Master Index of Archived Threads


Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 02:41 PM

Ceetar wrote: There's more fake news and garbage Right, I'm gonna start a new thread.

MFS62 Dec 07 2017 02:49 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

In the words of the late humorist Jean Shepherd, "Its all bullshit and a yard wide". We look at the news and decide whether its true or fake by seeing it through the prism of our own experience. Later

Ceetar Dec 07 2017 02:51 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: There's more fake news and garbage Right, I'm gonna start a new thread. fine, but shouldn't you have included more of the discussion? Or is this just for Breitbart and infowars threads?

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 03:01 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Ceetar wrote: Or is this just for Breitbart and infowars threads? Likening me to Breitbart = fake

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 03:08 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

I've never visited Breitbart and don't even know what infowars threads are. The point is and will be in this thread is to report on FAKE FUCKING NEWS!! Got it?

metsmarathon Dec 07 2017 03:09 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

2018 is fake news! what is this, alternative new years? i resist! is this supposed to be the politics thread, or is this carved out for a discussion of the fakest of fake news only? i really hope it's not meant to be our new politics thread. although, in truth, it does seem like politics is all fake news and garbage right now. so... OE: fake news. fake fake fakey news. manipulative fiction masquerading as factual reporting. not stories we don't like, or disagree with. but subversive insidious propaganda which undermines a functioning democracy.

metsmarathon Dec 07 2017 03:12 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

or is it reserved just for news about fake fucking....?

Benjamin Grimm Dec 07 2017 03:14 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

I think it's about fake garbage.

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 03:17 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Fake fucking probably should get its own thread. Other than that, the thread title is pretty self-explanatory. It will be whatever it is or becomes or it will slide down the page into oblivion.

Lefty Specialist Dec 07 2017 03:25 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

I need Batboy updates.

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 03:30 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Half-bat, half human!

Lefty Specialist Dec 07 2017 03:32 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

And actual photos! They may not be actual photos of Bat-Boy, but they are actual photos!

41Forever Dec 07 2017 03:35 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

I have tell you that fake news isn't limited to the fringe sites that exist to fill your Facebook and Twitter feeds hoping that you only read the headline and make an impression. Be a critical consumer of news no matter the source.

Ceetar Dec 07 2017 03:44 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

it's not the 'news' that's problematic at the 'big' sites, it's the interpretation of that news. Like the bank thing. the news is that there was a report of a subpoena. fact. there was a report. Bloomberg, or whoever had that first, didn't make it up. Reporting that Trump's lawyer denies knowledge of a subpoena is fact. Reporting that there was no subpoena is an unsourced falsehood.

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 03:46 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

41Forever wrote: Be a critical consumer of news no matter the source. Amen.

metsmarathon Dec 07 2017 04:59 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

so, question. would a proper use of this thread be of airing out a rumor that was read on the facepages? because yesterday, i thought that i had read that the GOP had screwed up the tax bill and that it was, due to a clerical error, likely to cause ~$300B in tax increases to corporations as it was written as voted on by the senate. is that a thing that i read, which is true? or was i reading fake news? mind you, i've yet to try to source any confirmatory or contradictory info. also, as i understand it, the increases surely wouldn't survive reconciling the bill with the house's version, but would put a stranglehold on some of hte amount of changes tehy could make. i guess if we can confirm it a true news, we could turn the discussion over to the politics thread. right?

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 05:05 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Really didn't mean to throw a wrench into the system. Sorry.

cooby Dec 07 2017 05:20 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 07 2017 05:21 PM

Batboy has a nice car Oh I see--he stole it

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 07 2017 05:21 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

41Forever wrote: I have tell you that fake news isn't limited to the fringe sites that exist to fill your Facebook and Twitter feeds hoping that you only read the headline and make an impression. Be a critical consumer of news no matter the source. That's always been the case but what's different today is the president of the fucking United States purposefully undermining the First Amendment and public trust in journalism as cover for any and all of his many egregious sins. And thanks to know-nothing bullshitters like him today there's an active movement of perverted "journalism" not concerned at all with truth but only to achieve that goal. That's a bigger disgrace by orders of magnitude than an outlet that gets a fact wrong or chooses an angle on a story you may not be inclined to interpret the same way.

41Forever Dec 07 2017 06:31 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I have tell you that fake news isn't limited to the fringe sites that exist to fill your Facebook and Twitter feeds hoping that you only read the headline and make an impression. Be a critical consumer of news no matter the source. That's always been the case but what's different today is the president of the fucking United States purposefully undermining the First Amendment and public trust in journalism as cover for any and all of his many egregious sins. And thanks to know-nothing bullshitters like him today there's an active movement of perverted "journalism" not concerned at all with truth but only to achieve that goal. That's a bigger disgrace by orders of magnitude than an outlet that gets a fact wrong or chooses an angle on a story you may not be inclined to interpret the same way. I had a columnist for a large newspaper utterly make up one fact -- a damaging one -- then grossly twist another fact and omitted a major part of the story because it conflicted with her agenda. When I called her on this, she offered to buy me lunch "to make up for it." I recorded every interview with her after that. The term "fake news" wasn't around then, but when I speak to classes and they ask about fake news, I use it as an example. I could tell you more horror stories, but I know no one wants that. Don't get me started on the cable shows. But as someone reading stories as a critical consumer, I'd ask: Why is this being written, and why does the reporter want me to read this? Are both sides of the story being presented? If a source is unnamed, why is the person saying this afraid of being held accountable for the statement?

Lefty Specialist Dec 07 2017 06:42 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

A story doesn't always have two sides. Sometimes the only side is the truth. The earth is round. You could interview that wacko with his rocket supported by the Flat Earth Society as the other side, but you're doing your readers a disservice. You're also casting doubt where no doubt is warranted. It's settled science. The same applies to climate change.

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 06:51 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

List of fake news websites From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ceetar Dec 07 2017 07:05 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

41Forever wrote: I had a columnist for a large newspaper utterly make up one fact -- a damaging one -- then grossly twist another fact and omitted a major part of the story because it conflicted with her agenda. When I called her on this, she offered to buy me lunch "to make up for it." I recorded every interview with her after that. The term "fake news" wasn't around then, but when I speak to classes and they ask about fake news, I use it as an example. I could tell you more horror stories, but I know no one wants that. Don't get me started on the cable shows. But as someone reading stories as a critical consumer, I'd ask: Why is this being written, and why does the reporter want me to read this? Are both sides of the story being presented? If a source is unnamed, why is the person saying this afraid of being held accountable for the statement? As they say, correlation does not equal causation. no one's saying papers are perfect and I've long suggested we should support the journalists that we trust, not the papers. But one incident, in which you're very clearly heavily biased about, is not cause to imply the whole of the main stream media papers are mostly just agenda driven opinion pieces. And people have been leaking things to papers anonymously since the beginning. I don't think anyone's fooled by thinking a quote from an unnamed source isn't heavily targeted, and I get on the media all the time for just passing it along like they're a propaganda arm of Scott Boras or whoever, but it's on the journalist to flesh out that quote and see if it fits other facts and present that story. If they don't, well it's one tiny bit of suspect information. For instance, we have one source about the subpoena. But Trump's bank records are of question, his interacts with both that bank, Russian investments, etc. He's under investigation. The idea of a subpoena is a likely one, so a source confirming something that makes sense is more useful than it coming out of the blue.

41Forever Dec 07 2017 07:08 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Lefty Specialist wrote: A story doesn't always have two sides. Sometimes the only side is the truth. The earth is round. You could interview that wacko with his rocket supported by the Flat Earth Society as the other side, but you're doing your readers a disservice. You're also casting doubt where no doubt is warranted. It's settled science. The same applies to climate change. If you interview a story about Earth roundness, and someone out there says it is flat, you give him his time -- and you should then roll out evidence proving he is wrong. Not enough reporters do that second part. I used to get frustrated when someone would say an outrageous lie, and then the reporter just slaps in a quote from the other side. I'd argue that it's not just the job of "the other side" to cite the facts and correct the gross misstatements. But we get into difficult territory when journalists start deciding what is indisputable truth and omitting the other side. (There are plenty of websites that happily do that for people who only want their own beliefs confirmed who don't like to be challenged.) Earth roundness and the horror of Nickelback are easy but it starts getting a little slippery from there.

41Forever Dec 07 2017 07:15 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Ceetar wrote: But one incident, in which you're very clearly heavily biased about, is not cause to imply the whole of the main stream media papers are mostly just agenda driven opinion pieces. I never said this. But you should always be a critical consumer of information. The recent string of corrections from major news outlets is a good indicator that it is healthy to question things. Ceetar wrote: And people have been leaking things to papers anonymously since the beginning. Yes, they have. Some have valid reasons, some do not. But a critical consumer will ask himself, "Why does this source require secrecy?" We had bylines on all our stories, not so people could throw you some attaboys, but for accountability. You lose nothing by being a critical consumer.

Ceetar Dec 07 2017 07:32 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

yes, but none of that is different than say 40 years ago.

41Forever Dec 07 2017 07:54 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Ceetar wrote: yes, but none of that is different than say 40 years ago. The difference today that the number of media outlets and ways information is delivered has mushroomed. Forty years ago, you had two or three papers in a large city, the three main networks and radio. You had to get a lot of training to get one of those jobs, and because the numbers were so few it was easier to hold people accountable. The beauty of today is that anybody can be a journalist of sorts. The problem with today is that anybody can be a journalist of sorts. I think I used here the analogy of years ago, every kid copied info out of the World Book encyclopedia because it was the only source and a trusted source. Finding additional information was a challenge. Today, you can Google Tom Seaver and get 458,000 results in 0.52 seconds -- I just did it to see -- so the problem is not getting information, it's being a critical consumer so you know which information is the best information.

Ceetar Dec 07 2017 08:18 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

yes, and as a result an error in the World Book or the NY Times was basically treated as fact for decades because it was almost impossible to get the same reach with a correction, or the few people that knew or spotted the error had no way to get it out there. You could get the whole world to believe something false simply by writing it in the Times, even with the best intentions, whether it was a mis-attributed source or quote, or the wrong way to make pasta, or the relative health effects of cranberry juice. And the cost of entry to find out information was much higher, so that it often didn't happen. A convincing crank in a bar could go off on a yarn about something that sounded really good but wasn't rooted in fact at all, and you might repeat it to a coworker the next day, because it's not like you can just google it and read the 17,000 different takes on the issue, or a real link to the original source that debunked it. What I'm saying is that the 'big' and 'reputable' news sources are still there. They probably aren't less reputable. Sure, there's a lot more noise out there, it requires a little more focus perhaps, but it's better. Trump can't lie to us about increasing crime because instantly there are a billion people popping up with the real research debunking that, whereas 30 years ago if your paper of choice didn't cover that, or didn't do the research, or you missed it, you might still think it's true.

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 08:29 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Ceetar wrote: What I'm saying is that the 'big' and 'reputable' news sources are still there. They probably aren't less reputable. Horse hockey, all you have to do is cite the difference in reporting by two (let's pick CNN vs FOX) 'big' and 'reputable' new sources and their blatant bias -- it's disgusting. I watched a half hour or so of One America News Network the other day and I thought I was watching a Trump commercial.

Lefty Specialist Dec 07 2017 08:30 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

41Forever wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: A story doesn't always have two sides. Sometimes the only side is the truth. The earth is round. You could interview that wacko with his rocket supported by the Flat Earth Society as the other side, but you're doing your readers a disservice. You're also casting doubt where no doubt is warranted. It's settled science. The same applies to climate change. If you interview a story about Earth roundness, and someone out there says it is flat, you give him his time -- and you should then roll out evidence proving he is wrong. Not enough reporters do that second part. I used to get frustrated when someone would say an outrageous lie, and then the reporter just slaps in a quote from the other side. I'd argue that it's not just the job of "the other side" to cite the facts and correct the gross misstatements. But we get into difficult territory when journalists start deciding what is indisputable truth and omitting the other side. (There are plenty of websites that happily do that for people who only want their own beliefs confirmed who don't like to be challenged.) Earth roundness and the horror of Nickelback are easy but it starts getting a little slippery from there. lol at Nickelback. I think, though, that the media has come down too far on the 'both sides' road. The Times had a piece, roundly criticized, about a Neo-Nazi who, gee, shops at the supermarket just like you and me. Sure, the slope is slippery, but news organizations seem less inclined to stick up for the truth these days. I think that was part of the problem with their Trump coverage; Donald was just making shit up, easily disprovable shit, and they just couldn't bring themselves to call him a liar no matter how many times he did it.

Ceetar Dec 07 2017 08:32 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: What I'm saying is that the 'big' and 'reputable' news sources are still there. They probably aren't less reputable. Horse hockey, all you have to do is cite the difference in reporting by two (let's pick CNN vs FOX) 'big' and 'reputable' new sources and their blatant bias -- it's disgusting. I watched a half hour or so of One America News Network the other day and I thought I was watching a Trump commercial. Fox isn't really a news station, it's an entertainment station, it was never reputable, and it didn't exist 30 years ago. The actual television news was probably always less reputable than the papers, but I suspect CBS/NBC, etc are probably still about the same.

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 08:36 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

That's a cop out, there have been four major networks since 1986. And if you can look me in the face and say CNN doesn't deserve it's Clinton News Network tag then we might as well just stop right here.

Ceetar Dec 07 2017 08:40 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

d'Kong76 wrote: That's a cop out, there have been four major networks since 1986. And if you can look me in the face and say CNN doesn't deserve it's Clinton News Network tag then we might as well just stop right here. Again I'm mostly talking about the newspapers and the reporting associated with researching a story. I don't really watch the news or have a big opinion on CNN.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 07 2017 08:56 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

There are lazy and dishonest people in every line of work. and you're right that anyone can pretend to be a journalist is problematic. But again, a reporter with an agenda, or even an outlet with a point of view, is nothing compared to the president of the United States advocating only to believe the "facts" that suit his narrow and deranged worldview while discrediting entire institution and the profession when he doesn't like the facts they report, barely even bothering to couch it in "critical interpretation." He's an enemy of the United States. Support of a rigorous free press roasting his rotten ass is the most important thing in the world right now.

Lefty Specialist Dec 07 2017 09:17 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

I'd say the moniker of 'Clinton News Network' has been taken over by Fox. They're obsessed with her. Wonder why they keep trying to change the subject.

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 09:17 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

I basically agree with all that, except I reserve the right to not want read or see made-up stuff for the sake of making it up or for the sake of advancing a stance, belief or agenda under the guise of reporting actual news. OE: responding to JCL's post

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 09:20 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Lefty Specialist wrote: I'd say the moniker of 'Clinton News Network' has been taken over by Fox. Not sticking up for FOX by any measure. I chose FOX because they are the opposite of CNN for sake of comparison. I don't watch either because they both suck bhmc imho.

Edgy MD Dec 07 2017 10:07 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

I don't think CNN is the opposite of FOX. I think that title belongs to MSNBC. I think MSNBC was created to be the opposite of FOX.

d'Kong76 Dec 07 2017 10:27 PM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

No idea if that's the case; they're Microsoft/Comcast? Gonna say it was MS/GE at first.

Lefty Specialist Dec 08 2017 12:00 AM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Microsoft sold their interest in MSNBC a while ago. It's all Comcast.

Frayed Knot Dec 08 2017 12:08 AM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think CNN is the opposite of FOX. I think that title belongs to MSNBC. I think MSNBC was created to be the opposite of FOX. MSNBC: launched July 15, 1996 FOX News: launched October 7, 1996

Edgy MD Dec 08 2017 03:05 AM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

Yeah, well its programming angle didn't mature until the FOX era was way underway, man. MSNBC didn't realize the destiny they are currently living out until 2005ish. Get outa here with that FAKE NEWS!

Frayed Knot Dec 08 2017 10:21 AM Re: Fake News and Garbage Thread 2018

I actually looked up the launch dates because, in my memory, MSNBC was considerably earlier than FOX so I was surprised to see that their beginnings were nearly simultaneous. Perhaps it was just that CABLEVISION, my carrier at the time, was offering the one long before the other but they were and acted as a total monopoly so wouldn't carry anything if they didn't think it was necessary. I think you're correct in that it wasn't until later on where MSNBC re-branded themselves as the liberal alternative to FOX. Of course those on the right would argue that, given their NBC parents and their early arrangement with NEWSWEEK to have many of their writers and editors as regular guests, they were left long before semi-declaring themselves to be ... but that's a whole 'nother topic.