On Fake News
-
typical, hard core liberals LOVE fake news when it's to their
political advantage. Then they use it as a weapon...
but eight years of obamao, why, they hate fake news...even if it isn't fake.
-
typical, hard core liberals LOVE fake news when it's to their
political advantage. Then they use it as a weapon...
but eight years of obamao, why, they hate fake news...even if it isn't fake.
typical, hard core liberals LOVE fake news when it's to their
political advantage. Then they use it as a weapon...
but eight years of obamao, why, they hate fake news...even if it isn't fake.
The liberals have had a monopoly on the news for many years. It wasn't until the new media of the internet, cable news along with talk radio that the stranglehold was finally broken. The liberal media cannot stand they lost their almost total control of the news and now they want to shut down alternative news anyway they can. When it comes to fake news the MSM has had plenty of it's share of edited videos and misleading stories and not telling the truth. They are laughable when they call others fake news.
-
they got their jollies with "fake news" of Bush and Cheney outing
Julie Plame.
but they never did. When we finally knew who actually DID... they
still happily bashed Bush and Cheney for it. for years. right on this board, even.
-
-
The conway strikes again. She is a cooky flake
The conway strikes again. She is a cooky flake
If that was true she would be a democrat.
-
So can you please explain where these stories are passing an Op-Ed as fact? Or do you mean that they are passing the incident as factual when it is unproven? If that's the argument, both articles do use the words 'reportedly' and 'alleged' which indicate that they are not passing it off as fact.
So can you please explain where these stories are passing an Op-Ed as fact? Or do you mean that they are passing the incident as factual when it is unproven? If that's the argument, both articles do use the words 'reportedly' and 'alleged' which indicate that they are not passing it off as fact.
You're a smart guy. I know that, so let me ask you a serious question. Do you think that matters to the legions of left-cals that ran with it? All that matters is the initial perception because perception is reality
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
The conway strikes again. She is a cooky flake
If that was true she would be a democrat.
If that was true she would be a democrat.
Cmon obf, that is one odd bird and you know it
-
-
My 8 yr old niece clowned on that outfit and her parents are huge trump supporters
-
So can you please explain where these stories are passing an Op-Ed as fact? Or do you mean that they are passing the incident as factual when it is unproven? If that's the argument, both articles do use the words 'reportedly' and 'alleged' which indicate that they are not passing it off as fact.
You're a smart guy. I know that, so let me ask you a serious question. Do you think that matters to the legions of left-cals that ran with it? All that matters is the initial perception because perception is reality
You're a smart guy. I know that, so let me ask you a serious question. Do you think that matters to the legions of left-cals that ran with it? All that matters is the initial perception because perception is reality
Probably not. Left-Cals and Right-Cals are always looking for a story to justify their views, not facts that may force them to alter them.
-
I see the left is nit picking what is real and what isn't. How surprising.
-
Well, wish we had a right osiris-sissy on this board, too, and not just
the Muslim ottoman empire worshiper
-
I'm an odd bird myself I guess. I thought that outfit looked great particularly for a presidential inauguration. I know she got slammed all over the place for it by the left.
Conway has been a political strategist for a long time and I have seen her many times on the political talking head shows. She always impressed me with her political skills and I am glad to see her get a nice reward with her successful campaign for Trump. I believe she had an impact on him winning. Trump had three campaign managers and they all were the right people at the right time. Lewandowsky was the right man at the beginning letting Trump be Trump in the primaries, it was a winning strategy.
Manafort was the right man to come in when he did and shore up the delegates that Cruz was outmaneuvering Trump for and picking some off and Manafort put a stop to that quickly. Manafort made sure Trump was in control of the RNC convention and there was no rebellion.
Conway helped him down the stretch and came in at the right time when Manafort was getting to be a distraction with his Russian connections.
-
Only a gay or transgendered man would criticize what a woman wears. I think we all know this.
-
Well, wish we had a right osiris-sissy on this board, too, and not just
the Muslim ottoman empire worshiper
-
Only a gay or transgendered man would criticize what a woman wears. I think we all know this.
Only a gay or transgendered man would criticize what a woman wears. I think we all know this.
I have zero fashion sense i would never cut it as a gay man, but even i can see she looks ridiculous. Its not a big deal but she is "odd", and that alice in wonderland through the looking glass get up proves it. Thought you had me on ignore again?
-
NPR and CNN are just as guilty as Infowars and Huffpost when it comes to peddling dubious Op-eds as fact. NPR's post about the countries in the ban aligning with Trump's business interests comes to mind.
No one wants to comment? I suppose it's easier to bicker back and forth about misspeaks
I would comment, but I've never seen NPR or CNN do that. If you have any examples I would like to see them.
Ultimately I'm not talking about peddling Op-Eds as fact, though. We all know an Op-Ed is by definition meant for authors to express their opinions. That's why newspapers include the disclaimer on the bottom of Op-Ed pages.
Here is an example of a fake news story put out by the guy interviewed in the OP,
This story ran in a fake news outlet called "The Denver Guardian":
http://alexanderhiggins.com/fbi-agent-behind-hillary-email-leaks-found-dead-murder-suicide/
It was widely circulated, especially by Trump supporters, as fact. Snopes later debunked it:
http://www.snopes.com/fbi-agent-murder-suicide/
The person who owns "The Denver Guardian" is interviewed in the NPR link. He created a company called "Disinfomedia."
he is also responsible for this website: http://nationalreport.net/ Read some of the headlines and it will become clear that it's a joke.
I would comment, but I've never seen NPR or CNN do that. If you have any examples I would like to see them.
Ultimately I'm not talking about peddling Op-Eds as fact, though. We all know an Op-Ed is by definition meant for authors to express their opinions. That's why newspapers include the disclaimer on the bottom of Op-Ed pages.
Here is an example of a fake news story put out by the guy interviewed in the OP,
This story ran in a fake news outlet called "The Denver Guardian":
http://alexanderhiggins.com/fbi-agent-behind-hillary-email-leaks-found-dead-murder-suicide/
It was widely circulated, especially by Trump supporters, as fact. Snopes later debunked it:
http://www.snopes.com/fbi-agent-murder-suicide/
The person who owns "The Denver Guardian" is interviewed in the NPR link. He created a company called "Disinfomedia."
he is also responsible for this website: http://nationalreport.net/ Read some of the headlines and it will become clear that it's a joke.
I'm not arguing against nonsense articles that are clearly bullshit. If people are stupid enough to believe those articles, they're beyond help. I'm more concerned with the way journalism has been headed. It's no longer about presenting facts and letting your consumers decide. Instead, it's about pushing a narrative to your audience. CNN has clearly been in camp Clinton this entire election cycle (with one of their anchors going so far as to cheat and help her in the debates) and even NPR is guilty having a dog in the fight, too.
Just reading the title of this article tells you what the authors want the audience to think. Yet there's no mention of the Obama legislation Immigration and Nationality Act that Trump's EO cites as reason to stop travel from 6 of the 7 countries. The inclusion of Iran and the exclusion of Saudi Arabia and shitholes like Niger would be valid criticisms of the EO, but instead, NPR wants to keep pushing the narrative that Trump is putting his businesses before the country, which is a tenuous accusation at best, subtle fearmongering at worst.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/16/502304157/breitbart-editor-steve-bannon-has-no-prejudices
This interview truly irritated me. Read the transcript and please tell me with a straight face that Inskeep doesn't have a dog in this fight. If you actually listen to it, Pollak talked circles around a frustrated Inskeep who has no answers to valid criticisms Pollak levels towards NPR.
This is awful journalism. I expect more of NPR. Have some respect for the listeners and their ability to think for themselves. I listen to NPR every day, but I'm starting to believe that they should have their federal funding pulled if this is how they're going to present the news. BBC news hour is probably the least offensive option on the station.
-
I would comment, but I've never seen NPR or CNN do that. If you have any examples I would like to see them.
Ultimately I'm not talking about peddling Op-Eds as fact, though. We all know an Op-Ed is by definition meant for authors to express their opinions. That's why newspapers include the disclaimer on the bottom of Op-Ed pages.
Here is an example of a fake news story put out by the guy interviewed in the OP,
This story ran in a fake news outlet called "The Denver Guardian":
http://alexanderhiggins.com/fbi-agent-behind-hillary-email-leaks-found-dead-murder-suicide/
It was widely circulated, especially by Trump supporters, as fact. Snopes later debunked it:
http://www.snopes.com/fbi-agent-murder-suicide/
The person who owns "The Denver Guardian" is interviewed in the NPR link. He created a company called "Disinfomedia."
he is also responsible for this website: http://nationalreport.net/ Read some of the headlines and it will become clear that it's a joke.
I'm not arguing against nonsense articles that are clearly bullshit. If people are stupid enough to believe those articles, they're beyond help. I'm more concerned with the way journalism has been headed. It's no longer about presenting facts and letting your consumers decide. Instead, it's about pushing a narrative to your audience. CNN has clearly been in camp Clinton this entire election cycle (with one of their anchors going so far as to cheat and help her in the debates) and even NPR is guilty having a dog in the fight, too.
Just reading the title of this article tells you what the authors want the audience to think. Yet there's no mention of the Obama legislation Immigration and Nationality Act that Trump's EO cites as reason to stop travel from 6 of the 7 countries. The inclusion of Iran and the exclusion of Saudi Arabia and shitholes like Niger would be valid criticisms of the EO, but instead, NPR wants to keep pushing the narrative that Trump is putting his businesses before the country, which is a tenuous accusation at best, subtle fearmongering at worst.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/16/502304157/breitbart-editor-steve-bannon-has-no-prejudices
This interview truly irritated me. Read the transcript and please tell me with a straight face that Inskeep doesn't have a dog in this fight. If you actually listen to it, Pollak talked circles around a frustrated Inskeep who has no answers to valid criticisms Pollak levels towards NPR.
This is awful journalism. I expect more of NPR. Have some respect for the listeners and their ability to think for themselves. I listen to NPR every day, but I'm starting to believe that they should have their federal funding pulled if this is how they're going to present the news. BBC news hour is probably the least offensive option on the station.
I understand where you are coming from. NPR often brings in someone from the opposing viewpoint to argue that case and they should've done that here. Said person could have argued that we have strategic alliances with some of the countries on the list. A left representative could have argued that the fact that Trump excluded countries with businuess ties AND still refuses to release his tax records makes his actions highly suspicious. The debate would have made for good radio. I agree on BBC, I read it often.I'm not arguing against nonsense articles that are clearly bullshit. If people are stupid enough to believe those articles, they're beyond help. I'm more concerned with the way journalism has been headed. It's no longer about presenting facts and letting your consumers decide. Instead, it's about pushing a narrative to your audience. CNN has clearly been in camp Clinton this entire election cycle (with one of their anchors going so far as to cheat and help her in the debates) and even NPR is guilty having a dog in the fight, too.
Just reading the title of this article tells you what the authors want the audience to think. Yet there's no mention of the Obama legislation Immigration and Nationality Act that Trump's EO cites as reason to stop travel from 6 of the 7 countries. The inclusion of Iran and the exclusion of Saudi Arabia and shitholes like Niger would be valid criticisms of the EO, but instead, NPR wants to keep pushing the narrative that Trump is putting his businesses before the country, which is a tenuous accusation at best, subtle fearmongering at worst.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/16/502304157/breitbart-editor-steve-bannon-has-no-prejudices
This interview truly irritated me. Read the transcript and please tell me with a straight face that Inskeep doesn't have a dog in this fight. If you actually listen to it, Pollak talked circles around a frustrated Inskeep who has no answers to valid criticisms Pollak levels towards NPR.
This is awful journalism. I expect more of NPR. Have some respect for the listeners and their ability to think for themselves. I listen to NPR every day, but I'm starting to believe that they should have their federal funding pulled if this is how they're going to present the news. BBC news hour is probably the least offensive option on the station.
-
Another day another Trump 'talking point'.
"Any negative polls are fake news"
For real? "Anything negative anyone has to say is all lies, only I will tell you the truth, ignore everything else, just follow me"
This doesn't even remotely raise a little red flag in the back of anyone's mind? That maybe, just maybe, this guy isn't quite who you were expecting him to be?
-
Actually for me it underscores the dishonesty of the press.
You are probably too young to remember when Bill was coach of the Cleveland Browns. The first thing he did was alienate the sportswriters. Hard to talk to and banned them from the team bus and plan to travel from City to City excluding them from the party.
That meant everybody from the beat writer to the talk show host hated the guy. Now think about this do you think it made for more positive or more negative coverage?
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login