CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[Foxfyre]

More of Trump's tweets that should 'challenge us'


We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive). P.M. Justin Trudeau of Canada, a very good guy, doesn’t like saying that Canada has a Surplus vs. the U.S.(negotiating), but they do...they almost all do...and that’s how I know!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2018

“We have tremendous losses with Mexico and losses with Canada, and covered by NAFTA. Last year, we lost approximately $71 billion in trade deficit; we have a trade deficit with Mexico of $71 billion. With Canada, it was about $17 billion.”


Reality check: No, the U.S. doesn’t have a $17B trade deficit with Canada
Those numbers differ from numbers provided by Statistics Canada, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative – both say the U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada, to the amount of US$12 billion.

Yes, the President really blew it this time, but not by overstating the trade deficit with Canada but by likely understating it.

Why America Can't Just Make Everything It Needs

 

[Syriusly]

Honestly, I don't know how anyone watches mass media news. When I ask people, they always say, "Well, you've got to stay informed." But this perilously consolidated propaganda machine can only be considered "information" in the broadest possible sense (e.g. "Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae" is also information, in that your eyes and ears are perceiving existent phenomena).

With just a handful of mega-corps owning all the mass media outlets in the nation, it's prudent to suspect that wealthy and powerful corporate owners may have reciprocal relationships with politicians; and that purity of information we receive via those outlets may be jeopardized. At the very least, we know that they can only report a fraction of the information available each day, and so some system of prioritization must exist, and will necessarily be subjective. And as a matter of common sense, we can all clearly see that news programs have agendas.

One mitigating factor that would help limit the intellectual damage resulting from the above scenario is to keep our thinking rooted in core principles. Philosophy (all but taboo in popular culture) can always be relied upon to sort out wheat from chaff, and though often thought impractical, is actually an exercise in practicality itself, though on a root level. After all, what is more practical than fundamental truths from which all else springs?

In this way, I find the news to be largely unnecessary; as the celebritization of political personalities does nothing to change the fact that the very validity of their authority has no rational basis. But this is a matter for another thread...

No people will be free for long without a free, uncontrolled, reasonably objective, reasonably given to honesty and integrity means of communication and receiving information. It is necessary. Which is why fake news created for purposes of political or ideological expediency is so evil and so contrary to all concept of liberty.

I actually agree with what you said.

I just disagree with you regarding what constitutes 'fake news'.

Not giving as much time reporting as you think was deserved for the story of the Republicans releasing a report saying that the Trump campaign didn't collude is not 'fake news'

Trump tweeting another falsehood to get picked up and spread by the media- that is actual Fake News. And that is dangerous.

For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.

Really? Did the 'media' have it? Or did one man have it- and decided to release it now?

Go ahead- prove that the media 'had it' before President Obama's election.

Because if you can't- well then you are guilty of spreading "Fake News"

Decade-old photo of Obama with Louis Farrakhan surfaces

Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.

"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."

Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.

"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".

Your own source says TPM had the photo at the time it was taken. If they did, there are pretty darn good odds that others did as well.

Feel free to provide that quote- I can't find it.

Note how the photographer said he kept it secret- except for the copies that he gave a staff member of the Black Caucus.

Here let me quote the entire article again:
A photo has emerged of then-Sen. Barack Obama standing with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the controversial Nation of Islam, during a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill.

Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.

"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."

Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.

"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".

Muhammad is news director at Washington, D.C., radio station WPFW and has served as the head of the Washington offices of the Nation of Islam’s official newspaper, The Final Call of Islam.

In 2016, the Daily Caller reported, Farrakhan revealed a private meeting he had at his Chicago home with Obama, shortly before Obama announced his run for president. At the time, Farrakhan said, "I have a picture of myself and Barack together. You never saw it, because I would never put it out to give his enemies what they were looking for to hurt him."

 

[Syriusly]

the networks spent less than a minute reporting the House Intelligence Committee's findings of no Russian collusion re either the Trump or Hillary campaigns last night. That is NOT fair and balanced reporting.

When did ANY network insist that the Trump campaign was absolutely guilty?

If you can't show that- well of course then your post would not be 'fair and balanced' posting.

Just about all of them have spent hours making the case for the President's guilt, speculating on/hoping for impeachment proceedings to begin, etc. etc. etc.

'Just about all of them'

Here was your claim:

Just a quick note that after spending long, detailed, segments adding up to hours on the Russian collusion thing and insisting that the Trump campaign was absolutely guilty,

I asked you to back up your claim.

One of the definitions of "Fake News" is making unsubstantiated claims- like you did.

Either you can show wide spread pattern of all of the networks- other than Fox- insisting that the Trump campaign was absolutely guilty- or you can't.

If you can't- then your speculation is nothing more than "Fake News"

 

[Syriusly]

[
For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.

Want a real example of media burying a story?

National Enquirer Paid to Kill Story of Playboy Model's Affair with Donald Trump: Report

National Enquirer Paid to Kill Story of Playboy Model's Affair with Donald Trump: Report

She and American Media Inc. — the Enquirer‘s parent company — reportedly reached an agreement in early August for what she thought would be a exposé on their alleged affair, according to a contract obtained by the the Journal. But the Enquirer pulled what is known in the industry as a “catch and kill” on the story – buying the rights to the McDougal’s story forever without obliging to publish it, according to the Journal.

Maybe this happened. Maybe it didn't. If it did, it was certainly the most responsible thing to do, something the Enquirer is not really known for.

Hmmmmm talk about a double standard eh?

You provide an example of what you claim is 'fake news'- which was that the media didn't post a photo of Obama with Farrakhan (which it turns out the media didn't have) but then applaud the National Enquirer(media) for killing a story during the campaign about Trump's adultery

 

[Syriusly]

More of Trump's tweets that should 'challenge us'


We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive). P.M. Justin Trudeau of Canada, a very good guy, doesn’t like saying that Canada has a Surplus vs. the U.S.(negotiating), but they do...they almost all do...and that’s how I know!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2018

“We have tremendous losses with Mexico and losses with Canada, and covered by NAFTA. Last year, we lost approximately $71 billion in trade deficit; we have a trade deficit with Mexico of $71 billion. With Canada, it was about $17 billion.”


Reality check: No, the U.S. doesn’t have a $17B trade deficit with Canada
Those numbers differ from numbers provided by Statistics Canada, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative – both say the U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada, to the amount of US$12 billion.

Yes, the President really blew it this time, but not by overstating the trade deficit with Canada but by likely understating it.

Why America Can't Just Make Everything It Needs

So you are saying that the Office of the United States Trade Representative AND Statistics Canada are lying?

Where is you evidence for that?

Your citation specifically notes that it does not include services- my citation clearly notes that when you factor in both goods AND services- America runs a trade surplus with Canada.

Let me put this in another perspective- if Trade was neutral between Canada and the United States- the net total amount of sales lost to the United States would be 12 billion dollars.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

ANYTHING you see form the mainstream media coming from a major newspaper like the LA times, arizona republic,or CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN,fOX,ect,ect is all biased. Trump is the first president to call them out for what they REALLY are,fake news.for that I applaud him.

what most people dont understand is the mainstream media is NOT there to do any investigating,they only report what the government wants you to hear.they are just a mouthpiece for them.Nothing but a TOOL for their propaganda is all they are there for.

The best news sources are independent news sources.I could list many here that are far more reliable than the mainstream media.

This post MIGHT get this thread moved to the conspiracy section since pesky facts are considered theories by the mods here.

But the LAMESTREAM media is controlled by the CIA,that is why you only hear what they want you to hear.

Back in the 70's congress did an investigation into their activies and discovered facts that they got plants in the media.

anybody has any doubts,dont take my word for it,do you OWN research.

Here is a good start and the facts that prove it to be indeed true. This link is NOT fake news.this was all documented back then.


Carl Bernstein
During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report. The multivolurne report contains nine pages in which the use of journalists is discussed in deliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makes no mention of the actual number of journalists who undertook covert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describe the role played by newspaper and broadcast executives in cooperating with the Agency.

very short video

Notice how the CIA director kept playing dodgeball everytime he was asked if the CIA had anybody on their payroll working for the media?

and if you want to REALLY go into an in depth through research,watch this one hour video here.
as you will hear at the beginning of the video.
former CIA director William Colby exposed the CIA having plants in the media.Guess what? he wound up as a very mysterious death.How conveinent for the CIA.


just do a lot of research on operation mockingbird,you will FINALLY be awake to the fake news CIA reporting Trump was referring to.

 

[Foxfyre]

No people will be free for long without a free, uncontrolled, reasonably objective, reasonably given to honesty and integrity means of communication and receiving information. It is necessary. Which is why fake news created for purposes of political or ideological expediency is so evil and so contrary to all concept of liberty.

I actually agree with what you said.

I just disagree with you regarding what constitutes 'fake news'.

Not giving as much time reporting as you think was deserved for the story of the Republicans releasing a report saying that the Trump campaign didn't collude is not 'fake news'

Trump tweeting another falsehood to get picked up and spread by the media- that is actual Fake News. And that is dangerous.

For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.

Really? Did the 'media' have it? Or did one man have it- and decided to release it now?

Go ahead- prove that the media 'had it' before President Obama's election.

Because if you can't- well then you are guilty of spreading "Fake News"

Decade-old photo of Obama with Louis Farrakhan surfaces

Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.

"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."

Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.

"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".

Your own source says TPM had the photo at the time it was taken. If they did, there are pretty darn good odds that others did as well.

Feel free to provide that quote- I can't find it.

Note how the photographer said he kept it secret- except for the copies that he gave a staff member of the Black Caucus.

Here let me quote the entire article again:
A photo has emerged of then-Sen. Barack Obama standing with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the controversial Nation of Islam, during a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill.

Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.

"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."

Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.

"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".

Muhammad is news director at Washington, D.C., radio station WPFW and has served as the head of the Washington offices of the Nation of Islam’s official newspaper, The Final Call of Islam.

In 2016, the Daily Caller reported, Farrakhan revealed a private meeting he had at his Chicago home with Obama, shortly before Obama announced his run for president. At the time, Farrakhan said, "I have a picture of myself and Barack together. You never saw it, because I would never put it out to give his enemies what they were looking for to hurt him."

Okay re-reading it, it expressed TPM 'was in a panic' that the photo existed. (Speaking of suppressing news.) I don't believe for a minute though that only one photo was taken at an occasion like that. I will agree that it was suppressed at the time.

I will believe forever though, that had it been President Trump in that photo instead of President Obama, there is no way in hell it wouldn't have been on the front page of the newspapers and leading every telecast plus it would have been posted ad nauseum on social media and message boards. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Syriusly]

I actually agree with what you said.

I just disagree with you regarding what constitutes 'fake news'.

Not giving as much time reporting as you think was deserved for the story of the Republicans releasing a report saying that the Trump campaign didn't collude is not 'fake news'

Trump tweeting another falsehood to get picked up and spread by the media- that is actual Fake News. And that is dangerous.

For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.

Really? Did the 'media' have it? Or did one man have it- and decided to release it now?

Go ahead- prove that the media 'had it' before President Obama's election.

Because if you can't- well then you are guilty of spreading "Fake News"

Decade-old photo of Obama with Louis Farrakhan surfaces

Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.

"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."

Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.

"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".

Your own source says TPM had the photo at the time it was taken. If they did, there are pretty darn good odds that others did as well.

Feel free to provide that quote- I can't find it.

Note how the photographer said he kept it secret- except for the copies that he gave a staff member of the Black Caucus.

Here let me quote the entire article again:
A photo has emerged of then-Sen. Barack Obama standing with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the controversial Nation of Islam, during a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill.

Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.

"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."

Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.

"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".

Muhammad is news director at Washington, D.C., radio station WPFW and has served as the head of the Washington offices of the Nation of Islam’s official newspaper, The Final Call of Islam.

In 2016, the Daily Caller reported, Farrakhan revealed a private meeting he had at his Chicago home with Obama, shortly before Obama announced his run for president. At the time, Farrakhan said, "I have a picture of myself and Barack together. You never saw it, because I would never put it out to give his enemies what they were looking for to hurt him."

Okay re-reading it, it expressed TPM 'was in a panic' that the photo existed. (Speaking of suppressing news.) I don't believe for a minute though that only one photo was taken at an occasion like that. I will agree that it was suppressed at the time.

Let us back up to your initial claim:

For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.

You claimed that 'the media had it'.

Based upon what? You want to indict media for promoting "Fake News" but I have shown that your very claim was 'Fake'.

Now that I have shown that your very claim is false- you want to try to change the subject to 'whatifs'.

I am not going to do 'whatifs'- I am going to do real facts- not alternative facts.

If you want to indict the 'media' for Fake News but won't even hold yourself to the same standards- what is the point of this thread?

 

[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.

ANYTHING you see form the mainstream media coming from a major newspaper like the LA times, arizona republic,or CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN,fOX,ect,ect is all biased. Trump is the first president to call them out for what they REALLY are,fake news.for that I applaud him.

what most people dont understand is the mainstream media is NOT there to do any investigating,they only report what the government wants you to hear.they are just a mouthpiece for them.Nothing but a TOOL for their propaganda is all they are there for.

The best news sources are independent news sources.I could list many here that are far more reliable than the mainstream media.

This post MIGHT get this thread moved to the conspiracy section since pesky facts are considered theories by the mods here.

But the LAMESTREAM media is controlled by the CIA,that is why you only hear what they want you to hear.

Back in the 70's congress did an investigation into their activies and discovered facts that they got plants in the media.

anybody has any doubts,dont take my word for it,do you OWN research.

Here is a good start and the facts that prove it to be indeed true. This link is NOT fake news.this was all documented back then.


Carl Bernstein
During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report. The multivolurne report contains nine pages in which the use of journalists is discussed in deliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makes no mention of the actual number of journalists who undertook covert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describe the role played by newspaper and broadcast executives in cooperating with the Agency.

very short video

Notice how the CIA director kept playing dodgeball everytime he was asked if the CIA had anybody on their payroll working for the media?

and if you want to REALLY go into an in depth through research,watch this one hour video here.
as you will hear at the beginning of the video.
former CIA director William Colby exposed the CIA having plants in the media.Guess what? he wound up as a very mysterious death.How conveinent for the CIA.


just do a lot of research on operation mockingbird,you will FINALLY be awake to the fake news CIA reporting Trump was referring to.

I won't listen to an hour long presentation, but it is interesting. I do sort of remember when Colby died though little was made of it in the media at that time. As I recall one of Colby's sons as well as local law enforcement at the time thought foul play; the other son was convinced it was suicide. I didn't pay much attention at the time as we were in the middle of the 1996 campaign and I was more interested in that at the time.

But going back to media stories from the mid 1970's, while interesting, is looking at a much more reliable and less-politically motivated media then than what we have now. For sure little responsible journalism is being done these days, and most major media outlets are mostly propaganda machines and surrogate information machines for the Democratic Party and the progressive left. If it was the other way around, the Democrats and the progressive left would almost certainly be condemning it. But as most seem to LIKE what the media does these days, they mostly defend it or pooh pooh any criticism of it as illegitimate or politically motivated. For sure, few to none have been willing to even discuss how the media reports or why.

As for the CIA infiltrating the media back in the 1970's, I would need more information about that. Because the media has access to a lot of information, some that the CIA might not be on top of, maybe it was a way to keep from missing something important? I honestly don't know.

 

[Foxfyre]

For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.

Really? Did the 'media' have it? Or did one man have it- and decided to release it now?

Go ahead- prove that the media 'had it' before President Obama's election.

Because if you can't- well then you are guilty of spreading "Fake News"

Decade-old photo of Obama with Louis Farrakhan surfaces

Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.

"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."

Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.

"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".

Your own source says TPM had the photo at the time it was taken. If they did, there are pretty darn good odds that others did as well.

Feel free to provide that quote- I can't find it.

Note how the photographer said he kept it secret- except for the copies that he gave a staff member of the Black Caucus.

Here let me quote the entire article again:
A photo has emerged of then-Sen. Barack Obama standing with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the controversial Nation of Islam, during a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill.

Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.

"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."

Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.

"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".

Muhammad is news director at Washington, D.C., radio station WPFW and has served as the head of the Washington offices of the Nation of Islam’s official newspaper, The Final Call of Islam.

In 2016, the Daily Caller reported, Farrakhan revealed a private meeting he had at his Chicago home with Obama, shortly before Obama announced his run for president. At the time, Farrakhan said, "I have a picture of myself and Barack together. You never saw it, because I would never put it out to give his enemies what they were looking for to hurt him."

Okay re-reading it, it expressed TPM 'was in a panic' that the photo existed. (Speaking of suppressing news.) I don't believe for a minute though that only one photo was taken at an occasion like that. I will agree that it was suppressed at the time.

Let us back up to your initial claim:

For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.

You claimed that 'the media had it'.

Based upon what? You want to indict media for promoting "Fake News" but I have shown that your very claim was 'Fake'.

Now that I have shown that your very claim is false- you want to try to change the subject to 'whatifs'.

I am not going to do 'whatifs'- I am going to do real facts- not alternative facts.

If you want to indict the 'media' for Fake News but won't even hold yourself to the same standards- what is the point of this thread?

If you won't respond to what I posted, it seems that there is no point in discussing it with you, anyway.

 

[Syriusly]

Really? Did the 'media' have it? Or did one man have it- and decided to release it now?

Go ahead- prove that the media 'had it' before President Obama's election.

Because if you can't- well then you are guilty of spreading "Fake News"

Decade-old photo of Obama with Louis Farrakhan surfaces

Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.

"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."

Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.

"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".

Your own source says TPM had the photo at the time it was taken. If they did, there are pretty darn good odds that others did as well.

Feel free to provide that quote- I can't find it.

Note how the photographer said he kept it secret- except for the copies that he gave a staff member of the Black Caucus.

Here let me quote the entire article again:
A photo has emerged of then-Sen. Barack Obama standing with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the controversial Nation of Islam, during a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill.

Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.

"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."

Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.

"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".

Muhammad is news director at Washington, D.C., radio station WPFW and has served as the head of the Washington offices of the Nation of Islam’s official newspaper, The Final Call of Islam.

In 2016, the Daily Caller reported, Farrakhan revealed a private meeting he had at his Chicago home with Obama, shortly before Obama announced his run for president. At the time, Farrakhan said, "I have a picture of myself and Barack together. You never saw it, because I would never put it out to give his enemies what they were looking for to hurt him."

Okay re-reading it, it expressed TPM 'was in a panic' that the photo existed. (Speaking of suppressing news.) I don't believe for a minute though that only one photo was taken at an occasion like that. I will agree that it was suppressed at the time.

Let us back up to your initial claim:

For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.

You claimed that 'the media had it'.

Based upon what? You want to indict media for promoting "Fake News" but I have shown that your very claim was 'Fake'.

Now that I have shown that your very claim is false- you want to try to change the subject to 'whatifs'.

I am not going to do 'whatifs'- I am going to do real facts- not alternative facts.

If you want to indict the 'media' for Fake News but won't even hold yourself to the same standards- what is the point of this thread?

If you won't respond to what I posted, it seems that there is no point in discussing it with you, anyway.

Well this is the way this thread has always gone.

You make a claim- I debunk it. You try to change the subject. I stay on the subject. You run away.

Again- I am not doing 'whatifs'- if that makes you want to take your toys and go home- I can't stop you.

 

[Foxfyre]

More of Trump's tweets that should 'challenge us'


We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive). P.M. Justin Trudeau of Canada, a very good guy, doesn’t like saying that Canada has a Surplus vs. the U.S.(negotiating), but they do...they almost all do...and that’s how I know!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2018

“We have tremendous losses with Mexico and losses with Canada, and covered by NAFTA. Last year, we lost approximately $71 billion in trade deficit; we have a trade deficit with Mexico of $71 billion. With Canada, it was about $17 billion.”


Reality check: No, the U.S. doesn’t have a $17B trade deficit with Canada
Those numbers differ from numbers provided by Statistics Canada, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative – both say the U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada, to the amount of US$12 billion.

Yes, the President really blew it this time, but not by overstating the trade deficit with Canada but by likely understating it.

Why America Can't Just Make Everything It Needs

So you are saying that the Office of the United States Trade Representative AND Statistics Canada are lying?

Where is you evidence for that?

Your citation specifically notes that it does not include services- my citation clearly notes that when you factor in both goods AND services- America runs a trade surplus with Canada.

Let me put this in another perspective- if Trade was neutral between Canada and the United States- the net total amount of sales lost to the United States would be 12 billion dollars.

I am not saying they were lying. Your own link confirms the President's numbers. I took the time to read what was there including the paragraphs as to why the $8 billion number was misleading and what the trade deficit actually was. Did you? Perhaps the person trying to spin the story was lying about what the numbers actually are?

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Since the article ONLY involves CNN as "fake news," I'd say the Daily Caller is also involved in being "biased"
So let's add them to the list, shall we?

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

 

[Syriusly]

More of Trump's tweets that should 'challenge us'


We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive). P.M. Justin Trudeau of Canada, a very good guy, doesn’t like saying that Canada has a Surplus vs. the U.S.(negotiating), but they do...they almost all do...and that’s how I know!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2018

“We have tremendous losses with Mexico and losses with Canada, and covered by NAFTA. Last year, we lost approximately $71 billion in trade deficit; we have a trade deficit with Mexico of $71 billion. With Canada, it was about $17 billion.”


Reality check: No, the U.S. doesn’t have a $17B trade deficit with Canada
Those numbers differ from numbers provided by Statistics Canada, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative – both say the U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada, to the amount of US$12 billion.

Yes, the President really blew it this time, but not by overstating the trade deficit with Canada but by likely understating it.

Why America Can't Just Make Everything It Needs

So you are saying that the Office of the United States Trade Representative AND Statistics Canada are lying?

Where is you evidence for that?

Your citation specifically notes that it does not include services- my citation clearly notes that when you factor in both goods AND services- America runs a trade surplus with Canada.

Let me put this in another perspective- if Trade was neutral between Canada and the United States- the net total amount of sales lost to the United States would be 12 billion dollars.

I am not saying they were lying. Your own link confirms the President's numbers. I took the time to read what was there including the paragraphs as to why the $8 billion number was misleading and what the trade deficit actually was. Did you? Perhaps the person trying to spin the story was lying about what the numbers actually are?

Sigh. The article I cited appears to be incorrect- but Trump is still wrong- according to the U.S. the U.S. had a trade surplus of $8.4 billion in 2017.

Canada | United States Trade Representative
U.S.-Canada Trade Facts

U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled an estimated $673.9 billion in 2017. Exports were $341.2 billion; imports were $332.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Canada was $8.4 billion in 2017.

Trade Balance

• The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $17.5 billion in 2017, a 59.7% increase ($6.5 billion) over 2016.
• The United States has a services trade surplus of an estimated $26 billion with Canada in 2017, up 8.0% from 2016.

 

[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.

Since the article ONLY involves CNN as "fake news," I'd say the Daily Caller is also involved in being "biased"
So let's add them to the list, shall we?

The article was about CNN specifically. It was about ONLY CNN and not any of the others that could have been included.

So what did the article get wrong? How does it show bias in any way?

The "bias" is in investigating only CNN. Fake News is news which is made up and spread with the intention of misleading the reader. When CNN corrects a mistake, the Daily Caller is still calling them "fake news." Why is that? Maybe we have a different definition of what "fake news" is.
I see strong bias by both CNN and Fox. I don't watch either one. Even PBS newshour, though, is biased in how they lead the discussion by their analysts. I don't remember a lot of analysts on Walter Cronkite's news. That was fine. If you want analysis, put it on opinion shows and keep it out of the news. THAT is where the news has gone wrong.
If you think about it, every news organization in the world has to sift through what to report in their half hour/hour or on their front page. Bias begins right there. Why must we hear about terrorist attacks in Pakistan? Ethnic cleansing in Myanmar? From the news, it sounds as if the world is going to hell in a hand basket, when actually this has been the longest relative stretch of peace in our history. It will be looked back upon as a Golden Age. Yet we see the sensational "bad news." It's all biased, Foxfyre. I'm sure you live your life and see all around you that we are a good people. When any politician tries to tell you that half of us are .... deplorables or hysterical bleeding hearts or "rapists, drug dealers and criminals," something is wrong. I know you know that. Don't let it fool you

I don't remember if I responded to this or not, and I didn't want to hunt through the pages to find out. So if this is my second go, I apologize.

The target for that particular article was CNN. That happened to be the media source the writer was interested in at the time. If that writer had included NY Times and WAPO et al who have also been guilty of reporting stuff that turned out to be quite wrong and neither has anything to do with CNN, the piece would have become so long nobody would have read it.

So long as the piece did not say that ONLY CNN was a fake news source, the way the Daily Caller did it was quite proper. To cite the errors at CNN does not require citing the errors a lot of others have made and/or that everybody else has made for all time.

The highly biased news however, including CNN, is frequently guilty of reporting some event or statement that is favorable to President Trump and/or some other member of the administration etc.--you know, people on the wrong side of the ideological isle--and not only do they word it to look less admirable than it was, they will invariably dredge up something, often entirely unrelated, to prominently include negatives in the story. Conversely, if the story is about something negative, they won't temper it with something positive. And in journalism ethics as I learned them, that is entirely inexcusable.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

This is just a off shoot of propaganda of all media. It is used to make what is out of order OK in your mind. Started many years prior to WW II and the news reporters found tha they could control public opinion and this expanded into commercials on the radio. When TV became the mode of New and product sales they found that the visual propaganda could be sent out along with the product that they were selling. As of now race seems to be the point of sell, with sex not far behind. Time shows that the more times you are shocked or "hit" with the message the more you normalize the subject. Turn the sound off on the TV and watch the visual message being brought forth.

 

[Foxfyre]

More of Trump's tweets that should 'challenge us'


We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive). P.M. Justin Trudeau of Canada, a very good guy, doesn’t like saying that Canada has a Surplus vs. the U.S.(negotiating), but they do...they almost all do...and that’s how I know!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2018

“We have tremendous losses with Mexico and losses with Canada, and covered by NAFTA. Last year, we lost approximately $71 billion in trade deficit; we have a trade deficit with Mexico of $71 billion. With Canada, it was about $17 billion.”


Reality check: No, the U.S. doesn’t have a $17B trade deficit with Canada
Those numbers differ from numbers provided by Statistics Canada, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative – both say the U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada, to the amount of US$12 billion.

Yes, the President really blew it this time, but not by overstating the trade deficit with Canada but by likely understating it.

Why America Can't Just Make Everything It Needs

So you are saying that the Office of the United States Trade Representative AND Statistics Canada are lying?

Where is you evidence for that?

Your citation specifically notes that it does not include services- my citation clearly notes that when you factor in both goods AND services- America runs a trade surplus with Canada.

Let me put this in another perspective- if Trade was neutral between Canada and the United States- the net total amount of sales lost to the United States would be 12 billion dollars.

I am not saying they were lying. Your own link confirms the President's numbers. I took the time to read what was there including the paragraphs as to why the $8 billion number was misleading and what the trade deficit actually was. Did you? Perhaps the person trying to spin the story was lying about what the numbers actually are?

Sigh. The article I cited appears to be incorrect- but Trump is still wrong- according to the U.S. the U.S. had a trade surplus of $8.4 billion in 2017.

Canada | United States Trade Representative
U.S.-Canada Trade Facts

U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled an estimated $673.9 billion in 2017. Exports were $341.2 billion; imports were $332.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Canada was $8.4 billion in 2017.

Trade Balance

• 
  
  
  • The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $17.5 billion in 2017, a 59.7% increase ($6.5 billion) over 2016.
  • The United States has a services trade surplus of an estimated $26 billion with Canada in 2017, up 8.0% from 2016.

So the goods trade deficit, which President Trump was referring to, was $17.5 billion. President Trump has consistently promoted re-energizing the U.S. manufacturing base and reopening the factories and plants and other physical products industries that our trade policies have decimated. He correctly knows that an all-service-oriented economy is not going to be sustainable in the long term and is far more vulnerable than is a goods based economy.

But did the article you linked explain that? No it did not. Nor is it possible to explain that in a Twitter tweet. So the intellectually dishonest exploit it with what 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.

This is just a off shoot of propaganda of all media. It is used to make what is out of order OK in your mind. Started many years prior to WW II and the news reporters found tha they could control public opinion and this expanded into commercials on the radio. When TV became the mode of New and product sales they found that the visual propaganda could be sent out along with the product that they were selling. As of now race seems to be the point of sell, with sex not far behind. Time shows that the more times you are shocked or "hit" with the message the more you normalize the subject. Turn the sound off on the TV and watch the visual message being brought forth.

That fits with the drumbeat I've been emphasizing throughout this. It isn't necessarily what they report, but HOW it is reported. Placement of certain facts in the story so that the negative will be seen and any positive or extenuating facts unnoticed. Couple that with the photos they use, the headlines they use, the crawlers accompanying the story on television. You're right, if you turn off the sound, you will likely get a much different impression of what is being reported.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Journalism should be about protecting the public, not about protecting the Clintons/ Obama / Dems

 

[Syriusly]

More of Trump's tweets that should 'challenge us'


We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive). P.M. Justin Trudeau of Canada, a very good guy, doesn’t like saying that Canada has a Surplus vs. the U.S.(negotiating), but they do...they almost all do...and that’s how I know!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2018

“We have tremendous losses with Mexico and losses with Canada, and covered by NAFTA. Last year, we lost approximately $71 billion in trade deficit; we have a trade deficit with Mexico of $71 billion. With Canada, it was about $17 billion.”


Reality check: No, the U.S. doesn’t have a $17B trade deficit with Canada
Those numbers differ from numbers provided by Statistics Canada, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative – both say the U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada, to the amount of US$12 billion.

Yes, the President really blew it this time, but not by overstating the trade deficit with Canada but by likely understating it.

Why America Can't Just Make Everything It Needs

So you are saying that the Office of the United States Trade Representative AND Statistics Canada are lying?

Where is you evidence for that?

Your citation specifically notes that it does not include services- my citation clearly notes that when you factor in both goods AND services- America runs a trade surplus with Canada.

Let me put this in another perspective- if Trade was neutral between Canada and the United States- the net total amount of sales lost to the United States would be 12 billion dollars.

I am not saying they were lying. Your own link confirms the President's numbers. I took the time to read what was there including the paragraphs as to why the $8 billion number was misleading and what the trade deficit actually was. Did you? Perhaps the person trying to spin the story was lying about what the numbers actually are?

Sigh. The article I cited appears to be incorrect- but Trump is still wrong- according to the U.S. the U.S. had a trade surplus of $8.4 billion in 2017.

Canada | United States Trade Representative
U.S.-Canada Trade Facts

U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled an estimated $673.9 billion in 2017. Exports were $341.2 billion; imports were $332.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Canada was $8.4 billion in 2017.

Trade Balance

• 
  
  
  • The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $17.5 billion in 2017, a 59.7% increase ($6.5 billion) over 2016.
  • The United States has a services trade surplus of an estimated $26 billion with Canada in 2017, up 8.0% from 2016.

So the goods trade deficit, which President Trump was referring to, was $17.5 billion. .

Lets look at what Trump actual words once again:

We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive). P.M. Justin Trudeau of Canada, a very good guy, doesn’t like saying that Canada has a Surplus vs. the U.S.(negotiating), but they do...they almost all do...and that’s how I know!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2018

“We have tremendous losses with Mexico and losses with Canada, and covered by NAFTA. Last year, we lost approximately $71 billion in trade deficit; we have a trade deficit with Mexico of $71 billion. With Canada, it was about $17 billion.”

Trump was factually incorrect.
I pointed out that mistake- that 'fake news' and you have continued to argue that Trump was correct- when it quite clearly wasn't.