PDA

View Full Version : What Is Fake News?



Robo
05-03-2017, 07:58 PM
What is fake news?
Well, I think fake news is the stuff we can find on the web, blogs and such and propaganda found on facebook and other social media and in the supermarket rags at the checkout.


I don’t think that TV news and nationally noted newspapers are necessarily fake news. I think they’re Selective politically biased, embellished, and exaggerated news. They’re most usually but not always pretty much simple truths with agendas. Example: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC are all leftist political propaganda TV channels who design their every so-called news cast to nit pick and expose every negative word, act and waking moment no matter how small of Donald Trump while reporting every positive no matter how small, word, act and waking moment of any and all leftist, Democrats, socialist and neo-communist i.e. modern liberals. Fox channels on the other hand do the exact opposite. They embellish and exaggerate every thing negative about the collective left they can find no matter how small and endlessly report everything and anything they can find no matter how small that is positive about the rightist even Donald Trump.


What we have here folks isn’t fake news, it’s politically biased, embellished and exaggerated SELECTIVE news with opposing political agendas.

Common
05-03-2017, 08:00 PM
Nope it used to be just certain blogs created fake news. Now its also main stream outlets

Mister D
05-03-2017, 08:02 PM
"Fake news" is the other guy's bias.

Captain Obvious
05-03-2017, 08:06 PM
"Fake news" is the other guy's bias.

Pretty much.

It's news with obvious spin - obvious to the objective observer but golden to the cheerleader.

Common
05-03-2017, 08:12 PM
"Fake news" is the other guy's bias.
They used to call that yellow journalism now its so much much worse than that

Mister D
05-03-2017, 08:21 PM
Pretty much.

It's news with obvious spin - obvious to the objective observer but golden to the cheerleader.
It's really all there is these days. I know you like NPR and I guess some outlets are worse than others but it doesn't seem like anyone even tries to hide it anymore.

Captain Obvious
05-03-2017, 08:25 PM
It's really all there is these days. I know you like NPR and I guess some outlets are worse than others but it doesn't seem like anyone even tries to hide it anymore.

I have noted that NPR has shifted left since the election but I still go to it.

I go to Fox also but it's hard to really get into.

Mister D
05-03-2017, 08:32 PM
I have noted that NPR has shifted left since the election but I still go to it.

I go to Fox also but it's hard to really get into.
Believe it or not I have started watching Catholic news programs on EWTN and Telecare (which is local). It's Catholic and they make no bones about it. You know what you're getting.

Captain Obvious
05-03-2017, 08:34 PM
Believe it or not I have started watching Catholic news programs on EWTN and Telecare (which is local). It's Catholic and they make no bones about it. You know what you're getting.

I remember you saying that once

Mister D
05-03-2017, 08:38 PM
I remember you saying that once
Fox has a program called "The Five" on right now. Not sure if it replaced Hannity but it's awful. Basically 4 "conservatives" trading barbs with a progressive. Do people really watch this crap?

Captain Obvious
05-03-2017, 08:40 PM
Fox has a program called "The Five" on right now. Not sure if it replaced Hannity but it's awful. Basically 4 "conservatives" trading barbs with a progressive. Do people really watch this crap?

lol - Hannity and O'Reilly's shows were like that sometimes.

They'd have some schlep progressive on and would talk over every point they tried to make.

There's a market for that no doubt with RW hacks.

But that's what Fox sells, I just don't buy it nor do you.

Mister D
05-03-2017, 08:42 PM
lol - Hannity and O'Reilly's shows were like that sometimes.

They'd have some schlep progressive on and would talk over every point they tried to make.

There's a market for that no doubt with RW hacks.

But that's what Fox sells, I just don't buy it nor do you.
There's gotta be a big market for this. These are pretty popular shows if the ratings are any indication. That's why I find MSNBC so pathetic. They are trying imitate Fox and they can't even do that. lol

Mister D
05-03-2017, 08:43 PM
And, yeah, Hannity was the worst with shouting over his guests. His shows became unwatchable a few years ago.

Scrounger
05-03-2017, 08:54 PM
There's gotta be a big market for this. These are pretty popular shows if the ratings are any indication. That's why I find MSNBC so pathetic. They are trying imitate Fox and they can't even do that. lol

I knew Sean Hannity when he was with WSB here in Georgia. We'd talk occasionally and he would jokingly refer to talk radio as the fourth branch of government.

Then he went to work for Fox. Fox isn't what you think it is.

Fox News is owned primarily by Rupert Murdoch, who sat on the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations. The right once feared them as they are a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT think tank with globalist aspirations. The other major stockholder is a Saudi Prince.

It strikes me that the New World Order would underwrite a major news outlet... unless they wanted to control what those people thought. So, I see them working on some major issues, but interjecting their own "solutions" (think Hegelian Dialectics) and giving the people a road map to Hell since most of what they end up with is headed for a long term disaster.

Sean Hannity, Hush Bimbo, Mark Levin, Michael Weiner (Savage), Glenn Beck... all entertainers that were on the dole of global elitists. Most of what is available qualifies as fake news.

Captain Obvious
05-03-2017, 08:56 PM
I knew Sean Hannity when he was with WSB here in Georgia. We'd talk occasionally and he would jokingly refer to talk radio as the fourth branch of government.

Then he went to work for Fox. Fox isn't what you think it is.

Fox News is owned primarily by Rupert Murdoch, who sat on the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations. The right once feared them as they are a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT think tank with globalist aspirations. The other major stockholder is a Saudi Prince.

It strikes me that the New World Order would underwrite a major news outlet... unless they wanted to control what those people thought. So, I see them working on some major issues, but interjecting their own "solutions" (think Hegelian Dialectics) and giving the people a road map to Hell since most of what they end up with is headed for a long term disaster.

Sean Hannity, Hush Bimbo, Mark Levin, Michael Weiner (Savage), Glenn Beck... all entertainers that were on the dole of global elitists. Most of what is available qualifies as fake news.

And Ed Schults, Ricky Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher?

They get a pass, I know.

decedent
05-03-2017, 10:54 PM
Fake news is real news that I don't like.

Safety
05-03-2017, 11:26 PM
Fake news is real news that I don't like.

Basically. As usual, the hard right co-opted the term to try and denigrate the "main stream media" for reporting actual facts or quotes. The term was actually started by Facebook starting to crack down on the conservative news that appeared on news feeds that were unsubstantiated and made up.

Or as Kellyanne so succinctly put it, "alternative facts".

resister
05-03-2017, 11:33 PM
Fox has a program called "The Five" on right now. Not sure if it replaced Hannity but it's awful. Basically 4 "conservatives" trading barbs with a progressive. Do people really watch this crap?But Tyrus kicks ass, a black "incredible hulk"

Captain Obvious
05-03-2017, 11:35 PM
But Tyrus kicks ass, a black "incredible hulk"

Green body paint had a better hue

Captain Obvious
05-03-2017, 11:36 PM
https://pics.onsizzle.com/fake-news-you-mean-like-when-i-sad-obamacare-would-8953147.png

Tahuyaman
05-03-2017, 11:50 PM
Nope it used to be just certain blogs created fake news. Now its also main stream outlets


Yes.

Mainstream news outlets have jumped into the fake news business. They have promoted stories they admittedly can't verify. They are in a rush to attract viewers. Everyone wants to break the big story. It can make your career.

Rachel Maddow's blockbuster story on Trump's taxes is s prime example. MSNBC made a big deal if her impending story in an attempt to attract viewers and it backfired. She honestly thought that she had the story which was going to sink the Trump administration.


While there are better examples of fake news, that demonstrates how the news media has become concerned with ratings vs reporting the real news.

Scrounger
05-04-2017, 03:26 AM
And Ed Schults, Ricky Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher?

They get a pass, I know.

Unfortunately, not people I am familiar with. If they draw a paycheck from an owner of the Council on Foreign Relations, you have to ask yourself why their employer allows them to talk about politics that seem detrimental to the CFR agenda.

Bill Maher describes himself as a liberal. NOBODY on the right does that. When it comes to psychopolitics, counter-political strategies, etc. the right is totally in the dark. Plenty of lefties try to make you think they are right of center.

Ethereal
05-04-2017, 06:00 AM
"Fake news" is a term coined by the establishment and their loyalists as a reaction to losing their monopoly on information. It is a meaningless, purely self-serving term, like "terrorism" or "weapons of mass destruction" or "barrel bombs" or "moderate rebels", etc.

midcan5
05-04-2017, 06:56 AM
Defining Fake news is simple, Frankfurt defined it in his essay on BS quite some time ago. But today it has changed a bit. Everyone has laughed at the National Inquirer stories on aliens, Bigfoot etc but there are people who believe in these things. We'll leave them alone and define the new more sophisticated fake news. It is assumption, supposition, exaggeration, false comparisons, strange equivalences which distort information to the point you can fill in anything you like except that its purpose is a bit more clever. It casts doubt about the integrity or honesty of everything and is done to confuse. In the background is purpose though. Consider for instance that Wikileaks only goes after the US political system. Odd huh.

"It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit." Harry Frankfurt

"Frankfurt’s theory is easy to state. Both the truth-teller and the liar have it in common that they care about the truth. The person who aims at the truth tries to figure out what the world is like and to communicate that to others; the liar attempts to deceive. But by his very attempt to mislead others, the liar betrays his own concern, however perverse, with how things are. As Frankfurt puts it, the truth-teller and the liar are playing opposite sides of the same game." Jonathan Lear

"Today we don’t need rallies or newsreels because we have the internet and social media, the addiction of our age. It is a dependency on a drug which under the infamous “diversity of perspectives” presents morality and immorality as part of a landscape that spreads out flat to the horizon. Even we humble reporters can see what is happening. To an extent never witnessed before, a lot of people have started believing things that aren’t true. And it is acceptable to do this. And we help them." Robert Fisk

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/30/we-do-not-live-in-post-truth-world-we-live-in-a-world-of-lies-and-we-always-have/

FindersKeepers
05-04-2017, 07:03 AM
"Fake news" is a term coined by the establishment and their loyalists as a reaction to losing their monopoly on information. It is a meaningless, purely self-serving term, like "terrorism" or "weapons of mass destruction" or "barrel bombs" or "moderate rebels", etc.

I actually like the term, because it immediately identifies a story that is biased.

Journalistic integrity is all but gone, but I think the public deserves a reminded now and then that what they're reading/watching is only one side of a story.

DGUtley
05-04-2017, 07:07 AM
I don't really watch the news anymore. I can't stand it. I tried CNN after the election, but it's awful. I tried Fox, but likewise. I do like the first 10 minutes of Tucker's show just for comedic impact. History Channel, sports or I re-watch game 7 of the 2016 NBA finals!!!

18073

Peter1469
05-04-2017, 07:16 AM
Unfortunately, not people I am familiar with. If they draw a paycheck from an owner of the Council on Foreign Relations, you have to ask yourself why their employer allows them to talk about politics that seem detrimental to the CFR agenda.

Bill Maher describes himself as a liberal. NOBODY on the right does that. When it comes to psychopolitics, counter-political strategies, etc. the right is totally in the dark. Plenty of lefties try to make you think they are right of center.

FOX News supports the Neocon wing of the GOP. The Neocons support the goals of the CFR, and many prominent Neocons are members of the CFR.

Docthehun
05-04-2017, 07:17 AM
There was a recent study that determined that about 25% of the news is fake, equally divided on the far left and far right. The study concluded that white, uneducated middle aged men were most likely to believe the fake news from the far right, while the fake news on the far left were college educated younger voters.

"It's only a lie if you don't believe it!"

Peter1469
05-04-2017, 07:20 AM
Fake news is more than just biased reporting. It is actually incorrect information being passed as news in order to advance an agenda.

Here is an article from Medium:

Pathology of a Fake News Story (https://medium.com/thoughts-on-journalism/pathology-of-a-fake-news-story-aa572e6764e8)

How a neutral piece of coverage on the Syrian war is reframed and distributed to misinform the public— a step by step explanation. (https://medium.com/thoughts-on-journalism/pathology-of-a-fake-news-story-aa572e6764e8)

If you are actually interested in what fake news is, you will read this.


This post shows a story originating in the Middle East, about Russian soldiers clearing up bombs left in Syria by Obama’s troops. The story was related using first-hand video and personal accounts, and was picked up by major outlets. However, the truth was that this story was completely false — fabricated and framed in such a way that it looked like real news. We’ll pull on threads behind this fake news, and find just one small part of what may well be a large, international network that is feeding our Western media.






In fact, it will become the first of four stages going from legitimate news to honest, but incorrectly informed, political belief.




Generation: On-the-ground reporting gives new content
Re-framing: Details or small changes are added to the content, making a legitimate-sounding but unsubstantiated or false claim
Distribution and discussion: The re-purposed story is used in discussion and spread across the web, largely by unwitting members of the public, though seeded and spread by a core of minor outlets
Fake news: News sources publish articles on the deliberately re-purposed claim

decedent
05-04-2017, 07:24 PM
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/5852ea40ca7f0c8c018b5ef7-960/undefined

Ethereal
05-05-2017, 12:18 AM
I actually like the term, because it immediately identifies a story that is biased.

Journalistic integrity is all but gone, but I think the public deserves a reminded now and then that what they're reading/watching is only one side of a story.

All stories are biased. Bias is unavoidable. Journalistic integrity simply requires you to admit to your own biases and to be up front about them. That is why CNN, WAPO, NYT, etc. are so insidious, because they pretend not to be biased when they are deeply committed to a particular ideological and political worldview.