CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

How serious is fake/biased/erroneous news in modern times?

  • 1. Not serious at all

  • 2. Somewhat serious

  • 3. Serious

  • 4. Extremely serious.


Results are only viewable after voting.
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.

As I have pointed out several times now the Daily Caller was in fact highly biased in their article.

And as I have pointed out- you do not hold Fox/conservative media to the same 'standards' that you say you hold other media.

While I agree that there is bias in reporting- that is very different from 'fake news'-

"Fake News" is like the made up crap that Trump pulls out- and that very irresponsible media sources create wholesale.

You equate reporting mistake and biases with "Fake News" but exclusively by everyone but Fox.
 
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.

From your own link, the same as my link, we have a $17.5 trade deficit in goods with Canada. Just because he didn't offset it with a trade surplus in services, does not affect the trade deficit in goods. Those are two different things. Now you can refuse to accept it as I believe he intended, or you can make a huge big freaking deal out of it that he can't refer to one without offsetting it with the other. Either of us can be wrong in what he intended, but neither of us knows. I prefer to give somebody the benefit of the doubt in a tweet in which you only have so many characters to express a though.

Now if somebody had written a news story on that and failed to include both the deficit and the surplus, that would be a bit more criticizable at least as incompetent journalism. A tweet from somebody who isn't in the mainstream media is not mainstream media even though it utilizes social media. But when the media takes a tweet and turns it into a fake news story, then that is what I am talking about in this thread. When a media source tweets the fake news, that is what I am talking about in this thread. See my next post.
 
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.:clap2:

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.:rolleyes:

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?:iyfyus.jpg:

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.


Okay If you dont want to do some SERIOUS research,and you want just a taste, then yeah,dont watch it and just stick to the 3 minute one to get your feet wet and have a taste of it.LOL I dont know too much about the colby case but knowing how ANOTHER CIA director william casey also died very msteriously after confessing how the CIA makes up their own rules and is not held accountable for their actions and the corruption the CIA underwent under ronnie reagan that the american sheep have been brainwashed to believe was such a great man, it would be safe to put your money on colby being murdered since the CIA murders women and children everyday and is engaged in false flag operations here in the states all the time so lawmakers will get rid of our guns.



i just give the info and present the facts,if the reader wants to pursue it and do some serious SERIOUS digging,then thats great,if not,then makes no difference to me,the info is there for everyone to decide if they want to hear it all or not and as i said,you can read the link as well. thats all up to the readers here if they want to read it or not.its all there for them to decide to read and learn,whatever the poster decides to do with the info,thats all up to them.
 
Last edited:
Here is a good example of fake news.

On December 1, 2016, Loraine Woellert at Politico published a piece claiming President Trump's Treasury Secretary pick, Steven Mnuchin, had been CEO of OneWest bank that foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman when she failed to pay 27 cents. They had sent the woman a bill of $423.30 and she paid $423. They sent a second bill for 30 cents and she paid 3 cents. And they foreclosed.

This story was shared about 17,000 times on Facebook. Steve Rattner at the NY times shared it on Twitter followed by 1,300 retweets. Brad Jaffy at NBC tweeted it followed by 1,900 retweets. Huffington Post also reported it from the Politico story, and some 25,000 people shared it. Vanity Fair, The New York Post, and others also reported it with who knows how many shares. How many people read those stories, FB posts, tweets, and shares? Incalculable.

The problem? It never happened. The woman was never foreclosed on and never lost her home. In fact it wasn't even Mnuchin's bank that billed the woman. Nor did most, maybe all of the other stuff Mnuchin has been accused of turned out to be verifiable.

Politico eventually admitted that, but the damage was already done. Whomever should have been fact checking at Politico and all those other publications that parroted that story didn't bother to do so or they didn't care that it was fake. Either way, it is inexcusable. (And I don't believe any of the sources that had re-reported the fake Politico story bothered to correct their erroneous reports.)

And we occasionally still see stuff like this on Twitter, Facebook, message boards, et al:

making-america-great-again-by-kicking-grandma-out-of-her-8159038.png
Screen%20Shot%202016-05-06%20at%209.47.27%20PM.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.:clap2:

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.:rolleyes:

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?:iyfyus.jpg:

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.


Okay If you dont want to do some SERIOUS research,and you want just a taste, then yeah,dont watch it and just stick to the 3 minute one to get your feet wet and have a taste of it.LOL I dont know too much about the colby case but knowing how ANOTHER CIA director william casey also died very msteriously after confessing how the CIA makes up their own rules and is not held accountable for their actions and the corruption the CIA underwent under ronnie reagan that the american sheep have been brainwashed to believe was such a great man, it would be safe to put your money on colby being murdered since the CIA murders women and children everyday and is engaged in false flag operations here in the states all the time so lawmakers will get rid of our guns.



i just give the info and present the facts,if the reader wants to pursue it and do some serious SERIOUS digging,then thats great,if not,then makes no difference to me,the info is there for everyone to decide if they want to hear it all or not and as i said,you can read the link as well. thats all up to the readers here if they want to read it or not.its all there for them to decide to read and learn,whatever the poster decides to do with the info,thats all up to them.


I understand. But this thread is about fake, biased, and erroneous media. I would be interested in reading in and maybe participating in a thread devoted to holding the CIA's, FBI's, et al feet to the fire, but I don't want to derail this thread with that.

Evidence that the CIA was putting out fake news in the 1970's and the media knew it was fake would be applicable, but otherwise another thread would be more suitable for stuff that went on then. As I was a sometimes member of the press in the 1970's and as avid a media watcher then as I am now, I am pretty sure that deliberate or careless fake news was not part of the equation back then.
 
Last edited:
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.

From your own link, the same as my link, we have a $17.5 trade deficit in goods with Canada. Just because he didn't offset it with a trade surplus in services, does not affect the trade deficit in goods. Those are two different things. Now you can refuse to accept it as I believe he intended, or you can make a huge big freaking deal out of it that he can't refer to one without offsetting it with the other..

I am pointing out that Trump was factually incorrect. Not once but twice. He said we had a Trade Deficit with Canada- and we don't. We have a Trade surplus.

If CNN had made such a mistake you would be calling them out for 'fake news'
 
Here is a good example of fake news.

On December 1, 2016, Loraine Woellert at Politico published a piece claiming President Trump's Treasury Secretary pick, Steven Mnuchin, had been CEO of OneWest bank that foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman when she failed to pay 27 cents. They had sent the woman a bill of $423.30 and she paid $423. They sent a second bill for 30 cents and she paid 3 cents. And they foreclosed.

This story was shared about 17,000 times on Facebook. Steve Rattner at the NY times shared it on Twitter followed by 1,300 retweets. Brad Jaffy at NBC tweeted it followed by 1,900 retweets. Huffington Post also reported it from the Politico story, and some 25,000 people shared it. Vanity Fair, The New York Post, and others also reported it with who knows how many shares. How many people read those stories, FB posts, tweets, and shares? Incalculable.

The problem? It never happened. The woman was never foreclosed on and never lost her home. In fact it wasn't even Mnuchin's bank that billed the woman. Nor did most, maybe all of the other stuff Mnuchin has been accused of turned out to be verifiable.

Politico eventually admitted that, but the damage was already done. Whomever should have been fact checking at Politico and all those other publications that parroted that story didn't bother to do so or they didn't care that it was fake. Either way, it is inexcusable. (And I don't believe any of the sources that had re-reported the fake Politico story bothered to correct their erroneous reports.)

And we occasionally still see stuff like this on Twitter, Facebook, message boards, et al:

Well lets see- here is the story as reported by Politico now:

Trump Treasury pick made millions after his bank foreclosed on homeowners

Bank with Steven Mnuchin on the board filed to take a 90-year-old woman's house after a 27-cent payment error.


Is that factually correct- or false?

In Florida, the company's successor, CIT Bank, tried to foreclose on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error — a chain of events kicked off by a OneWest mistake. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo singled out the lender for squeezing superstorm Sandy victims. This month, CIT Bank was accused of discriminating against minority borrowers.

n Florida, the company's successor, CIT Bank, tried to foreclose on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error — a chain of events kicked off by a OneWest mistake. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo singled out the lender for squeezing superstorm Sandy victims. This month, CIT Bank was accused of discriminating against minority borrowers.


And here is the Politico correction:

CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT.

Fake News?

Or mistaken news- like mistakenly claiming what the Trade Deficit with Canada is?
 
Here is a good example of fake news.

On December 1, 2016, Loraine Woellert at Politico published a piece claiming President Trump's Treasury Secretary pick, Steven Mnuchin, had been CEO of OneWest bank that foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman when she failed to pay 27 cents. They had sent the woman a bill of $423.30 and she paid $423. They sent a second bill for 30 cents and she paid 3 cents. And they foreclosed.

This story was shared about 17,000 times on Facebook. Steve Rattner at the NY times shared it on Twitter followed by 1,300 retweets. Brad Jaffy at NBC tweeted it followed by 1,900 retweets. Huffington Post also reported it from the Politico story, and some 25,000 people shared it. Vanity Fair, The New York Post, and others also reported it with who knows how many shares. How many people read those stories, FB posts, tweets, and shares? Incalculable.

The problem? It never happened. The woman was never foreclosed on and never lost her home. In fact it wasn't even Mnuchin's bank that billed the woman. Nor did most, maybe all of the other stuff Mnuchin has been accused of turned out to be verifiable.

Politico eventually admitted that, but the damage was already done. Whomever should have been fact checking at Politico and all those other publications that parroted that story didn't bother to do so or they didn't care that it was fake. Either way, it is inexcusable. (And I don't believe any of the sources that had re-reported the fake Politico story bothered to correct their erroneous reports.)

And we occasionally still see stuff like this on Twitter, Facebook, message boards, et al:

Well lets see- here is the story as reported by Politico now:

Trump Treasury pick made millions after his bank foreclosed on homeowners

Bank with Steven Mnuchin on the board filed to take a 90-year-old woman's house after a 27-cent payment error.


Is that factually correct- or false?

In Florida, the company's successor, CIT Bank, tried to foreclose on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error — a chain of events kicked off by a OneWest mistake. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo singled out the lender for squeezing superstorm Sandy victims. This month, CIT Bank was accused of discriminating against minority borrowers.

n Florida, the company's successor, CIT Bank, tried to foreclose on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error — a chain of events kicked off by a OneWest mistake. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo singled out the lender for squeezing superstorm Sandy victims. This month, CIT Bank was accused of discriminating against minority borrowers.


And here is the Politico correction:

CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT.

Fake News?

Or mistaken news- like mistakenly claiming what the Trade Deficit with Canada is?

Yup, the 27 cent foreclosure never happened at all. The fact that Politico still says it did means they didn't really make an apology for their fake news story at all. I was just reporting that they had apologized for that. I may have been giving out fake news that they apologized. My bad.

I won't bother to fact check any of the rest of it unless you can show that my analysis of what they did is incorrect.
 
Here is a good example of fake news.

On December 1, 2016, Loraine Woellert at Politico published a piece claiming President Trump's Treasury Secretary pick, Steven Mnuchin, had been CEO of OneWest bank that foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman when she failed to pay 27 cents. They had sent the woman a bill of $423.30 and she paid $423. They sent a second bill for 30 cents and she paid 3 cents. And they foreclosed.

This story was shared about 17,000 times on Facebook. Steve Rattner at the NY times shared it on Twitter followed by 1,300 retweets. Brad Jaffy at NBC tweeted it followed by 1,900 retweets. Huffington Post also reported it from the Politico story, and some 25,000 people shared it. Vanity Fair, The New York Post, and others also reported it with who knows how many shares. How many people read those stories, FB posts, tweets, and shares? Incalculable.

The problem? It never happened. The woman was never foreclosed on and never lost her home. In fact it wasn't even Mnuchin's bank that billed the woman. Nor did most, maybe all of the other stuff Mnuchin has been accused of turned out to be verifiable.

Politico eventually admitted that, but the damage was already done. Whomever should have been fact checking at Politico and all those other publications that parroted that story didn't bother to do so or they didn't care that it was fake. Either way, it is inexcusable. (And I don't believe any of the sources that had re-reported the fake Politico story bothered to correct their erroneous reports.)

And we occasionally still see stuff like this on Twitter, Facebook, message boards, et al:

Well lets see- here is the story as reported by Politico now:

Trump Treasury pick made millions after his bank foreclosed on homeowners

Bank with Steven Mnuchin on the board filed to take a 90-year-old woman's house after a 27-cent payment error.


Is that factually correct- or false?

In Florida, the company's successor, CIT Bank, tried to foreclose on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error — a chain of events kicked off by a OneWest mistake. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo singled out the lender for squeezing superstorm Sandy victims. This month, CIT Bank was accused of discriminating against minority borrowers.

n Florida, the company's successor, CIT Bank, tried to foreclose on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error — a chain of events kicked off by a OneWest mistake. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo singled out the lender for squeezing superstorm Sandy victims. This month, CIT Bank was accused of discriminating against minority borrowers.


And here is the Politico correction:

CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT.

Fake News?

Or mistaken news- like mistakenly claiming what the Trade Deficit with Canada is?

Yup, the 27 cent foreclosure never happened at all. The fact that Politico still says it did means they didn't really make an apology for their fake news story at all. I was just reporting that they had apologized for that. I may have been giving out fake news that they apologized. My bad.

I won't bother to fact check any of the rest of it unless you can show that my analysis of what they did is incorrect.

Politico didn't apologize- they issued a correction.

I don't expect you to fact check anything.
 
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.

For a long time now, the media is not in business of informing public, they are in business of informing each other and parroting each other in order to make impression that news is coming from multiple sources and make it more believable.

It looks something like this, and it's creepy as hell.

 
The problem with news in this country is extremely serious. The press is the only defense we have against government corruption. With the press firmly and unabashedly on the side of the democrats, no one can trust them.

This leads to politicians on both sides of the isle being able to do as they please. On the right, they can do whatever they want and just claim it’s fake news. On the left they can make up anything they want to and IF the ever get caught, they simply move quickly on to the next made up thing.

In the end we get situations like in Roy Moore’s case. We don’t know what’s true and what isn’t. Those who support him believe it’s a set up by the left and it could very well be since the left never has anyone call them to the carpet. They are above the law. The Moore supporters know that and it bolsters their belief in the conspiracy. Meanwhile, those on the left who get fed a steady diet of left wing slanted news don’t get to hear anything that doesn’t support the narrative about Moore.

What should have happened is the media should be non-partisan and lead the charge against corruption no matter what party they belong to. This would have kept the left honest and given the right news they can believe. Then Moore would be either never bothered or completely fucked depending on wether he’s guilty or not.

It’s terrible. The government is out of control and the people have no way to control them.

Good post.

Once media get on one subject, they keep repeating it until it hurts.

Here is the good example:

 
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.

For a long time now, the media is not in business of informing public, they are in business of informing each other and parroting each other in order to make impression that news is coming from multiple sources and make it more believable.

It looks something like this, and it's creepy as hell.



That's a given. You hear the same sound bite or word or phrase of the day. . .gravitas. . .community. . .extremely dangerous to our democracy. . .Stormy Daniels. . .shithole (they really REALLY liked saying that one as many times in a newscast as they could squeeze it in). . .in the same context repeated in the same way on network after network, TV news program after news program. Newspapers do a bit better in at least writing their own copy, but they are as often as not repeating what was picked up from a single source. And often mischaracterize even that.

And yes, it does give the illusion that all are on top of the story when in fact everybody picked it up from one source and just repeated it making no effort to put it into any kind of honest context. And as often as not, that single source got it more wrong than right.
 

The way it usually goes--attention: snow flakes, this is a rhetorical example--some guy stops his car and tries to stop the pit bull that is attacking a child and, failing that pulls his licensed 38 from its concealed holster and shoots the dog.. A passing news team catches the whole thing on film.

If he has an Obama bumper sticker on his car, the headline on the story is: BRAVE PATRIOT RISKS SERIOUS INJURY TO SAVE CHILD.

If he has a NRA andTrump/Pence bumper sticker on his car, the headline on the story is: TRUMP AND NRA SUPPORTER SHOOTS FAMILY PET.

While the example is of course fictitious (so far as I know), it literally has gotten almost that bad.
 

The way it usually goes--attention: snow flakes, this is a rhetorical example--some guy stops his car and tries to stop the pit bull that is attacking a child and, failing that pulls his licensed 38 from its concealed holster and shoots the dog.. A passing news team catches the whole thing on film.

If he has an Obama bumper sticker on his car, the headline on the story is: BRAVE PATRIOT RISKS SERIOUS INJURY TO SAVE CHILD.

If he has a NRA andTrump/Pence bumper sticker on his car, the headline on the story is: TRUMP AND NRA SUPPORTER SHOOTS FAMILY PET.

While the example is of course fictitious (so far as I know), it literally has gotten almost that bad.
The way it usually goes--attention: snow flakes, this is a rhetorical example-

The difference between how Right Wing 'media' and Left Wing 'media' would report this story:

A van being driven by a married white couple of two women with their six children plunges off a cliff to their death.

Right Wing Headline:
Lesbian Mom's kill their kids- another indictment of gay marriage.

Left Wing Headline:
Family killed in tragic crash off cliff- authorities suspect murder suicide.
 

The way it usually goes--attention: snow flakes, this is a rhetorical example--some guy stops his car and tries to stop the pit bull that is attacking a child and, failing that pulls his licensed 38 from its concealed holster and shoots the dog.. A passing news team catches the whole thing on film.

If he has an Obama bumper sticker on his car, the headline on the story is: BRAVE PATRIOT RISKS SERIOUS INJURY TO SAVE CHILD.

If he has a NRA andTrump/Pence bumper sticker on his car, the headline on the story is: TRUMP AND NRA SUPPORTER SHOOTS FAMILY PET.

While the example is of course fictitious (so far as I know), it literally has gotten almost that bad.

Are you HuffPost insider?
 

The way it usually goes--attention: snow flakes, this is a rhetorical example--some guy stops his car and tries to stop the pit bull that is attacking a child and, failing that pulls his licensed 38 from its concealed holster and shoots the dog.. A passing news team catches the whole thing on film.

If he has an Obama bumper sticker on his car, the headline on the story is: BRAVE PATRIOT RISKS SERIOUS INJURY TO SAVE CHILD.

If he has a NRA andTrump/Pence bumper sticker on his car, the headline on the story is: TRUMP AND NRA SUPPORTER SHOOTS FAMILY PET.

While the example is of course fictitious (so far as I know), it literally has gotten almost that bad.

Are you HuffPost insider?

:) Nope. Just a very VERY long time avid media watcher.
 

Forum List

Back
Top