quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since we're endlessly debating this on every thread, apparently it needs a thread of its own.

From yellow journalism to Breitbart to Fox News to MSNBC to CNN to Pravda, everybody's got an opinion. But opinions aren't simply truth either.

Nasty journalism isn't new. Breitbart's leader acknowledged that Breitbart makes up news for its particular clientele (unless he's lying...fake news about fake news...). MSNBC and CNN have clearly given up on balanced. Fox was founded NOT to be balanced (i.e., to tell the "other" side). And the NY Times and the Washington Post have clearly spun things their way.

But denouncing anything we don't want to hear as "fake news" simply keeps us stupid.

To me, this means (it actually always did), that looking at the actual story, including evidence presented and sources, matters, whatever the news/source.

To others, it means getting your news from the "right" source.

Still others (including me, and Michael mentioned this recently) like to check news from a variety of sources, whether we "agree" or not.

How do we proceed, short of simply making up what we want, in an era of "Fake News" (and simply labeling dissenting voices as "fake news")?

Mark this day on your calendar! You and I (according to this post) agree entirely!

That said, I know a little something about journalism and while the profession has been in decline for quite some time, the advent of "fake" news is scary to me.

Why? Well, "fake" news is an issue. I think it was Denzel Washington who said, recently: "If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you do read the news, you're misinformed." I could be wrong, but that sounds like a Rogers quote to me.

No matter who said it, it is painfully accurate in the current climate.

Sure, no one does their job without any slant what-so-ever and it's pretty easy (now a days) to figure out what their slant is. My main objection is that the purveyors of journalism should make us well aware of what their particular slant is.

I was hired by my boss because of my slant, but even with that, there are still journalistic ethics that must be met. That's where the rubber meets the road.

The recent story about President-Elect Trumps alleged ties to Russia never should have been published.

Also, I think it's interesting to note that BuzzFeed is owned by NBC, an outlet that has shown their bias in spades, for, at least five years, now.

The job of the media (in this country) has always been to hold the government's feet to the fire. The media is supposed to be the window of transparency through which the public gets to discriminate, when it comes time to vote. What kills me about "fake news" is that immediately on the heels of this new pronouncement were people calling on the government to "do something". We run a big risk, here.

There are people, running around, decrying President-Elect Trump as a "Fascist". You want to see Fascism? Put the government in charge of which news stories are real and which ones are "fake". That's the real danger, here.

Thank you, Tim.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since we're endlessly debating this on every thread, apparently it needs a thread of its own.

From yellow journalism to Breitbart to Fox News to MSNBC to CNN to Pravda, everybody's got an opinion. But opinions aren't simply truth either.

Nasty journalism isn't new. Breitbart's leader acknowledged that Breitbart makes up news for its particular clientele (unless he's lying...fake news about fake news...). MSNBC and CNN have clearly given up on balanced. Fox was founded NOT to be balanced (i.e., to tell the "other" side). And the NY Times and the Washington Post have clearly spun things their way.

But denouncing anything we don't want to hear as "fake news" simply keeps us stupid.

To me, this means (it actually always did), that looking at the actual story, including evidence presented and sources, matters, whatever the news/source.

To others, it means getting your news from the "right" source.

Still others (including me, and Michael mentioned this recently) like to check news from a variety of sources, whether we "agree" or not.

How do we proceed, short of simply making up what we want, in an era of "Fake News" (and simply labeling dissenting voices as "fake news")?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
i mean you don't buy a car without checking the reviews and ratings on various automotive sites or Consumer's report like sites, so why do you treat your news purchases any differently

Because a car is something you buy to provide a useful everyday function, whereas it seems that people (naming no names) don't give a fuck whether news is true or long so long as it confirms their personal biases?

quote:

NYT Accuses CNN, BuzzFeed Of Peddling "Fake News" Over Russia Report

In a fascinating retort by the left-leaning NYT to the story of the day, namely the CNN-BuzzFeed narrative based on an unverified 35-page memo allegedly prepared by a UK intelligence officer, even "the paper of record" takes the two media outlets to town, and in an article titled "BuzzFeed Posts Unverified Claims on Trump, Stirring Debate" essentially accuses them of doing what CNN has accused so much of the 'alternative media' in doing when distributing "fake news."

Here are the key excerpts:

The reports by CNN and Buzzfeed sent other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, scrambling to publish their own articles, some of which included generalized descriptions of the unverified allegations about Mr. Trump. By late Tuesday, though, only BuzzFeed had published the full document.

BuzzFeed’s decision, besides its immediate political ramifications for a president-elect who is to be inaugurated in 10 days, was sure to accelerate a roiling debate about the role and credibility of the traditional media in today’s frenetic, polarized information age.

And the punchline, where the NYT essentially accuses both CNN and BuzzFeed of stooping to the level of "fake news" disseminators:

Of particular interest was the use of unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources, a practice that fueled some of the so-called fake news — false rumors passed off as legitimate journalism — that proliferated during the presidential election.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Fraudulent articles spread through social media during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[15][16][17] Several officials within the U.S. Intelligence Community said that Russia was engaged in spreading fake news.[24] Computer security company FireEye concluded that Russia used social media to spread fake news stories as part of a cyberwarfare campaign.[25]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

MM is unhinged, dude. Forget it. He's unhinged, has no idea what you are even trying to point out to him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

MM is unhinged, dude. Forget it. He's unhinged, has no idea what you are even trying to point out to him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

MM is unhinged, dude. Forget it. He's unhinged, has no idea what you are even trying to point out to him.

Unhinged ??? What's he going to be when Trump appoints a Justice to the SCOUTS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Whats gonna happen with number three or four

Ginsburgs looking mighty haggardly and frail of late, talks of giving it all up to move somewhere white and a bit more socialist

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomStrictMale

Fox News...Moral Majority, Religious right, etc. They can't tell the truth because they're to brainwashed to even know what truth is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomStrictMale

Fox News...Moral Majority, Religious right, etc. They can't tell the truth because they're to brainwashed to even know what truth is.

I wonder why lefties never remember that Ted Turner founded CNN to "defend the Clintons from 'false rumors'".

Then, came the stain on that dress and lying under oath ...



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since we're endlessly debating this on every thread, apparently it needs a thread of its own.

From yellow journalism to Breitbart to Fox News to MSNBC to CNN to Pravda, everybody's got an opinion. But opinions aren't simply truth either.

Nasty journalism isn't new. Breitbart's leader acknowledged that Breitbart makes up news for its particular clientele (unless he's lying...fake news about fake news...). MSNBC and CNN have clearly given up on balanced. Fox was founded NOT to be balanced (i.e., to tell the "other" side). And the NY Times and the Washington Post have clearly spun things their way.

But denouncing anything we don't want to hear as "fake news" simply keeps us stupid.

To me, this means (it actually always did), that looking at the actual story, including evidence presented and sources, matters, whatever the news/source.

To others, it means getting your news from the "right" source.

Still others (including me, and Michael mentioned this recently) like to check news from a variety of sources, whether we "agree" or not.

How do we proceed, short of simply making up what we want, in an era of "Fake News" (and simply labeling dissenting voices as "fake news")?

You are completely in the wrong time.

The person who invented fake news was Moses.

T^T