The Fake News Lie that makes Trump look like a Boy Scout in compariso

[Fenring]

I'm willing to agree with Greg on the point that the Bush admin certainly conducted many grievous activities and were never really taken to account for most of them. If you want to compare Hillary to him I'm all for it. But in terms of the reception of the other party it's a bit of an unfair comparison, since Hillary was running for President while Bush was already a sitting President as he conducted his affairs. Further, it was during a time that was being cloaked under the auspices of being a Time of War and there was severe reluctance to undermine his presidency during such a 'dangerous' time. Things are different now, clearly, since I think very few Americans feel that there country is being put in any peril by undermining Trump. The fear from before has made way for tribal posturing. And yes, the cultural tone has shifted a great deal in the last 10 years. The media has become a bit of a different animal, and the public's view of authority has shifted significantly.

[Greg Davidson]

I really don't understand what scandal you think is buried in the Clinton emails. There was some spillage of classified information. And a few members of the DNC wrote some personal emails, most of which were done when Sanders was essentially mathematically eliminated, griping about him not stopping his campaign and focusing instead on how to get the person who was in all likelihood the nominee in the best possible position to win.

So please, succinctly, tell me what I scandals am I missing? Now note that scandal is a slippery term - if enough people hyperventilate over something based on false accusations (think: Benghazi) that may be a "scandal", but it does not make the accused guilty.

[Greg Davidson]

it's a bit of an unfair comparison, since Hillary was running for President

The Bush Administration was committing acts that rose to the true level of a scandal - remember, the Attorney General resigned due to this scandal. That's not normal.

Despite dozens of false accusations, there was nothing close to being criminal in the Clinton emails.

The imbalance is that the Republican destruction of hundreds of times more emails than Clinton was far more serious. But unlike Seriati's claim, the Democrats did not go far more wild than the Republicans did - they gave it vastly less attention.

[Pete at Home]

I really don't understand what scandal you think is buried in the Clinton emails. There was some spillage of classified information. And a few members of the DNC wrote some personal emails, most of which were done when Sanders was essentially mathematically eliminated, griping about him not stopping his campaign and focusing instead on how to get the person who was in all likelihood the nominee in the best possible position to win.

And what did those "personal" emails actually say, according to your best recollection?  Can you think of any content at all that might seem scandalous?    You obviously understand one of the scandals since you took great care to dance around it and provide excuses for the scandalous act.

the chanting of "lock her up" preceded the release of the emails, so please don't obfuscate and conflate illegal with scandalous.

Look, you can't have it both ways.  You can't say that "Russia" interfered with the election by releasing damaging information on Clinton, while at the same time acting like the information released wasn't seriously pejorative.

And if what the emails disclosed was so innocuous, why have you gone to such extremes to avoid stating it?
 

[Seriati]

Imagine, if Meuller were to request a Trump server and he were to "wipe" it and only send over print outs of the emails on it that he thinks are relevant.  The press would never let it go.

Awesome ignorance, Seriati. Really, a perfect illustration of either your ignorance of relevant history or your willingness to fabricate arguments that you know are false.

Neither ignorance or revisionist history, though it appears you're going to go down the revisionist rabbit hole in making your point.

By the way, what I said above is literally true.  Whether you can quibble about history on this is an interesting question, but there is no doubt what the reaction would be today to Trump doing what I said.

Remember the time when the Democrats were investigating the Bush Administration's firing of Republican-appointed State's Attorney Generals when they refused to fabricate evidence of voter fraud. It turns out that the Bush White House was using a private server, and when the emails were requested, the Administration refused to do so and said that 24 million emails had been deleted.

That's got all the classic half truths of really good propaganda.  No one was fired for refusing to fabricate evidence of voter fraud, that's just a partisan lie.

It's also a lie that the Administration "refused" to do so.  They came forward and said they could not do so, because some of the emails were not in the government records where they were supposed to be.  Staff in the GWB White House were issued separate communications gear for their political work to avoid violated the Hatch Act (not an unreal worry, since you guys have accused several Trump officials of violating it).  Basically its illegal to use government resources (ie systems) for their political work.  Some of that staff used their RNC gear to do government work. 

When the RNC was contacted to get the emails back it came to light that they deleted all emails after 60 days and couldn't provide the emails.  The GWB White House went about pursuing emails and delivering all they could find - into the Presidential Archive - where they still aren't public by law.

This CNN account puts into doubt your claim that they were never really recovered.  http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/

So why are you still bringing them up?  They were "lost" in apparent good faith, and found and put where they belong in good faith.  The media did make a big issue of it, notwithstanding you claims, but apparently hasn't made as big an issue of the amount of good faith involved since you're still citing it as "equivalent."

HRC on the other hand deliberately created her server to do private business - grossly factually different - deliberately destroyed the records - grossly factually different - and has made no good faith efforts to assist in their recovery.  But hey, great for you to find a propaganda talking point about them being the exact same thing.

Remember how we had three years of hearings and national headlines about the Bush Administration emails? No? Neither does anyone else.

Lol, again cause the breach occurred because people were trying to comply with the law, not because they were trying to avoid it.

[Seriati]

I also found  this Bernard Goldberg opinion piece interesting.  I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one with anti-trump media fatigue.

https://www.creators.com/read/bernard-goldberg/07/17/if-arrogance-were-a-crime-a-lot-of-journalists-would-be-in-jail

The negative coverage statistics are truly astonishing.

[rightleft22]

The article has a point… I just wish it wasn’t dressed up in the Liberal/elite media bias dogma. Perhaps the fatigue goes both ways.

[Gaoics79]

I had a subscription to the New Yorker and was really enjoying it, until Trump. I had to just cancel it, not out of outrage, but out of fatigue. I just couldn't take it anymore. Everything else, from the sciences to the arts to international news just exterminated from view until there was nothing left but Trump, Trump, Trump. Is the president newsworthy and therefore worthy of such coverage? Obviously to some extent given his position, but this level of overwhelming non stop coverage was like  someone putting a pillow over my face and suffocating me. The endless hatred, the endless campaigns to destroy Trump, coupled with his own outrageous behaviour (which is only a little less outrageous than his enemies claim), the infinite arrogance and presumption of the media - it nauseates me. It makes me want to retreat and withdraw. It chased me away from the New Yorker, just as it's chased me away from CNN.

I still read the National Post and the Toronto Star, which mercifully have not been overrun to the extent of American outlets. I may come back to the New Yorker one day, although I doubt I'll ever return to CNN, which is just tainted for me beyond redemption.

Trump didn't just poison his own party, he poisoned his enemies too. He made the Democrats and their media allies contemptible for me in a way I could never have imagined before.

[NobleHunter]

If Trump is as bad as his critic say, then Trump delenda est is entirely rational. To put Trump forth as a mortal threat to the Republic then not do everything you can to bring him down would be negligence.

[D.W.]

If Trump is as bad as his critic say, then Trump delenda est is entirely rational. To put Trump forth as a mortal threat to the Republic then not do everything you can to bring him down would be negligence.

We should be asking ourselves if he is that mortal threat though.  Were he a king, then yes.  I think he IS a mortal threat.  He's not though.  While I'm sure there is some value within the Republican party to have Trump be seen as the power mad villain they can later wash their hands of, it's not Trump's kingdom to rule alone. 

I think he's showing us the extent of his power and how much of a threat the wrong man can be in his position.  But a mortal threat to the Republic?  It's not worth tearing down our system (or even torturing / abusing it) just to rid ourselves of him prematurely.  Hold him to the law and use the tools of power already established, and we as a country can survive Trump.  We may even learn a thing or two in the process.

[Fenring]

Hold him to the law and use the tools of power already established, and we as a country can survive Trump.  We may even learn a thing or two in the process.

Sticking to the rule of law would solve this problem and many others. Neither side wants the rule of law, nor do they want the kind of transparency that ought to be in place to curtail certain kinds of corruption.

If the Congress is supposed to reign in the President and they are bought and owned then the first sign that anyone wants to reign in Trump ought to be a bipartisan movement for campaign finance reform. Bernie was the only one pushing for that, and - what a surprise - he was sidelined. But because each side embraces an ends justify the means approach to trying to defeat the other side they burn down the castle in order to sit on the throne.

[rightleft22]

I was watching an interview the intent of which was to understand the power of a president to pardon as well as some speculation/opinion on why the president might have in tweeted about pardons. (The opinion were clearly identified as such. )

The interview was not negative or positive IMO for the most part just informative, however it was labeled as negative and fake by many who reacted to it.

I’m concerned that for many including Trump himself any questioning of his statements and action is labeled as negative and that doing so closing the door to debate.

The definition of “fake news” also needs to be defined. A story that you don’t agree with or don’t like is not necessary fake.  There also seems to be an issue for many in discerning the deference between Opinion/Editorial presented within a news program and the news story it self. Resulting in the label fake being applied with a broad stroke that only obscures what facts there are. 

[D.W.]

Simple.  Anyone using "fake news" is,
A.  Lying to you.
B.  Attempting to refute an accusation of perpetrating "fake news".
C.  Is quoting our president.

A "legitimate" news medium will not phase it that way when pointing out a fabrication, mischaracterization or error.

[rightleft22]

So anyone reporting something I don't like is reporting fake news

[D.W.]

Yes.  That is exactly it rightleft22.  Anyone who claims something is "Fake News", using those words, is only complaining that it's something they don't like.

[TheDeamon]

If Trump is as bad as his critic say, then Trump delenda est is entirely rational. To put Trump forth as a mortal threat to the Republic then not do everything you can to bring him down would be negligence.

I don't think Trump is a threat that must be destroyed at any cost(as my other posts reflect), that said, there is old maxim about people becoming that which they hate. The even more operative part about that, is they become what they believed they were hating.

So in that respect, Trump may be "dangerous" but not because of anything he, or anybody working for him will do, or is doing. But rather the danger Trump poses takes the form of what the opposition will turn itself into in response to his being President. That said, I don't think Snowflake demanding a corrective action be taken lest Snowflake turns into a big angry green guy full of rage is a solid bargaining position to operate from either.

But this also cycles back to my concerns about the (violent) anti-Trump efforts potentially paralleling the Nazi rise to power in Germany in the 1920's. Using hate(not to be confused with disapproval, non-acceptance, avoidance, etc) as a rhetorical device in general is a very dangerous path to venture down, and if runs long enough, it will turn violent. It actually is the reason why both asides agree about true hate speech being dangerous, because it isn't a question of if, but when it will lead to violence. The problem we have is the term "hate speech" has been appropriated by left-wingers, and getting anybody to agree on what truly is "hate speech" is now nearly impossible to achieve.

Certainly, speaking against a sitting white president doesn't qualify in legal context as "hate speech" and it never should on that grounds alone. That said, kind of like a certain ruling regarding pornography "I'll know it when I see it!" There are certain lines where it becomes plainly obvious as to where a person is either speaking from, or speaking to. The rhetoric of hate is very strong indeed within many segments of the left-wing organizations that support the Democratic Party. Maybe they're working through their stages of grief at this time and we'll reach a "bargaining" stage soonish, but I'm not holding my breath on that count. The powers that be have too much invested in keeping the pot stirred at this point.

[D.W.]

All this violence and hate going round from the left. 

It's a good thing they control the media!  It sure wouldn't fit with their public image...   

[TheDeamon]

All this violence and hate going round from the left. 

It's a good thing they control the media!  It sure wouldn't fit with their public image...   

What media they do control does a pretty good job of trying to whitewash it away.

You're not supposed to be concerned about their activities, it's those right-wingers that are dangerous!

[Seriati]

Yes.  That is exactly it rightleft22.  Anyone who claims something is "Fake News", using those words, is only complaining that it's something they don't like.

What nonsense.  I liked almost nothing that the Obama administration did and yet virtually none of it was fake news.  Disagreeing with a true story, is just disagreement. 

When the spin is reported more than the story, it starts pushing the envelope, see a difference in the below:

The Department of Education  redirects spending in economically depressed areas to public schools.  Versus, say:

In a political gift to reward its collusion with the Democratic party, the Democratic administration has instituted an unpaid for and unaffordable expansion in the mandatory payments to the teachers union, while starving non-public institutions that actually help children.  Versus, say:

Republicans prove they have no hearts as they oppose sending additional education resources to the needy.

And then you get into really fake news:

Democratic payments to the teacher's union, payback for teachers grooming children for politicians' sex parties.

Whether you like a story or not, has little to do with whether its fake or grossly misleading.

[D.W.]

To be clear, I'm criticizing the usage of "Fake News" as a conclusive proclamation.  One that requires no criticism of the points on what makes the news false.  No nuance about how it is "spin" on half truths or shows something that, may technically be factual, in a poor light.

I'm not suggesting there aren't false narratives out there.  Not suggesting there aren't planted stories from anonymous sources meant to get media to run them without verification.  Not obviously partisan stories which tell half truths in order to score points with their audience.  None of that is new.

What I'm claiming is, that anyone who uses "Fake News" as a dismissive utterance, and believes that nothing else need be said on the matter and one should just trust the person doing this proclaiming (such as President Trump for instance) instead of those he's accusing, is sufficient.

"Fake News" is a rhetorical weapon demanding you trust the user over the information presented.  It's not a criticism of a piece of reporting.  I have no problem with holding news reporters or companies to account when they publish false or misleading information, no matter what party it helps or harms.

Maybe I'm just railing against the sloganization of our casual speech?

[Seriati]

Except you posted it on a thread where people are bringing forward examples and actually walking through why, not a thread where people are just being dismissive.

[D.W.]

Let me do a tl;dr

I don't like it when reasonable, intelligent people use the phrase "Fake News".  Bah humbug.

[TheDrake]

Declaring something fake news is like meta fake news in many cases, especially since different people have so many different criteria for it. Anything from focusing on the wrong events to the pictures used to portray an event can be used to decry it as fake.

My own criteria is "declaring something as a fact, when it is demonstrably untrue or unsubstantiated"

My criteria for bad news or bad reporting is much wider.

[Fenring]

I consider the brunt of 'fake news' to be one of two things:

1) Stories printed that state "facts" coming down from an anonymous source, where the reporter isn't vetting the facts themselves but is merely "reporting" on what the source is saying. Even if the source is known it comes to the same thing, where the fakeness of the news is that they are merely parotting what someone said rather than taking the lead as an opportunity to do journalistic investigation. There is no investigation most of the time, just a restatement of what the source said. I call that fake news, because it is the deliberate use of the news medium as a clearinghouse for random sources to disseminate whatever narratives they want. And if the info turns out to be fake there is no recourse because the source isn't a journalist, and the actual 'journalists' have 'done their jobs' by accurately reporting what the source said.

2) News reports where the spin of the information appears to be the crux of the report, rather then the information about the event itself. I call this 'fake news' because using a real event as a mere avenue through which to piggyback an unrelated (and ongoing) narrative is pure propaganda.

There is also blatantly false news where I believe deliberate lies are told, but those are usually constructed so that no particular party can be pinned down as the one who lied. In fact usually they are on subjects so remote from daily life that even proving the facts are false is essentially impossible. Good cases in point are stories coming out of Syria or other contested hotspots. I am quite certain that a lot of what's reported about what goes on there is flatly false, but I literally cannot prove it without resorting to what crazy investigative reporters used to do and go there myself undercover.

[Wayward Son]

Stories printed that state "facts" coming down from an anonymous source, where the reporter isn't vetting the facts themselves but is merely "reporting" on what the source is saying. Even if the source is known it comes to the same thing, where the fakeness of the news is that they are merely parotting what someone said rather than taking the lead as an opportunity to do journalistic investigation. There is no investigation most of the time, just a restatement of what the source said. I call that fake news, because it is the deliberate use of the news medium as a clearinghouse for random sources to disseminate whatever narratives they want. And if the info turns out to be fake there is no recourse because the source isn't a journalist, and the actual 'journalists' have 'done their jobs' by accurately reporting what the source said.

The problem with calling all anonymous sources "fake news" is that it kinda implies that the story is false.   And we know from Watergate, et al, that sometimes the only one actually telling the truth is the anonymous source.

Which is not to say that all anonymous sources are true or should be trusted.  But they should not be discounted off-hand, either.  Because often the facts that the anonymous source reveals cannot be found by any other means, such as what someone said behind closed doors.

 FiveThirtyEight had a good article on some criteria to help judge the reliability of anonymous sources, by analyzing what is usually meant by the labels the news media give to the source.  Which is how I believe we should all take such "fake news" by reliable news sources: tentatively true, but subject to change at any time.

News reports where the spin of the information appears to be the crux of the report, rather then the information about the event itself. I call this 'fake news' because using a real event as a mere avenue through which to piggyback an unrelated (and ongoing) narrative is pure propaganda.

Calling this "fake news" also kinda implies the story is false, when it is the presentation and conclusion, implied or stated, that is the problem.  The core story is true, and may be significant outside the narrative, too.  But when it is labeled "fake news," people tend to ignore the whole story, not just the way it is inserted into a narrative.

Especially when our President uses the term "fake news" to mean that whole organizations do nothing but publish fake stories, and that there is no factual content to those stories, I think you need a better term for your more nuanced meaning of "fake news."

[Fenring]

FiveThirtyEight had a good article on some criteria to help judge the reliability of anonymous sources, by analyzing what is usually meant by the labels the news media give to the source.  Which is how I believe we should all take such "fake news" by reliable news sources: tentatively true, but subject to change at any time.

Inspecting the labels is all well and good, but you're basically talking about having to develop a system of analysis in order to parse how reliable the 'news' is. That already defines it as being fake news as far as I'm concerned. Listening to a fact report should not require cryptography skills.

Calling this "fake news" also kinda implies the story is false, when it is the presentation and conclusion, implied or stated, that is the problem.  The core story is true, and may be significant outside the narrative, too.  But when it is labeled "fake news," people tend to ignore the whole story, not just the way it is inserted into a narrative.

See previous comments about the difference between it being fake news because the facts are fake, versus because it's literally not news but in reality editorial content parading as "the facts". I am actually more concerned about the fact that news stations are not actually in the news business more so than I am about the veracity of the particulars of what they say. The conflicts of interest that have become evident in their work is the major problem.

[D.W.]

If you mean “bad reporting” or “not journalism” then say that.
If you mean “spin” or “miss-characterization” then say that.
If you mean “provably false” then prove it.
If however you want people to stop taking you serious (or continue not to) then use “fake news”.

Fake news is a nonsense label.  A tool, not a descriptor. 

Or it's twitter jargon and economy of character limits... and I'm just old.

[Fenring]

The way I see it people are either trying to screw with your head, or they aren't. Sometimes when they mean well they'll make errors anyhow and screw with your head by accident, but such instances can involve retractions or corrections. When someone is screwing with me I'm not all that interested in categorizing the various methods of doing so and naming the ways in which I'm being messed with. If someone standing in front of me tried this I'd just walk away. I don't see news as being much different from where I sit. If they want to treat me with respect I'll be happy to overlook weaknesses in style or errors, if they mean well. If they don't I owe them no respect and am happy to move it all to the trash folder called Fake News. You're right, it's not a technical term at all, or even a useful one in diagnosing what's happening. It's more like a term for the general sense that the whole milieu stinks. Instead of "fake news" I'd be amenable to also calling it "ewww" or alternatively "not fit for consumption."

[Seriati]

The problem with calling all anonymous sources "fake news" is that it kinda implies that the story is false.   And we know from Watergate, et al, that sometimes the only one actually telling the truth is the anonymous source.

Lol.  Yes, one time, the most famous time in journalism history, an anonymous source was so pivotal as to change the entire direction of a country.  But again, only because the anonymous source's information was not relied on but verified and confirmed and proved.

I'll even posit that thousands of anonymous sources have been useful in getting at the truth over time, when they have prompted investigations into situations that have revealed real facts.

You know what is totally different?   Using the anonymous source, rather than verification of the source, as "proof" in a story.  Effectively, just repeating unverified gossip, not to mention frequently over-selling what the source said, and what can reasonably be interpreted from it.  Not verifying things if they fit  a pre-conceived notion or story the "journalist" wants to be true, is literally not journalism.

Which is not to say that all anonymous sources are true or should be trusted.

Actually that's exactly what you say later.

But they should not be discounted off-hand, either.  Because often the facts that the anonymous source reveals cannot be found by any other means, such as what someone said behind closed doors.

They literally should be discounted off hand.  What's useful is a verification of the lead an anonymous source provides, not a repetition of a unverifiable claim.  What's damaging is claims that are not effectively refutable, like a "leak" of a conversation that happened behind closed doors.  When the administration denies it happened or refutes the claim, it only convinces people that it must be true (take a look at Trump and the Israeli leak for an example of that, where those at the meeting denied the specific accusations and that convinced people it really happened).

FiveThirtyEight had a good article on some criteria to help judge the reliability of anonymous sources, by analyzing what is usually meant by the labels the news media give to the source.

You mean like how we can trust a journalist more when they call themselves a fact checker?

There are no triggers or codes you can use to determine weight that those who write them will not be aware of and manipulate.  All they have to do, to make the news even more fake, is add a few changes on labels when they really want to make an impact.

Which is how I believe we should all take such "fake news" by reliable news sources: tentatively true, but subject to change at any time.

Lol.  No thanks, no interest in buying into pure propaganda on some kind of benefit of the doubt system.  Especially not when we know for a fact the purveyors have a deliberate bias.

While your at it, why not let government prosecutors use anonymous sources in court, convict you on circumstantial evidence and admit hearsay.  After all, you're probably guilty anyways unless you can prove otherwise.

News reports where the spin of the information appears to be the crux of the report, rather then the information about the event itself. I call this 'fake news' because using a real event as a mere avenue through which to piggyback an unrelated (and ongoing) narrative is pure propaganda.

Calling this "fake news" also kinda implies the story is false, when it is the presentation and conclusion, implied or stated, that is the problem.  The core story is true, and may be significant outside the narrative, too.  But when it is labeled "fake news," people tend to ignore the whole story, not just the way it is inserted into a narrative.

The story is false.  It's not an implication.  It's like a made for tv movie "based on true events," or on events "ripped from the headlines."  Even calling it a story acknowledges that.  Why not reference Law and Order episodes as proof as well.

All propaganda is based on a "core story" that has some truth to it.  That's why its so effective.

Especially when our President uses the term "fake news" to mean that whole organizations do nothing but publish fake stories, and that there is no factual content to those stories, I think you need a better term for your more nuanced meaning of "fake news."

I think the President means that certain organizations, CNN, for example, produce large amounts of fake news, specifically about the President.  Largely true by the way.  Not that they do "nothing but publish fake stories."

I don't think we need a better term, we need a better media.

[D.W.]

For that to happen, we need better consumers. 

Maybe we need an anti-propaganda / media interpretation / sourcing and research type class as a high school requirement?  (too late by then?)

You know, so kids can be prepared for all that liberal indoctrination in higher education.  For those who can afford to go anyway.   

[Fenring]

For that to happen, we need better consumers.

This might have been meant to be wry, but in fact I believe that consumers cannot keep up with technology and language shifts. I think it's unreasonable to put the burden of intellectual integrity on a general public that (a) isn't equipped to parse articles with a fine-tooth comb doing fact-checking, and (b) for the most part just want to know what things are going on in the world and do their jobs. When presented with junk food, though, people will tend to eat it, and the fault is in the person who put it on the table. Try eating healthy when someone is constantly putting candy and cookies in front of you throughout the day. Maybe some percentage of people aren't interested or can resist on a constant basis, but most will relent eventually and dig in. You may suggest that the public should try to divest itself of the taste for sugary foods, and there is something to that. But in the meantime the workable answer is to not have cookies and candy shoved in your face all the time.

We would like to think that people shape themselves and what they get is what they deserve. To an extent this can be true, but I think more often than not habits are shaped by environment; or at least daily heuristics are. It's my basic belief that group success requires improving the environment, which is why I prefer in politics to hope for systemic change like campaign finance reform rather than to hope for individual mavericks to show up and buck the system.

Maybe we need an anti-propaganda / media interpretation / sourcing and research type class as a high school requirement?

Sponsored by Coke and published by Time Warner

[Wayward Son]

Inspecting the labels is all well and good, but you're basically talking about having to develop a system of analysis in order to parse how reliable the 'news' is. That already defines it as being fake news as far as I'm concerned. Listening to a fact report should not require cryptography skills.

But, Fenring, haven't you been doing that for other news stories for years?  I mean, do you give equal weight to all studies?  Do you give equal weight to a story from World Net Daily and the BBC News Service?  Don't you have a system of analysis that gives you some indication of how reliable the news is?

These are just another few points to consider.

See previous comments about the difference between it being fake news because the facts are fake, versus because it's literally not news but in reality editorial content parading as "the facts". I am actually more concerned about the fact that news stations are not actually in the news business more so than I am about the veracity of the particulars of what they say. The conflicts of interest that have become evident in their work is the major problem.

Agreed.  That's why I always have to parse any story from Fox News, especially on their talk/opinion programs.  But you don't hear many people complaining about how Fox News is "fake news," do you?

[TheDrake]

Part of the problem is that editorial slant can't really be removed entirely without slicing off all the relevance. Explaining to a reader why they should care is important. Even in non-fiction, a theme is important. Nobody in the US seems to be clamoring for the press to be more fair to Kim Jong Un or ISIS.

Delving into when and why and how you accomplish appropriate fairness and maintain relevance is too complex an exercise for me. But I think you'd be hard pressed to have found a press that ever did this particularly well. This is why I try to read a variety of sources, both foreign and domestic. I've even started poking into Brietbart, just so I can have a different narrative. One that I rarely agree with, but necessary perspective.

As far as classwork, it should be a four hour seminar on google <item> +hoax

That would eliminate about half the garbage I find on Facebook. Things that fall into the "demonstrably untrue" category.

As it stands now, you could toss out an article that says "Trump tweet declares ethnic cleansing a good idea" and half the damned country would be quoting it as fact.

[D.W.]

I think that half my opposition to Trump is how badly he *censored*ed with my BS radar. 

Sometimes now it's: 
Surely he didn't REALLY say anything of the sort.  This is click bait nonsense...
Oh *censored*!  He DID say that!

[Seriati]

For that to happen, we need better consumers. 

Maybe we need an anti-propaganda / media interpretation / sourcing and research type class as a high school requirement?  (too late by then?)

The number one thing that could be done would be to make logic a required subject.  Symbolic as well as grammatical.  You can try to teach people how to recognize fact, but it's too easy to manipulate them, teach them how to think for themselves and its a different story.

You know, so kids can be prepared for all that liberal indoctrination in higher education.  For those who can afford to go anyway.   

You joke about it, but so much of the propaganda we learn in college filters in below the level of your consciousness. 

Part of the problem is that editorial slant can't really be removed entirely without slicing off all the relevance. Explaining to a reader why they should care is important. Even in non-fiction, a theme is important.

Explaining why something is important is not terribly difficult, it does not require that you try and force the reader to reach your own preferred conclusion. 

Nobody in the US seems to be clamoring for the press to be more fair to Kim Jong Un or ISIS.

Kim Jong is a fascinating example.  You probably would get greater than average name recognition in the US of him, particularly if you linked him to North Korea when asking about him.  You'd almost certainly get a high degree of identifying him as crazy or evil among those who recognize him.

Now let me ask you.  How many of those people could name even one thing he actually did?  Maybe right now you'd get some who referenced Otto (though that's bigger than just Kim), maybe some would recall the assasination of his brother, but any actual policies?  Any thing he specifically did as opposed to what his father did?   I kind of doubt it.

What does it mean that we have a common media derived view that he is evil and crazy without any media provided facts to support it?

Delving into when and why and how you accomplish appropriate fairness and maintain relevance is too complex an exercise for me. But I think you'd be hard pressed to have found a press that ever did this particularly well. This is why I try to read a variety of sources, both foreign and domestic. I've even started poking into Brietbart, just so I can have a different narrative. One that I rarely agree with, but necessary perspective.

The best thing to me about using multiple sources is you have a greater chance of being exposed to a story at all.  The MSM definitely buries things that they don't want to cover, and blows up things purely for ratings.  The worst thing is that exposure to conflicting spin doesn't help you find the truth in the middle, it only makes you believe that you have.

[TheDrake]

Kim Jong is a fascinating example.  You probably would get greater than average name recognition in the US of him, particularly if you linked him to North Korea when asking about him.  You'd almost certainly get a high degree of identifying him as crazy or evil among those who recognize him.

Now let me ask you.  How many of those people could name even one thing he actually did?  Maybe right now you'd get some who referenced Otto (though that's bigger than just Kim), maybe some would recall the assasination of his brother, but any actual policies?  Any thing he specifically did as opposed to what his father did?   I kind of doubt it.

What does it mean that we have a common media derived view that he is evil and crazy without any media provided facts to support it?

Probably a large majority of people have this shared opinion based on late night comedy, standup, and outright fictions like Team America and the Interview.

Primarily for me, I think of him as evil. His human rights record, tight control on dissidents, warmongering statements. The standard of living for North Koreans overall. I could probably only cough up a few very specific examples. And, its not like he's lightyears from other countries in that regard.

The crazy part comes from some of the stories about his desire for adulation, some of his quotes (which admittedly could be mistranslations), probably less basis for this perception.

But I would say many people base their opinions on comedy or satire. There has been demonstrated confusion between what Palin said and what Fey said in character to the point where Snopes even had to put stuff up. It's probably a lot more effective than anything that CNN or FOX have attempted.

[TheDrake]

Also, as I did somewhat, the public probably doesn't quite realize that Kim Jung Un and his father Kim Jung Il are different people. Kim Jung Il has a lot more evidence for acting in a bizarre way, and making wild boasts. But then most Americans also couldn't point out North Korea on a map, and don't realize there are two major branches of Islam that don't really care for each other.

[Fenring]

But, Fenring, haven't you been doing that for other news stories for years?  I mean, do you give equal weight to all studies?  Do you give equal weight to a story from World Net Daily and the BBC News Service?  Don't you have a system of analysis that gives you some indication of how reliable the news is?

*I* have been doing this. And I mean no egotism when I say that I don't expect most people to do what I do, and I don't even do it nearly as rigorously as I should. I'm sort of a lazy detective except for sometimes when I really want to go after a particular issue and do a lot of research.

Agreed.  That's why I always have to parse any story from Fox News, especially on their talk/opinion programs.  But you don't hear many people complaining about how Fox News is "fake news," do you?

Actually that's all I heard from people about FOX news for the first 10+ years it was on the air. Before calling out fake news was ever a thing people would relentlessly say how biased and unreliable FOX news was. Maybe no one objects to FOX news with that level of vehemence any more because it was assumed for so long to be biased that now liberals just take it for granted and don't need to make the argument overtly. However CNN had a reputation for a long time as being reliable and it's only recently been challenged seriously. If FOX is any indication of how long it takes to rail against a station before people begin to take its bias for granted then CNN is in for many more years of this

[Seriati]

Agreed.  That's why I always have to parse any story from Fox News, especially on their talk/opinion programs.  But you don't hear many people complaining about how Fox News is "fake news," do you?

How did I miss that gem? 

Pretty sure that I've heard, and you've heard Fox News referred to as Faux News.  And didn't the Obama administration itself state that Fox was not a real news network?

[Wayward Son]

Agreed.  That's why I always have to parse any story from Fox News, especially on their talk/opinion programs.  But you don't hear many people complaining about how Fox News is "fake news," do you?

How did I miss that gem? 

Pretty sure that I've heard, and you've heard Fox News referred to as Faux News.  And didn't the Obama administration itself state that Fox was not a real news network?

Oops.    You're right, Seriati.  I should have qualified that statement.

I should have said that you don't hear many people who complain about "fake news" complaining about Fox News, do you?

Especially our Fauxer-in-Chief.

[TheDrake]

I should have said that you don't hear many people who complain about "fake news" complaining about Fox News, do you?

Especially our Fauxer-in-Chief.

Don't worry, he'll turn on them like Jeff Sessions as soon as they do anything that he mildly dislikes.

[Crunch]

I should have said that you don't hear many people who complain about "fake news" complaining about Fox News, do you?

I don't hear the people complaining about Fox News having any concern whatsoever over MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, NY Times, etc, etc, etc. Maybe there are some, a small minority.

[TheDrake]

I'll claim that minority in the case of CNN. I've been public about it IRL and on this board. The only one on your list that I'd support is NYT, but my support of them isn't as iron clad as it was.

ABC, NBC, CBS - who ever quotes them any more anyway?

The reality is that people are quick to call out false reporting only when they don't agree with it. The desire would be for everyone to hold the same critical thinking dispassionately, but that's asking too much.

[Seriati]

I should have said that you don't hear many people who complain about "fake news" complaining about Fox News, do you?

Sure do, where are you looking?  I suggest that you can, in the comments section at Fox News, find posters claiming that virtually any positive story about the admin is fake news.

You can also find it, in the comments section at the NYT on occasion, and in virtually every left leaning unmoderated forum.

So, where are you looking that you don't see it?

Especially our Fauxer-in-Chief.

Well, I agree, he's not likely to tweet about fake news that is favorable to him.  But then, neither does anyone else.  Luckily for him, or rather really unluckily, the Press coverage has been overwhelming and excessively negative.  I literally don't think there is any action, including where he has to act on binary choices, where CNN won't write a negative article about it.

[Seriati]

Anyone know what it takes to get the job as White House Press Secretary, I think I'd have a lot of fun with it.

[godsblackestcrow]

Pete:

The classic sophists such as Gorgias would respond that integrity itself is a "bias."

Caw caw caw!

So concur crows (bad eggs and all): such is sooth--truth can be tricked out of any true sophistry! But (by the bends of our beak!) the bit to get in this ‘course’s carry-on is the bent to the bights. You see, we might agree that words will interweave veracity with mendacity as a rule (such is the Crow’s confabulatory Law, of courpse, caw caw), but (tautologically speaking), while yer yarn holding how twisting lines of logic can increase a thread’s capacity for carrying tension seems strung together well enough to hold true, one nonetheless can’t truly twine twain open-ended lines of logic into that closed kind of loop which is purported to be the tautest logical knot…

...the knot which one can pull apart needs not Occam's razor to cut through...

[Wayward Son]

More advice on how to avoid fake news.

How to Avoid Falling for a Fake Poll from FiveThirtyEight.

[TheDeamon]

Except not even the republican you are taking about is making a claim that bold.

On Friday, Nunes walked further away from Trump's position.

"There was no wiretapping of Trump Tower," he said. "That didn't happen. ... It looks like this was all legal surveillance, from what I can tell," the chairman said, alluding to the mysterious evidence. That's not a different stance than he took on Wednesday, but it is a blunter one.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/24/521367161/paul-manafort-to-testify-on-russia-as-house-intel-committee-drama-continues

So it seems likely Trump appointees were recorded while speaking with Russian officials (or other foreign nationals) that the CIA/NSA were monitoring.  Unless there is something shocking in those transcripts there is really no news here.

Update:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html

US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe.

[velcro]

Going back to the OP-

Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), domestic extremists of all kinds have killed at least 372 people in the United States. Of those deaths, approximately 74% were at the hands of right-wing extremists, about 24% of the victims were killed by domestic Islamic extremists, and the remainder were killed by left-wing extremists.

From the Anti-Defamation League

I couldn't find the raw data, but is seems like they are calling Islamic terrorists correctly, e.g. Pulse.

[Seriati]

Sorry to resurrect this old post, but I was reminded today of the power the media wields by ignoring real stories as well.  It was pointed out to me that the trial of Robert Menendez, a sitting Senator, for corruption has received zero evening news coverage on NBC, CBS and ABC.  How is that even possible?  There is absolutely no chance, that if Menendez was a Republican and not a Democrat that it wouldn't have been on multiple times a week, and that's true without regard to whether Trump is in the Whitehouse or Obama was in the Whitehouse.

How can we have anything other than a manipulated understanding of the world when the press absolutely refuses to even try to cover things on a fair basis?