Fake News?

[disciple Clint]

SPECIAL REPORT: The Eight Worst ‘Fake News’ Stories of the Trump Years

 

[Norbert L]

One contributing factor is the media's loss of jobs during the record level of employment prior to the virus outbreak. Stories on the President sell and gain attention. In their pursuit to remain relevant and garner the ad dollars, sometimes journalists are less about spending time to do the work and more about the attention grabbing headlines.

 

[disciple Clint]

One contributing factor is the media's loss of jobs during the record level of employment prior to the virus outbreak. Stories on the President sell and gain attention. In their pursuit to remain relevant and garner the ad dollars, sometimes journalists are less about spending time to do the work and more about the attention grabbing headlines.

That could be a factor. And there is also the fact that competition requires that they shoot first and ask questions later. But the real responsibility has to rest on the public for not demanding truth and verification of truth. If we complained and held the media responsible for false reports they would clean up their act. Bottom line we get what we are willing to settle for.

 

[com7fy8]

And there is plenty of fake reason to get our attention.

Possibly, then, there could be a lot of things we should not even give our attention by requiring it be accurate. It's not worthy of attention, anyway.

 

[Yarddog]

SPECIAL REPORT: The Eight Worst ‘Fake News’ Stories of the Trump Years

Those pale in comparison to the fake news coming out of Trump.

 

[Tom 1]

SPECIAL REPORT: The Eight Worst ‘Fake News’ Stories of the Trump Years

It’s a bit lame, some errors, some exaggerations and some that are debatable - ironically the article claims absolute knowledge in places where it has none. Even if all 8 examples were watertight cases of ‘fakery’ 8 stories over the course of several years hardly supports the idea that the news is ‘fake’. That would be like trashing an 80 ha crop of wheat because of 8 weeds growing among it.

 

[Fantine]

When balanced against Trump's 16,241 lies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-or-misleading-claims-his-first-three-years/
and scandals:
Here are Summaries of the Biggest Trump Scandals to Date
a few "fake" news stories don't make a tiny dent in the thousands of true ones and the encylopedic list of books written by former staffers, Pulitzer winning journalists, and others who have first hand knowledge.

 

[jgarden]

RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate Newsbusters Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right. We also rate them borderline questionable due to the use of poor sources and numerous failed fact checks. One additional failed fact check will push this source by default onto the Questionable list.

History

Founded in 2005, Newsbusters claims to expose liberal bias much like its parent organization Media Research Center. The website features a tagline that reads “dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias.” Essentially, this site reports on perceived liberal bias in the media and by individuals. According to their about page, they state “the NewsBusters blog provides immediate exposure of national media bias, unfairness, inaccuracy, and occasional idiocy.”

Funded by / Ownership

Newsbusters is owned by the Media Research Center, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The MRC has received financial support from several right leaning sources, including the Bradley, Scaife, Olin, Castle Rock, Carthage and JM foundations, as well as ExxonMobil. Newsbusters is funded by MRC and also displays advertising.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Newsbusters reports news on liberal bias. They frequently use strongly loaded, emotional and right biased wording such as this: CBS’s Garrett Hammers NBC for Boosting Warren During Debate. This story is sourced to video footage and tweets. Another example of emotionally charged language can be found here: NBC’s Liberal Debate Obsessions: Save Miami! Grab Guns! Fight Mitch McConnell! When it comes to sourcing they usually provide video to support their opinions, however other times they use poor sources such as Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart. Editorially, Newsbusters always favors conservatives and denigrates the left.

A factual search reveals a poor track record with IFCN fact checkers.

• Ted Kennedy sent a letter to then Soviet leader Yuri Andropov apologizing for Ronald Reagan and begging the Soviets not to overreact. – FALSE
• Warren Buffett recently said “Scrap Obamacare and Start All Over.” – PANTS ON FIRE
• Says after Hurricane Sandy, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg “refused to allow the National Guard into the city to restore civil order because Guardsmen carry guns!” – MOSTLY FALSE
• The Communist Party of the USA endorsed Hillary Clinton. – FALSE

Overall, we rate Newsbusters Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right. We also rate them borderline questionable due to the use of poor sources and numerous failed fact checks. One additional failed fact check will push this source by default onto the Questionable list.

Newsbusters - Media Bias/Fact Check
*************************************************************************************************************
Given the source, this thread isn't worth our time debunking all of its false claims!

People can believe what they wish, but one questions as to why Christians on this Forum would introduce a thread based on a source that is totally divorced from the truth!

 

[disciple Clint]

Those pale in comparison to the fake news coming out of Trump.

Well that makes it ok then for the msm to lie, twist, and defame without truth.

 

[disciple Clint]

It’s a bit lame, some errors, some exaggerations and some that are debatable - ironically the article claims absolute knowledge in places where it has none. Even if all 8 examples were watertight cases of ‘fakery’ 8 stories over the course of several years hardly supports the idea that the news is ‘fake’. That would be like trashing an 80 ha crop of wheat because of 8 weeds growing among it.

If it were only 8 things I doubt anyone would be concerned but it is everyday, all day, endlessly since Trump was elected. This list is only the 8 worst examples, all examples would require so many pages that the bundle would be too heavy for one person to carry

 

[disciple Clint]

RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate Newsbusters Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right. We also rate them borderline questionable due to the use of poor sources and numerous failed fact checks. One additional failed fact check will push this source by default onto the Questionable list.

History

Founded in 2005, Newsbusters claims to expose liberal bias much like its parent organization Media Research Center. The website features a tagline that reads “dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias.” Essentially, this site reports on perceived liberal bias in the media and by individuals. According to their about page, they state “the NewsBusters blog provides immediate exposure of national media bias, unfairness, inaccuracy, and occasional idiocy.”

Funded by / Ownership

Newsbusters is owned by the Media Research Center, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The MRC has received financial support from several right leaning sources, including the Bradley, Scaife, Olin, Castle Rock, Carthage and JM foundations, as well as ExxonMobil. Newsbusters is funded by MRC and also displays advertising.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Newsbusters reports news on liberal bias. They frequently use strongly loaded, emotional and right biased wording such as this: CBS’s Garrett Hammers NBC for Boosting Warren During Debate. This story is sourced to video footage and tweets. Another example of emotionally charged language can be found here: NBC’s Liberal Debate Obsessions: Save Miami! Grab Guns! Fight Mitch McConnell! When it comes to sourcing they usually provide video to support their opinions, however other times they use poor sources such as Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart. Editorially, Newsbusters always favors conservatives and denigrates the left.

A factual search reveals a poor track record with IFCN fact checkers.

• Ted Kennedy sent a letter to then Soviet leader Yuri Andropov apologizing for Ronald Reagan and begging the Soviets not to overreact. – FALSE
• Warren Buffett recently said “Scrap Obamacare and Start All Over.” – PANTS ON FIRE
• Says after Hurricane Sandy, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg “refused to allow the National Guard into the city to restore civil order because Guardsmen carry guns!” – MOSTLY FALSE
• The Communist Party of the USA endorsed Hillary Clinton. – FALSE

Overall, we rate Newsbusters Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right. We also rate them borderline questionable due to the use of poor sources and numerous failed fact checks. One additional failed fact check will push this source by default onto the Questionable list.

Newsbusters - Media Bias/Fact Check
*************************************************************************************************************
Given the source, this thread isn't worth our time debunking all of its false claims!

People can believe what they wish, but one questions as to why Christians on this Forum would introduce a thread based on a source that is totally divorced from the truth!

And the point of this post is to say that it is ok to accept news every day from the msm who has an undeniable liberal focus but it is wrong to accept anything regardless if it is true or not from a source that has conservative focus. If the facts cannot be proven to be wrong then attack the source.

 

[Tom 1]

If it were only 8 things I doubt anyone would be concerned but it is everyday, all day, endlessly since Trump was elected. This list is only the 8 worst examples, all examples would require so many pages that the bundle would be too heavy for one person to carry

Reporting you don’t agree with and ‘fake’ news are entirely different things.

 

[disciple Clint]

Reporting you don’t agree with and ‘fake’ news are entirely different things.

OK so fake news as defined by the msm would be anything that is absolutely and unequivocally without any fact or partial fact what so ever or cannot be twisted into something that remotely resembles a fact or partial fact. Provided that the public has not forgotten about it already. Never any need to make a retraction or correction when just letting it fade from memory works so well. Just look at the 3 years of Russia, Russia, Russia and then when the investigation proved that Trump was not a Russian agent or actively involved, silence, silence, and more silence. And then on to the next fake story.

 

[jgarden]

And the point of this post is to say that it is ok to accept news every day from the msm who has an undeniable liberal focus but it is wrong to accept anything regardless if it is true or not from a source that has conservative focus. If the facts cannot be proven to be wrong then attack the source.

I never mentioned MSM, but at the very least it has a broadcasting licence and advertisers that holds it accountable for what it airs - Newbusters has no such constraints!

Media Bias/Fact Checkers is an independent organization that scrutinizes the credibility of different media sources - they were quite explicit as to why "Newsbusters" ranked in the Very High/Extreme category!

 

[Yarddog]

Well that makes it ok then for the msm to lie, twist, and defame without truth.

No, Fox News has no excuse for doing this.

 

[Tom 1]

OK so fake news as defined by the msm would be anything that is absolutely and unequivocally without any fact or partial fact what so ever or cannot be twisted into something that remotely resembles a fact or partial fact. Provided that the public has not forgotten about it already. Never any need to make a retraction or correction when just letting it fade from memory works so well. Just look at the 3 years of Russia, Russia, Russia and then when the investigation proved that Trump was not a Russian agent or actively involved, silence, silence, and more silence. And then on to the next fake story.

Everything I read on that just reported what was going on at each stage, reviewing what was being said and by who and what was happening as a result. Lots of what ifs and maybes. Like a running commentary at a football match, just longer and slower. If you mean the TV news, stories tend to get condensed and presenters talk about their opinions at the time, you have to take that stuff with a pinch of salt but that doesn't make it 'fake'. TV news is a talking shop, written news is more concrete.

 

[disciple Clint]

I never mentioned MSM, but at the very least it has a broadcasting licence and advertisers that holds it accountable for what it airs - Newbusters has no such constraints!

Media Bias/Fact Checkers is an independent organization that scrutinizes the credibility of different media sources - they were quite explicit as to why "Newsbusters" ranked in the Very High/Extreme category!

Who reports on the bias that Media Bias/Fact Checkers has?

 

[disciple Clint]

No, Fox News has no excuse for doing this.

But it is ok for MSNBC OR CNN right?

 

[disciple Clint]

Everything I read on that just reported what was going on at each stage, reviewing what was being said and by who and what was happening as a result. Lots of what ifs and maybes. Like a running commentary at a football match, just longer and slower. If you mean the TV news, stories tend to get condensed and presenters talk about their opinions at the time, you have to take that stuff with a pinch of salt but that doesn't make it 'fake'. TV news is a talking shop, written news is more concrete.

What about the New York Times is it just random chance that they get so many things wrong?

 

[Tom 1]

What about the New York Times is it just random chance that they get so many things wrong?

Like what?