OT: Who is/are the "Fake Media"?
- Thread starter clemsonu0219
- Start date
Tribalism is the same dang thing as partisanship. Ideas are great ideologies require faith. Faith is something people defend in the face of facts. Because they 'feel' a certain way.
Well thats lazy, and stupid.
Probably not too far from the truth.
Fox has bias, no doubt.
But they generally have considerably LESS of it than all the 3 letter networks and MSNBC.
Their reaction on election night made it abundantly clear that they have NO INTENTION of maintaining even an appearance of objectivity.
For comparison, I remember a reporter on Fox, the day that Obama won the election, saying "This is what everyone has been wanting", meaning, everyone has been wanting a (half-) black president.
WHAT? EVERYONE has been wanting that? REALLY?
Personally, I couldn't care LESS the color of someone's skin, their sex, or whatever. I care about their degree of Constitutionality and their ethics background.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that anyone who votes for president based on the color of their skin is, by definition, a racist. Anyone who votes for a woman because she is a woman is, by definition, sexist. Or maybe, just plain stupid.
So FOX isn't always the pro-right station some believe.
In fact, I think FOX often isn't very right wing at all, they are often (aka Bill O'Reilly) really neocon.
Anyway, FOX is certainly far more objective than the other networks,who fawned over Obama as if he were the next coming. Fox does ask candidates tough questions.
Now, these comments don't apply to Fox commentary shows, such as O'Reilly (previously), Hannity, etc.
No, that really isn't what faith is. And there's nothing wrong with being a partisan for some particular thing or another, but when that just turns into the my team versus your team thing, it becomes a problem.
If the news outlets would simply put out facts and allow the viewer to come to his or hers conclusion I would watch more news channels. What happens on both sides of the aisle is they will state a fact for 1 minute and then use the next 59 minutes giving their personal views and thoughts. I like to think I am half way smart enough to draw my own conclusion from facts.
Nothing wrong with viewing facts through the subjective lens created by your upbringing, experiences and values. No other way to interpret them.
Denying facts outright because they create some sort of cognitive dissonance in your world view or hating your fellow Americans for holding different values than we do is where partisanship goes awry.
Ok I'm about to out myself as a huge nerd...
When I was a freshman (this would have been 2005) I would listen, almost daily, to 2 hours of Al Franken on the liberal talk radio station and then listen to 2 hours of Sean Hannity.
The way that these two guys would talk about the exact same stories but with a completely opposite slant was always fascinating and, I think, educational.
We live in a post-journalism society. There are fewer and fewer of legitimate, responsible, objective journalists and more and more partisan noisemakers posing as journalists.
CNN is just awful, awful. But I think Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper do a good job. Fox is awful but I think Chris Wallace does a good job. Nobody does a good job on MSNBC as far as I can tell. I also listen to a good bit of NPR, which I find does a decent enough job of presenting both sides.
I find though that most media will not just out and out make something up. Stories may be presented at a slant, but rarely are they not in some way grounded in fact. You'll see some of the more opinion based commentators like Hannity or Chris Matthews play loose with the facts, but in the networks' actual reporting it will generally be fact based.
"Fake News" to me are stories that are in no way grounded in fact. Most of these come from blogs and are distributed through social media. Facebook is full of these things. From what I have seen there are more of these stories coming out of conservative corners than liberal ones. I tend to think liberals are plenty comfortable with a misleading headline to an article that then contains the real details, while it seems conservatives are more comfortable with something that just flat out isn't true.
When I was a freshman (this would have been 2005) I would listen, almost daily, to 2 hours of Al Franken on the liberal talk radio station and then listen to 2 hours of Sean Hannity.
The way that these two guys would talk about the exact same stories but with a completely opposite slant was always fascinating and, I think, educational.
We live in a post-journalism society. There are fewer and fewer of legitimate, responsible, objective journalists and more and more partisan noisemakers posing as journalists.
CNN is just awful, awful. But I think Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper do a good job. Fox is awful but I think Chris Wallace does a good job. Nobody does a good job on MSNBC as far as I can tell. I also listen to a good bit of NPR, which I find does a decent enough job of presenting both sides.
I find though that most media will not just out and out make something up. Stories may be presented at a slant, but rarely are they not in some way grounded in fact. You'll see some of the more opinion based commentators like Hannity or Chris Matthews play loose with the facts, but in the networks' actual reporting it will generally be fact based.
"Fake News" to me are stories that are in no way grounded in fact. Most of these come from blogs and are distributed through social media. Facebook is full of these things. From what I have seen there are more of these stories coming out of conservative corners than liberal ones. I tend to think liberals are plenty comfortable with a misleading headline to an article that then contains the real details, while it seems conservatives are more comfortable with something that just flat out isn't true.
News bias is the reason I don't watch any news except a local broadcast every now and then, and even then for the specific stories that I actually give a sh$t about.
I mostly didn't get along with my high school baseball coach but there was one quote if his that still resonates 20 years later.
"Believe half of what you read and nothing you see on tv"
All media is fake to some extent IMO...just some more than others
"Believe half of what you read and nothing you see on tv"
All media is fake to some extent IMO...just some more than others
Please don't be so naive as to believe that there are no Libs that do the same shit.
There was a video that went viral (I can't post it right now bc I'm on an airplane and Delta's wifi sucks ass) showing a dude interviewing Libs about Trump's policies...and every single one of Trump's policies they were adamantly against.
Well, he was actually asking them about Obama's policies...just using Trump's name in the place of Obama's.
When he informed them that they had been trolled, the looks on their face was priceless.
I said all this to say that there are some dumb fvcking sheep on both sides of the aisle...the quicker we can stop immediately disagreeing with each other based upon political party alone, the better.
There are a lot of issues in this country that need to be fixed...and yes, border security and Obamacare are just two of the most significant...however, how we go about fixing these issues should be more of a bipartisan compromise.
Agree with most of this. I think 8 of 10 of the biggest fake news stories to trend on Facebook during the election were far right articles. Both sides have idiots that will believe anything though.
I tend to gravitate more towards certain people as opposed to networks. Big fan of Jake Tapper, Shep Smith, Chuck Todd, Anderson Cooper, and Chris Wallace. Not a big fan of what MSNBC does. Love the access Maggie Haberman gets at the wapo.
Well, technically, that depends on how you look @ it.
There was a point in time where you could define Rome as "destroyed", and that would've been one day.
JFC..
Something I learned a long time ago, is that you can't rationalize with irrational people.
Well, actually since "Rome" is still with us, it was never destroyed. It has been severely debilitated over the years, however. Maybe Trump is just the beginning of the end. He has certainly been a presidential cluster ****.Well, technically, that depends on how you look @ it.
There was a point in time where you could define Rome as "destroyed", and that would've been one day.
By the way if you have Netflix, "Get Me Roger Stone" was released yesterday.
Someone described him spot on as "The Forrest Gump of sinister American politics." And he embraces it. Fascinating documentary.
Someone described him spot on as "The Forrest Gump of sinister American politics." And he embraces it. Fascinating documentary.
The thing is, nobody has taken him seriously for years. The guy is much ado about nothing.
it's scary that i read this sentence and thought you were talking about trump for a second (if only that were still true)
So far what he has done as president is nothing short of incredible. He's off to a remarkably good start. Looking forward to the next 7 3/4 years.
N---
What specifically has he done that's nothing short of incredible, in your mind?
Not sure if serious. Sarcasm is hard to detect on the net. At least I hope that is sarcasm.
President Trump started off as aggressive as any President ever in working for the American people as he promised. Now as President Trump’s first 100 days in office come to an end, here is a complete list of his accomplishments and his resulting impact on the economy and world affairs in this very short period of time:
The US Stock Markets are at record highs and millions of Americans are benefitting in their retirement savings accounts.
* The DOW daily closing stock market average rose more than 15% since the election on November 8th. (On November 9th the DOW closed at 18,332 – on March 1st the DOW closed at 21,115).
* Since the Inauguration on January 20th the DOW rose 6.5%. (It was at 19,827 at January 20th and reached 21,115 on March 1st.)
* The DOW took just 66 days to climb from 19,000 to above 21,000, the fastest 2,000 point run ever. The DOW closed above 19,000 for the first time on November 22nd and closed above 21,000 on March 1st.
* The DOW closed above 20,000 on January 25th and the March 1st rally matched the fastest-ever 1,000 point increase in the DOW at 24 days.
* The US Stock Market gained $2 trillion in wealth since Trump was elected!
* The S&P 500 broke $20 Trillion for the first time in its history.
* In the history of the DOW, going back to January 1901, the DOW record for most continuous closing high trading days was set in January of 1987 when Ronald Reagan was President. The DOW set closing highs an amazing 12 times in a row that month. On February 28th President Trump matched President Reagan when the DOW reached a new high for its 12th day in a row!
President Trump decreased the US Debt in his first 100 days by $100 Billion. (President Obama increased the US debt in his first 100 days by more than $560 Billion.)
The US Manufacturing Index soared to a 33 year high in this period which were the best numbers since 1983 under President Reagan.
President Trump added 298,000 jobs in his first month alone (after President Obama said jobs were not coming back!).
Housing sales are red-hot. In 2011, houses for sale were on the market an average 84 days. This year, it’s just 45 days.
Illegal immigration is down 67% since President Trump’s Inauguration.
NATO announced Allied spending is up $10 Billion because of President Trump.
After being nominated by President Trump, Constitutionalist Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed and sworn in as Supreme Court Justice in early April.
The President has signed 66 executive orders, memoranda and proclamations as of April 19th, including:
* Notifying Congress of a strike on Syria after it was reported that the country used gas on its citizens.
* Dismantling Obama’s climate change initiatives.
* Travel bans for individuals from a select number of countries embroiled in terrorist atrocities.
* Enforcing regulatory reform.
* Protecting Law enforcement.
* Mandating for every new regulation to eliminate two.
* Defeating ISIS.
* Rebuilding the military.
* Building a border wall.
* Cutting funding for sanctuary cities.
* Approving pipelines.
* Reducing regulations on manufacturers.
* Placing a hiring freeze on federal employees.
* Exiting the US from the TPP.
In addition to all this, the President has met with many foreign leaders from across the globe including Xi from China, Abe from Japan, etc.
Last edited:
Simple answer.....any news media that doesn't believe the BS Trump is spewing and calls him out for it.
There is much more. He's doing a great job. Just ignore all the made up falsehoods and read/research what has actually occurred.
Is this fake news?
Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador
Oh yeah, and...
Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador
Oh yeah, and...
I'm not reading all of that but that's great for the time being, a truer measure of his presidency is whether any/how much of that economic impact is sustained throughout his 4 years (and the long-term results of his policies beyond) or if the bottom drops out.
How about that iron clad travel ban and the wall we're going to pay for if it ever gets built, which it won't.
did you seriously just link breitbart news
There are things called news aggregators. I checked one because I knew there would be different versions of the story. This one had public quotes from people who were there. The WaPo story is built entirely around an unnamed source that could be completely made up.
Verifiable quotes = propaganda. Dubious stories from anonymous sources that align with your greatest desires = fact. Got it.
You guys really make this too easy.
jesus christ. and you think a denial from the same white house that can't get their story straight on anything is the one we should take at face value? you'd be a great fit in a totalitarian country.
the story has been confirmed by WAPO, the new york times, buzzfeed, and even the WSJ (which is owned by none other than rupert murdoch). you really think all those outlets would risk their reputation by publishing a false story with a "made up" source? that's insane.
Similar threads
