accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced political material accounted for 10%. Other political content, including activist blogs and political satire, made up the remaining 50%


Researchers assigned each tweet a location based on Twitter users' biographical information. This allowed them to estimate how fake and polarizing content was shared across individual states -- what they call the "junk news index." The researchers acknowledged that volunteered location information could be misleading in some cases.

And here are some excerpts from the report:
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-cont...17/09/Polarizing-Content-and-Swing-States.pdf
View attachment 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970

 

[Foxfyre]

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .

Example #2- which is

First of all- lets remember who your 'source' is- which is the Daily Caller- itself a Conservative news site- so hardly unbiased themselves

Lets look at #3- because their bias seems to be pretty clear here
Fake news about fake news
The Daily Caller- itself a conservative news site- claims that CNN was spreading "Fake New about Fake News with this headline:
Mainstream Media Reporting About Twitter ‘Fake News’ Is 100% FALSE

CNN reported that fake news on Twitter was higher in swing states. The report was accompanied by the chyron, “How ‘Fake News’ Spread During Election Week.”

The study CNN cited comes from the Oxford Internet Institute, titled, “Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States?”


The study’s authors’ do not, however, label their study as necessarily being about “fake news.” Instead, the researchers use the term “junk news.”


The bulk of “Polarizing and Conspiracy Content” comes from so-called “junk news” websites, which makes up 79 percent of the content.

Except- the Daily Caller is lying. While the researchers do use the term "Junk News"- they also extensively used the term "Fake News".

It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.

CNN correctly talked about how the article that they were citing talked about Junk News
Here is what CNN said- and which your 'source' calls "100% False!"
Fake election news wasn't just for Facebook feeds. Twitter had its share as well.
"Polarizing and conspiratorial junk news" was as prevalent on Twitter as news from legitimate outlets in the days immediately before and after the US presidential election, a new study out of the University of Oxford released Thursday suggests.


Researchers from the university's Computational Propaganda Project examined more than 7 million tweets sent between November 1-11, 2016, which contained hashtags related to politics and the election. The study has yet to be peer reviewed and the team acknowledged limitations to its methodology.


They split content into categories including professional news, professional political content -- like that from a candidate's campaign -- and "polarizing and conspiracy content" which included objectively fake news websites, Russian sources of political news and WikiLeaks. Oxford researchers said the categories were not intended to be comprehensive.


They found that "polarizing and conspiracy" sources accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced news organizations also accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced political material accounted for 10%. Other political content, including activist blogs and political satire, made up the remaining 50%


Researchers assigned each tweet a location based on Twitter users' biographical information. This allowed them to estimate how fake and polarizing content was shared across individual states -- what they call the "junk news index." The researchers acknowledged that volunteered location information could be misleading in some cases.

And here are some excerpts from the report:
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-cont...17/09/Polarizing-Content-and-Swing-States.pdf
View attachment 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970

Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?

Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on.

. . . The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error.​

Trying to explain away one of these things after the bell has already been rung just doesn't cut it so far as honorable journalism goes.

LOL- CNN ran a report on what a man was going to say.

He didn't say it.

Then they corrected what they reported.

So are you saying that news- such as Fox- should never report in advance on what persons are supposedly going to do?

Or are you saying that if they do- and the person changes his mind- the news was reporting "Fake News"?

And are you willing to hold right wing media to that same standard?

I have never known Fox News to maliciously or erroneously report that something was going to happen that would discredit somebody in the way CNN did. But if they do, they will have to take their lumps too. So if you catch them or any other media source doing that or carelessly or maliciously misrepresenting anything else, whether that source tilts left or right, by all means post your link.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dispute the samples I post if you can. I'm pretty sure you can't.

Samples? What samples?

You have listed 7 things (some are just partisan talking points) as examples of "fake news" or stories "botched" by CNN.

Comey Testimony -- what does that mean. He said things. They reported it. If you have an issue with a specific pundit putting a negative or unfair spin on it, then articulate what you mean.

Fake news about fake news -- what does that mean. I'm guessing you didn't like a fact check segment about something Trump called fake news (that turned out to be valid)

If you can find where CNN didn't put out erroneous, i.e. fake news in those seven samples, go for it. .

Did you bother to research any of the 7 articles you claim to be 'Fake News"?

Yep I did. On the first one re Comey testimony alone, I found the Daily Caller's analysis to be spot on..

Yet you didn't reply to the Daily Caller Fake News I pointed out

Example #2- which is

First of all- lets remember who your 'source' is- which is the Daily Caller- itself a Conservative news site- so hardly unbiased themselves

Lets look at #3- because their bias seems to be pretty clear here
Fake news about fake news
The Daily Caller- itself a conservative news site- claims that CNN was spreading "Fake New about Fake News with this headline:
Mainstream Media Reporting About Twitter ‘Fake News’ Is 100% FALSE

CNN reported that fake news on Twitter was higher in swing states. The report was accompanied by the chyron, “How ‘Fake News’ Spread During Election Week.”

The study CNN cited comes from the Oxford Internet Institute, titled, “Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States?”


The study’s authors’ do not, however, label their study as necessarily being about “fake news.” Instead, the researchers use the term “junk news.”


The bulk of “Polarizing and Conspiracy Content” comes from so-called “junk news” websites, which makes up 79 percent of the content.

Except- the Daily Caller is lying. While the researchers do use the term "Junk News"- they also extensively used the term "Fake News".

It would be more accurate to say that the Daily Caller created Fake News with this claim.

CNN correctly talked about how the article that they were citing talked about Junk News
Here is what CNN said- and which your 'source' calls "100% False!"
Fake election news wasn't just for Facebook feeds. Twitter had its share as well.
"Polarizing and conspiratorial junk news" was as prevalent on Twitter as news from legitimate outlets in the days immediately before and after the US presidential election, a new study out of the University of Oxford released Thursday suggests.


Researchers from the university's Computational Propaganda Project examined more than 7 million tweets sent between November 1-11, 2016, which contained hashtags related to politics and the election. The study has yet to be peer reviewed and the team acknowledged limitations to its methodology.


They split content into categories including professional news, professional political content -- like that from a candidate's campaign -- and "polarizing and conspiracy content" which included objectively fake news websites, Russian sources of political news and WikiLeaks. Oxford researchers said the categories were not intended to be comprehensive.


They found that "polarizing and conspiracy" sources accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced news organizations also accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced political material accounted for 10%. Other political content, including activist blogs and political satire, made up the remaining 50%


Researchers assigned each tweet a location based on Twitter users' biographical information. This allowed them to estimate how fake and polarizing content was shared across individual states -- what they call the "junk news index." The researchers acknowledged that volunteered location information could be misleading in some cases.

And here are some excerpts from the report:
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-cont...17/09/Polarizing-Content-and-Swing-States.pdf
View attachment 176968
View attachment 176969
View attachment 176970

I don't care how much you try to rationalize it, or how much high minded sounding or irrelevant stuff you post trying to discredit the Daily Caller's analysis of it. I saw the original CNN story as well as heard the talking heads on television that day, and it was dead wrong. And wrong is wrong no matter who points it out.

 

[Syriusly]

Now lets see if you are willing to talk about Right Wing "Fake News"- other than the examples I pointed out by the Daily Caller already.

Remember this Fox Fake News?
Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France

Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology on Saturday night for having allowed its anchors and guests to repeat the false claim that there are Muslim-only “no-go zones” in European countries like England and France that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to Shariah law.