President Donald J. Trump

[Dr. MD MD]

What have you decided isn't true?

No one should believe anything you post. 

[Yorkshire pud]

No one should believe anything you post. 

Agreed. MD is a great guy. Oh, wait...  :

[Walks_At_Night]

Rudy out.

But Mulally in?  An Engineer as Secretary of State!  Wow.

The Trumpster seems to favor those whoare actually used to getting shit done. 
How many Attorneys or Hacks are in the cabinet so far?   I guess Chao....... 


http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2016/12/09/ford-ceo-mulally-trump/95193948/

[Yorkshire pud]

But Mulally in?  An Engineer as Secretary of State!  Wow.

The Trumpster seems to favor those whoare actually used to getting shit done. 
How many Attorneys or Hacks are in the cabinet sofar?   I guess Chao....... 


http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2016/12/09/ford-ceo-mulally-trump/95193948/

I suppose it means Ford are safe regarding manufacturing in Mexico. 

[HedgehogNorman]

I'm still in favor of Bolton for SecState.

[pyewacket]

I don't believe there is a 'gold' standard. All news outlets have their flaws, some msn have an agenda; be it commercially, politically driven or the whim of the proprieter breathing on the editor (in the case of newspapers). Real journalists though go out and actually cover an event, chase a story, dig out the facts.]

It seems that we're all suffering from the same malady.

Much of the MSM seems to run on emotional appeals and identity politics. I see this as lazy and dishonest and this is why I'm skeptical.

One example was the New York Times being relentlessly biased against Trump. Even some of their liberal readers complained in letters to the editor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-the-new-york-times-public-editor.html

Heard of this man? Fergal Keane: embedded news reporter in Yemen.

Thank you for the link. It's old news to me, I've read about it in non MSM sources months ago.

Compare and contrast with such as Alex Jones. Who wouldn't know what journalism was if he tried; oh, and for all his bleating about the suppression of truth, has a very heavily moderated forum. Along the lines of Senda: doesn't like it, delete it.

You assume that I visit the Info Wars site- I don't. I happen to like Paul Joseph Watson's videos and he happens to work for them, but that's as close as I get. I'm not putting anyone down who does.

There is a positive side to all of this. It might make people more analytical and discerning when they read or view the news. Maybe this will force the media to become more honest and open minded. It wasn't always this way- the media outlets used to be owned by over 50 smaller companies back in the 80s, I believe. Now 6 huge corporations own 90% or more of the media.

[Dr. MD MD]

I'm still in favor of Bolton for SecState.

Too hawkish! I didn't think he served the country well as UN ambassador and he's a protege of this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms

[Dr. MD MD]

You assume that I visit the Info Wars site- I don't. I happen to like Paul Joseph Watson's videos and he happens to work for them, but that's as close as I get. I'm not putting anyone down who does.

It's OK to visit Info Wars and watch Alex Jones. He's the new Cronkite. 

Seriously, is he more wrong or right in comparison with the mainstream media?

[pyewacket]

It's OK to visit Info Wars and watch Alex Jones. He's the new Cronkite. 

Seriously, is he more wrong or right in comparison with the mainstream media?

Couldn't say, Dr. MD MD. As far as things stand right now- he couldn't be any worse. 

[SciFiAuthor]

Real journalists though go out and actually cover an event, chase a story, dig out the facts. They don't sit in pseudo TV studios and spout stuff they copied and pasted from conspiracy theory websites and present it as truth.

That doesn't happen that much anymore. The vast majority of modern journalism involves heading to the AP wire, rewriting their content, coming up with a click-bait headline and tossing it up on the site as a new article. It's actually pretty disconcerting how the media has basically been forced into this model by the reality of business and money.

[Yorkshire pud]

That doesn't happen that much anymore. The vast majority of modern journalism involves heading to the AP wire, rewriting their content, coming up with a click-bait headline and tossing it up on the site as a new article. It's actually pretty disconcerting how the media has basically been forced into this model by the reality of business and money.

Agreed. I'd add too, that just as anyone with a smartphone is a photo journalist/ pro photographer, (in their mind anyway) and anyone with a facebook account is a self styled arbitor of the news.

The established media therefore has had to (and very quickly) jump on that and actively encourages tweets, fb feeds and pictures/ videos to be submitted. Newspaper circulation is dying, and will eventually disappear in my view. There's an ever smaller pond to feed in as far as advertising revenue is concerned; and without it, they can't survive, because readership has dwindled since the net and 1000's of TV channels.

[albrecht]

Agreed. I'd add too, that just as anyone with a smartphone is a photo journalist/ pro photographer, (in their mind anyway) and anyone with a facebook account is a self styled arbitor of the news.

The established media therefore has had to (and very quickly) jump on that and actively encourages tweets, fb feeds and pictures/ videos to be submitted. Newspaper circulation is dying, and will eventually disappear in my view. There's an ever smaller pond to feed in as far as advertising revenue is concerned; and without it, they can't survive, because readership has dwindled since the net and 1000's of TV channels.

I haven't rode public transportation recently except once last year to a football game have they started to have free WiFi on NYC subways, or The Tube or buses and trains? If not I could see people still wanting newspapers for something to read or to wipe up the puke.

Also, even "legitimate" newspapers, especially when they go online, seem to not have editors anymore. So many grammatical errors. I suspect they out-source to marginally English-speaking country to write some of the articles or maybe even generate from "AI" computer system. Syntax, homonym mistakes, etc.

[Jackstar]

That's why you come across as a cunt. Honestly.

No, that's how. The why is because I am what I eat.


Now, what's your excuse for your jingoist bullshit? Don't think we don't notice.

[Jackstar]

I happen to like Paul Joseph Watson's videos and he happens to work for them, but that's as close as I get.

Do you like him his work in spite of the fact that he's a massive establishment shill, or do you find him to be legit?

[MV/Liberace!]

Trump has already stated his desire to censor the web, and what can and can't be said on it.

Isn't the entire "fake news" meme, at its foundation, a commentary on what can/can't be said on the web, and on who gets to define what's fake?  I find that far more threatening than trump wanting to shut off an internet connection in a shanty outside Damascus.  Trump's supporters don't seem to be the people labeling competing ideological media interests "fake news."

[Jackstar]

"Fake news" is nothing but another magic bullet theory. Just conspire to ignore it.

[Juan]

This entire fake news thing is obviously preparation for some push to regulate free communication.

[Jackstar]

Isn't the entire "fake news" meme, at its foundation, a commentary on what can/can't be said on the web, and on who gets to define what's fake?

It seems a lot more to me like an engineered distraction to stem the flood of information that would otherwise follow, were conversations and investigations allowed to unfurl naturally, as would a flag in the wind upon a mountaintop.

At this level of coverage and penetration, I'm frankly in favor. It must be something juicy.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

This entire fake news thing is obviously preparation for some push to regulate free communication.

https://archive.is/BEA8j

The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Pretty cute that once the recounts failed, this bullshit CIA Russia story came about. This shit is fucking scary man. This is textbook how you have a civil war in a first world country.

[PB the Deplorable]

...  Trump's supporters don't seem to be the people labeling competing ideological media interests "fake news."

Big Media has been pumping out fake news for decades now.  The Left's latest attempt to silence those who don't agree with them - both clever and desperate at the same time - won't succeed, but at the same time we now have a very useful label for what their entire industry produces.

Fake news.  Everything from support for all their favorite causes dressed as ''news'', to lies about and attacks on everyone else, to mouthpieces pretending to be journalists, to distracting us with constant '''news'' about celebrity personalities.  All of which involve lies, lies of omission, fake statistics and polls, and all the rest.

Don't believe they are something other than 'fair and balanced' and simply putting out the facts?  Quick - whether you agree with the following causes or not - which side of gun control, abortion, death penalty, man-made climate change, higher taxes, more government hand-out programs and influence, illegal immigrants, Syrian refugees, etc, etc, etc, does Big Media always side with in their ''reporting''?  How about the way presidential party candidates are covered during a campaign?  After they've been elected and during their administrations?

If ''reporting'' on these is very uneven, and for decades, how is that not Fake News?

[SredniVashtar]

Much of the MSM seems to run on emotional appeals and identity politics. I see this as lazy and dishonest and this is why I'm skeptical.

Unless you back up this rather sweeping statement with a few examples and explain where you see the bias, you are guilty of exactly the same thing.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Unless you back up this rather sweeping statement with a few examples and explain where you see the bias, you are guilty of exactly the same thing.

http://bellgab.com/index.php/topic,10536.30.html

[Jackstar]

Unless you back up this rather sweeping statement with a few examples and explain where you see the bias, you are guilty of exactly the same thing.

[SredniVashtar]

http://bellgab.com/index.php/topic,10536.30.html

Perhaps this escaped your attention, but it's called 'commentary'. Is it honestly so hard for people these days to read something with critical skills intact? Too many people now only read the top line of a news story before going on to something else. Op-ed pieces with a particular slant are perfectly legitimate. Unless there is wholesale evidence of facts being manipulated I don't see that there is much of a story here.

[Jackstar]

Unless there is wholesale evidence of facts being manipulated

There is. You skipped the required reading again.

I don't see how you think you're going to be able to pass your midwinter exam--and that is going to be more than a quarter of your grade.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Much of the MSM seems to run on emotional appeals and identity politics. I see this as lazy and dishonest and this is why I'm skeptical.

Perhaps this escaped your attention, but it's called 'commentary'. Is it honestly so hard for people these days to read something with critical skills intact? Too many people now only read the top line of a news story before going on to something else. Op-ed pieces with a particular slant are perfectly legitimate. Unless there is wholesale evidence of facts being manipulated I don't see that there is much of a story here.

Do you try this hard to be this fucking stupid? You just confirmed the original point while still maintaining your smug elitism. That lack of critical thinking is astronomical.

[Yorkshire pud]

Big Media has been pumping out fake news for decades now.  The Left's latest attempt to silence those who don't agree with them - both clever and desperate at the same time - won't succeed, but at the same time we now have a very useful label for what their entire industry produces.

Fake news.  Everything from support for all their favorite causes dressed as ''news'', to lies about and attacks on everyone else, to mouthpieces pretending to be journalists, to distracting us with constant '''news'' about celebrity personalities.  All of which involve lies, lies of omission, fake statistics and polls, and all the rest.

Don't believe they are something other than 'fair and balanced' and simply putting out the facts?  Quick - whether you agree with the following causes or not - which side of gun control, abortion, death penalty, man-made climate change, higher taxes, more government hand-out programs and influence, illegal immigrants, Syrian refugees, etc, etc, etc, does Big Media always side with in their ''reporting''?  How about the way presidential party candidates are covered during a campaign?  After they've been elected and during their administrations?

If ''reporting'' on these is very uneven, and for decades, how is that not Fake News?

Rupert Murdoch is a prime example of what you describe. In the UK, through his rags, he's over the years expressed his support for both main political parties. Expressed his preferrence to which direction the country should take. He's reputedly had more meetings with incumbent Prime Ministers, and the various department secretaries (Labour and Conservative) than for example, heads of state.

His rags and the Express and the Daily Mail group, have over the years been responsible for the public character assassinations of many innocent people. The now defunct News of the World (sunday only publication owned by Murdoch), published the photos and names of who they said were paedophiles. This horrified the police. Several were not, and at least one who wasn't was attacked and possibly burned out of his home.

The Sun; the daily Murdoch tabloid, has reputedly a big banner in the newsroom; 'If the reader says wow, its news'.

The Daily Mail accused the parents of Madelaine McCain, the little girl abdcted in Portugal, of her murder. No evidence, no justification, and the paper was sued successfully. The DM group is the most sued paper in tne UK I understand.

The thing being, fake news cannot be justified wherever it originates. Just because 'they' do it, doesn't make it right for the opposition to do it; just to get their own back? Because the reader doesn't win either way. Lies are lies. The 'winners' are the ones making their audience dance.

[Jackstar]

Fake news is nothing but a conspiracy theory. Just ignore it.

[SredniVashtar]

Do you try this hard to be this fucking stupid? You just confirmed the original point while still maintaining your smug elitism. That lack of critical thinking is astronomical.

It's hard trying to have a discussion with a Twitter brat like you. I only do it because I tell myself we aren't put on this earth for pleasure alone. You probably have trouble with stuff like this because you never bother with anything beyond your own shores. This stuff is perfectly common in every other country. You notice it and pass on. No big deal. Don't be such a hysterical ninny.