Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Want to outlaw the Inquirer?
Methinks OP wouldn't have started the thread had the DNC' s pre- selected candidate- HRH..... errr..... HRC had won
Mmm. How do you label the media co ordinating with a political party to plant news items that turn out to be false such as the situation with Michelle Fields and the lie that Corey almost dragged her down?
WAS it a lie? Evidence seems to support it. I wouldn't call it "false news". Contestable maybe, but not false news.
Or Miss Universe aka Miss Piggy who's story was blown out of the water but Hillary used her in the campaign and the very next day Miss Universe was on every talk show going.
Again, not false news. Even if Miss Universe (and I don't know why you have to demean her with "Miss Piggy" simply because she had the audacity to speak out against the Donald) - falsified her claim, that would make HER a liar, but the news story about her claim isn't false.
Who says they are fake? Or got busted? At this point - the best you can say is he said/she said. I'll point out - you believed all of Clinton's accusers, right?Or how about the fake groping stories that the media was all over. Everyone of those women got busted.
How about the lying story of the Trump raping the 13 year old girl?
Still not a fake news story. Whether or not it happened is unverified. The lawsuit occurred. Hasn't gone to court. The events are true: a girl "claimed" she was raped by Trump. That is true. Was she? We don't know.
Any retractions? Any apologies? Only one I know of was the Daily Mail retracting the story that Melania had acted as an escort and apologized.
At this point, nothing has been disproven in the above, that needs a retraction. For example, the MSM stories usually make it clear that the women are claiming that Trump did X,Y and Z. Not that he DID it.
Well it's obvious that you fall into the Mary Mapes category of journalism. We accuse and you defend.
I find that reprehensible. If journalists had any integrity at all every accusers story should be verified. Thoroughly checked out. Rolling Stone is paying out big bucks big time over their "fake news story about a rape on campus".Yes the journalist reported the accusation. But without verifying the accusers story. Now they owe a ton of money for publishing the false story.
Now lets go to that lying bitch Michelle Fields fairy tale. It was blown out of the water when the video was seen by the police and the Secret Service backed up Corey's side of events. The SS actually had warned Fields twice to back away from Trump as they were escorting him out of the rally.
And Miss Universe. One more time. No one checked her claim. You can't just print a claim and not be responsible for its contents. The lawsuit against Rolling Stone and with them losing proves my point again.
Trump actually saved her crown. He gave her everything to lose the weight so she wouldn't lose her title. This was verified by the Pageant directors that they were going to replace Miss Venezuela with the runner up.
Daily Mail busted her big time. And this was a co ordinated effort between the Clinton campaign and the media.
Here you go. Bitch was a yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge liar.
Alicia Machado adored 'famous publicity!' from her fat-shaming star turn as Trump paid for lavish wellness routine and said her weight was 'not unacceptable' as Miss Universe
Trump paid for lavish wellness routine for fomer Miss Universe Alicia Machado | Daily Mail Online
- Former Miss Universe who now bashes Donald Trump for fat-shaming her in 1997 beamed in the glow of fame at the time
- Trump paid for a lavish 'wellness' regimen including personal chef, yoga, t'ai chi, shiatsu massage, and an elaborately tiled lap pool
- He told reporters at the time that pageant officials found Machado's weight 'unacceptable' but 'it was not unacceptable to me'
- That flies in the face of her claims that he berated her as 'Miss Piggy' for failing to maintain a perfect figure as Miss Universe
- Trump himself agreed to shed 10 pounds in the month before the 1997 pageant, offering to submit to a weigh-in
As to the groping I already put up threads on it. The woman who claimed she was groped on the plane for example didn't realize that the gentleman sitting right across from them on the plane would call her out as a liar after contacting the New York Post.
And the reason the woman who claimed she was raped as a thirteen year old was also dismissed for being a liar. Her first lawsuit was dismissed in California. The NY Judicial system wanted to keep the story out there front and center to smear Trump. Suit was withdrawn at the last minute.
Want to outlaw the Inquirer?
Methinks OP wouldn't have started the thread had the DNC' s pre- selected candidate- HRH..... errr..... HRC had won
You know what is more troubling to me?Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.
All of the above are part and parcel of the media business.
Fake news is a story that is completely false.
What is interesting isn't that it's something new, it isn't, but social media has given it an engine and the mainstream public doesn't seem to have the tools to untangle truth from fiction yet. The media is also behind the ball in taking responsibility, fact checking before a story is passed on and also - taking fake news to task and dissecting the story. The reason fake news has become such a player recently may be as simple as economics (earning money through ad click revenue) combined with the rather lawless playing field of social media and the lack of will to factcheck material that confirms with one's own preconceptions or bias.
What's interesting about fake news however, is not the story itself but what lies beneath the surface....
Craig Silverman was interviewed on Fresh Air this evening.
Our guest, Craig Silverman, has spent much of his career as a journalist writing about issues of accuracy in media. He wrote a column for the Poynter Institute called Regret the Error and later a book of the same name on the harm done by erroneous reporting. He also launched a web-based startup called Emergent devoted to crowdsourcing the fact-checking of fake news.Fascinating interview. Some of the main points covered:
He's now the media editor for the website BuzzFeed, and he spent much of this year writing about fake news, rumors and conspiracy theories that gained currency in the presidential campaign - where they came from, why they got so much engagement on social media and what should be done to reduce their impact on public discourse.
Fake election news outperformed real news sites in social media such as facebook - significantly so 3 months and closer to election. 9 months and 6 months prior to the election, real news sites performed better. What is interesting is he provides the data: BuzzFeed News: Election content engagement and everyone of those fake news articles was a thread in Politics here on USMB. Less then half of the real news articles were.
Here's How Fake Election News Outperformed Real Election News On Facebook
Of the 20 top-performing false election stories identified in the analysis, all but three were overtly pro-Donald Trump or anti-Hillary Clinton. Two of the biggest false hits were a story claiming Clinton sold weapons to ISIS and a hoax claiming the pope endorsed Trump, which the site removed after publication of this article. The only viral false stories during the final three months that were arguably against Trump’s interests were a false quote from Mike Pence about Michelle Obama, a false report that Ireland was accepting American “refugees” fleeing Trump, and a hoax claiming RuPaul said he was groped by Trump.
...These developments follow a study by BuzzFeed News that revealed hyperpartisan Facebook pages and their websites were publishing false or misleading content at an alarming rate — and generating significant Facebook engagement in the process. The same was true for the more than 100 US politics websites BuzzFeed News found being run out of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
...All the false news stories identified in BuzzFeed News’ analysis came from either fake news websites that only publish hoaxes or from hyperpartisan websites that present themselves as publishing real news. The research turned up only one viral false election story from a hyperpartisan left-wing site. The story from Winning Democrats claimed Ireland was accepting anti-Trump “refugees” from the US. It received over 810,000 Facebook engagements, and was debunked by an Irish publication. (There was also one post from an LGBTQ site that used a false quote from Trump in its headline.)
Now, that leads to another point - WTF - Macedonia? The other point it found was these sites were overwelmingly pro-Trump. What interest or knowledge does a small town in Macedonia (and a large number of those sites are run out of one town) have in American Politics?
Back to the Silverman interview on Fresh Air.
The Guardian months earlier had pointed to over a hundred websites about U.S. politics in this small town of Veles. So we did our own research and we turned up a number of 140 sites...And as I filled out the spreadsheet it became very clear that they were overwhelmingly pro-Trump. And as I visited the websites and read their content, I saw that a lot of the stuff that they were pushing was misleading, was to the extreme of partisanship and also occasionally was false. And so we dug in even more and realized that among the top shared articles from, you know, these range of sites, the majority of, like, the top five were actually completely false. So at that point, once we understood the content that they were publishing and how many there were, we really wanted to understand so who are the people behind these sites?
These sites came out of a Veles, a town in Macedonia. The owners were mostly young people - teens and early twenties, and college students. They weren't driven by ideology but by econonics. They could earn money directing traffic to their sites through Google AdSense and they were "using Facebook to drive the traffic to the websites where they had ads from Google and where they would earn money from that traffic" They don't create the content - they find it elsewhere, but they copy it and proliferate it.
The article goes into a lot more, including what should be done or shouldn't be done to combat it, but this statement was particularly compelling because we're all susceptable to it:
Silverman:
We shouldn't think of this as just being something for people who are very partisan. We love to hear things that confirm what we think and what we feel and what we already believe. It's - it makes us feel good to get information that aligns with what we already believe or what we want to hear.
And on the other side of that is when we're confronted with information that contradicts what we think and what we feel, the reaction isn't to kind of sit back and consider it. The reaction is often to double down on our existing beliefs. So if you're feeding people information that basically just tells them what they want to hear, they're probably going to react strongly to that. And the other layer that these pages are very good at is they bring in emotion into it, anger or hate or surprise or, you know, joy. And so if you combine information that aligns with their beliefs, if you can make it something that strikes an emotion in them, then that gets them to react.
The fact that they are tracking who is reading what, who is sharing what, and the fact that the intellectual, cultural, and political elites think it is any of their business to manipulate what Americans choose to read or not read.
What this is, is actually a ploy to soften the weak minded up to accept government and crony corporate infringements on the first amendment.
Do any of you KNOW about H.R. 5181? How about S. 2692? Isn't it just possible that this whole election was a shame to get liberals pissed off enough to accept restrictions on the First Amendment, and to have conservatives accept government control of the internet?
Well, it's happening. This stuff is all occurring right now, and the MSM propaganda is being rolled out to have folks believe this is a good idea. They think none of us can make up our own minds. CFR propaganda from the establishment is no better than independent journalists, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they have a nefarious agenda.
When independent journalists on the left, right, center and anarchists are all crying foul, you KNOW shit is getting real.
Either Coyote is in on their game, or he doesn't have two brain cells to rub together.
Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act"
Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" | Zero Hedge
"While we wait to see if and when the Senate will pass (and president will sign) Bill "H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017", which was passed by the House at the end of November with an overwhelming majority and which seeks to crack down on websites suspected of conducting Russian propaganda and calling for the US government to "counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly,” another, perhaps even more dangerous and limiting to civil rights and freedom of speech bill passed on December 8.
Recall that as we reported in early June, "a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth has been quietly introduced in Congress. As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability.”
War on ‘Fake News’ Part of a War on Free Speech
War on ‘Fake News’ Part of a War on Free Speech
"The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First Amendment is the war on “fake news.” Those leading the war are using a few “viral” Internet hoaxes to justify increased government regulation — and even outright censorship — of Internet news sites. Some popular websites, such as Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force them to crack down on fake news.
Those calling for bans on “fake news” are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned "gatekeeper" (to use Hillary Clinton’s infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.
The war on “fake news” has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US government’s skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.
Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special committee, composed of key federal agencies, to counter foreign interference in US elections. There have also been calls for congressional investigations into Russian influence on the elections. Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is to discredit and silence those who question the mainstream media’s pro-welfare/warfare state propaganda?
The attempts to ban “fake news”; smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve, and other pro-liberty movements as Russian agents; and stop independent organizations from discussing a politician’s record before an election are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans, no matter their political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these efforts to limit free speech."
I think you're kind of mixing issues here. The first is the issue of fake news. The second is how to handle it. You've jumped straight into the second - which I have not commented on at all, and made some huge assumptions.
My view in countering fake news is to educate people on how to critically think. Not make things illegal or infringe on free speech. How individual business' choose to deal with it is up to them.
Also....your claim: Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" - not something I was familiar with, so I looked it up.
Here is the actual act: Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA - Press Releases - Newsroom - Rob Portman It doesn't seem to be calling for banning anything or creating new LAWS. Seems to be a counter-propoganda propoganda thing.
Other than that - what is wrong with investigating Russian hacking and possible influencing of our electoral system? Make more sense then spending more money investigating Benghazi.
I'm not mixing any issues.
I know exactly what is going on. It is you that is being disingenuous and obtuse here.
Stop trying to limit the debate and lobby for your ministry of truth.
You are clearly in the minority here. Go to the source of this video. Look at the views, likes and dislikes, and realize, you are lobbying for the dictators and oligarchs.
Hasn't been refuted by you yet. Now quit soaking the bed.
Hasn't been refuted by you yet. Now quit soaking the bed.
How many times does it have to be done before you STFU?
Never mind, you turds always move the goal posts and change the rules anyway.
Waste the electrons.
Ok, so you can't refute it. At least you're upfront about that.
Other than that - what is wrong with investigating Russian hacking and possible influencing of our electoral system? Make more sense then spending more money investigating Benghazi.
Because ALL the Russians have done is to release emails that were hacked from unsecured servers. They did not hack voting machines and change Hillary votes to Trump votes. THAT is the "fake news" liberals want to imply and promote. Did their releasing emails have an influence? Possibly, but did Obama not have and influence on the elections in Israel or the Brexit vote? There is no law against outside sources influencing elections and votes.
I agree - claiming THAT would be a Conspiracy Theory and fake news.
But - it's totally appropriate for us to investigate what the Russians did and what their intent was. There IS a law against hacking you know. And we, as Americans should all - regardless of our ideologies - be rightfully pissed at foreign attempts to affect our election.
Why?
Why is it okay for us to do it, but when it is done to us, we have to be self-righteous and pissed?
Stop right there. Freeze.
WHO said it was "okay for us to do it"? That's a blatant strawman argument.
Other than that - what is wrong with investigating Russian hacking and possible influencing of our electoral system? Make more sense then spending more money investigating Benghazi.
Because ALL the Russians have done is to release emails that were hacked from unsecured servers. They did not hack voting machines and change Hillary votes to Trump votes. THAT is the "fake news" liberals want to imply and promote. Did their releasing emails have an influence? Possibly, but did Obama not have and influence on the elections in Israel or the Brexit vote? There is no law against outside sources influencing elections and votes.
I agree - claiming THAT would be a Conspiracy Theory and fake news.
But - it's totally appropriate for us to investigate what the Russians did and what their intent was. There IS a law against hacking you know. And we, as Americans should all - regardless of our ideologies - be rightfully pissed at foreign attempts to affect our election.
Why?
Why is it okay for us to do it, but when it is done to us, we have to be self-righteous and pissed?
Stop right there. Freeze.
WHO said it was "okay for us to do it"? That's a blatant strawman argument.
Fair enough Pogo.
Have the Russians admitted to any election interference?
I still haven't seen any concrete proof, only partisan allegations.
And the partisans want so badly to believe. Doesn't that in itself, qualify as "fake news?"
I've seen reports from both sides saying it was, and it wasn't the Russians.
Mmm. How do you label the media co ordinating with a political party to plant news items that turn out to be false such as the situation with Michelle Fields and the lie that Corey almost dragged her down?
WAS it a lie? Evidence seems to support it. I wouldn't call it "false news". Contestable maybe, but not false news.
Or Miss Universe aka Miss Piggy who's story was blown out of the water but Hillary used her in the campaign and the very next day Miss Universe was on every talk show going.
Again, not false news. Even if Miss Universe (and I don't know why you have to demean her with "Miss Piggy" simply because she had the audacity to speak out against the Donald) - falsified her claim, that would make HER a liar, but the news story about her claim isn't false.
Who says they are fake? Or got busted? At this point - the best you can say is he said/she said. I'll point out - you believed all of Clinton's accusers, right?Or how about the fake groping stories that the media was all over. Everyone of those women got busted.
How about the lying story of the Trump raping the 13 year old girl?
Still not a fake news story. Whether or not it happened is unverified. The lawsuit occurred. Hasn't gone to court. The events are true: a girl "claimed" she was raped by Trump. That is true. Was she? We don't know.
Any retractions? Any apologies? Only one I know of was the Daily Mail retracting the story that Melania had acted as an escort and apologized.
At this point, nothing has been disproven in the above, that needs a retraction. For example, the MSM stories usually make it clear that the women are claiming that Trump did X,Y and Z. Not that he DID it.
Thank you for proving what that Counter Punch article essentially was saying. Unless the piece is satire, there is no such thing as fake news.
In your OP, I saw that Buzz Feed referred to a piece about Hillary "selling weapons" to ISIS.
Well, depending on you POV, that could be taken as true. That State department DID deliver weapons to ISIS, multiple times. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh PROVED that there was a concerted effort to move weapons from Libya to Syrian rebels. Some rebels later formed ISIS.
The Red Line and the Rat Line
Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels
LRB · Seymour M. Hersh · The Red Line and the Rat Line: Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels
A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding.
This squares with what Hillary said herself in Wikileaks emails to Podesta, which your "fake news" led readers to.
WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive
"At the same time, the fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commaders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies."
Also, there are reports that the US had air dropped weapons to ISIS. Of course, there are official denials that these were meant for the Kurds. . . But, what ever, who are we kidding? You are what you pretend to be as Vonnegut says. Actions speak louder than words.
That MSM bullshit doesn't fool anyone. What Buzzfeed says is as much fake news, or has their own perspective, as much as what you claim you have your own perspective.
So get a grip already.
Did Clinton sell weapons to ISIS? Did the State Department sell weapons to ISIS? What you are talking about is - at MOST - CIA activities selling arms to rebel groups that MIGHT eventually end up in ISIS hands.
Hillary Clinton Sold Weapons to ISIS-Fiction!
WikiLeaks Confirms Hillary Clinton Sold Weapons to ISIS?
Again, it's a matter of perspective. I'll take a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and Hillary's own words over those sources. She knew what she was doing when she helped set up the Rat Line. It was authorized in 2012, she stepped down in 2013, it was her baby, and her policy.
And if you don't think CFR journalism, and STATE media, aka, NPR is trying to soften up your malleable mind to be in favor of eliminating independent media, then you aren't using critical thought.
This is a legitimate disagreement we should be able to have in a Democratic Republic. The establishment would like for those on the other side of this debate to not have the story or POV we have.
Don't you see? Buzz Feed even labeled it, FAKE NEWS, and you agree with them, you don't even see it as a disagreement of POV. Yet when Tiny dancer has a disagreement with you, you just tell her it is a matter of perspective.
I think you are being totalitarian.
I'm will to let you have your POV, you just want to label others POV "fake news."
Nice.
NPR is "state media"?
I'm being "totalitarion"? How exactly? Where have I called for the ELIMINATION of ANY MEDIA?
Other than that - what is wrong with investigating Russian hacking and possible influencing of our electoral system? Make more sense then spending more money investigating Benghazi.
Because ALL the Russians have done is to release emails that were hacked from unsecured servers. They did not hack voting machines and change Hillary votes to Trump votes. THAT is the "fake news" liberals want to imply and promote. Did their releasing emails have an influence? Possibly, but did Obama not have and influence on the elections in Israel or the Brexit vote? There is no law against outside sources influencing elections and votes.
I agree - claiming THAT would be a Conspiracy Theory and fake news.
But - it's totally appropriate for us to investigate what the Russians did and what their intent was. There IS a law against hacking you know. And we, as Americans should all - regardless of our ideologies - be rightfully pissed at foreign attempts to affect our election.
Why?
Why is it okay for us to do it, but when it is done to us, we have to be self-righteous and pissed?
Stop right there. Freeze.
WHO said it was "okay for us to do it"? That's a blatant strawman argument.
Fair enough Pogo.
Have the Russians admitted to any election interference?
I still haven't seen any concrete proof, only partisan allegations.
And the partisans want so badly to believe. Doesn't that in itself, qualify as "fake news?"
I've seen reports from both sides saying it was, and it wasn't the Russians.
Agreed.Other than that - what is wrong with investigating Russian hacking and possible influencing of our electoral system? Make more sense then spending more money investigating Benghazi.
Because ALL the Russians have done is to release emails that were hacked from unsecured servers. They did not hack voting machines and change Hillary votes to Trump votes. THAT is the "fake news" liberals want to imply and promote. Did their releasing emails have an influence? Possibly, but did Obama not have and influence on the elections in Israel or the Brexit vote? There is no law against outside sources influencing elections and votes.
I agree - claiming THAT would be a Conspiracy Theory and fake news.
But - it's totally appropriate for us to investigate what the Russians did and what their intent was. There IS a law against hacking you know. And we, as Americans should all - regardless of our ideologies - be rightfully pissed at foreign attempts to affect our election.
Why?
Why is it okay for us to do it, but when it is done to us, we have to be self-righteous and pissed?
Do you think it's ok for it to be done to us?
Do you think it's ok for us to do it to other states?
All you're doing is engaging in the "well they do it too" argument.
NPR is state media because it is run by the political and cultural elites, and it uses 28 to 35% tax payer funding.
Because ALL the Russians have done is to release emails that were hacked from unsecured servers. They did not hack voting machines and change Hillary votes to Trump votes. THAT is the "fake news" liberals want to imply and promote. Did their releasing emails have an influence? Possibly, but did Obama not have and influence on the elections in Israel or the Brexit vote? There is no law against outside sources influencing elections and votes.
I agree - claiming THAT would be a Conspiracy Theory and fake news.
But - it's totally appropriate for us to investigate what the Russians did and what their intent was. There IS a law against hacking you know. And we, as Americans should all - regardless of our ideologies - be rightfully pissed at foreign attempts to affect our election.
Why?
Why is it okay for us to do it, but when it is done to us, we have to be self-righteous and pissed?
Stop right there. Freeze.
WHO said it was "okay for us to do it"? That's a blatant strawman argument.
Fair enough Pogo.
Have the Russians admitted to any election interference?
Irrelevant. It's a strawman argument, Russians or no Russians. So your argument isn't one.
I still haven't seen any concrete proof, only partisan allegations.
And the partisans want so badly to believe. Doesn't that in itself, qualify as "fake news?"
I've seen reports from both sides saying it was, and it wasn't the Russians.
Again, as in so many other examples, the story in this case is that the intelligence indicates that. Once again there's a crucial distinction between the news that "X happened" and the news that "Entity A says X happened" or in this case "entity A says it has seen indications that this happened". I don't know what it is that's elusive about that distinction.
Extreme example: Son of Sam told police he was taking orders from a dog. That doesn't mean Son of Sam was actually taking orders from a dog --- it means exactly what it says, that Son of Sam said he was taking orders from a dog. A dog giving orders is not a fact. That Son of Sam made the claim, IS.
In this case if intelligence indicates Russian hacking. the desire to not-believe it is not sufficient grounds to suppress it as "fake news". If definitive evidence of the hacking itself is not present, then that's in the future if the hacking itself is to become a real event. But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".
Again "fake news" is completely contrived, like the three million Amish. Doesn't apply here.
NPR is state media because it is run by the political and cultural elites, and it uses 28 to 35% tax payer funding.
Bullshit. NPR has nothing to do wth the State, nor does the vice versa apply. There is no such thing as "the political and cultural élites" as a quantifiable entity.
Agreed.Other than that - what is wrong with investigating Russian hacking and possible influencing of our electoral system? Make more sense then spending more money investigating Benghazi.
Because ALL the Russians have done is to release emails that were hacked from unsecured servers. They did not hack voting machines and change Hillary votes to Trump votes. THAT is the "fake news" liberals want to imply and promote. Did their releasing emails have an influence? Possibly, but did Obama not have and influence on the elections in Israel or the Brexit vote? There is no law against outside sources influencing elections and votes.
I agree - claiming THAT would be a Conspiracy Theory and fake news.
But - it's totally appropriate for us to investigate what the Russians did and what their intent was. There IS a law against hacking you know. And we, as Americans should all - regardless of our ideologies - be rightfully pissed at foreign attempts to affect our election.
Why?
Why is it okay for us to do it, but when it is done to us, we have to be self-righteous and pissed?
Do you think it's ok for it to be done to us?
Do you think it's ok for us to do it to other states?
All you're doing is engaging in the "well they do it too" argument.
There probably should be a treaty where we all agree not to do it.
That said, unless they admit to it, or unless hard proof it shown, this seems to be a smoke screen to strip away our freedom
Ask yourself a question. . . . do you really want our media to resemble Russia's and China's? That is the upshot of this whole debate. The CFR cartel, from which NPR is a part of, that is what they are trying to brainwash you to support, to have the government control which sources of media will be allowed.
That is what you are basically saying you want, you want our media to resemble that of Russia and China.
Nice, real nice.
I agree - claiming THAT would be a Conspiracy Theory and fake news.
But - it's totally appropriate for us to investigate what the Russians did and what their intent was. There IS a law against hacking you know. And we, as Americans should all - regardless of our ideologies - be rightfully pissed at foreign attempts to affect our election.
Why?
Why is it okay for us to do it, but when it is done to us, we have to be self-righteous and pissed?
Stop right there. Freeze.
WHO said it was "okay for us to do it"? That's a blatant strawman argument.
Fair enough Pogo.
Have the Russians admitted to any election interference?
Irrelevant. It's a strawman argument, Russians or no Russians. So your argument isn't one.
I still haven't seen any concrete proof, only partisan allegations.
And the partisans want so badly to believe. Doesn't that in itself, qualify as "fake news?"
I've seen reports from both sides saying it was, and it wasn't the Russians.
Again, as in so many other examples, the story in this case is that the intelligence indicates that. Once again there's a crucial distinction between the news that "X happened" and the news that "Entity A says X happened" or in this case "entity A says it has seen indications that this happened". I don't know what it is that's elusive about that distinction.
Extreme example: Son of Sam told police he was taking orders from a dog. That doesn't mean Son of Sam was actually taking orders from a dog --- it means exactly what it says, that Son of Sam said he was taking orders from a dog. A dog giving orders is not a fact. That Son of Sam made the claim, IS.
In this case if intelligence indicates Russian hacking. the desire to not-believe it is not sufficient grounds to suppress it as "fake news". If definitive evidence of the hacking itself is not present, then that's in the future if the hacking itself is to become a real event. But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".
Again "fake news" is completely contrived, like the three million Amish. Doesn't apply here.
Intelligence indicates it could be the Russians. . . but then, it could be a myriad of any others as well.
Precisely, and that is what the corporate news, including NPR is doing. They are claiming Entity A says X happened when they say that Russians have spread fake stories or hacked the election. They won't offer solid proof. Nobody in the intelligence agencies will.
Nobody tells you who entity A is. Gee, I wonder why?
it behooves journalists to fact check for accuracy before rushing to press.
