Fake News?

[Tom 1]

There is nothing there that compares in any way with the evidence that I provided proving msm false news. So obviously Fox news is not engaging in false news in any way that is even remotely close to the msm. That is no doubt the reason why Fox News enjoys such a vastly dominating advantage in market share, cnn and msnbc cannot even get close. U.S. cable news network viewership 2020 | Statista

How on earth do you get to that conclusion? How is Fox manipulating video and images, spreading phony info about cures for the virus and so on different to when someone else does comparable things? If you think verifiable examples on wikipedia are somehow suspect, there are more here: Yes Roger, Fox News Has Retracted False Stories
And here: Fox News Admits Error. It's Now Become a Constitutional Issue.

 

[Tom 1]

There is nothing there that compares in any way with the evidence that I provided proving msm false news. So obviously Fox news is not engaging in false news in any way that is even remotely close to the msm. That is no doubt the reason why Fox News enjoys such a vastly dominating advantage in market share, cnn and msnbc cannot even get close. U.S. cable news network viewership 2020 | Statista

I think Fox enjoys such wide appeal because it delivers a simplistic view of the world, and knows how to push people's buttons.

 

[disciple Clint]

How on earth do you get to that conclusion? How is Fox manipulating video and images, spreading phony info about cures for the virus and so on different to when someone else does comparable things? If you think verifiable examples on wikipedia are somehow suspect, there are more here: Yes Roger, Fox News Has Retracted False Stories
And here: Fox News Admits Error. It's Now Become a Constitutional Issue.

Did anyone expect a story about dressing wild deer up in orange west to be anything other than humor or satire?

So Fox made a retraction, inst that what responsible news services do when there is a doubt about a story. it should be a lesson in responsibility for the CNN and MSNBC if they would just be that honest there would be a much smaller problem with fake news

 

[disciple Clint]

I think Fox enjoys such wide appeal because it delivers a simplistic view of the world, and knows how to push people's buttons.

I think the reason that MSNBC and CNN have such a small market share is for exactly those same reasons along with the fact that no one can depend on what they report as being true in any way.

 

[Tom 1]

Did anyone expect a story about dressing wild deer up in orange west to be anything other than humor or satire?

So Fox made a retraction, inst that what responsible news services do when there is a doubt about a story. it should be a lesson in responsibility for the CNN and MSNBC if they would just be that honest there would be a much smaller problem with fake news

That's the first example, maybe you didn't read the rest of the examples, in the rest of the article?

Other sites, on the extremely rare occasions that something actually false is printed, do retract them, every time. People sometimes resign as a result.

You seem to be arguing that Fox doesn't sometimes deliver inaccurate news, this isn't true, as you can see if you read the links I sent to you. You now seem to be saying that other news sites don't retract any actually fake news, which isn't true either. You are suggesting also there is a big problem with fake news, which is completely inaccurate. Actual 'fake' news, as opposed to news that doesn't fit with what people want to think, is a minuscule fraction of a fraction of total news output.

 

[Tom 1]

I think the reason that MSNBC and CNN have such a small market share is for exactly those same reasons along with the fact that no one can depend on what they report as being true in any way.

Could be that the same reasons apply, I don’t watch TV news much so I wouldn’t know. Given that actual fake news represents a negligible fraction of news output the assertion that you can’t know if it is true has no actual basis in anything real.

 

[disciple Clint]

Could be that the same reasons apply, I don’t watch TV news much so I wouldn’t know. Given that actual fake news represents a negligible fraction of news output the assertion that you can’t know if it is true has no actual basis in anything real.

We have argued this ad nauseam, nothing has changed, time to move on.

 

[Tom 1]

We have argued this ad nauseam, nothing has changed, time to move on.

The amount of actually ‘fake’ news is tiny, that is a verifiable fact.

 

[disciple Clint]

The amount of actually ‘fake’ news is tiny, that is a verifiable fact.

be my guest

 

[Tom 1]

be my guest

The absence of anything but a tiny list from literally hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of news stories over the period of years covered by the articles you posted is pretty conclusive. You can find the same kind of error in both camps of partisan reporting in the US. There simply is no case to answer.

 

[disciple Clint]

The absence of anything but a tiny list from literally hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of news stories over the period of years covered by the articles you posted is pretty conclusive. You can find the same kind of error in both camps of partisan reporting in the US. There simply is no case to answer.

the title of the list was the worst 8, it was in no way an exhaustive list, I am not certain that this site has the capacity for an exhaustive list of false news stories.

 

[jgarden]

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

Are we now to assume that "Media Bias/Fact Checkers" is another member of this much widely heralded nationwide conspiracy that Trump and his supporters repeatedly turn to every time they find themselves between a rock and a hard place?

 

[disciple Clint]

Are we now to assume that "Media Bias/Fact Checkers" is another member of this much widely heralded nationwide conspiracy that Trump and his supporters repeatedly turn to every time they find themselves between a rock and a hard place?

We are to believe that everyone has a bias and anyone who wants us to believe otherwise cannot be trusted.

 

[Tom 1]

the title of the list was the worst 8, it was in no way an exhaustive list, I am not certain that this site has the capacity for an exhaustive list of false news stories.

The worst 8, from a period of several years, are not entirely convincing. Given that there are people who constantly trawl news sites to find errors, it's pretty slim pickings. If there were a case to be made for 'fake news' being an actual thing, beyond a tiny number of (sometimes debatable) errors, exaggerations and so on - which all news outlets make - it would be way clearer than that. So, the question remains, on what basis does Trump or anyone else make the 'fake news claim'? As it's a regular accusation, what is being referred to? What was published today, yesterday, last week or whenever that was fake? There are 100s of new articles every day, which of them are fake, and what would be your basis for considering any of them to be so?

 

[disciple Clint]

The worst 8, from a period of several years, are not entirely convincing. Given that there are people who constantly trawl news sites to find errors, it's pretty slim pickings. If there were a case to be made for 'fake news' being an actual thing, beyond a tiny number of (sometimes debatable) errors, exaggerations and so on - which all news outlets make - it would be way clearer than that. So, the question remains, on what basis does Trump or anyone else make the 'fake news claim'? As it's a regular accusation, what is being referred to? What was published today, yesterday, last week or whenever that was fake? There are 100s of new articles every day, which of them are fake, and what would be your basis for considering any of them to be so?

That is far to easy for me Tom, the fake one are the ones where the facts do not support the news article.

 

[Tom 1]

That is far to easy for me Tom, the fake one are the ones where the facts do not support the news article.

Like what? Come on, give me something to read here. Please link me to a recent (or at least relatively recent) article or set of articles on a topic that you consider to be fake.

Here are two very different perspectives on a broad issue, both from the US, one from a liberal and one from a conservative publication. Clearly they have different perspectives; does that mean one of them is 'fake'?

Will the Coronavirus Create a More Progressive Society or a More Dystopian One?

We Are Not Just Fighting a Pandemic, We Are Also Fighting To Keep Freedom Alive.

For something more specific, some news outlets, e.g. Fox, claimed that the Mueller investigation 'exonerated' Trump, other news outlets pointed out that the report doesn't actually say that at all. Which is 'fake'?

 

[disciple Clint]

Like what? Come on, give me something to read here. Please link me to a recent (or at least relatively recent) article or set of articles on a topic that you consider to be fake.

Here are two very different perspectives on a broad issue, both from the US, one from a liberal and one from a conservative publication. Clearly they have different perspectives; does that mean one of them is 'fake'?

Will the Coronavirus Create a More Progressive Society or a More Dystopian One?

We Are Not Just Fighting a Pandemic, We Are Also Fighting To Keep Freedom Alive.

For something more specific, some news outlets, e.g. Fox, claimed that the Mueller investigation 'exonerated' Trump, other news outlets pointed out that the report doesn't actually say that at all. Which is 'fake'?

There is no such thing as a fake opinion.
Regarding the exoneration of Trump it is a combination of the Mueller report and the decision by Barr and Rosestein. They “concluded that the evidence developed … is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Which was the only question remaining after the report. So since he did not commit a crime, he is exonerated. Barr and Rosenstein likely made correct legal decision on obstruction

 

[Tom 1]

There is no such thing as a fake opinion.
Regarding the exoneration of Trump it is a combination of the Mueller report and the decision by Barr and Rosestein. They “concluded that the evidence developed … is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Which was the only question remaining after the report. So since he did not commit a crime, he is exonerated. Barr and Rosenstein likely made correct legal decision on obstruction

They made a decision not to press charges, declaring someone exonerated without any kind of process or trial doesn't have any substance to it. That is far from being the only remaining question, despite frequent assertions that this or that other thing has been 'debunked' regarding Russian influence over Trump the only think lacking is the freedom to carry out a proper investigation, ditto with the obstruction of justice charge. The administration, and congress, have done everything they possibly could to prevent that - no trial, no release of anything but the absolute minimum of evidence when they absolutely have to, that is no basis for an exoneration of anything, it just prevents any credible process from happening at all.

 

[disciple Clint]

They made a decision not to press charges, declaring someone exonerated without any kind of process or trial doesn't have any substance to it. That is far from being the only remaining question, despite frequent assertions that this or that other thing has been 'debunked' regarding Russian influence over Trump the only think lacking is the freedom to carry out a proper investigation, ditto with the obstruction of justice charge. The administration, and congress, have done everything they possibly could to prevent that - no trial, no release of anything but the absolute minimum of evidence when they absolutely have to, that is no basis for an exoneration of anything, it just prevents any credible process from happening at all.

Well not quite, they decided that legal decisions set a precedent that preclude prosecution. Regarding substance: if someone is charged with an crime by the police and subsequently the district attorney elects that the crime could not be successfully prosecuted, that person is exonerated of that crime. We operate in this nation under the innocent until proven guilty concept. We take that very seriously. If there was any and I stress any way that the dems could have found a way or invented a way to get Trump they would have gone to any extent to do it. That they could not is exoneration in and of itself.

 

[Tom 1]

Well not quite, they decided that legal decisions set a precedent that preclude prosecution. Regarding substance: if someone is charged with an crime by the police and subsequently the district attorney elects that the crime could not be successfully prosecuted, that person is exonerated of that crime. We operate in this nation under the innocent until proven guilty concept. We take that very seriously. If there was any and I stress any way that the dems could have found a way or invented a way to get Trump they would have gone to any extent to do it. That they could not is exoneration in and of itself.

It doesn’t appear to parallel that circumstance well, Mueller’s strongly worded protest against Barr’s unwarranted redaction/misrepresentation of his report hasn’t reached any conclusion yet. Presumably a person in the situation you describe would not be subject to political manoeuvring to prevent the prosecution having access to relevant evidence and witness testimony. There’s something rotten in Denmark when a presumably innocent person manoeuvres those around him to block and misrepresent evidence and witness testimony, and obfuscates the whole issue with a stream of slander and other attempts to demean anyone who speaks up about it.