Fake News - what it is, what it isn't....

[Pogo]

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.

I think we are done here.

You are in denial.

I worked in broadcasting for thirty years, including dealing with the governmental side, and I know exactly what I'm talking about. A Googly Image is no more an argument than a strawman is.

Now if you've got some way to refute what I just said you would have posted it. Instead we get a Googly Image.

Voilà.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Far as I know Entity A is the CIA in this case. I didn't think that was a secret.
I simply used a generic to apply a general rule.

 

[Tehon]

But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".

How can you possibly know that intelligence has those indicators is in fact, fact?

 

[Boss]

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.

Oh, I have no problem investigating this. We need to hold accountable public officials who have classified information on unsecured private servers in violation of the Espionage Act. If that hadn't happened, there would have been no emails hacked. And yes, there IS a US law against hacking... US law doesn't apply to Russians living in Russia... our law has no jurisdiction there.

I am rightfully pissed that we have laws in place to protect classified information and those laws were ignored. And you're right, it should go beyond our ideology, but apparently it doesn't.

None of the emails hacked were on public officials private servers.

Well, we know that Hillary's server was hacked, so that's a lie. Beyond that, this is a classified CIA investigation, the details of which have not been released to the general public. All that has been said is "there is a consensus" ...and that's it. No further details are available, yet YOU are making this assumption. This is exactly how fake news starts.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Oh, I have no problem investigating this. We need to hold accountable public officials who have classified information on unsecured private servers in violation of the Espionage Act. If that hadn't happened, there would have been no emails hacked. And yes, there IS a US law against hacking... US law doesn't apply to Russians living in Russia... our law has no jurisdiction there.

I am rightfully pissed that we have laws in place to protect classified information and those laws were ignored. And you're right, it should go beyond our ideology, but apparently it doesn't.

None of the emails hacked were on public officials private servers.

Well, we know that Hillary's server was hacked, so that's a lie. Beyond that, this is a classified CIA investigation, the details of which have not been released to the general public. All that has been said is "there is a consensus" ...and that's it. No further details are available, yet YOU are making this assumption. This is exactly how fake news starts.

What "assumption" did she make?
And I have to say in light of the last thread you started with my name on it, such a charge is, shall we say, ironic.

 

[Pogo]

But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".

How can you possibly know that intelligence has those indicators is in fact, fact?

You can't. But nobody asserted that.

 

[Boss]

What LIBERAL ass clown came up with this???

See, this right here is why I have a serious problem with this "fake news" meme. You and your minions want to get rid of all those "outlier" sources so that our information is limited to your hand-picked liberal sources. No thank you... I think we'll stick to what we have.

 

[Tehon]

But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".

How can you possibly know that intelligence has those indicators is in fact, fact?

You can't. But nobody asserted that.

The point is that you can't emphatically say whether it is or isn't "fake news". We don't know the facts.

 

[Pogo]

What LIBERAL ass clown came up with this???

See, this right here is why I have a serious problem with this "fake news" meme. You and your minions want to get rid of all those "outlier" sources so that our information is limited to your hand-picked liberal sources. No thank you... I think we'll stick to what we have.

Once AGAIN ---- where does she say she "wants to get rid of outlier sources"?

See what I mean about the irony of you charging somebody else with assumptions?

 

[Pogo]

But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".

How can you possibly know that intelligence has those indicators is in fact, fact?

You can't. But nobody asserted that.

The point is that you can't emphatically say whether it is or isn't "fake news". We don't know the facts.

What part of "nobody asserted that" just flew over your head?

You just floated a strawman. You introduced a claim nobody made. It literally does not exist.

 

[Boss]

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.

Oh, I have no problem investigating this. We need to hold accountable public officials who have classified information on unsecured private servers in violation of the Espionage Act. If that hadn't happened, there would have been no emails hacked. And yes, there IS a US law against hacking... US law doesn't apply to Russians living in Russia... our law has no jurisdiction there.

I am rightfully pissed that we have laws in place to protect classified information and those laws were ignored. And you're right, it should go beyond our ideology, but apparently it doesn't.

None of the emails hacked were on public officials private servers.

Well, we know that Hillary's server was hacked, so that's a lie. Beyond that, this is a classified CIA investigation, the details of which have not been released to the general public. All that has been said is "there is a consensus" ...and that's it. No further details are available, yet YOU are making this assumption. This is exactly how fake news starts.

What "assumption" did she make?
And I have to say in light of the last thread you started with my name on it, such a charge is, shall we say, ironic.

Her assumption is what she said, stupid... "None of the emails hacked were on public official'e private servers." First of all... Hillary's were... second, we don't know any of the details regarding the DNC email hacking. No one has this information but the CIA and they're not telling.

 

[Boss]

Once AGAIN ---- where does she say she "wants to get rid of outlier sources"?

See what I mean about the irony of you charging somebody else with assumptions?

That's ALL this "fake news" meme is about! It's where this is headed because there is no other "reasonable" resolution. We have to do something about all these various sources of news who don't report the preordained "truth" according to the liberal left.

And I don't give a flying fuck what you find ironic, assmunch. You can go to hell!

 

[Coyote]

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.

Oh, I have no problem investigating this. We need to hold accountable public officials who have classified information on unsecured private servers in violation of the Espionage Act. If that hadn't happened, there would have been no emails hacked. And yes, there IS a US law against hacking... US law doesn't apply to Russians living in Russia... our law has no jurisdiction there.

I am rightfully pissed that we have laws in place to protect classified information and those laws were ignored. And you're right, it should go beyond our ideology, but apparently it doesn't.

None of the emails hacked were on public officials private servers.

Well, we know that Hillary's server was hacked, so that's a lie. Beyond that, this is a classified CIA investigation, the details of which have not been released to the general public. All that has been said is "there is a consensus" ...and that's it. No further details are available, yet YOU are making this assumption. This is exactly how fake news starts.

No. We don't "know" that.
If Trump moves to prosecute Clinton, what's known on emails?

 

[Coyote]

What LIBERAL ass clown came up with this???

See, this right here is why I have a serious problem with this "fake news" meme. You and your minions want to get rid of all those "outlier" sources so that our information is limited to your hand-picked liberal sources. No thank you... I think we'll stick to what we have.

God. How many times do I have to repeat the same effing thing? I don't want to get rid of any media. There. Is that dumbed down enough? Or, are you going to keep building strawmen?

 

[Tehon]

But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".

How can you possibly know that intelligence has those indicators is in fact, fact?

You can't. But nobody asserted that.

The point is that you can't emphatically say whether it is or isn't "fake news". We don't know the facts.

What part of "nobody asserted that" just flew over your head?

You just floated a strawman. You introduced a claim nobody made. It literally does not exist.

You made the claim that "intelligence has those indicators" is factual, therefore it isn't fake. Or am I reading it wrong.

But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".

 

[Boss]

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.

Oh, I have no problem investigating this. We need to hold accountable public officials who have classified information on unsecured private servers in violation of the Espionage Act. If that hadn't happened, there would have been no emails hacked. And yes, there IS a US law against hacking... US law doesn't apply to Russians living in Russia... our law has no jurisdiction there.

I am rightfully pissed that we have laws in place to protect classified information and those laws were ignored. And you're right, it should go beyond our ideology, but apparently it doesn't.

None of the emails hacked were on public officials private servers.

Well, we know that Hillary's server was hacked, so that's a lie. Beyond that, this is a classified CIA investigation, the details of which have not been released to the general public. All that has been said is "there is a consensus" ...and that's it. No further details are available, yet YOU are making this assumption. This is exactly how fake news starts.

No. We don't "know" that.
If Trump moves to prosecute Clinton, what's known on emails?

Excuse me, I don't see Politifact on your little fucking chart, nor did I see your previous link, IBTimes.

 

[MisterBeale]

....

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?

US officials: Putin personally involved in US election hack

Fake news.

It's a crap lie put out by partisans at the CIA, they even tell you that in the story.

Can't you read?

Here's the guy behind the partisan attack.

Get a clue.

A subtle takedown of Donald Trump by Homeland Security's Jeh Johnson

It's all bullshit, partisan motivated and FAKE NEWS.

 

[Boss]

What LIBERAL ass clown came up with this???

See, this right here is why I have a serious problem with this "fake news" meme. You and your minions want to get rid of all those "outlier" sources so that our information is limited to your hand-picked liberal sources. No thank you... I think we'll stick to what we have.

God. How many times do I have to repeat the same effing thing? I don't want to get rid of any media. There. Is that dumbed down enough? Or, are you going to keep building strawmen?

Then kindly explain to me what the end-game is to this "fake news" meme?

 

[Coyote]

....

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?

US officials: Putin personally involved in US election hack

Fake news.

It's a crap lie put out by partisans at the CIA, they even tell you that in the story.

Can't you read?

Here's the guy behind the partisan attack.

Get a clue.

A subtle takedown of Donald Trump by Homeland Security's Jeh Johnson

It's all bullshit, partisan motivated and FAKE NEWS.

What evidence do you have that it's fake news?

 

[Coyote]

What LIBERAL ass clown came up with this???

See, this right here is why I have a serious problem with this "fake news" meme. You and your minions want to get rid of all those "outlier" sources so that our information is limited to your hand-picked liberal sources. No thank you... I think we'll stick to what we have.

God. How many times do I have to repeat the same effing thing? I don't want to get rid of any media. There. Is that dumbed down enough? Or, are you going to keep building strawmen?

Then kindly explain to me what the end-game is to this "fake news" meme?

Learn how to evaluate and question and critically think before just accepting it and defending it. You can't censor media beyond libel/slander. But you can learn to be a bit more critical.