The ORIGINAL "Fake News" goes to court

[MisterBeale]

Fake News is about Left Wing spin.

It is now, but not originally.

It was about right wing fantasy/conspiracy sites reporting their musings as "news", and their readers believing it.
.

Bullshit.

It has always been about the "ruling class journalists" of the Anglo-American establishment controlling the agenda.

It isn't about the left or the right, it is about controlling the way folks think.


Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media
Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media
The Pratt House Matrix and "Ruling Class Journalists"


Big Media has been the handmaiden to Big Government for decades. Now that the Internet and independent media are challenging the statist game plan, Big Media and Big Government are desperately seeking to formally legitimize their longstanding illicit affair. To longtime observers it is not in the least surprising that the key players in this perverse Big Government-Big Media-Big Foundation symbiosis seem to hale disproportionately from the membership roster of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).


Like the slime trail that leads to the slug, most of the major efforts to centralize, nationalize, and cartelize political and economic power over the past century can be traced back to the CFR and the matrix of corporations, foundations, think tanks, and universities its members dominate. So it is with the current push to have the federal government fund and control more and more of the media. Dr. Bollinger (of Columbia University and the Federal Reserve) is a CFR member. As are Alberto Ibarg?en, president and CEO of the Knight Foundation and Walter Isaacson, president and CEO of the Aspen Institute, key operatives leading the FOCAS campaign.


Listed as "FOCAS 2010 leaders and experts" are CFR members Marcus Brauchli (the Washington Post), Alberto Ibarg?en, (besides heading the Knight Foundation he is also chairman of both the World Wide Web Foundation and the Newseum in Washington, D.C.), Vivian Schiller (National Public Radio), Paul Steiger, (ProPublica), Ernest J. Wilson III (Annenberg School for Communication), Norman Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute), Charlie Firestone (Aspen Institute), Barbara Cochran and (University of Missouri School of Journalism).


It goes on and on. Another significant voice in the government-media merger choir is Geoffrey Cowan (CFR), co-author of the USC/Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism 2010 study, Public Policy and Funding the News. Cowan, who headed the Voice Of America under President Clinton, is director of the Center on Communication Leadership & Policy, dean emeritus of the USC Annenberg School and USC University Professor, and holds the Annenberg Family Chair in Communication Leadership.


The CFR's "Profile of the Membership" in its 2008 Annual Report lists 398 members as journalists, correspondents, and editors. That includes members such as:


Michael P. Hirsh (Newsweek)
Jim Hoagland (Washington Post)
Fareed Zakaria (Time, CNN)
Thomas Friedman (New York Times)
Erin Burnett (CNBC)
Ethan Bronner (New York Times)
Paula Zahn (Discovery cable channel)
Heather Nauert (Fox News)
Norman Podhoretz (Commentary magazine)
Tom Brokaw (NBC)
Lesley Stahl (CBS)
Andrea Michell (NBC)
Elaine Sciolino (New York Times)
Diane Sawyer (ABC)
Deroy Murdock (Scripps Howard News Service and National Review Online)
David Ignatius (Washington Post)
Alan S. Murray (Wall Street Journal)
Jim Lehrer (PBS)
Margaret Warner (PBS)
Judy Woodruff (PBS)
Christopher Dickey (Newsweek)
Mortimer Zuckerman (U.S. News & World Report)


The above list barely scratches the surface of the elite media folks tied to Pratt House, the New York headquarters of the Council, located at 58 East 68th Street in Manhattan. The nearly 400 "Journalists, Correspondents, and Editors" counted on the CFR rolls does not include the many additional CFR members who are the executive officers of major media corporations. They may or may not be publicly well known but they are the bosses of the more visible members of the Fourth Estate. These include CFR members such as:


Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City, founder/owner Bloomberg L.P.)


Rupert Murdoch (chairman, CEO News Corporation)


Jeffrey Bewkes (Chairman, CEO of Time Warner, in which capacity he oversees Time, CNN, TNT, HBO, TBS, Warner Bros., etc.)


Christopher Isham (CBS News vice president), and Barry Diller (IAC/InterActiveCorp and Washington Post).


In addition to the above-mentioned individual members there are CFR Corporate Members, which are major financial supporters of the CFR and its programs and agenda. The media organizations that have become CFR Corporate Members include Time Warner, ABC Inc., Bloomberg, News Corporation, General Electric (NBC Universal), Google, Thomson Reuters, and the Washington Post.


The Washington Post's ombudsman and columnist Richard Harwood detailed the CFR's domination of his own profession in an October 30,1993, column tellingly entitled "Ruling Class Journalists." In what was a rare admission (and/or boast) from a CFR establishment journal, Harwood characterized CFR members as "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States."

 

[iceberg]

well, if i start misbehaving, i lose my rights. pure and simple. i abuse my guns, i lose those rights. i abuse freedom of speech, i spend time in jail and/or community service for it.

if the press doesn't respect their freedoms then there can and should be a penalty for it. but that should come from *us* getting smart and simply moving on. you can be wrong as a journalist sure, but you at least need to be able to show research on your stories and many can't because they simply shout out LOOK WHAT TRUMP TWEETED and they call that news.

people don't want news these days in as much as bullets for their own hate guns.

It changed from news to commentary a while back ...

yep. when blogging came up and anyone could comment w/o ever doing a lick of research, just pointing to the work they find that supports their views - blog it up, editorialize it, and wham. that plays into this also to be sure.

a few summers ago there was a police incident in mckinney tx (next town over from me) where the police were said to be abusive. CNN was playing the tapes/videos people took and saying "oh look, this officer is doing this because of..." or "look at that officers face, he can't believe what he is seeing".

yet they never asked a single policeman what was happening. they just made shit up as they went. it was then i realized CNN and most news sources are nothing more than mystery science 2000 "news" with people in the audience commenting on things they know nothing about.

 

[Mac1958]

Fake News is about Left Wing spin.

It is now, but not originally.

It was about right wing fantasy/conspiracy sites reporting their musings as "news", and their readers believing it.
.

Bullshit.

It has always been about the "ruling class journalists" of the Anglo-American establishment controlling the agenda.

It isn't about the left or the right, it is about controlling the way folks think.


Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media
Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media
The Pratt House Matrix and "Ruling Class Journalists"


Big Media has been the handmaiden to Big Government for decades. Now that the Internet and independent media are challenging the statist game plan, Big Media and Big Government are desperately seeking to formally legitimize their longstanding illicit affair. To longtime observers it is not in the least surprising that the key players in this perverse Big Government-Big Media-Big Foundation symbiosis seem to hale disproportionately from the membership roster of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).


Like the slime trail that leads to the slug, most of the major efforts to centralize, nationalize, and cartelize political and economic power over the past century can be traced back to the CFR and the matrix of corporations, foundations, think tanks, and universities its members dominate. So it is with the current push to have the federal government fund and control more and more of the media. Dr. Bollinger (of Columbia University and the Federal Reserve) is a CFR member. As are Alberto Ibarg?en, president and CEO of the Knight Foundation and Walter Isaacson, president and CEO of the Aspen Institute, key operatives leading the FOCAS campaign.


Listed as "FOCAS 2010 leaders and experts" are CFR members Marcus Brauchli (the Washington Post), Alberto Ibarg?en, (besides heading the Knight Foundation he is also chairman of both the World Wide Web Foundation and the Newseum in Washington, D.C.), Vivian Schiller (National Public Radio), Paul Steiger, (ProPublica), Ernest J. Wilson III (Annenberg School for Communication), Norman Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute), Charlie Firestone (Aspen Institute), Barbara Cochran and (University of Missouri School of Journalism).


It goes on and on. Another significant voice in the government-media merger choir is Geoffrey Cowan (CFR), co-author of the USC/Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism 2010 study, Public Policy and Funding the News. Cowan, who headed the Voice Of America under President Clinton, is director of the Center on Communication Leadership & Policy, dean emeritus of the USC Annenberg School and USC University Professor, and holds the Annenberg Family Chair in Communication Leadership.


The CFR's "Profile of the Membership" in its 2008 Annual Report lists 398 members as journalists, correspondents, and editors. That includes members such as:


Michael P. Hirsh (Newsweek)
Jim Hoagland (Washington Post)
Fareed Zakaria (Time, CNN)
Thomas Friedman (New York Times)
Erin Burnett (CNBC)
Ethan Bronner (New York Times)
Paula Zahn (Discovery cable channel)
Heather Nauert (Fox News)
Norman Podhoretz (Commentary magazine)
Tom Brokaw (NBC)
Lesley Stahl (CBS)
Andrea Michell (NBC)
Elaine Sciolino (New York Times)
Diane Sawyer (ABC)
Deroy Murdock (Scripps Howard News Service and National Review Online)
David Ignatius (Washington Post)
Alan S. Murray (Wall Street Journal)
Jim Lehrer (PBS)
Margaret Warner (PBS)
Judy Woodruff (PBS)
Christopher Dickey (Newsweek)
Mortimer Zuckerman (U.S. News & World Report)


The above list barely scratches the surface of the elite media folks tied to Pratt House, the New York headquarters of the Council, located at 58 East 68th Street in Manhattan. The nearly 400 "Journalists, Correspondents, and Editors" counted on the CFR rolls does not include the many additional CFR members who are the executive officers of major media corporations. They may or may not be publicly well known but they are the bosses of the more visible members of the Fourth Estate. These include CFR members such as:


Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City, founder/owner Bloomberg L.P.)


Rupert Murdoch (chairman, CEO News Corporation)


Jeffrey Bewkes (Chairman, CEO of Time Warner, in which capacity he oversees Time, CNN, TNT, HBO, TBS, Warner Bros., etc.)


Christopher Isham (CBS News vice president), and Barry Diller (IAC/InterActiveCorp and Washington Post).


In addition to the above-mentioned individual members there are CFR Corporate Members, which are major financial supporters of the CFR and its programs and agenda. The media organizations that have become CFR Corporate Members include Time Warner, ABC Inc., Bloomberg, News Corporation, General Electric (NBC Universal), Google, Thomson Reuters, and the Washington Post.


The Washington Post's ombudsman and columnist Richard Harwood detailed the CFR's domination of his own profession in an October 30,1993, column tellingly entitled "Ruling Class Journalists." In what was a rare admission (and/or boast) from a CFR establishment journal, Harwood characterized CFR members as "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States."

What in the world does all that have to do with my point?

The term began with the sites I mentioned, then Trump grabbed it and ran with it.
.

 

[MacTheKnife]

As we know, the original definition of fake news was the non-stop flood of fantastical conspiracy theories spewed by sites like Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart, et al.

Then Trump was able to successfully commandeer the word via Twitter and his "speeches".

Anyway, ol' Alex Jones will need to defend himself on some stuff:

Alex Jones faces existential courtroom battle over limits of fake news
.

Bulleshitte. Alex Jones is not the problem. Thre real problem is the alphabet media ...the msm. Not even to mention the N.Y.Times You are just not very knowledgable or you are flaming.

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

Oh, and by the way, thank you for a beautiful example of my point.

As your "source", you use that renowned news website "stillnessinthestorm.com", which used a FAKE headline. The headline does not describe her point. She doesn't use the term, THEY did.

Good gawd, people, come on.
.

Watch the video folks:

 

[MisterBeale]

Fake News is about Left Wing spin.

It is now, but not originally.

It was about right wing fantasy/conspiracy sites reporting their musings as "news", and their readers believing it.
.

Bullshit.

It has always been about the "ruling class journalists" of the Anglo-American establishment controlling the agenda.

It isn't about the left or the right, it is about controlling the way folks think.


Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media
Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media
The Pratt House Matrix and "Ruling Class Journalists"


Big Media has been the handmaiden to Big Government for decades. Now that the Internet and independent media are challenging the statist game plan, Big Media and Big Government are desperately seeking to formally legitimize their longstanding illicit affair. To longtime observers it is not in the least surprising that the key players in this perverse Big Government-Big Media-Big Foundation symbiosis seem to hale disproportionately from the membership roster of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).


Like the slime trail that leads to the slug, most of the major efforts to centralize, nationalize, and cartelize political and economic power over the past century can be traced back to the CFR and the matrix of corporations, foundations, think tanks, and universities its members dominate. So it is with the current push to have the federal government fund and control more and more of the media. Dr. Bollinger (of Columbia University and the Federal Reserve) is a CFR member. As are Alberto Ibarg?en, president and CEO of the Knight Foundation and Walter Isaacson, president and CEO of the Aspen Institute, key operatives leading the FOCAS campaign.


Listed as "FOCAS 2010 leaders and experts" are CFR members Marcus Brauchli (the Washington Post), Alberto Ibarg?en, (besides heading the Knight Foundation he is also chairman of both the World Wide Web Foundation and the Newseum in Washington, D.C.), Vivian Schiller (National Public Radio), Paul Steiger, (ProPublica), Ernest J. Wilson III (Annenberg School for Communication), Norman Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute), Charlie Firestone (Aspen Institute), Barbara Cochran and (University of Missouri School of Journalism).


It goes on and on. Another significant voice in the government-media merger choir is Geoffrey Cowan (CFR), co-author of the USC/Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism 2010 study, Public Policy and Funding the News. Cowan, who headed the Voice Of America under President Clinton, is director of the Center on Communication Leadership & Policy, dean emeritus of the USC Annenberg School and USC University Professor, and holds the Annenberg Family Chair in Communication Leadership.


The CFR's "Profile of the Membership" in its 2008 Annual Report lists 398 members as journalists, correspondents, and editors. That includes members such as:


Michael P. Hirsh (Newsweek)
Jim Hoagland (Washington Post)
Fareed Zakaria (Time, CNN)
Thomas Friedman (New York Times)
Erin Burnett (CNBC)
Ethan Bronner (New York Times)
Paula Zahn (Discovery cable channel)
Heather Nauert (Fox News)
Norman Podhoretz (Commentary magazine)
Tom Brokaw (NBC)
Lesley Stahl (CBS)
Andrea Michell (NBC)
Elaine Sciolino (New York Times)
Diane Sawyer (ABC)
Deroy Murdock (Scripps Howard News Service and National Review Online)
David Ignatius (Washington Post)
Alan S. Murray (Wall Street Journal)
Jim Lehrer (PBS)
Margaret Warner (PBS)
Judy Woodruff (PBS)
Christopher Dickey (Newsweek)
Mortimer Zuckerman (U.S. News & World Report)


The above list barely scratches the surface of the elite media folks tied to Pratt House, the New York headquarters of the Council, located at 58 East 68th Street in Manhattan. The nearly 400 "Journalists, Correspondents, and Editors" counted on the CFR rolls does not include the many additional CFR members who are the executive officers of major media corporations. They may or may not be publicly well known but they are the bosses of the more visible members of the Fourth Estate. These include CFR members such as:


Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City, founder/owner Bloomberg L.P.)


Rupert Murdoch (chairman, CEO News Corporation)


Jeffrey Bewkes (Chairman, CEO of Time Warner, in which capacity he oversees Time, CNN, TNT, HBO, TBS, Warner Bros., etc.)


Christopher Isham (CBS News vice president), and Barry Diller (IAC/InterActiveCorp and Washington Post).


In addition to the above-mentioned individual members there are CFR Corporate Members, which are major financial supporters of the CFR and its programs and agenda. The media organizations that have become CFR Corporate Members include Time Warner, ABC Inc., Bloomberg, News Corporation, General Electric (NBC Universal), Google, Thomson Reuters, and the Washington Post.


The Washington Post's ombudsman and columnist Richard Harwood detailed the CFR's domination of his own profession in an October 30,1993, column tellingly entitled "Ruling Class Journalists." In what was a rare admission (and/or boast) from a CFR establishment journal, Harwood characterized CFR members as "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States."

What in the world does all that have to do with my point?

The term began with the sites I mentioned, then Trump grabbed it and ran with it.
.

Truth is what they tell you it is. . . .

 

[miketx]

As we know, the original definition of fake news was the non-stop flood of fantastical conspiracy theories spewed by sites like Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart, et al.

Then Trump was able to successfully commandeer the word via Twitter and his "speeches".

Anyway, ol' Alex Jones will need to defend himself on some stuff:

Alex Jones faces existential courtroom battle over limits of fake news
.

Methinks you babble about nothing too much. I for one cannot stand to watch Alex Jones. I have not wasted any of my time hearing what he has said about much of anything. I'm sure like all media outlets some stuff he says is true. But me no watchie.

 

[NightFox]

again, if someone can trace it back further and do better homework than attkisson, have at it.

IMHO It can be traced back to the invention of language, there's always been manipulation of truth by outright lying, cherry picking or manipulation, it's just more pronounced due to the availability of communications technology.

Whenever you have a person or persons seeking to gain power over others you can bet they'll be playing fast and loose with the truth in order to get it.

Unfortunately it has become so pervasive in Modern Society that telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" only happens by accident and I think the main reason it has become that way is because of the intellectually lazy sheeple that will believe anything that supports their own strongly held beliefs and is wrapped in a veneer that makes it look plausible.

 

[iceberg]

again, if someone can trace it back further and do better homework than attkisson, have at it.

IMHO It can be traced back to the invention of language, there's always been manipulation of truth by outright lying, cherry picking or manipulation, it's just more pronounced due to the availability of communications technology.

Whenever you have a person or persons seeking to gain power over others you can bet they'll be playing fast and loose with the truth in order to get it.

Unfortunately it has become so pervasive in Modern Society that telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" only happens by accident and I think the main reason it has become that way is because of the intellectually lazy sheeple that will believe anything that supports their own strongly held beliefs and is wrapped in a veneer that makes it looks plausible.

oh yea to be sure. fake news has been around since people could talk. i'm really referring to this specific pop culture craze we're in now and how an old idea got dusted off and politicized.

 

[Mac1958]

As we know, the original definition of fake news was the non-stop flood of fantastical conspiracy theories spewed by sites like Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart, et al.

Then Trump was able to successfully commandeer the word via Twitter and his "speeches".

Anyway, ol' Alex Jones will need to defend himself on some stuff:

Alex Jones faces existential courtroom battle over limits of fake news
.

Bulleshitte. Alex Jones is not the problem. Thre real problem is the alphabet media ...the msm. Not even to mention the N.Y.Times You are just not very knowledgable or you are flaming.

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

Oh, and by the way, thank you for a beautiful example of my point.

As your "source", you use that renowned news website "stillnessinthestorm.com", which used a FAKE headline. The headline does not describe her point. She doesn't use the term, THEY did.

Good gawd, people, come on.
.

Watch the video folks:

Her argument is flawed from the very beginning. In her first example, Richard Jewell, she uses the term "wrongly reported". They were wrong. They didn't make it up.

Clearly she has an agenda, and that's a blatant example.

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and just making something up?
.

 

[Mac1958]

Looks like this alternate reality includes memory, too.

 

[iceberg]

As we know, the original definition of fake news was the non-stop flood of fantastical conspiracy theories spewed by sites like Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart, et al.

Then Trump was able to successfully commandeer the word via Twitter and his "speeches".

Anyway, ol' Alex Jones will need to defend himself on some stuff:

Alex Jones faces existential courtroom battle over limits of fake news
.

Bulleshitte. Alex Jones is not the problem. Thre real problem is the alphabet media ...the msm. Not even to mention the N.Y.Times You are just not very knowledgable or you are flaming.

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

Oh, and by the way, thank you for a beautiful example of my point.

As your "source", you use that renowned news website "stillnessinthestorm.com", which used a FAKE headline. The headline does not describe her point. She doesn't use the term, THEY did.

Good gawd, people, come on.
.

Watch the video folks:

Her argument is flawed from the very beginning. In her first example, Richard Jewell, she uses the term "wrongly reported". They were wrong. They didn't make it up.

Clearly she has an agenda, and that's a blatant example.

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and just making something up?
.

was bush wrong about WMD or did he lie? kinda depends on who you ask huh?

so what would her agenda be?

in 2014, rolling stone frat gang rape that was pretty much made up. who's fault is that now? the writer or the editor or the mag? answer? all of the above. yet this is where things started getting really lazy for journalism and people wrote based off their feelz vs facts.

this was also long before 2016 so she is just illustrating how far back being wrong can go. if you wish to discredit all else she says cause you disagree here, your loss.

but she makes a lot of valid points about fake news in the last 2 years. if you want to think she has an agenda, great. but offer up someone who has done more research into this cause if you just don't like what she says and call her fake now, isn't that the very problem she is describing and a huge contributor to it?

 

[NightFox]

again, if someone can trace it back further and do better homework than attkisson, have at it.

IMHO It can be traced back to the invention of language, there's always been manipulation of truth by outright lying, cherry picking or manipulation, it's just more pronounced due to the availability of communications technology.

Whenever you have a person or persons seeking to gain power over others you can bet they'll be playing fast and loose with the truth in order to get it.

Unfortunately it has become so pervasive in Modern Society that telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" only happens by accident and I think the main reason it has become that way is because of the intellectually lazy sheeple that will believe anything that supports their own strongly held beliefs and is wrapped in a veneer that makes it looks plausible.

oh yea to be sure. fake news has been around since people could talk. i'm really referring to this specific pop culture craze we're in now and how an old idea got dusted off and politicized.

It seems to me that the current "craze" started when the Duchess of Benghazi unexpectedly lost the 2016 election and the left wing dingbats in their arrogance and stupidity decided to blame it on Russian "fake news" and as the author of the article you linked pointed out Daffy Don picking it up and turning it back on the left.

So now it's yet another weapon in the bi-partisan arsenal of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Poor CNN. Donald Trump hurt their little feelings again. This time it was in an advertisement touting the “success” of his first 100 days in office. CNN was offended and labeled the ad false because Trump had labeled CNN fake news. The problem is, the five journalists with “fake news” blazoned across their faces are purveyors of biased and fake news. CNN fell into the trap again.





Yes, CNN, the MSM is fake news

 

[iceberg]

again, if someone can trace it back further and do better homework than attkisson, have at it.

IMHO It can be traced back to the invention of language, there's always been manipulation of truth by outright lying, cherry picking or manipulation, it's just more pronounced due to the availability of communications technology.

Whenever you have a person or persons seeking to gain power over others you can bet they'll be playing fast and loose with the truth in order to get it.

Unfortunately it has become so pervasive in Modern Society that telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" only happens by accident and I think the main reason it has become that way is because of the intellectually lazy sheeple that will believe anything that supports their own strongly held beliefs and is wrapped in a veneer that makes it looks plausible.

oh yea to be sure. fake news has been around since people could talk. i'm really referring to this specific pop culture craze we're in now and how an old idea got dusted off and politicized.

It seems to me that the current "craze" started when the Duchess of Benghazi unexpectedly lost the 2016 election and the left wing dingbats in their arrogance and stupidity decided to blame it on Russian "fake news" and as the author of the article you linked pointed out Daffy Don picking it up and turning it back on the left.

So now it's yet another weapon in the bi-partisan arsenal of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

yep. fake news been around forever, dusted off recently and used as a political tool. from the research done on it, by the left/google/alphabet and huge hillary supporters.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Hillary Clinton calls fake news 'an epidemic' with real world consequences - CNNPolitics
Hillary used the term "fake news" before Trump

 

[NightFox]

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and just making something up?
.

Given the fact that both partisan lemming slices will believe anything that supports their strongly held opinions, In effect there's no difference but the common modus operandi isn't to just make things up, it's to cherry pick facts that support an agenda and then sprinkle them with outlandish theories that lead the viewer to a pre-defined conclusion.

The establishment doesn't put anything forward with uncertainty strongly attached to it, the emphasis is always to spin everything as fact and if it turns out to be proven wrong, print a retraction or a "clarification" (more spin), on page 56, in small type font and then pretend like it never happened.

"This shit is outta control man" -- Junior, Platoon

 

[MisterBeale]

I noted in the suit, several things, and if Alex Jones actually believed what he was selling, instead of having his lawyers move to have the cases dismissed, he would meet them in court.

The fact is, they have to PROVE that he believes what he is saying is FALSE.

What if he doesn't?

They have to prove to the court, the public, to him that what he is saying, in public, that what he is saying isn't.

Isn't that all he has ever wanted?

He shouldn't move to have his lawyers move to dismiss. . . .

I really don't think they CAN prove that he believes Sandy Hook actually DID happen.

From the article in the OP;

"These words were cited by Enoch as further evidence that Pozner and De La Rosa are essentially combatants with Jones in the public square and are, as such, in legal terms, “limited use public figures,” meaning that a defamation case must prove not just that the party was harmed by a false statement, but that the statement was made with “actual malice,” requiring that the person making the statement knew it was false or with a reckless disregard about whether it was true or false."


Seriously? Does anyone really believe that about Jones?


One of the defamation charges Jones faces that they claim he knows is false?

"2. Neil Heslin, the parent of a Sandy Hook victim, filed suit in state District Court in Travis County against Jones and InfoWars host and reporter Owen Shroyer. It focuses on what Heslin maintains is the false claim by Shroyer that Heslin was lying when he said he held his son’s dead body and observed a bullet hole in his head. A hearing is tentatively scheduled for Aug. 30."


Nobody saw any bodies, none went to the hospital, no corner's reports, etc. Such information would have to be finally released in court, ON PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE FIRST TIME, photos, etc. and make Jones look like the fool he is. So why wouldn't he want this to go to court?

 

[Mac1958]

As we know, the original definition of fake news was the non-stop flood of fantastical conspiracy theories spewed by sites like Alex Jones, WND, Breitbart, et al.

Then Trump was able to successfully commandeer the word via Twitter and his "speeches".

Anyway, ol' Alex Jones will need to defend himself on some stuff:

Alex Jones faces existential courtroom battle over limits of fake news
.

Bulleshitte. Alex Jones is not the problem. Thre real problem is the alphabet media ...the msm. Not even to mention the N.Y.Times You are just not very knowledgable or you are flaming.

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

WATCH: Award-Winning Journalist Exposes the True Origin of the Term Fake News

Oh, and by the way, thank you for a beautiful example of my point.

As your "source", you use that renowned news website "stillnessinthestorm.com", which used a FAKE headline. The headline does not describe her point. She doesn't use the term, THEY did.

Good gawd, people, come on.
.

Watch the video folks:

Her argument is flawed from the very beginning. In her first example, Richard Jewell, she uses the term "wrongly reported". They were wrong. They didn't make it up.

Clearly she has an agenda, and that's a blatant example.

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and just making something up?
.

was bush wrong about WMD or did he lie? kinda depends on who you ask huh?

so what would her agenda be?

in 2014, rolling stone frat gang rape that was pretty much made up. who's fault is that now? the writer or the editor or the mag? answer? all of the above. yet this is where things started getting really lazy for journalism and people wrote based off their feelz vs facts.

this was also long before 2016 so she is just illustrating how far back being wrong can go. if you wish to discredit all else she says cause you disagree here, your loss.

but she makes a lot of valid points about fake news in the last 2 years. if you want to think she has an agenda, great. but offer up someone who has done more research into this cause if you just don't like what she says and call her fake now, isn't that the very problem she is describing and a huge contributor to it?

I made my point. The term was created in response to the websites I listed.

It appears that, in one universe, that just never happened.

That's just amazing to me, and more than a little concerning.
.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Jones is a very minor player if he is a player at all, more of a red herring than anything. Someone the msm can attack and pretend like he is the problem when it is them. Jones is just a scapegoat.

The huge mass media corporations are the problem. They have become predominantly nothing less than propaganda machines and it has been going on a long,long while. Long before the internet

Not all that long ago fake news had very little impact, did not make much if any difference. People back then thought for themselves. They did not sit for hours every day in front of a t.v. being indoctrinated...which today even the commericials are participating in.

Their product is readily visible on this board---how they all seem to come out of the same mold. Always oozing political correctess--following the party line.

 

[Some Guy]

Anyone who watches Alex Jones and takes him seriously are like cult members. Best way to deal with those types is just ignore them.