CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[Foxfyre]

I don,'t usually use the term "fake news" but I do think that far too much of what passes for news these days is simply agenda.

Having grown up in the days when the news was actually the news and followed some journalistic standards, I am appalled by the likes of Rachel Maddow who wouldn't know journalistic integrity if it smacked her along side her smug little head.

The right may own a.m. Radio, but at least they are honest in admitting they are pundits instead of news people. The left owns most mainstream media and tries to peddle what they do as news when they are really in the business of manufacturing opinion.

In all fairness 'fake news' is when they report something as fact that in fact has no basis whatsoever. In other words, they made it up. And that doesn't happen a great deal but it does and has happened. Usually it is simply sloppy fact checking or just taking what somebody else has reported and running with it without any concern that it might be false.

But I take it you checked the poll that erroneous/fake/misleading media is a problem.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Fake news isn't a problem at all. That Trump and Trumpkins haven't any idea of what fake news is and is not, yet they persist in using that term and declaring thus any news they don't like, is the problem, and, yes, it's a big problem.

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact accurate?

Birtherism is the first thing that comes to mind--but I guess you are not talking about when Trump spread Fake news...

10 Times Trump Spread Fake News

Autism is caused by vaccinations is fake news..and Trump has spread it numerous times--but that isn't really what you called for either..Hmmmm..

All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact

The times he has claimed that he will not benefit from the new Tax Bill...that's the ticket..he very clearly will benefit--and he has claimed that reports that he will benefit.."fake news"

Tough call..you are not asking for the many, many times he lied..but the times he claimed someone else lied..and in fact, they were telling the truth.

There are plenty of threads referencing perception of lies told by the President. This thread is not about the President. This thread is about the media and whether or not biased/dishonest/erroneous reporting is a serious problem. Let's focus on that please.

You asked a question..I answered. For sure..if the President of the United States employs accusation of falsity as a matter of course..and the media reports it--whose fault is that?

The media is the issue..in this thread..but what also needs to be addressed..is that many people play the media..and wittingly..or not...it impacts the story.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

But I take it you checked the poll that erroneous/fake/misleading media is a problem.

I think the problem is actually more extensive than that, if anything.

They are actually involved in manufacturing news rather than reporting it, and pitting people against one another quite intentionally. I won't speculate on their reasons for this ("Soros, cough cough, Soros"), but they have been fanning the flames trying to start a race war, and having tired of that momentarily, have now moved to gender. They are CREATING discord and doing so by very design.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fake news isn't a problem at all. That Trump and Trumpkins haven't any idea of what fake news is and is not, yet they persist in using that term and declaring thus any news they don't like, is the problem, and, yes, it's a big problem.

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact accurate?

Birtherism is the first thing that comes to mind--but I guess you are not talking about when Trump spread Fake news...

10 Times Trump Spread Fake News

Autism is caused by vaccinations is fake news..and Trump has spread it numerous times--but that isn't really what you called for either..Hmmmm..

All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact

The times he has claimed that he will not benefit from the new Tax Bill...that's the ticket..he very clearly will benefit--and he has claimed that reports that he will benefit.."fake news"

Tough call..you are not asking for the many, many times he lied..but the times he claimed someone else lied..and in fact, they were telling the truth.

There are plenty of threads referencing perception of lies told by the President. This thread is not about the President. This thread is about the media and whether or not biased/dishonest/erroneous reporting is a serious problem. Let's focus on that please.

You asked a question..I answered. For sure..if the President of the United States employs accusation of falsity as a matter of course..and the media reports it--whose fault is that?

The media is the issue..in this thread..but what also needs to be addressed..is that many people play the media..and wittingly..or not...it impacts the story.

Fake/false news is not reporting what the President said. Fake/false news is reporting what the President did not say as if he has said it, reporting it as policy when it was obviously intended as a joke, reporting it out of its full context so that it appears to be something other than was intended, etc. For example, reporting that in Pensacola last night, the President said that "everybody should have to stand for the National Anthem" when in fact he said "everybody should stand for the National Anthem" which is very different. Or reporting his opinion that pro football players who don't stand for the National Anthem should be benched or fired--an opinion I and millions of others share--as if he was stating what the national policy should be.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Is it really the fault of the media outlets, or the citizens flocking toward confirmation bias support?

The media will give the consumers what they want. A significant portion of the citizenship has always been government lemmings, and so the vast majority of the media slants toward giving biased information to the left wing.

When the conservatives finally managed to get their voice heard above the din and break into the monopoly that the left had on information dissemination, the media began to offer up some confirmation bias toward that group.

I see a lot of progressives screaming that the right wing simply looks for sources of information that give them their worldview.

Yet, they fail to notice that almost 4 to 1 media outlets are left leaning. So, in reality, who is seeking out information that confirms their biases? The answer is clearly the left flock to news outlets that confirm their worldview far more than the right.

Is it a problem? Of course. Yet, I don't think the problem is with the media per se, so much as it is with us.

For sure a dishonest media catering to people who want their prejudices/biases/beliefs confirmed and don't much care whether they are actually legitimate does put all pretty much in the same barrel. But if the media did its job with fairness, ethical principles, and intellectual honesty, maybe there wouldn't be so many people with illegitimate prejudices/biases/beliefs?

I mean the media is in the business of gathering facts and information and has the resources to do so that the average citizen does not.

It is because the media is feeding the gross dishonesty, even egging it on, that I rate media dishonesty/bias as an extreme problem. What society can exist for long if it is only exposed to lies/misleading information presented by those who profit from those lies and that misinformation?

College Education Is a Fraud and Must Be Replaced With Highly Paid Professional Training

The word media is plural. To anyone truly educated, which means self-educated, the copycatted ignorance of Mediaspeak is as bad as hearing them say,, "Trump don't got no reason to say them things about us." So I resent your robotic assurance that your opinion should be looked up to.

Graduates with a Journalism degree are defective in grammar, logic, and history. Being isolated from common life in the escapist university, they are also defective in common knowledge. For example, they wrote that I had served 32 months in Vietnam when instead that was the time I served in the Marine Corps. A fellow veteran would think I must have served in a safe rear area there, because where I actually was, the chances of finishing my 13-month tour alive were only 50%.

Working without pay in college and therefore living like a teenager afraid to grow up made you desperately and immaturely seek a father figure. That's the only reason for your silly admiration of your bosses in the "news"room. If anyone calls you on your smug pomposity, you will fold

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it really the fault of the media outlets, or the citizens flocking toward confirmation bias support?

The media will give the consumers what they want. A significant portion of the citizenship has always been government lemmings, and so the vast majority of the media slants toward giving biased information to the left wing.

When the conservatives finally managed to get their voice heard above the din and break into the monopoly that the left had on information dissemination, the media began to offer up some confirmation bias toward that group.

I see a lot of progressives screaming that the right wing simply looks for sources of information that give them their worldview.

Yet, they fail to notice that almost 4 to 1 media outlets are left leaning. So, in reality, who is seeking out information that confirms their biases? The answer is clearly the left flock to news outlets that confirm their worldview far more than the right.

Is it a problem? Of course. Yet, I don't think the problem is with the media per se, so much as it is with us.

For sure a dishonest media catering to people who want their prejudices/biases/beliefs confirmed and don't much care whether they are actually legitimate does put all pretty much in the same barrel. But if the media did its job with fairness, ethical principles, and intellectual honesty, maybe there wouldn't be so many people with illegitimate prejudices/biases/beliefs?

I mean the media is in the business of gathering facts and information and has the resources to do so that the average citizen does not.

It is because the media is feeding the gross dishonesty, even egging it on, that I rate media dishonesty/bias as an extreme problem. What society can exist for long if it is only exposed to lies/misleading information presented by those who profit from those lies and that misinformation?

College Education Is a Fraud and Must Be Replaced With Highly Paid Professional Training

The word media is plural. To anyone truly educated, which means self-educated, the copycatted ignorance of Mediaspeak is as bad as hearing them say,, "Trump don't got no reason to say them things about us." So I resent your robotic assurance that your opinion should be looked up to.

Graduates with a Journalism degree are defective in grammar, logic, and history. Being isolated from common life in the escapist university, they are also defective in common knowledge. For example, they wrote that I had served 32 months in Vietnam when instead that was the time I served in the Marine Corps. A fellow veteran would think I must have served in a safe rear area there, because where I actually was, the chances of finishing my 13-month tour alive were only 50%.

Working without pay in college and therefore living like a teenager afraid to grow up made you desperately and immaturely seek a father figure. That's the only reason for your silly admiration of your bosses in the "news"room. If anyone calls you on your smug pomposity, you will fold

I would no more comment on your military service as if I knew what went on there than I would comment on somebody's experience in a news room where I also had no experience. I however have extensive experience in newspapers and some in television and radio back when I can assure you those graduating from journalism school were literate, could spell and write complete sentences, and were very well schooled in English, political science, history, geography, and ethics and were pretty ready to go to work immediately in their first media job.

So if I am speaking with robotic smug pomposity here, are you then engaging in hyperbole when bragging on your military experience? Or am I safe in thanking you for your service?

 

[MPS777]

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.

I think biased media has been a “problem” since the nation’s founding. And I put “problem” in quotes because the United States has thrived in spite of it. “Fake news” in the late 1800s was called “yellow journalism”. As a historical note, it was none other than a founding father who once said:
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper” - Thomas Jefferson
And he continued to support the free-press none the less.

I heard an interesting story on some pod-cast once. I can’t seem to find the story now, but the jist of it was that a lot of our perception of the media being less biased in the past, was more of an anomaly of history. For a large part of the 20th century, broadcast media (radio/TV) dominated. The broadcast model required a huge amount of capital and resources to implement on a national level, and thus tended towards consolidation to the big “alphabet” media corporations.

The huge informational power these broadcast companies held prompted regulations such as the “fairness doctrine” and the “equal time rule”. Also, since there was just a few outlets competing for the audience of everyone, they tended to naturally gravitate to the political “center” in order to capture the largest audience. Print media of course still existed, but it was heavily influenced by the “centerizing” of the media.

Of course many people believe that media back then was still biased, but most people I’ve ever talked with think it was a least less biased. Cable TV, and especially the Internet have been slowly destroying the old media model, and what I believe we’re seeing is just a readjustment to the new reality. I think often people just see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear, and the media environment of today allows them to do that if they choose.

But I don’t think this new media landscape will really damage the nation as long as all views can be freely expressed, and people can discuss the relative merits of opposing views (places such as here at USMB). Personally, I try to balance my media intake. I’ll read articles from both the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. The Washington Times and The Washington Post. CNN and Fox News. Vox and The National Review.. etc.

 

[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.

I think biased media has been a “problem” since the nation’s founding. And I put “problem” in quotes because the United States has thrived in spite of it. “Fake news” in the late 1800s was called “yellow journalism”. As a historical note, it was none other than a founding father who once said:
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper” - Thomas Jefferson
And he continued to support the free-press none the less.

I heard an interesting story on some pod-cast once. I can’t seem to find the story now, but the jist of it was that a lot of our perception of the media being less biased in the past, was more of an anomaly of history. For a large part of the 20th century, broadcast media (radio/TV) dominated. The broadcast model required a huge amount of capital and resources to implement on a national level, and thus tended towards consolidation to the big “alphabet” media corporations.

The huge informational power these broadcast companies held prompted regulations such as the “fairness doctrine” and the “equal time rule”. Also, since there was just a few outlets competing for the audience of everyone, they tended to naturally gravitate to the political “center” in order to capture the largest audience. Print media of course still existed, but it was heavily influenced by the “centerizing” of the media.

Of course many people believe that media back then was still biased, but most people I’ve ever talked with think it was a least less biased. Cable TV, and especially the Internet have been slowly destroying the old media model, and what I believe we’re seeing is just a readjustment to the new reality. I think often people just see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear, and the media environment of today allows them to do that if they choose.

But I don’t think this new media landscape will really damage the nation as long as all views can be freely expressed, and people can discuss the relative merits of opposing views (places such as here at USMB). Personally, I try to balance my media intake. I’ll read articles from both the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. The Washington Times and The Washington Post. CNN and Fox News. Vox and The National Review.. etc.

The problem isn't you who reads all sides to get to as close to the truth as is possible. The problem are those exposed to the heavily skewed/biased/blatantly dishonest headlines, photos attached to the story, a 30-second sound bite, or an misinforming first paragraph with any qualifications to it buried deep in the story where few bother to read. The problem is those who like that misinformation and they deem the NY Times or Wapo or CNN or Huffpo or whatever to be credible sources so they take that bit of information and repeat it everywhere. They don't bother to retract it when the media source does though, in the few instances that the media source actually does the right thing.

 

[konradv]

There has always been some dishonesty and incompetence in news reporting. The problem today is that the administration is characterizing anything they don't like as "fake news" and a significant proportion of the electorate is swallowing it whole.

Wrong. 0bama whined about FOX all during his regime. The only difference here is that Trump is correct and 0bama was lying.

...and a significant proportion of the electorate is swallowing it whole.

 

[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.

I think biased media has been a “problem” since the nation’s founding. And I put “problem” in quotes because the United States has thrived in spite of it. “Fake news” in the late 1800s was called “yellow journalism”. As a historical note, it was none other than a founding father who once said:
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper” - Thomas Jefferson
And he continued to support the free-press none the less.

I heard an interesting story on some pod-cast once. I can’t seem to find the story now, but the jist of it was that a lot of our perception of the media being less biased in the past, was more of an anomaly of history. For a large part of the 20th century, broadcast media (radio/TV) dominated. The broadcast model required a huge amount of capital and resources to implement on a national level, and thus tended towards consolidation to the big “alphabet” media corporations.

The huge informational power these broadcast companies held prompted regulations such as the “fairness doctrine” and the “equal time rule”. Also, since there was just a few outlets competing for the audience of everyone, they tended to naturally gravitate to the political “center” in order to capture the largest audience. Print media of course still existed, but it was heavily influenced by the “centerizing” of the media.

Of course many people believe that media back then was still biased, but most people I’ve ever talked with think it was a least less biased. Cable TV, and especially the Internet have been slowly destroying the old media model, and what I believe we’re seeing is just a readjustment to the new reality. I think often people just see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear, and the media environment of today allows them to do that if they choose.

But I don’t think this new media landscape will really damage the nation as long as all views can be freely expressed, and people can discuss the relative merits of opposing views (places such as here at USMB). Personally, I try to balance my media intake. I’ll read articles from both the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. The Washington Times and The Washington Post. CNN and Fox News. Vox and The National Review.. etc.

Further commenting on your thoughtful post, yes media bias has always existed, i.e. the local newspaper might give more prominent coverage to the cause of the strikers at the mine if their editorial position is on the striker's side. Or vice versa if their editorial position is on the mine owner's side.

But there was a dedicated effort when journalistic ethics were still observed to at least present the position of both sides and not present either side dishonestly.

And you are correct that the television news magazine such as "60 Minutes" and "20/20" and "Nightline" or many of the hours alloted by the cable news channels have changed journalism and not always in a good way. But intellectual honesty, journalistic ethics, and integrity in not deliberately or carelessly bearing false witness have not changed and are seriously lacking in modern journalism.

 

[PredFan]

There has always been some dishonesty and incompetence in news reporting. The problem today is that the administration is characterizing anything they don't like as "fake news" and a significant proportion of the electorate is swallowing it whole.

Wrong. 0bama whined about FOX all during his regime. The only difference here is that Trump is correct and 0bama was lying.

...and a significant proportion of the electorate is swallowing it whole.

Wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I take it you checked the poll that erroneous/fake/misleading media is a problem.

I think the problem is actually more extensive than that, if anything.

They are actually involved in manufacturing news rather than reporting it, and pitting people against one another quite intentionally. I won't speculate on their reasons for this ("Soros, cough cough, Soros"), but they have been fanning the flames trying to start a race war, and having tired of that momentarily, have now moved to gender. They are CREATING discord and doing so by very design.

I would be the first to agree that the vast majority of the MSM are active surrogates and activists for Democrats and other leftists first. Any responsible journalism takes a far back seat to that. Which of course makes any disinformation they put out even more serious in its affect on the nation overall.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

But I take it you checked the poll that erroneous/fake/misleading media is a problem.

I think the problem is actually more extensive than that, if anything.

They are actually involved in manufacturing news rather than reporting it, and pitting people against one another quite intentionally. I won't speculate on their reasons for this ("Soros, cough cough, Soros"), but they have been fanning the flames trying to start a race war, and having tired of that momentarily, have now moved to gender. They are CREATING discord and doing so by very design.

I would be the first to agree that the vast majority of the MSM are active surrogates and activists for Democrats and other leftists first. Any responsible journalism takes a far back seat to that. Which of course makes any disinformation they put out even more serious in its affect on the nation overall.

Ahhh...I get it now...so, an axe to grind will always find a stone. I made the mistake of thinking you had asked an unbiased question..not that you had already formed the opinion that the left IS the problem. My bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I take it you checked the poll that erroneous/fake/misleading media is a problem.

I think the problem is actually more extensive than that, if anything.

They are actually involved in manufacturing news rather than reporting it, and pitting people against one another quite intentionally. I won't speculate on their reasons for this ("Soros, cough cough, Soros"), but they have been fanning the flames trying to start a race war, and having tired of that momentarily, have now moved to gender. They are CREATING discord and doing so by very design.

I would be the first to agree that the vast majority of the MSM are active surrogates and activists for Democrats and other leftists first. Any responsible journalism takes a far back seat to that. Which of course makes any disinformation they put out even more serious in its affect on the nation overall.

Ahhh...I get it now...so, an axe to grind will always find a stone. I made the mistake of thinking you had asked an unbiased question..not that you had already formed the opinion that the left IS the problem. My bad.

If that's what you got out of my post--that I have a partisan ax to grind--then no, you don't get it. I admit my own prejudice that the leftist media is far more likely to engage in intentional disinformation than the media on the right. But I would also say that is probably at least in part because there is so much more leftist media than there is on the right.

But whoever puts out deliberate or careless disinformation to mislead the public is equally guilty regardless of who the organization promoted in politics.

So do you have any examples, in context, of right leaning media that has intentionally put out misleading information? I would welcome such examples if you have them.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

But I take it you checked the poll that erroneous/fake/misleading media is a problem.

I think the problem is actually more extensive than that, if anything.

They are actually involved in manufacturing news rather than reporting it, and pitting people against one another quite intentionally. I won't speculate on their reasons for this ("Soros, cough cough, Soros"), but they have been fanning the flames trying to start a race war, and having tired of that momentarily, have now moved to gender. They are CREATING discord and doing so by very design.

I would be the first to agree that the vast majority of the MSM are active surrogates and activists for Democrats and other leftists first. Any responsible journalism takes a far back seat to that. Which of course makes any disinformation they put out even more serious in its affect on the nation overall.

Ahhh...I get it now...so, an axe to grind will always find a stone. I made the mistake of thinking you had asked an unbiased question..not that you had already formed the opinion that the left IS the problem. My bad.

If that's what you got out of my post--that I have a partisan ax to grind--then no, you don't get it. I admit my own prejudice that the leftist media is far more likely to engage in intentional disinformation than the media on the right. But I would also say that is probably at least in part because there is so much more leftist media than there is on the right.

But whoever puts out deliberate or careless disinformation to mislead the public is equally guilty regardless of who the organization promoted in politics.

So do you have any examples, in context, of right leaning media that has intentionally put out misleading information? I would welcome such examples if you have them.

Fair enough..I guess..first..what do we consider right leaning Media..Fox and Breitbart..or Gateway Pundit and Infowars? I won't bring up ZeroHedge...only the truly lost would read them.

You appear to be looking for the out and out lie..rather than the partisan slant, right? My definition of fake news includes egregious slant...

Five lies that are ricocheting around the right-wing media bubble

Big Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions

Big Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions

The real issue...is that unless one finds a total smoking gun lie....it is hard to blame media..if Trump lies..and the media covers it..is the media lying?

One of the ironies of the MSM..is that they do police themselves..and when fault is found..consequences ensue..but does the right give any credit at all these efforts, NO..they do not--because the narrative of left-wing media bias is essential to them.

 

[Indeependent]

During the campaign, the CNN App was outright making up anti-Trump news all day long.
It was beyond disgusting.

The main issue is that media outlets are, in actuality, for-profit entertainment outlets.

 

[william the wie]

During the campaign, the CNN App was outright making up anti-Trump news all day long.
It was beyond disgusting.

The main issue is that media outlets are, in actuality, for-profit entertainment outlets.

With extremely few exceptions that I have already mentioned. Non-entertainment outlets are expensive and are used only for economic reasons. As in Value Line is the best stock picker available but its cost requires about $7,000 profit in an off year.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I take it you checked the poll that erroneous/fake/misleading media is a problem.

I think the problem is actually more extensive than that, if anything.

They are actually involved in manufacturing news rather than reporting it, and pitting people against one another quite intentionally. I won't speculate on their reasons for this ("Soros, cough cough, Soros"), but they have been fanning the flames trying to start a race war, and having tired of that momentarily, have now moved to gender. They are CREATING discord and doing so by very design.

I would be the first to agree that the vast majority of the MSM are active surrogates and activists for Democrats and other leftists first. Any responsible journalism takes a far back seat to that. Which of course makes any disinformation they put out even more serious in its affect on the nation overall.

Ahhh...I get it now...so, an axe to grind will always find a stone. I made the mistake of thinking you had asked an unbiased question..not that you had already formed the opinion that the left IS the problem. My bad.

If that's what you got out of my post--that I have a partisan ax to grind--then no, you don't get it. I admit my own prejudice that the leftist media is far more likely to engage in intentional disinformation than the media on the right. But I would also say that is probably at least in part because there is so much more leftist media than there is on the right.

But whoever puts out deliberate or careless disinformation to mislead the public is equally guilty regardless of who the organization promoted in politics.

So do you have any examples, in context, of right leaning media that has intentionally put out misleading information? I would welcome such examples if you have them.

Fair enough..I guess..first..what do we consider right leaning Media..Fox and Breitbart..or Gateway Pundit and Infowars? I won't bring up ZeroHedge...only the truly lost would read them.

You appear to be looking for the out and out lie..rather than the partisan slant, right? My definition of fake news includes egregious slant...

Five lies that are ricocheting around the right-wing media bubble

Big Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions

Big Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions

The real issue...is that unless one finds a total smoking gun lie....it is hard to blame media..if Trump lies..and the media covers it..is the media lying?

One of the ironies of the MSM..is that they do police themselves..and when fault is found..consequences ensue..but does the right give any credit at all these efforts, NO..they do not--because the narrative of left-wing media bias is essential to them.

Yes, partisan advocacy is nothing new and, while I think it belongs strictly in opinion pieces, I don't get as angry about that as I do out and out misrepresentation and deceptive reporting that doesn't belong anywhere in an honorable Fourth Estate.

FYI, I rank Media Matters as one of the most despicable and dishonest organizations out there and I would not look to them for honest information about anything. I would entertain some direct quotes from Breitbart that might qualify as erroneous news because I have caught them in that a couple of times myself. But I want direct sources for such criticisms and Media Matters is not to be trusted for that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Fake news isn't a problem at all. That Trump and Trumpkins haven't any idea of what fake news is and is not, yet they persist in using that term and declaring thus any news they don't like, is the problem, and, yes, it's a big problem.

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact inaccurate?

No, because the stuff he declares fake news is accurate; it's his mischaracterization of that news as fake that is inapt.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fake news isn't a problem at all. That Trump and Trumpkins haven't any idea of what fake news is and is not, yet they persist in using that term and declaring thus any news they don't like, is the problem, and, yes, it's a big problem.

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact inaccurate?

No, because the stuff he declares fake news is accurate; it's his mischaracterization of that news as fake that is inapt.

But this is the CDZ and I am hoping to keep the discussion civil and without attacking each other please. I will say though that so much of what Trump has been accused of as being 'lies' have in fact been mostly mischaracterized, misrepresented, taken out of context, or presented as something other than the humor he intended, and that results in an awful lot of fake news out there.