Inevitable consequence of fake news.

[Goonie]

Gunman arrested at pizza restaurant, investigating the fake pizza gate scandal.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rant-was-self-investigating-fake-news-reports

Lucky he was not shot.

 

[SeventyOne]

This man was wrong for what he did, but just because some group labels something as fake news, doesn't actually mean it is fake news.

'Fake news' is just the new term for censorship. A paradigm is being set up so certain groups can point to something they don't like and say 'fake news', then their minions will just instantly shut off their brains and ignore it. It's both interesting and disturbing to watch such a propaganda drive from its kickoff.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

It wasn’t fake, Hillary and her cohorts just moved it to the basement of the McDonald's up the road.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That is actually an inevitable consequence of one individual's stupidity. I would really like to know what the moral and ethical difference is between what might be labelled as "fake news" and what passes for journalism. To me the big difference is that only a real moron would believe some unsubstantiated accusation on a loon web site but many reasonable people might be taken in and deceived by some spin doctoring from what is considered to be a reputable news organization.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It wasn’t fake, Hillary and her cohorts just moved it to the basement of the McDonald's up the road.

When you consider where she kept her private server one might not find that as far fetched as it sounds.

 

[Goonie]

That is actually an inevitable consequence of one individual's stupidity. I would really like to know what the moral and ethical difference is between what might be labelled as "fake news" and what passes for journalism. To me the big difference is that only a real moron would believe some unsubstantiated accusation on a loon web site but many reasonable people might be taken in and deceived by some spin doctoring from what is considered to be a reputable news organization.

Journalism usually requires multiple sources with fact checking having taken place. There will of cause be a slant to the story according to the journalists/media political/social leanings but still more reliable than the blatant falsehood that is 'pizza gate'.

 

[LoAmmi]

That is actually an inevitable consequence of one individual's stupidity. I would really like to know what the moral and ethical difference is between what might be labelled as "fake news" and what passes for journalism. To me the big difference is that only a real moron would believe some unsubstantiated accusation on a loon web site but many reasonable people might be taken in and deceived by some spin doctoring from what is considered to be a reputable news organization.

When news media reports from multiple sources, including direct quotes, if they get it wrong they are getting it wrong from people close to the source or who are believed to be close to the source. Sure, they might have a bias in a way, but they are getting it from somewhere. They aren't pulling it out of the clear blue sky like, say, making a claim that millions of illegals voted in the election when the only evidence you have is that which you've pulled from an orifice a few feet below your head.

 

[Goonie]

This man was wrong for what he did, but just because some group labels something as fake news, doesn't actually mean it is fake news.

'Fake news' is just the new term for censorship. A paradigm is being set up so certain groups can point to something they don't like and say 'fake news', then their minions will just instantly shut off their brains and ignore it. It's both interesting and disturbing to watch such a propaganda drive from its kickoff.

Except that in this case it is blatently fake news.

 

[Jack of Spades]

'Fake news' is just the new term for censorship.

All news are not equal. Some news are intentionally fake. And they should be called what they are, fake news.

There are people who produce fake news for living, it's a con. They con ad money from partisan guys who have no source criticism. And then there are fanatics who don't like the reality and produce their own version of it.

 

[Armoured]

Gunman arrested at pizza restaurant, investigating the fake pizza gate scandal.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rant-was-self-investigating-fake-news-reports

Lucky he was not shot.

lucky no one else was shot

 

[SeventyOne]

Except that in this case it is blatently fake news.

Well, you're obviously the expert. I'll bet you've been spending all your time investigating, hitting the street, talking to witnesses, and debunking the sources.

OR

Have you just been told it's fake and now that's your story as well?

All news are not equal. Some news are intentionally fake. And they should be called what they are, fake news.

There are people who produce fake news for living, it's a con. They con ad money from partisan guys who have no source criticism. And then there are fanatics who don't like the reality and produce their own version of it.

And that's exactly how they justify it. "Look, that guy said something false and called it news, but don't you worry. From now on, we'll protect you and let you know everything we consider to be fake. Don't bother thinking about all the wrong or misleading stuff we've also put out there as facts over the years. We have your best interest at heart. Trust us."

And a new minion is born.

Few bother to actually engage the brain at that point and start asking questions. Is it really false? How would I know if it's false? Why should I care if you think it's false? Who are you to tell me what I should consider false? How do I know you aren't also false? Is it all false or are the facts considered true but it's just the conclusion that is wrong? How do I know it's not true and you just trying to mislead me instead? And so on, and so on, and so on.

 

[LoAmmi]

Well, you're obviously the expert. I'll bet you've been spending all your time investigating, hitting the street, talking to witnesses, and debunking the sources.

OR

Have you just been told it's fake and now that's your story as well?

When a story comes out that lacks any evidence, then maybe we shouldn't call it fake but a claim without evidence. Which I tend to dismiss on either side. Present the evidence or it is something I don't pay attention to. I will accept a person close to the source being quoted, but even then it's less than other types of proof. Accepting a claim without evidence turns it into a faith choice, and I'd rather not make a faith choice when it comes to news stories.

 

[SeventyOne]

The inevitable consequence of letting someone else decide for you what is fake news...

 

[grasping the after wind]

Journalism usually requires multiple sources with fact checking having taken place. There will of cause be a slant to the story according to the journalists/media political/social leanings but still more reliable than the blatant falsehood that is 'pizza gate'.

And anyone with a modicum of sense knows this and does not act upon crazy accusations from unreputable sources. Journalism should also require keeping one's own bias out of the reporting and reserving that for editorializing alone. So no there should not, of course, be a slant and certainly blatant spin doctoring ought to never be seen not only in reporting but in editorializing either. What good and how ethical is an editorial that substitutes rationalization for reasonable argumentation? Even worse when it is part of a supposed news report.
Again.
Crazy conspiracy web site= no one has any excuse to take accusations seriously unless they are mentally challenged.
Previously Respected News Organization=Some people might reasonably be fooled into thinking the spin is fact rather than an attempt to demonize a political opponent.

 

[LoAmmi]

And anyone with a modicum of sense knows this and does not act upon crazy accusations from unreputable sources. Journalism should also require keeping one's own bias out of the reporting and reserving that for editorializing alone. So no there should not, of course, be a slant and certainly blatant spin doctoring ought to never be seen not only in reporting but in editorializing either. What good and how ethical is an editorial that substitutes rationalization for reasonable argumentation? Even worse when it is part of a supposed news report.
Again.
Crazy conspiracy web site= no one has any excuse to take accusations seriously unless they are mentally challenged.
Previously Respected News Organization=Some people might reasonably be fooled into thinking the spin is fact rather than an attempt to demonize a political opponent.

Edward R. Murrow had a bias and worked hard to take down McCarthy. Bias isn't always a bad thing. In fact, in the face of something that is objectively wrong, such as McCarthy's witch hunt, a bias is necessary.

 

[grasping the after wind]

There are people who produce fake news for living

Yes there are. Colbert, Stewart, SNL etc. have received quite a few accolades as well as large amounts of money for delivering that. Do people go around invading McDonalds because of what they heard from those sources? Should they be banned from doing fake news? Then there is NBC and CBS and Fox and the New York Times all delivering stories that have been later proven untrue. Should they be censored? Who gets to decide what is censored and what isn't ? Perhaps the President? Would you be fine with Donald Trump being in charge of censoring and deciding which news is fake and which isn't ?

 

[LoAmmi]

Yes there are. Colbert, Stewart, SNL etc. have received quite a few accolades as well as large amounts of money for delivering that. Do people go around invading McDonalds because of what they heard from those sources? Should they be banned from doing fake news? Then there is NBC and CBS and Fox and the New York Times all delivering stories that have been later proven untrue. Should they be censored? Who gets to decide what is censored and what isn't ? Perhaps the President? Would you be fine with Donald Trump being in charge of censoring and deciding which news is fake and which isn't ?

The Daily Show, the Late Show, and SNL are entertainment programs. Anybody who doesn't recognize that and thinks they are getting news from those sources are doing news wrong.

The question for NCB, CBS, Fox, and NYT is if they were proven wrong, and I mean proven wrong not just some other interpretation of the event given, did they retract the story? I'd have to see these proven false stories.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Edward R. Murrow had a bias and worked hard to take down McCarthy. Bias isn't always a bad thing. In fact, in the face of something that is objectively wrong, such as McCarthy's witch hunt, a bias is necessary.

Bias is not necesary ever and any reporter that thinks that it is is only rationalizing to excuse their unethical behavior. McCarthy was not taken down because of Murrow's bias. He was taken down by an objective analysis of his actions by the many people that opposed him and by the public in general which included more than just Edward R Murrow. I believe, though I may be mistaken in this, that it was actually a speech by one of his associates in congress that tipped the balance against him. A speech not about or in favor of any political bias but against it.

 

[LoAmmi]

Bias is not necesary ever and any reporter that thinks that it is is only rationalizing to excuse their unethical behavior. McCarthy was not taken down because of Murrow's bias. He was taken down by an objective analysis of his actions by the many people that opposed him and by the public in general which included more than just Edward R Murrow. I believe, though I may be mistaken in this, that it was actually a speech by one of his associates in congress that tipped the balance against him. A speech not about or in favor of any political bias but against it.

Murrow helped turn public opinion on it. People watched his show and saw what the junior senator was doing factually, but it was clear he was against it.

In England you had the story of the Thalidomide babies. A newspaper over there ran stories on them every week until they got the justice they deserved. It's clear the newspaper had a bias even if they were reporting the facts. It helped turn the public against those who did not wish to see these children receive compensation.

A news outlet having a campaign against an injustice is not a problem. It shows a bias for sure, but so long as they are not making up facts, it's been a newspaper tradition for years. We actually lack good investigative journalism these days.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The Daily Show, the Late Show, and SNL are entertainment programs. Anybody who doesn't recognize that and thinks they are getting news from those sources are doing news wrong.

The question for NCB, CBS, Fox, and NYT is if they were proven wrong, and I mean proven wrong not just some other interpretation of the event given, did they retract the story? I'd have to see these proven false stories.

I have heard it said, though I have no way of knowing the truth of it, that many millennials use the Daily Show as their top news source. Perhaps this is why they have such a unrealistic view of Conservatives.

The NYT and every other newspaper I know of has been proven wrong numerous times and have never failed to retract their incorrect front page large headline story in an obscure section of the paper in small print without a headline at all. Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC I do believe have retracted their stories when they are proven so incorrect that they cannot possibly avoid doing so. "If the crackpot website with the McDonald's story retracted their story would you say "Well alright then I'll trust you from now on?".