Reuters is a "Fake News" Site

[rogue06]

Ben Shapiro made a good point about that. He pointed out that so many liberals accused people like Mitt Romney of racism (which any reasonable person can tell is nonsense), so people aren't interested in listening to them when actual racists have come out of the woodwork (or the dark corners of the Internet) in the last election.

When all you do is cry wolf...

[Cow Poke]

When all you do is cry wolf...

Interesting commentary from The Week....

Source: TheWeek

In the wake of a stunning election result, many people — especially in the media — have struggled for an explanation. Rather than acknowledge the obvious and prosaic answer — that voters in swing states chose change rather than the status quo — analysts have sought a Unified Theory of Donald Trump's Success. Trump couldn't possibly have won fair and square, the assumption goes, so all that's left is to identify whatever went wrong and banish it so this never happens again.

Over the past week, the consensus Unified Theory from the media is this: Blame fake news. This explanation started with BuzzFeed's analysis of Facebook over the past three months, which claimed that the top 20 best-performing "fake news" articles got more engagement than the top 20 "mainstream news" stories.

Nowhere in BuzzFeed's article does author Craig Silverman demonstrate a correlation between that data and voter persuasion, let alone a causal connection. Instead, the analysis offers a look at how articles of potentially questionable provenance could go viral quickly. That leaves a lot of questions begging in the "fake news threw the election" explanation.

There are also serious problems with the evidence BuzzFeed presents. As Timothy Carney points out at the Washington Examiner, the "real news" that Silverman uses for comparison are, in many cases, opinion pieces from liberal columnists. The top "real" stories — which BuzzFeed presented in a graphic to compare against the top "fake" stories — consist of four anti-Trump opinion pieces and a racy exposé of Melania Trump's nude modeling from two decades ago.

© Copyright Original Source

It seems the MSM, rather than do an honest introspection like they pretended to be serious about doing, would rather just blame anybody or anything. They just can't stand the fact that millions of people no longer trust them to be honest and unbiased.

[John Reece]

I have finished the project for which I started this thread; that is, a presentation of the multi-decade history of the defamation of Jeff Sessions by Democrats every time he has been nominated for a federal appointment.

Having completed that project, I now turn to what most readers of this thread seem to have focused on: that is, the term "fake news" in the title the OP.

The following is from an Analysis/Opinion piece by Kelly Riddle in the Thursday November 24 edition of The Washington Times.

What worries me the most about fake news isn’t that it’s fake, it’s that it’s being used by the left to try to silence opposing views.

Take for example a story reported by the Los Angeles Times that included a professor who put together a Google document of “false, misleading, clickbait-y and satirical ‘news sources’” to help people “cleanse their newsfeeds of misinformation.”

The only problem with the list was it included real news sites with which the professor simply didn’t agree. Conservative blogs, including Red State and The Blaze, were on the list, as was more centrist, but GOP-leaning, Independent Journal Review (IJR).

None of those sites are fake — they often just peddle in the real news purposely not covered by the mainstream media. ...

[demi-conservative]

Ben Shapiro made a good point about that. He pointed out that so many liberals accused people like Mitt Romney of racism (which any reasonable person can tell is nonsense), so people aren't interested in listening to them when actual racists have come out of the woodwork (or the dark corners of the Internet) in the last election.

Obvious point, for millenia. 'Boy who cried wolf', anyone???

But you should be expert on this, eh, Mr 'Trump committed treason', 'Bannon made deal with devil'?

[demi-conservative]

I'm considering making a post about what the term 'fake news' originally meant, before it became a slur to throw at partisan papers of various qualities. Its one of those terms that meant something, had a point, but now is merely used as a shorthand for the news sources they don't trust.

After Trump won some libs started using 'fake news' to smear Breitbart, Drudge, Zerohedge, other sites that they think helped Trump win.

Then non-libs start pointing out that Reuters, NYT, CNN, other mainstream media actually spread fake news. Only then now we have libs like Leonhard trying to downplay this, saying 'fake news' "is merely used as a shorthand for the news sources they don't trust", trying to distract from massive duplicity of mainstream media that people a) actually notice, b) are not happy with, c) unsubscribing from.

[Starlight]

I have finished the project for which I started this thread; that is, a presentation of the multi-decade history of the defamation of Jeff Sessions by Democrats every time he has been nominated for a federal appointment.

So we are supposed to seriously believe that the Democrats have opposed Jeff Sessions in particular for decades, with zero good reason? That out of all Republicans they could chose to dislike/oppose/slander they chose him, for no good reason. That there's absolutely no fire where there's so much smoke?

And we are supposed to believe this because the propaganda sources you have linked to, such as Breitbart (which is primarily paid for by Robert Mercer who also just happens to be the primary funder of the Trump campaign and of the Republican party, and which Steve Bannon was CEO of before he took a leadership position in the Trump campaign), happens to say so? The people behind Trump are telling us that the people the Trump team is appointing are great people, and totally not the complete scumbags that everyone has been saying they are for decades... and we are supposed to believe them?

Seriously dude, how gullible / stupid / idiotic do you think all of us are? I have pity for how much you've been indoctrinated and deluded by their propaganda. But perhaps you can stop spreading that manure around here?

I think it's completely legitimate to be skeptical of corporate media, because the people that are paying them are pushing a certain pro-corporate pro-rich narrative, but then it's foolish to believe you're escaping that by turning to "alternative" media sources like Breitbart, Limbaugh or Beck that are themselves primarily funded by rich people who are pushing the exact same types of narrative for the exact same types of reasons. Considering yourself 'smart' for having escaped the trap of the mainstream media's propaganda only makes you look all the more silly when you fall for an even more extreme version of the same propaganda funded by the same type of people but coming from a different source. For all their faults, and they are many, the corporate media actually generally puts effort into fact-checking stories, and relatively rarely carries any story that is false, whereas the kinds of sources you seem to have been relying on carry stories that are partially or completely factually false on a daily basis, quite aside from whatever silly spin they give in their opinion section.

[John Reece]

... Seriously dude, how gullible / stupid / idiotic do you think all of us are? ...

All who whose minds are as yours is?

Quite beyond any and all means of measuring.

[rogue06]

This whole fake news stuff looks like another attempt to censor news story that liberals don't like. Recently while discussing this on some talking head show^[1] a couple days back one pundit listed a couple "fake news" stories promoted by the MSM^[2] that were still being bandied about by them even after they were exposed as being hoaxes. So will MSM sources face the same scrutiny?






1. programs with panels discussing the news

2. Main Stream Media

Food for thought:

Source: Using fake news against opposing views

Liberals just can’t abide competing points of view

What worries me the most about fake news, isn’t that it’s fake, it’s that it’s being used by the left to try to silence opposing views.

Take for example a story reported by the Los Angeles Times that included a professor who put together a Google document of “false, misleading, clickbait-y and satirical ‘news sources’” to help people “cleanse their newsfeeds of misinformation.”

The only problem with the list, was it included real news sites of which the professor simply didn’t agree. Conservative blogs, including Red State and The Blaze, were on the list, as was more centrist, but GOP-leaning Independent Journal Review (IJR). None of those sites are fake — they often just peddle in the real news purposely not covered by the mainstream media.

“Not all of these sources are always or inherently problematic, neither are all of them fake or false,” the professor, Melissa Zimdars, at Merrimack College in Massachusetts told the Times. ” … They should be considered in conjunction with other news/info sources due to their tendency to rely on clickbait headlines or Facebook descriptions, etc.”

So, just like MSNBC, Huffington Post, Slate, Mother Jones, and ThinkProgress — all partisan left outlets, which often use exaggeration and hyperbole to emphasize their point — which weren’t included on her list.

CNN’s media columnist Brian Stelter also has warned about “fake news,” but in his diatribe, he included right-leaning Fox News and alt-right website Breitbart in the mix.

“Breitbart is anti-media. Much of Fox News is anti-media. Fake news websites and some right wing blogs are anti-media. These outlets provide a different audience with a different set of facts about the world. But too often what they’re really selling is opinion and conspiracy theory masquerading as fact. These sites, these outlets, they present themselves as the opposite of traditional news sources, the antidote to mainstream media,” he said.

What he’s right about is there does need to be an antidote to the mainstream media. Because often what he — and other newsrooms around the country — view as “opinion and conspiracy theory” are all too often real news stories that simply don’t fit their agenda.

The possibility that Donald Trump could become president? CNN never had a map that could get him to 270 electoral votes. Respected pollster FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver got chastised the week leading up to the election because he had Mr. Trump’s chances at about 30 percent — far higher than any of the broadcast networks or other pollsters who engaged in group-think.

Paid protesters are another example.

We know, after an undercover video was released by conservative group Project Veritas, that two Democratic operatives had to step down from their positions because it looked as though they were trying to hire protesters to incite violence at Mr. Trump’s rallies.

These two men didn’t lose their jobs because they were innocent — or because the videos were “highly edited” like the mainstream media charged. Clearly something was going on there. But only right-wing outlets (or “fake,” “anti-media” blogs) covered it, with barely a mention at CNN, NPR or any of the broadcast news networks.

When Mr. Trump said during a presidential debate that protesters were hired and told to do “bad things” at his rallies, PolitiFact even admitted that “too much remains unknown to put it on the Truth-O-Meter.”

So it seems like it would be something investigative journalists would want to, well, investigate.

But not according to Washington Post reporter Phillip Bump.

When Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse asked on Twitter after the election, why wasn’t there more reporting on the anti-Trump protests — like who they were organized by and if they were paid for — Mr. Bump took offense.

“Sasse’s question is a bit like asking why we don’t have more reporting on the fact that the Moon is preparing a superweapon with which to annex Antarctica,” Mr. Bump wrote, in an article titled: “Sen. Sasse here are some answers to your questions about ‘paid rioting.’”

When confronted on Twitter about his lack of intellectual curiosity from a reader, Mr. Bump responded: “Allow me to reply in a way you’ll grasp: derp, derp, derp.”

So yes, we need an antidote to this sort of media — and that often comes in the likes of the Federalist — who did an epic take-down of Mr. Bump last week — or The Washington Times, Washington Free-Beacon, The Daily Caller, and, yes, Breitbart.

None of it is fake — it’s merely doing the job the mainstream media refuses to do.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[John Reece]

Food for thought:

Source: Using fake news against opposing views

Liberals just can’t abide competing points of view

What worries me the most about fake news, isn’t that it’s fake, it’s that it’s being used by the left to try to silence opposing views.

Take for example a story reported by the Los Angeles Times that included a professor who put together a Google document of “false, misleading, clickbait-y and satirical ‘news sources’” to help people “cleanse their newsfeeds of misinformation.”

The only problem with the list, was it included real news sites of which the professor simply didn’t agree. Conservative blogs, including Red State and The Blaze, were on the list, as was more centrist, but GOP-leaning Independent Journal Review (IJR). None of those sites are fake — they often just peddle in the real news purposely not covered by the mainstream media.

“Not all of these sources are always or inherently problematic, neither are all of them fake or false,” the professor, Melissa Zimdars, at Merrimack College in Massachusetts told the Times. ” … They should be considered in conjunction with other news/info sources due to their tendency to rely on clickbait headlines or Facebook descriptions, etc.”

So, just like MSNBC, Huffington Post, Slate, Mother Jones, and ThinkProgress — all partisan left outlets, which often use exaggeration and hyperbole to emphasize their point — which weren’t included on her list.

CNN’s media columnist Brian Stelter also has warned about “fake news,” but in his diatribe, he included right-leaning Fox News and alt-right website Breitbart in the mix.

“Breitbart is anti-media. Much of Fox News is anti-media. Fake news websites and some right wing blogs are anti-media. These outlets provide a different audience with a different set of facts about the world. But too often what they’re really selling is opinion and conspiracy theory masquerading as fact. These sites, these outlets, they present themselves as the opposite of traditional news sources, the antidote to mainstream media,” he said.

What he’s right about is there does need to be an antidote to the mainstream media. Because often what he — and other newsrooms around the country — view as “opinion and conspiracy theory” are all too often real news stories that simply don’t fit their agenda.

The possibility that Donald Trump could become president? CNN never had a map that could get him to 270 electoral votes. Respected pollster FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver got chastised the week leading up to the election because he had Mr. Trump’s chances at about 30 percent — far higher than any of the broadcast networks or other pollsters who engaged in group-think.

Paid protesters are another example.

We know, after an undercover video was released by conservative group Project Veritas, that two Democratic operatives had to step down from their positions because it looked as though they were trying to hire protesters to incite violence at Mr. Trump’s rallies.

These two men didn’t lose their jobs because they were innocent — or because the videos were “highly edited” like the mainstream media charged. Clearly something was going on there. But only right-wing outlets (or “fake,” “anti-media” blogs) covered it, with barely a mention at CNN, NPR or any of the broadcast news networks.

When Mr. Trump said during a presidential debate that protesters were hired and told to do “bad things” at his rallies, PolitiFact even admitted that “too much remains unknown to put it on the Truth-O-Meter.”

So it seems like it would be something investigative journalists would want to, well, investigate.

But not according to Washington Post reporter Phillip Bump.

When Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse asked on Twitter after the election, why wasn’t there more reporting on the anti-Trump protests — like who they were organized by and if they were paid for — Mr. Bump took offense.

“Sasse’s question is a bit like asking why we don’t have more reporting on the fact that the Moon is preparing a superweapon with which to annex Antarctica,” Mr. Bump wrote, in an article titled: “Sen. Sasse here are some answers to your questions about ‘paid rioting.’”

When confronted on Twitter about his lack of intellectual curiosity from a reader, Mr. Bump responded: “Allow me to reply in a way you’ll grasp: derp, derp, derp.”

So yes, we need an antidote to this sort of media — and that often comes in the likes of the Federalist — who did an epic take-down of Mr. Bump last week — or The Washington Times, Washington Free-Beacon, The Daily Caller, and, yes, Breitbart.

None of it is fake — it’s merely doing the job the mainstream media refuses to do.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Thanks for posting the entire context of my reference above.

It is better that a TWeb Department Head do so than that I do so, after having been rebuked by the brilliant Starlight for allegedly violating TWeb rules by presenting copied and pasted posts in this thread.