I had posted earlier on another thread, on how you could check the veracity of your news source by actually reading what was actually said versus what is being reported. There are several examples of this that are easy to verify, for example Trump's original executive order on immigration/refugees. Simply read the actual text of the order, and see how various news organizations reported/spun and what they focused on. It really was quite revealing. In my opinion, only the WSJ and the National Review tried to report on it fairly and honestly, with some semblance of balance. Left and right websites spouted half truths, while much of the mainstream media used innuendo and focused on the demonstrations.
The bottom line here is that you can no longer trust most of the media to give you an accurate, balanced picture. you really have to just flesh it out for yourself......
AND you really need to keep your eye on the ball. Moreso than "fake news" is "distracting news"....news that is not necessarily "fake", but news that takes our focus away from the bigger picture or the really important stuff. Really, why is it actually that important how much is being spent to protect Trump's family?...I mean, they HAVE to be protected. Why, with the Norks saber rattling, the Russians in Crimea and threatening Ukraine, Isis, Syria, etc etc etc...are we so concerned with what bathroom .001 % of the population uses?

HitsRus;1838566 wrote:Why, with the Norks saber rattling, the Russians in Crimea and threatening Ukraine, Isis, Syria, etc etc etc...are we so concerned with what bathroom .001 % of the population uses?

It's interesting because I just watched a Dave Rubin vid last night. His guest was Blaire White; a good amount of time was spent with Blaire saying that the left keeps fighting to "help" the trans community (among others) when the trans community didn't ask for help. She also went on to say that, basically, that did more harm than good. Go figure! lol

There's a delineation to be drawn between slanted news and fake news.

Slanted news should be seen as an editorial. Editorials aren't "fake" or necessarily inaccurate. They're just not neutral. The author or content creator allows opinion to flavor the piece.

"Fake news" would be something that is best used to describe out-and-out lying, and I really see this most often used for ad revenue.

HitsRus;1838566 wrote:Why, with the Norks saber rattling, the Russians in Crimea and threatening Ukraine, Isis, Syria, etc etc etc...are we so concerned with what bathroom .001 % of the population uses?

I think the bizarre thing, to me, is that the focus on those proposals is simply the bathroom usage. I know that at least for the NC issues that are leading to sports events saying "fuck this state", the bathroom part is a minor part that gets focused on all the time (probably in an attempt to dismiss it as pure "PC POLICE" shit), while the actual important part is where employers shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against hiring a person solely based on their sexual preference.

That's probably one of the more annoying things to me, when people reduce something to the part of it that's most ridiculous to the average sane person, solely because that is the part easiest for them to "score points" against.

O-Trap;1838606 wrote:The author or content creator allows opinion to flavor the piece.

Yeah, but good opinion pieces USED to address the best arguments on both sides....not cherry-pick to make the opposing view look plain ignorant or irresponsible. They've even gotten too lazy to do that, and just throw around labels like "anti-science" or "socialist" or "racist" or "tree-hugger".

The politicization of science and economics the last 20 years is the maybe even worse because it "weaponizes" slanted news. Of course, nothing is worse than fake news using fake science.

It's not just opinion. The MSM wants to control what people think. The whole fight has nothing to do with reporting the truth or weeding out the BS. Plus, fundamentally, it should be an insult to any American that big brother believes we're not smart enough to decipher it for ourselves.

Azubuike24;1838610 wrote:It's not just opinion. The MSM wants to control what people think. The whole fight has nothing to do with reporting the truth or weeding out the BS. Plus, fundamentally, it should be an insult to any American that big brother believes we're not smart enough to decipher it for ourselves.

That's a pretty crazy/radical view. But then you see how cozy the liberal media is with the Democrats, and how they carried Obama's water for 8 years and.....not so crazy.

It's why they work so hard to attack and discredit Fox News. Fox isn't just an opposing view, it's the enemy. Liberals don't want to debate, they want to silence opposition. And, no, conservatives aren't like that (except Trump, who isn't actually a conservative).

It's not really radical.

Let everything be unedited and put out there for the people to see, and let the people decide. It's not that complicated.

Fox News is just as bad as the others.

Azubuike24;1838619 wrote: Fox News is just as bad as the others.

They are....but the liberals work VERY HARD to make them out to be "Faux" News.

I was on a project with an uber-liberal guy. Really smart guy. Used to laugh at "Faux" News, while sharing articles from VOX and HuffPo. A couple times a week he'd read something on VOX about what they said on Fox (and who knows if it actually was on Fox or not) and lose his shit.

gut;1838625 wrote:They are....but the liberals work VERY HARD to make them out to be "Faux" News.

I was on a project with an uber-liberal guy. Really smart guy. Used to laugh at "Faux" News, while sharing articles from VOX and HuffPo. A couple times a week he'd read something on VOX about what they said on Fox (and who knows if it actually was on Fox or not) and lose his shit.

That's essentially this board in reverse. Get up in arms over CNN, MSNBC; post something from Breitbart, Daily Wire, Louder With Crowder or other hard-core right-wing site.

Heretic;1838626 wrote:That's essentially this board in reverse. Get up in arms over CNN, MSNBC; post something from Breitbart, Daily Wire, Louder With Crowder or other hard-core right-wing site.

Probably not quite

But on this site only a few people are posting that crap. Maybe in real life they would rant and yell and whine like this guy, but that doesn't come across in their posts.

Funny thing is, I usually shut these arguments down so quick because they only know what they read on HuffPo or Politico. I throw out some actual numbers to support my argument and they go "that can't be true". I say "google it and get back to me". They never get back to me.

gut;1838609 wrote:Yeah, but good opinion pieces USED to address the best arguments on both sides....not cherry-pick to make the opposing view look plain ignorant or irresponsible. They've even gotten too lazy to do that, and just throw around labels like "anti-science" or "socialist" or "racist" or "tree-hugger".

The politicization of science and economics the last 20 years is the maybe even worse because it "weaponizes" slanted news. Of course, nothing is worse than fake news using fake science.

I don't disagree, but I think that just makes it sound like an op-ed, since those tend to be a little more polar anyway.

Azubuike24;1838610 wrote:It's not just opinion. The MSM wants to control what people think. The whole fight has nothing to do with reporting the truth or weeding out the BS. Plus, fundamentally, it should be an insult to any American that big brother believes we're not smart enough to decipher it for ourselves.

You have to remember that the MSM isn't some single-minded monolith. The individual networks have their own decision-makers who have their own ideas and motivations.

Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that nobody in the major news outlets wants to control the narrative, but I think what we have is a devolution of objectivity over time, such that most outlets actually look to put a spin on the piece to sway opinion.

So while the result might end up being the same, I don't think the lack of cold reporting is as much as conspiracy to control the population as it is the product of media going unchecked regarding accuracy for so long.

https://spectator.org/trump-is-beating-the-media-at-its-own-game/

QuakerOats;1838629 wrote:https://spectator.org/trump-is-beating-the-media-at-its-own-game/

An object lesson in the blur of the line between actual "fake" news and hilariously slanted news.

O-Trap;1838631 wrote:An object lesson in the blur of the line between actual "fake" news and hilariously slanted news.

And right after I mention how some people here get up in arms about the bias of our mainstream stations while posting hilariously slanted articles from hardcore right-wing sites, ONE OF OUR LEADERS IN THAT FRONT ARRIVES!!!!

O-Trap;1838628 wrote:You have to remember that the MSM isn't some single-minded monolith. The individual networks have their own decision-makers who have their own ideas and motivations.

While I do agree with you when you hear one of these media montages where it appears like they are humping the same talking points memo, it makes one give pause. My favorite is the old "gravitas" montage when Dick Cheney was selected as VP. An uncommon word in the english language suddenly used to describe the selection by nearly everyone in the mainstream media.

[video=youtube;m0LCTl3o2kY][/video]

majorspark;1838636 wrote:While I do agree with you when you hear one of these media montages where it appears like they are humping the same talking points memo, it makes one give pause. My favorite is the old "gravitas" montage when Dick Cheney was selected as VP. An uncommon word in the english language suddenly used to describe the selection by nearly everyone in the mainstream media.

[video=youtube;m0LCTl3o2kY][/video]

Well, when it comes to stuff like that, you also run into people getting info from either each other or from the same sources.

For example, if someone in the crowd near a group of media personnel used the word 'gravitas' loud enough for them to hear it, it would hardly be surprising for several of them to use it.

And then, again, there would be those use use the word because they heard other outlets using it as well.

I read the majority of the posts on this page and I'm actually reading "Nothing to see here!" Come on.

I'll be a voice of dissent, I guess. When you have media outlets who already noticeably lean left, at least slightly, that have journalists cry because their idol lost an election, when these media outlets cut mics, disrupting opposing points of view, etc., they are more than just slanted. They are more than just giving op-ed pieces. They are flat out political affiliates at that point.
Don't believe it? When Mika Brzezinski put one toe off of the party line platform for half of a second, her boss's boss called to make sure she was properly put back into place.

You can certainly make the distinction between slanted and fake, sure. But when that same person, Mika Brzezinski, says in a less substantial voice than normal that it is her/"our" job to manipulate what the public thinks, that's more than just slanted and biased. It's highly immoral and deceptive.

See I disagree that the MSM isn't the same entity. Not on the surface. The control goes much higher than the CEO's and shareholders of the companies. They simply censor what they don't want to be shown and that's not the true spirit of our Constitution.

We all cool with the NYT, LA Times, and CNN not being allowed to attend the daily briefing/ meeting today?

Seems a little petty to me and a bad precedent.

...plus, the fight isn't about left or right. It's about someone else deciding what you can see. My take...if someone catches it on film, I don't care what it is, if it's news, it's news.

ptown_trojans_1;1838654 wrote:We all cool with the NYT, LA Times, and CNN not being allowed to attend the daily briefing/ meeting today?

Seems a little petty to me and a bad precedent.

I think the bad precedent was made by Obama when he singled out FOX news repeatedly.

Everybody let that because at least it wasn't them, right?

CenterBHSFan;1838656 wrote:I think the bad precedent was made by Obama when he singled out FOX news repeatedly.

Did he not allow them to attend a briefing though?
And, before Obama, the President has always blasted certain news organizations.

CenterBHSFan;1838656 wrote:I think the bad precedent was made by Obama when he singled out FOX news repeatedly.

Everybody let that because at least it wasn't them, right?

I'm pretty sure there's a slight difference between being openly critical of someone and referring to someone as an enemy of the people while barring them from access to briefings. Must be that damn "ability to use reasoning" flaring up again!!!