not at all, at least it wasn't tough for me and forgive me for butting into your conversation, I first voted in 1972, 2016 was only the 4th time I voted and I did that so the Oval Office would not be occupied by someone who is to mentally and emotionally unstable to clean toilets at Walmart let alone be the President Of The United States Of America. But my fellow citizens disagreed with me. After the GOP nominated their candidate last year politics and policy didn't matter to me, still don't. Fred's son is mentally ill, probably born that way. And he is emotionally unstable, probably Fred's fault.
Those intent on assailing the media are intent on undermining democracy — whether or not they know it. Reap and sow.
OFFS.
No one gets to be immune from criticism, including professional critics. The current state of American mass journalism is doing vastly more harm to our democracy than anyone calling bullshit on them.
And I count Donald Trump's presidency as part of that harm.
Wow. If I was American, I would be tempted to shoot her myself. If nothing else, it shows extremely bad judgement. That said, the widespread campaign to ridicule Sarah Palin was probably a mistake. In a sense, she deserved it. But she was a former governor and lots of ordinary Americans are just as 'stoopid' as she is.
I am not saying that we should celebrate Ignorance as strength!, it is just that ridiculing large numbers of the voting population rarely accomplishes the purported goal. Besides the Democratic party's support for the Israeli nuclear weapons backed affirmed ethnic cleansing program gave the USA the Sept. 11th attacks and all that followed so supporters of the Democrats need to really who is the stoopidist in the land. Or do Democrats simply have a high willingness to pay for land and water in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Pay in lost billions of dollars of wealth and dead Americans.
Those so called cross hairs are actually surveyors marks or alignment marks commonly used in printing. And it was Bob Beckel, a Democratic strategist who first used those kinds of marks on a political map in the 90's similar to the one referenced as Palin's.
Once again, this is old, completely refuted and has been thoroughly debunked. Yet here we are going over the same old shit, because no one sees the corrections, they just remember the headlines. And the NYT, drags it back out reinforcing their argument / agenda with a proven lie aka genuine fake news.
And I'll bet you $1000 that it will come out again sometime in the future when the need for phony facts arises once more. Unless Palin wins and wins big.
And if you used this bull shit story to go hunt Palin yourself and succeeded, how would you feel when the facts were presented to you afterwards ? Would you plead ignorance of the facts as your defense ? This is the problem. These lies are gonna get people killed, for the wrong reasons ... not that there is a good reason to kill people in the first place ...
not at all, at least it wasn't tough for me and forgive me for butting into your conversation, I first voted in 1972, 2016 was only the 4th time I voted and I did that so the Oval Office would not be occupied by someone who is to mentally and emotionally unstable to clean toilets at Walmart let alone be the President Of The United States Of America. But my fellow citizens disagreed with me. After the GOP nominated their candidate last year politics and policy didn't matter to me, still don't. Fred's son is mentally ill, probably born that way. And he is emotionally unstable, probably Fred's fault.
I was really hoping she would sue the NYT. It now looks like she has indeed pulled the trigger on a lawsuit. I sincerely hope she wins enough money to cripple it and its insurance company for the wanton malice the NYT regularly engages in.
As far as I can tell, only financial losses and job terminations will have any affect on reigning in the kind of journalism we are discussing in this thread. Again, retractions are meaningless jokes.
Wow. If I was American, I would be tempted to shoot her myself. If nothing else, it shows extremely bad judgement. That said, the widespread campaign to ridicule Sarah Palin was probably a mistake. In a sense, she deserved it. But she was a former governor and lots of ordinary Americans are just as 'stoopid' as she is.
I am not saying that we should celebrate Ignorance as strength!, it is just that ridiculing large numbers of the voting population rarely accomplishes the purported goal. Besides the Democratic party's support for the Israeli nuclear weapons backed affirmed ethnic cleansing program gave the USA the Sept. 11th attacks and all that followed so supporters of the Democrats need to really who is the stoopidist in the land. Or do Democrats simply have a high willingness to pay for land and water in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Pay in lost billions of dollars of wealth and dead Americans.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 28, 2017 - 3:28pm
Proclivities wrote:
Lazy8 wrote:
Well apparently it's James O'Keefe's definition, at least for the purposes of this expose'. but I don't think most of humanity defines "fake news" that way.
Fake news involves actual lying. CNN has a political agenda (duh) and they will shade their reporting to favor it. So does Fox News. That doesn't make them liars. Keeping a drumbeat up by highlighting every trivial development of a story because their audience is interested in it doesn't make the story false. Lying makes the story false. You pointed out an example of them getting caught lying; they retracted the story and fired the people who presented it. If that incident forever taints anything they have to say, ever, then there is no one you can trust.*
Journalists—while doing journalism—grind axes, shade stories, or spike stories all the time. That doesn't make them not journalists, it makes them human.
*Oops, linked to The Failing New York Times. I think they've retracted a story before, so grain of salt.
Yes, O'Keefe's definition is convenient for his purposes, but it seems when "fake news" was first being identified, it had nothing to do with "yielding high ratings" and had more to do with prompting internet clicks and spreading unfounded disinformation. Most of the best known ones were spread by right-wing sources, though now left-wing ones are increasing. Stories like a child abuse ring run out of a pizza shop by Hillary and other top Democrats, numerous stories about paid protesters (with people placing fake ads on Craig's List), Michelle Obama being a man who has had a sex change, Obama taking the oath of office on the Koran, or maybe the "Global Warming Being a Myth" story published by Breitbart a couple of weeks ago, etc... As you know, misinformation is different than disinformation.
Well apparently it's James O'Keefe's definition, at least for the purposes of this expose'. but I don't think most of humanity defines "fake news" that way.
Fake news involves actual lying. CNN has a political agenda (duh) and they will shade their reporting to favor it. So does Fox News. That doesn't make them liars. Keeping a drumbeat up by highlighting every trivial development of a story because their audience is interested in it doesn't make the story false. Lying makes the story false. You pointed out an example of them getting caught lying; they retracted the story and fired the people who presented it. If that incident forever taints anything they have to say, ever, then there is no one you can trust.*
Journalists—while doing journalism—grind axes, shade stories, or spike stories all the time. That doesn't make them not journalists, it makes them human.
*Oops, linked to The Failing New York Times. I think they've retracted a story before, so grain of salt.
Yes, O'Keefe's definition is convenient for his purposes, but it seems when "fake news" was first being identified, it had nothing to do with "yielding high ratings" and had more to do with prompting internet clicks and spreading unfounded disinformation. Most of the best known ones were spread by right-wing sources, though now left-wing ones are increasing. Stories like a child abuse ring run out of a pizza shop by Hillary and other top Democrats, numerous stories about paid protesters (with people placing fake ads on Craig's List), Michelle Obama being a man who has had a sex change, Obama taking the oath of office on the Koran, or maybe the "Global Warming Being a Myth" story published by Breitbart a couple of weeks ago, etc... As you know, misinformation is different than disinformation.
I was really hoping she would sue the NYT. It now looks like she has indeed pulled the trigger on a lawsuit. I sincerely hope she wins enough money to cripple it and its insurance company for the wanton malice the NYT regularly engages in.
As far as I can tell, only financial losses and job terminations will have any affect on reigning in the kind of journalism we are discussing in this thread. Again, retractions are meaningless jokes.
Well apparently it's James O'Keefe's definition, at least for the purposes of this expose'. but I don't think most of humanity defines "fake news" that way.
Fake news involves actual lying. CNN has a political agenda (duh) and they will shade their reporting to favor it. So does Fox News. That doesn't make them liars. Keeping a drumbeat up by highlighting every trivial development of a story because their audience is interested in it doesn't make the story false. Lying makes the story false. You pointed out an example of them getting caught lying; they retracted the story and fired the people who presented it. If that incident forever taints anything they have to say, ever, then there is no one you can trust.*
Journalists—while doing journalism—grind axes, shade stories, or spike stories all the time. That doesn't make them not journalists, it makes them human.
*Oops, linked to The Failing New York Times. I think they've retracted a story before, so grain of salt.
I have a different take. Journalists, other than bloggers, answer to their editors, aka management, who sets the standards of what is acceptable for publishing or airing. And retractions are meaningless, imo. No one ever sees the retraction. The headline / narrative is out, the damage is done; the seed of thought has been planted.
Generally speaking journalists want to get their byline printed and will give their editor what they want to get it credited. So while a journalist may write lies, it's the editors and the publishers who give these lies the light of day who are the real problem. The more lies that a journalist sees published encourages them to keep doing it.
"To report not on facts, but instead on narratives that yield high ratings, is exactly the definition of fake news," said James O'Keefe.
Bias is fine - but don't claim a tagline of “The Most Trusted Name in News" in the same breath.
A lack of factual evidentiary reporting is the promotion of a predetermined narrative and a smear, and not bias. It's also not journalism.
Well apparently it's James O'Keefe's definition, at least for the purposes of this expose'. but I don't think most of humanity defines "fake news" that way.
Fake news involves actual lying. CNN has a political agenda (duh) and they will shade their reporting to favor it. So does Fox News. That doesn't make them liars. Keeping a drumbeat up by highlighting every trivial development of a story because their audience is interested in it doesn't make the story false. Lying makes the story false. You pointed out an example of them getting caught lying; they retracted the story and fired the people who presented it. If that incident forever taints anything they have to say, ever, then there is no one you can trust.*
Journalists—while doing journalism—grind axes, shade stories, or spike stories all the time. That doesn't make them not journalists, it makes them human.
*Oops, linked to The Failing New York Times. I think they've retracted a story before, so grain of salt.
