First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply All news media is fake news, some are just more fake than others.
Kadngi 
14040 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Cardiff, Wales.
Offline
Posted 2/19/17

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

so if a cat is stuck in the tree, that is what the reporter should be reporting, not that the cat is stuck in a tree, because they believe some crazy kids scared it up there (based on no evidence of that happening.) it is up to those viewing the news to place their own opinion on why.. not the media, and not the reporters.


I beg to differ. Yes, a reporter's job is to report and establish facts to the public but they also need to explain why as well because things are not exactly black and white. The Five Ws (and how) are an important thing to remember when it comes to journalism - Who, What, Why, When, Where and How. Some do seem to forget that because they not great at their job or want to avoid some of those because they don't want to be accused of being "biased" just for doing their jobs or because either their news editors or network executives just want to use the old "two sides to every story" thing just to appease to the notion of neutrality. CNN does this a lot with the whole thing of "That person said this, while that person said this. We don't know what the facts are or who is right or wrong, even though we're supposed to be fact-checking, so instead you the audience must decide!"

There are some news outlets that intentionally mislead and misinform their audience or readers who clearly don't give a damn about standards, ethics or journalistic integrity or even their own dignity for that matter when they repeatedly lie when they publish actual fake news. They don't care when they're called out on it, they're still going to publish and misinform anyway since those people have specific agendas.


In contrast, there are news outlets however that are pretty good and follow actual standards. Are they perfect? No, because those who work there are people who, like everyone else in life, make mistakes and sometimes they will make mistakes, they will sometimes get mislead into reporting something inaccurately but when they do they will go out of their way to correct it by publically acknowledging it in a form of a retraction. Unfortunately in this day and age, when some news outlet makes the mistake of publishing one inaccurate article, no matter if it's just one tiny detail wrong, people like Trump will use that to justify his narrative that the news is fake.
21369 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 2/19/17 , edited 2/28/17
Well I treat "media" outlets like Buzzfeed the same way I treat of the National Enquirer, straight up fake news.

Moving a step up from that steaming pile of garbage you have your state media brainwashing channels (Think Russia Today).
Sure they tell the news, but it is heavily biased and it is pushing a government's agenda. Sure they don't out right lie as much as the above crap, but they give wackos and conspiracy theorists way too much on air time, it's a way to pass the buck if the claims turn out to be complete bs.

The slightly less stinky, but still pretty bad news crap comes from the likes of the MSM. Think networks that heavily biased for one political view over the other (think FOX or MSNBC) which doesn't in their own right make them fake news, but annoying when people act like you can watch one or the other and have a fair opinion on something.

The grand king of MSM fake news is CNN though. Those dirtbags continuously have "technical difficulties" when someone who disagrees with them says something, lie to their older demographic through fake news (i.e. only we have the legal rights to tell you what is in the Podesta emails) and ignore important stories to talk about something way longer than anyone should and give credit to wacky theories (missing Malaysian plane went through a black hole? , and all they talked about for months for example). Even worse, they lie to their gullible viewers claiming that they are "fair and balanced," but anyone with an ounce of critical thinking can tell that it is an outright lie and that they have their agenda.

Moral of the story, nowadays more than ever, never trust a single news source as absolute fact. Watch and read news from a variety of sources so you can sort the fake news from the real news and make your own informed opinion.


sundin13 wrote:


namealreadytaken wrote:

even the Associated Press can't be trusted at times. they apparently got trolled with a fake report not too long ago.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-nationalguard-idUSKBN15W1OT?il=0


This is one of the reasons I think "fake news" is a complicated issue. I don't think we should really be too upset over the brand of fake news that comes out of honest mistakes (assuming at least that the proper steps are taken to redress the issue). These things will happen, especially in an age where a) a lot of things sounds unbelievable; and b) there are so many sources of news that can trip you up.

It is the willfully dishonest type of "fake news" that I think holds the brunt of the blame, like the people who originally made up that "troll report", or other people who make things up to push an agenda or just to troll people.

I think this is where the slogan "fake news" differs on the left and right. The left seems to be more worried about the "fake news" that some random guy (or, ya know, the president) makes up that goes viral on facebook. The right seems to be more worried about mistakes in news coverage. While they are both a problem, I personally place more blame with the malicious than the careless.



I disagree, it is quite bipartisan. You had the Pizza Gate fake news supported by right and the Piss Gate fake news supported by the left. What is more troubling is that people are making up stuff that is obviously fake and so many people in this country are gullible enough to buy it. IMO, says more about our failing education system than it does about people who make "malicious" fake news. Trolls have been around for quite some time and aren't going anywhere, the public needs to wise up already it's embarrassing.
3704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/19/17 , edited 2/19/17
some just have more moral and ethic when it comes to some of it.
Also some of the companies might handle it the wrong way, like these days they pushed it more for value rather then content or the quality.

How ours work is that you would most likely need more sources to publish such stuff, but again there will always be some minor errors either it being a misunderstanding or a mistake to supporting an agenda/idea/view set.
But thats at least how we get more respective news.
Ejanss 
16623 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/19/17 , edited 2/19/17

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
Looks like I have to go into this a little deeper. Down the hole I go.


....

<beat pause>

....

....(Oh, Darkie, you just make it so darn EASY sometimes, I'm ashamed to fall into temptation.)
70083 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 2/20/17
While I understand where this is coming from, it's in a news reporter's job description to report everything that is substantiated. That said, there definitely is fake news that gets out there, but at the same time those are things where there isn't exactly a clear picture as to what's true and what's not. There's quite a lot of variation as to the fakeness of the news, but in the end there are some news that is absolutely the truth and some that is unsubstantiated gossip or buzz.
25686 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 2/20/17 , edited 2/28/17

qwueri wrote:
Sounds suspiciously like gaslighting.


It's disturbing that intellectual skepticism is under attack like this. No, it's not gaslighting, hate speech, or pathological lying whenever someone has an opposing argument. In this case, the only argument is how often the news is being reported badly. Obviously, no news network is perfect. Denying the existence of fake news is intellectually dishonest. The only question is how bad it really is.

It's pretty obvious that the only thing going on is Trump wanting to vindicate himself. The media was pretty mean to him and said him running was a joke and that he'd never win, so now he likes to keep telling the story about how they were wrong, then call them fake news.

Some of the media folks shrug it off, others take it personally. No real reason for the viewers to care, though. We can decide for ourselves what network to watch and how skeptical to be about it. "Watch out for fake news" is actually something both the media and Trump have said, and it's reasonable advice.
3354 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 2/20/17 , edited 2/28/17
I'm just going to quick-like speak on fake news in general.

It's no new news that the mainstream news are a bunch of liars. It's been brought up throughout modern times, since news made it's way to television.

Just because something is layered with bias does not make it fake - what makes it fake is when things are misrepresented in a way that makes it seem like someone is saying or doing something that they most definitely aren't. Fake news, is why we have people who legitimately think that Trump wants to kick "all colored people" out of the USA and send them back to their countries of origin. I'll take this moment to add that ANYONE who thinks something like that is a complete moron and deserves to get kicked out of this country, and we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Fake news, is why people don't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration and what it means for our society and economy. Stupidity and laziness are also to blame for that, but it's the fakestream news making people believe this way in the first place.

The MSM are the most vile liars in the world, and misrepresent everything that the "other side" says. Meanwhile the people they've labelled "alt-right" have things like declassified documents, and leaks that are VERIFIED to be real, and nothing is said about it by the MSM. Instead they spin a narrative that tries to discredit one thing those that they themselves label fake news, in hopes that it will turn people's gaze away from the actual evidence that they've presented that can't just be wished away.

If people paid a little more attention, and used search engines a little bit more, this whole fake news thing would be over.

I know I'm getting sick of it - I can't tell you how many times I've presented a side that has come to light thanks to a recorded phone call or leaked document, only to have it countered by some completely asinine bullshit about how such-and-such a person has ties to Russia, he talked to them! so it must be fake! without regard to what was actually spoken about in what they're referencing.

The good news is, it seems like people are waking up, but it's happening at a pathetically slow pace. Honestly, I thought about being a politician - but one of two things would happen. I'd be killed for telling the truth, or I'd strangle someone for trying to change the subject with outrage tactics. Either way, not a great career choice, I think.

If you want good fake news, go watch a full speech that trump gives, then go to a mainstream news network (even Fox) and listen to them trash whatever it is Trump said. It doesn't even matter! the content of his speech will be picked apart and represented as negative, even if he spoke of world peace itself, in those terms. If you listen to Trump speeches themselves, you walk away with a very positive impression, but if you look for commentary from the media? Tiresome, and dishonest as hell. Makes me absolutely sick.


Kavalion wrote:


qwueri wrote:
Sounds suspiciously like gaslighting.


It's disturbing that intellectual skepticism is under attack like this. No, it's not gaslighting, hate speech, or pathological lying whenever someone has an opposing argument. In this case, the only argument is how often the news is being reported badly. Obviously, no news network is perfect. Denying the existence of fake news is intellectually dishonest. The only question is how bad it really is.


I run into this exact thing every single time I try to have a discussion on politics. It doesn't matter what - specifically - I'm talking about. If I disagree or offer a counterpoint, it's excused with something like this.

For the record, I've never seen anyone treated MORE unfairly than Trump by the media - and it isn't just because they kept saying he'd never win. They tried to make him look like a buffoon, and they misrepresent everything he says, and distract from what they can't misrepresent. He is absolutely right to be on their case, because they're not conducting themselves half as professionally as he is, even with his twitters. I'm glad his twitter exists, or we'd never have any means of hearing his thoughts without the MSM screening.
5007 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21
Offline
Posted 2/20/17 , edited 2/28/17
It's not fail proof, but a little rule of thumb you can follow, is look at a news source's past posts. If all their news lines up with a similar agenda, chances are its probably very bias. If the news source seems to contradict its self, chances are it may be some what trustworthy.
qwueri 
20446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 2/20/17 , edited 2/28/17

Kavalion wrote:

It's disturbing that intellectual skepticism is under attack like this. No, it's not gaslighting, hate speech, or pathological lying whenever someone has an opposing argument. In this case, the only argument is how often the news is being reported badly. Obviously, no news network is perfect. Denying the existence of fake news is intellectually dishonest. The only question is how bad it really is.

It's pretty obvious that the only thing going on is Trump wanting to vindicate himself. The media was pretty mean to him and said him running was a joke and that he'd never win, so now he likes to keep telling the story about how they were wrong, then call them fake news.

Some of the media folks shrug it off, others take it personally. No real reason for the viewers to care, though. We can decide for ourselves what network to watch and how skeptical to be about it. "Watch out for fake news" is actually something both the media and Trump have said, and it's reasonable advice.

Casting automatic disbelief on all media except one particular outlet and/or leader does sound suspiciously like gas-lighting.

That does not mean MSM outlets should be trusted at face value, they do make mistakes in reporting. The differences between mistakes in MSM reports and the flurry made up stories during the election aren't subtle: MSM makes corrections, retractions, and apologies while many of the aggregated stories popping up on facebook were made up out of thin air purely for the shock value and views.

Blanket casting all news as 'fake news' is not an intellectual exercise. Calling a mistake, bias, or unflattering story 'fake' is recasting that story in the same light as the flurry of outright made-up stories that were popping up during the election. That's not intellectual skepticism, it's an automatic dismissal of information that doesn't fit an ideological bubble. 'Fake news' is synonymous with made-up bullshit, calling a media outlet fake based off mistakes in a report or unflattering details or opinions is seldom being intellectually honest about what is and is not made-up bullshit.
19377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/20/17
Use to be, we could agree on facts, but honesty was sacrificed incrementally. We need to first be honest to ourselves, before we successfully can be honest to others. We can tolerate mistakes, but purposeful dishonesty for even the best cause is corrosive and destructive. We need to rebuild trust in each other and that comes from accepting each other, as we are, even if what one "is" offends another one of us.
15611 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 2/20/17 , edited 2/20/17

VeggyZ wrote:
For the record, I've never seen anyone treated MORE unfairly than Trump by the media - and it isn't just because they kept saying he'd never win. They tried to make him look like a buffoon, and they misrepresent everything he says, and distract from what they can't misrepresent. He is absolutely right to be on their case, because they're not conducting themselves half as professionally as he is, even with his twitters. I'm glad his twitter exists, or we'd never have any means of hearing his thoughts without the MSM screening.


When a traditional politician tells a lie they often get a hard time in the press. When a traditional politician reverses or contradicts their previous statements and policies in succession they often get a hard time in the press. When a traditional politician's aides appear to break the law they get a hard time in the press (and it usually gets harder for them until they are seen to take firm action to resolve the issue).

The key difference between Trump and a traditional politician is that the traditional politician would have thrown in the towel long ago. He is making more gaffes (and surviving them) than a traditional politician and so is accumulating more scrutiny over time.

His unconvential style was key to his election win but it is also his weakness. As an example, he and his aides have been swinging between scrapping and supporting NATO several times in the past weeks, with mixed messages coming from both the Whitehouse and Twitter. Most leaders would have got their staff in a room and agreed the message first for consistency. Instead you have all of America's allies scratching their heads trying to work out where the Trump administration is going to jump next.
19949 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/21/17 , edited 2/28/17

MidoriNoTora wrote:


VeggyZ wrote:
For the record, I've never seen anyone treated MORE unfairly than Trump by the media - and it isn't just because they kept saying he'd never win. They tried to make him look like a buffoon, and they misrepresent everything he says, and distract from what they can't misrepresent. He is absolutely right to be on their case, because they're not conducting themselves half as professionally as he is, even with his twitters. I'm glad his twitter exists, or we'd never have any means of hearing his thoughts without the MSM screening.


When a traditional politician tells a lie they often get a hard time in the press. When a traditional politician reverses or contradicts their previous statements and policies in succession they often get a hard time in the press. When a traditional politician's aides appear to break the law they get a hard time in the press (and it usually gets harder for them until they are seen to take firm action to resolve the issue).

The key difference between Trump and a traditional politician is that the traditional politician would have thrown in the towel long ago. He is making more gaffes (and surviving them) than a traditional politician and so is accumulating more scrutiny over time.

His unconvential style was key to his election win but it is also his weakness. As an example, he and his aides have been swinging between scrapping and supporting NATO several times in the past weeks, with mixed messages coming from both the Whitehouse and Twitter. Most leaders would have got their staff in a room and agreed the message first for consistency. Instead you have all of America's allies scratching their heads trying to work out where the Trump administration is going to jump next.


Your hole statement is full of bullshit! Example Hillary was caught cheating many times throughout the election and the media swept it under the rug! Hell CNN even aided her to cheat, by giving her information on the debate questions ahead of time, even allowing her to choose what questions to use. Media is pissed that even with their cheating he still won. So no the media is a pile of shit that pushing a bullshit Agenda.
Ejanss 
16623 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/21/17

MidoriNoTora wrote:
When a traditional politician tells a lie they often get a hard time in the press. When a traditional politician reverses or contradicts their previous statements and policies in succession they often get a hard time in the press. When a traditional politician's aides appear to break the law they get a hard time in the press (and it usually gets harder for them until they are seen to take firm action to resolve the issue).

The key difference between Trump and a traditional politician is that the traditional politician would have thrown in the towel long ago. He is making more gaffes (and surviving them) than a traditional politician and so is accumulating more scrutiny over time.


Trump's becoming the more LITERAL incarnation of Art Buchwald's famous quote from the 80's:

"Washington: 'I cannot tell a lie.'
Nixon: 'I cannot tell the truth.'
Reagan: 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
gsm642 
1878 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Shanghai China
Online
Posted 2/21/17
That's why I only watch cnn when there is a major weather event like a hurricane I miss watching hurricanes live on tv. Recently cnn has become too political for my taste
14672 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/21/17
Hurricanes are best in person anyway, so there is no need for CNN if you just move to Miami.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.