CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[The Sage of Main Street]

There are a lot more straight shooters for news than Breitbart or CNN.
Someone long ago taught me that the closest we can come to the truth is to read a lot of sources (reputable ones) and listen to the reliable news on tv and radio. It's a little work, but if you care what's true, it's good to explore a lot of sources, and not ones you catch out in blatant lies or manipulations.

'Reputable' and 'reliable' are the operative words. Frankly those terms are meaningless in the political reportage. I do agree that the best thing to do is access different sources, especially those one disagrees with.

Ambitious Imbeciles

Why? Jurinalists all come from the same Diploma Dumbo background.. It doesn't matter whether they pretend to be on the Left, Right, or Middle, they all chant to their captive audiences the same sheltered ignorance and Know-It-All Nobody preaching. Same tune, different voices.

 

[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.

Fake news was not invented by Fox News. They may be a good example of it from the last 20 years but they hardly invented it. We can go back to the Yellow Journalism days or the American Revolution to search for papers and pamphlets which really supported a cause like Fox News does.

To me there is a line further out than Fox (or General Electric in the recent past or CNN or whatever hippies if you like) venture.

Follow me for a 1/4 mile.

Back in 1998 if I met someone online they were probably a top 10 percenter so to say. Now if I'm on Facebook I hate to say it but I am electronically surrounded by a group who seems less informed than our fellow posters on the USMB.

That does not mean people on Facebook don't have opinions. It means they are easily duped by whatever video or link they see. Me, if it doesn't come from the AP or Fox or CNN or NBC or some news source I recognize I put Duck Duck Go or Google to work trying to find a reasonable news outlet which has pushed the story. If KOA in Denver or KMOX here or even Rush Limbaugh haven't mentioned it something is amiss. Most (God I wish I could type many or some here) people treat all sources of news as equal.

So a news reporter making $40,000 a year for the Post Dispatch may just report on the closing of a homeless shelter with a liberal bias because they had to stand there and watch the bottom 1% go pee on themselves in the cold. It happened though.

A news reporter for General Electric corp might report the positive side of of some corporate tax reform law. But it isn't untrue. Reganomics and FDR's deficit spending all had good and bad effects.

A reporter for Fox is obviously going to present whatever Trump said as the reason N. Korea has not nuked us but there is some truth there. N. Korea has not nuked us and Trump did say whatever Fox reported I'm sure.

Fake news is some guy with access to a computer dressing up some girl and having her report Hillary is killing babies in pizza shops or Trump is the second coming of the anti-christ. And people re-post it like morons. You and me know its not true. Not everyone who votes realizes it though.

I can't argue with this. Somebody posted on Facebook this morning that President Trump drinks a dozen or more diet Cokes every day. That is absurd on the face of it.

Like you, if somebody posts a significant fact about something I wasn't aware of, I check to see what the real deal is. And if the ONLY place you can find that 'fact' repeated again and again and again is on far left or far right websites, message boards, social media etc. and the MSM isn't covering it, you can pretty well take it to the bank that it is fake news.

And because any news source reports a negative or positive without also reporting all negatives and/or positives is not what makes something fake news. But when a news source reports that say the President met with so and so from wherever today and then fills the rest of the entire story with everything negative ever said about the President and presidential visits, that isn't exactly fake news. But it definitely is a deliberately prejudicial presentation intended to give the reader/listener the impression that this visit will be a bad thing.

And that is reprehensible journalism.

 

[Foxfyre]

Apparently Fox News wasn't too terribly hurt by the controversies surrounding the loss of Roger Ailes and their flagship anchor Bill O'Reilly. Fox is finishing up 2017 at head of the pack of ALL programming on cable television--significantly ahead of second place ESPN. It was hurt though as it historically has had ratings that exceeded all the other cable news added together. And now CNN and MSNBC combined do exceed Fox by a small margin.

Fox was third in line in total day ratings in the coveted 25-54 age group behind ESPN and Nickelodean. A number for Fox wasn't posted for that group but obviously was greater than their cable news competitors.

In comparison with other cable news sources:

Fox viewership in Prime Time was 2.422 million and 1.921 in Prime Time.

CNN logged 1.06 million viewers total day and a pitiful 370,000 among the 25-54 group. A decline of 15-13% from 2016.

MSNBC gained the most in viewers, probably drawing most from a floundering CNN, with 1.624 total day and 370,000 among the 25-54 group, a gain of 50-37%.

Tucker Carlson in O'reilly's old spot has taken second place as the most watched cable program though his ratings don't yet equal O'Reillys who held that No. 1 spot for a very long time. And Sean Hannity has now claimed the No. 1 most watched cable television program.

Fox News Is Most-Watched Basic Cable Network in 2017

What does this mean? To me it says that conservatism isn't dead but considering those numbers and even adding in the pitiful numbers of the network news in a nation of 330 million people suggests most aren't getting much if any of their news from television. And since newspaper readership continues to decline, it is difficult to say how much influence the MSM actually has.

But since the sound bites, slogans, etc. we all see on the internet ad nauseum all seem to originate from something the MSM put out there, I suspect it still has enough influence to affect the overall point of view.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay here we go again. Late this week, a WAPO story citing seven forbidden words that personnel at the CDC are no longer allowed to use has gone hysterically viral. It has been picked up and repeated by numerous MSM sources and social media and the message boards are full of it. There is most likely at least one active thread here at USMB.

But on the face of it, it seemed so unreasonably unplausible I went looking and found this:

. . .A separate FDA spokeswoman said earlier on Saturday that the FDA hasn’t yet received or implemented a policy to avoid certain words in budget or policy work.

The responses come after the scientific and public health community expressed outrage at the Friday report, which said analysts at the CDC were banned from using those and five other words, including “fetus,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” and “evidence-based,” in their budget documents.

“The assertion that HHS has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” Lloyd, from HHS, said in a statement to STAT. “HHS will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. HHS also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”
https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/16/...words-fda-cdc/

And from ABC
HHS disputes report it has banned CDC from using words like 'diversity' and 'fetus'​

So where are the fair and objective folks going to put their money on this one? That WAPO reported it accurately and without prejudice? Or once again we are seeing evidence of mischaracterized, inflated, deliberately misstated prejudicial fake news?

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

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

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

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

Okay there certainly is 'Fake News"- much of it purposely generated- by the Right, by the Left, by Russia and other agents acting to make America doubt what is a fact. And of course our own President generates "Fake News"

Now much of media is certainly biased. That certainly doesn't seem to bother the Right when it is Fox or Breitbart- but somehow is a sin when it comes to CNN or MSNBC.

So media can be biased- and their reporting can reflect that bias- but most of the time- whether it is Fox or CNN- the facts are indeed facts.

The difference between the Media and the Fake News- is that actual Fake News is being purposely generated for the express purpose of fooling people.

Real Media- Fox or CNN- may get the facts wrong- but generally will admit their errors- unlike the purveyors of fake news- such as Trump or either of the political parties.

There has been a concerted effort for years by the Right to discredit the media- frankly ever since Richard Nixon. And they should be congratulated.

Americans now cannot tell the difference between real facts published by Fox or CNN- and Fake news generated by Russia or Trump.

 

[Syriusly]

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

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

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

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

7 times in all of 2017? Wow. I will have to find how many instances President Trump has declared actual facts "Fake News" in 2017. I am betting I will find more than 7.

 

[Syriusly]

Another example of Right Wing Media promoting Fake News- Fake News that President elect Trump was quick to repeat.

Alex Jones' Mis-Infowars: 7 Bat-Sh*t Conspiracy Theories

In August, Infowars posted an article, "Hillary Clinton Will Try To Steal Election With Illegal Votes," which stated that Clinton launched the "My Dream, Your Vote" campaign to reach over 700,000 illegal immigrants. In November, another story, "Three Million Votes In Presidential Election Cast By Illegal Immigrants" cited VoteFraud.org's Greg Phillips, a former official with the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, who contended it had "completed an analysis of 180 million voter registrations." Trump quickly jumped on the bandwagon and tweeted that he "won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally" – though that was entirely without evidence. Trump's claims were debunked as inquiries from mainstream newspapers proved in all 50 states found "no states that reported indications of widespread fraud." But that didn't stop Trump from tweeting again in January to say that he "looked forward to seeing final results" of Phillips' analysis that said "at least 3 million votes were illegal."

 

[Syriusly]

Okay here we go again. Late this week, a WAPO story citing seven forbidden words that personnel at the CDC are no longer allowed to use has gone hysterically viral. It has been picked up and repeated by numerous MSM sources and social media and the message boards are full of it. There is most likely at least one active thread here at USMB.

But on the face of it, it seemed so unreasonably unplausible I went looking and found this:

. . .A separate FDA spokeswoman said earlier on Saturday that the FDA hasn’t yet received or implemented a policy to avoid certain words in budget or policy work.

The responses come after the scientific and public health community expressed outrage at the Friday report, which said analysts at the CDC were banned from using those and five other words, including “fetus,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” and “evidence-based,” in their budget documents.

“The assertion that HHS has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” Lloyd, from HHS, said in a statement to STAT. “HHS will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. HHS also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”
https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/16/...words-fda-cdc/

And from ABC
HHS disputes report it has banned CDC from using words like 'diversity' and 'fetus'​

So where are the fair and objective folks going to put their money on this one? That WAPO reported it accurately and without prejudice? Or once again we are seeing evidence of mischaracterized, inflated, deliberately misstated prejudicial fake news?

Do you know for a fact that what the Washington Post reported is in fact- not true?

Lets read what the Washington Post reported:

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”


In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

At the CDC, the meeting about the banned terms was led by Alison Kelly, a career civil servant who is a senior leader in the agency’s Office of Financial Services, according to the CDC analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly. Kelly did not say why the words are being banned, according to the analyst, and told the group that she was merely relaying the information.

Other CDC officials confirmed the existence of a list of forbidden words.

Kelly told the analysts that “certain words” in the CDC’s budget drafts were being sent back to the agency for correction. Three words that had been flagged in these drafts were “vulnerable,” “entitlement” and “diversity.” Kelly told the group the ban on the other words had been conveyed verbally.

Has Alison Kelly denied this account?

The New York Times posted the HHS reply

“The assertion that H.H.S. has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” an agency spokesman, Matt Lloyd, said in an email. “H.H.S. will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. H.H.S. also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”

Note that the HHS didn't actually deny what the Washington Post said- only that it was a 'mischaracterization'.
The Times confirmed some details of the report with several officials, although a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans.

For you to label this as 'Fake News'- when you don't actually know that the article is 'Fake'- seems to me to indicate a bias on your part.

Can we even agree what "Fake News" is?

To me "Fake News" is reporting- or news releases- or official tweets- that are clearly false- clearly not based in any evidence.

News from anonymous sources is not necessarily Fake- but certainly it can be Fake News

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

 

[Syriusly]

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..

The first part you have right. The problem with the news is very serious. The press is our defense against the government- and corporations and anyone else who would lie to us.

But the GOP and the Alt-Right has been working to undermine the faith in Media in the United States.

When they can convince their followers that that Infowars is more reliable than CNN they can more successfully portray their own manufactured Fake News as credible- while portraying exposes of the government and Trump as "Fake News'

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes the government is out of control and has been for a very long time now. Perhaps not be design but because of the sheer size and inability of the people to hold it accountable for anything.

But this thread focuses on how the media reports on that government and/or other issues of the day, and how is gets it wrong, misstates things, misrepresents things, falsifies things, or demonstrates utter incompetence. And we the people have zero ability to hold it accountable.

As an example:

Just this morning, I saw a posting that "The Guardian" reported that last night in Pensacola, President Trump said that people SHOULD HAVE TO stand for the National Anthem. He didn't say that. He did say people SHOULD STAND for the National Anthem. Big difference between those two things. And that turned what could have been accurate reporting into fake news if The Guardian in fact did say that--I haven't found the Guardian source yet to determine whether that post misquoted The Guardian.

My point was that without trust in the media and without the media unilaterally holding politicians feet to the fire, the government runs out of control.

And Trump and the alt-right are working hard to undermine that trust in the media.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

President Trump called journalists among the most dishonest human beings on earth- do you believe that to be a fact- or a Trump generated "Fake News"?

Do you believe that there were 1.5 million people attended his inaugeration- or that was Trump generated Fake News?
He also called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” and he said that up to 1.5 million people had attended his inauguration, a claim that photographs disproved.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay here we go again. Late this week, a WAPO story citing seven forbidden words that personnel at the CDC are no longer allowed to use has gone hysterically viral. It has been picked up and repeated by numerous MSM sources and social media and the message boards are full of it. There is most likely at least one active thread here at USMB.

But on the face of it, it seemed so unreasonably unplausible I went looking and found this:

. . .A separate FDA spokeswoman said earlier on Saturday that the FDA hasn’t yet received or implemented a policy to avoid certain words in budget or policy work.

The responses come after the scientific and public health community expressed outrage at the Friday report, which said analysts at the CDC were banned from using those and five other words, including “fetus,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” and “evidence-based,” in their budget documents.

“The assertion that HHS has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” Lloyd, from HHS, said in a statement to STAT. “HHS will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. HHS also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”
https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/16/...words-fda-cdc/

And from ABC
HHS disputes report it has banned CDC from using words like 'diversity' and 'fetus'​

So where are the fair and objective folks going to put their money on this one? That WAPO reported it accurately and without prejudice? Or once again we are seeing evidence of mischaracterized, inflated, deliberately misstated prejudicial fake news?

Do you know for a fact that what the Washington Post reported is in fact- not true?

Lets read what the Washington Post reported:

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”


In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

At the CDC, the meeting about the banned terms was led by Alison Kelly, a career civil servant who is a senior leader in the agency’s Office of Financial Services, according to the CDC analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly. Kelly did not say why the words are being banned, according to the analyst, and told the group that she was merely relaying the information.

Other CDC officials confirmed the existence of a list of forbidden words.

Kelly told the analysts that “certain words” in the CDC’s budget drafts were being sent back to the agency for correction. Three words that had been flagged in these drafts were “vulnerable,” “entitlement” and “diversity.” Kelly told the group the ban on the other words had been conveyed verbally.

Has Alison Kelly denied this account?

The New York Times posted the HHS reply

“The assertion that H.H.S. has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” an agency spokesman, Matt Lloyd, said in an email. “H.H.S. will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. H.H.S. also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”

Note that the HHS didn't actually deny what the Washington Post said- only that it was a 'mischaracterization'.
The Times confirmed some details of the report with several officials, although a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans.

For you to label this as 'Fake News'- when you don't actually know that the article is 'Fake'- seems to me to indicate a bias on your part.

Can we even agree what "Fake News" is?

To me "Fake News" is reporting- or news releases- or official tweets- that are clearly false- clearly not based in any evidence.

News from anonymous sources is not necessarily Fake- but certainly it can be Fake News

I don't believe for a minute other "HHS officials" confirmed anything re the WAPO story. When an entire story is based on 'anonymous sources' I simply cannot accept that as honest journalism with any integrity whatsoever. At least those who are reporting the story are also reporting the disclaimer which I don't think WAPO did. (I can't access WAPO to check that because I am not a subscriber.)

 

[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?

President Trump called journalists among the most dishonest human beings on earth- do you believe that to be a fact- or a Trump generated "Fake News"?

Do you believe that there were 1.5 million people attended his inaugeration- or that was Trump generated Fake News?
He also called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” and he said that up to 1.5 million people had attended his inauguration, a claim that photographs disproved.

I agree with the President that the MSM has been among the most dishonest out there. Trying to get the truth from most of it has been pretty much impossible when it comes to politically motivated postings.

I don't know that the photographs disproved it as there were two different versions out there. I don't know how many people were there. I was not there myself. I seriously doubt you were either. But regardless of how many people were there, how many people the President believed were there is not 'fake news'. Fake news is not reporting what the President actually said instead of what the media wants their target group to believe that he said.

Perhaps we could focus on 'fake news' in this thread instead of every presumed or manufactured lie anybody ever told about anything? There are plenty of other threads to discuss that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Yes the government is out of control and has been for a very long time now. Perhaps not be design but because of the sheer size and inability of the people to hold it accountable for anything.

But this thread focuses on how the media reports on that government and/or other issues of the day, and how is gets it wrong, misstates things, misrepresents things, falsifies things, or demonstrates utter incompetence. And we the people have zero ability to hold it accountable.

As an example:

Just this morning, I saw a posting that "The Guardian" reported that last night in Pensacola, President Trump said that people SHOULD HAVE TO stand for the National Anthem. He didn't say that. He did say people SHOULD STAND for the National Anthem. Big difference between those two things. And that turned what could have been accurate reporting into fake news if The Guardian in fact did say that--I haven't found the Guardian source yet to determine whether that post misquoted The Guardian.

My point was that without trust in the media and without the media unilaterally holding politicians feet to the fire, the government runs out of control.

And Trump and the alt-right are working hard to undermine that trust in the media.

This thread is not about what the President and/or the alt-right are working hard to do. This thread is about fake news and I would request that you please focus on that and not everything you don't like about the President and/or the administration and or the right and/or. . . .

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Perhaps it would be more enlightening if you posted some excerpts from what Fox News actually reported so that the readers here could responsibly judge whether they were engaging in 'fake news'? But if Fox prominently retracted a story they determined they got wrong, I don't have a problem with that. We'll see if WAPO demonstrates as much integrity in the CDC story most recently mentioned should that in fact turn out to be a misrepresentation. Which again I am pretty sure it was based on the pure implausibility of it if for no other reason.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The right’s desperate, unwarranted attack of the Mueller investigation is the most recent manifestation of conservative fake news.

 

[Syriusly]

Okay here we go again. Late this week, a WAPO story citing seven forbidden words that personnel at the CDC are no longer allowed to use has gone hysterically viral. It has been picked up and repeated by numerous MSM sources and social media and the message boards are full of it. There is most likely at least one active thread here at USMB.

But on the face of it, it seemed so unreasonably unplausible I went looking and found this:

. . .A separate FDA spokeswoman said earlier on Saturday that the FDA hasn’t yet received or implemented a policy to avoid certain words in budget or policy work.

The responses come after the scientific and public health community expressed outrage at the Friday report, which said analysts at the CDC were banned from using those and five other words, including “fetus,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” and “evidence-based,” in their budget documents.

“The assertion that HHS has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” Lloyd, from HHS, said in a statement to STAT. “HHS will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. HHS also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”
https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/16/...words-fda-cdc/

And from ABC
HHS disputes report it has banned CDC from using words like 'diversity' and 'fetus'​

So where are the fair and objective folks going to put their money on this one? That WAPO reported it accurately and without prejudice? Or once again we are seeing evidence of mischaracterized, inflated, deliberately misstated prejudicial fake news?

Do you know for a fact that what the Washington Post reported is in fact- not true?

Lets read what the Washington Post reported:

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”


In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

At the CDC, the meeting about the banned terms was led by Alison Kelly, a career civil servant who is a senior leader in the agency’s Office of Financial Services, according to the CDC analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly. Kelly did not say why the words are being banned, according to the analyst, and told the group that she was merely relaying the information.

Other CDC officials confirmed the existence of a list of forbidden words.

Kelly told the analysts that “certain words” in the CDC’s budget drafts were being sent back to the agency for correction. Three words that had been flagged in these drafts were “vulnerable,” “entitlement” and “diversity.” Kelly told the group the ban on the other words had been conveyed verbally.

Has Alison Kelly denied this account?

The New York Times posted the HHS reply

“The assertion that H.H.S. has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” an agency spokesman, Matt Lloyd, said in an email. “H.H.S. will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. H.H.S. also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”

Note that the HHS didn't actually deny what the Washington Post said- only that it was a 'mischaracterization'.
The Times confirmed some details of the report with several officials, although a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans.

For you to label this as 'Fake News'- when you don't actually know that the article is 'Fake'- seems to me to indicate a bias on your part.

Can we even agree what "Fake News" is?

To me "Fake News" is reporting- or news releases- or official tweets- that are clearly false- clearly not based in any evidence.

News from anonymous sources is not necessarily Fake- but certainly it can be Fake News

I don't believe for a minute other "HHS officials" confirmed anything re the WAPO story. When an entire story is based on 'anonymous sources' I simply cannot accept that as honest journalism with any integrity whatsoever. At least those who are reporting the story are also reporting the disclaimer which I don't think WAPO did. (I can't access WAPO to check that because I am not a subscriber.)

You of course don't have to believe anything- but that doesn't make it "Fake News'

Some of the biggest stories in American history have been based upon 'anonymous sources'.
And often some of those were official 'leaks' by the Administration.

When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources

Watch for vague or imprecise “denials” of these kinds of stories. That often means they are accurate.

Such as:
The assertion that H.H.S. has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” an agency spokesman, Matt Lloyd, said in an email. “H.H.S. will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. H.H.S. also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”

 

[Syriusly]

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?

President Trump called journalists among the most dishonest human beings on earth- do you believe that to be a fact- or a Trump generated "Fake News"?

Do you believe that there were 1.5 million people attended his inaugeration- or that was Trump generated Fake News?
He also called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” and he said that up to 1.5 million people had attended his inauguration, a claim that photographs disproved.

I agree with the President that the MSM has been among the most dishonest out there. Trying to get the truth from most of it has been pretty much impossible when it comes to politically motivated postings.

I don't know that the photographs disproved it as there were two different versions out there. I don't know how many people were there. I was not there myself. I seriously doubt you were either. But regardless of how many people were there, how many people the President believed were there is not 'fake news'. Fake news is not reporting what the President actually said instead of what the media wants their target group to believe that he said.

Perhaps we could focus on 'fake news' in this thread instead of every presumed or manufactured lie anybody ever told about anything? There are plenty of other threads to discuss that.

Hmmmm so you want to focus on the 'media'- but not the people generating "Fake news"?

So you believe that if the President tells the Press something that is false- which gets reported- that is not Fake News?

But if the Washington Post prints something that is false- that they have been told by someone- which they later find out is false and pubicly retract it- that is Fake News?

Seems like a double standard to me.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

President Trump called journalists among the most dishonest human beings on earth- do you believe that to be a fact- or a Trump generated "Fake News"?

Do you believe that there were 1.5 million people attended his inaugeration- or that was Trump generated Fake News?
He also called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” and he said that up to 1.5 million people had attended his inauguration, a claim that photographs disproved.

I agree with the President that the MSM has been among the most dishonest out there. Trying to get the truth from most of it has been pretty much impossible when it comes to politically motivated postings..

You believe the main stream media (which means who? Apparently for President Trump that means anyone other than Fox) has been among the most dishonest out there- based upon what?

You claim to have a journalism background- what are the facts that lead you to that conclusion?
What 'truth' hasn't the main stream media published that say Fox has published? Or do you consider real alternatives to be outlets like WND or Breitbart?