CNN: More Fake News

[Mountain Man]

As dumb as it sounds, Jimmy may have inadvertently spoken the truth. Journalists selectively report the facts all the time, so they're reporting the facts without being neutral.

In other instances, of course, they just make it up when the facts refuse to cooperate with their agenda.

[Tassman]

Facts are neutral, not biased.

Yes, the facts are neutral, but the spin put on them by the likes of Fox or Breitbart, unlike other MSM, don't even pretend to be neutral. And of course Donald Trump sets the tone with his infamous "truthful hyperbole" and "alternative facts".

[Charles]

Journalists are nothing but media hacks today. They are just bloggers with a tie. They are not well informed. Heck they live in a little bubble with no clue what is going on in America. That is why they were all so surprised when Trump won, and the Republicans won again in the recent special elections. They don't have a clue what is going on. They just make up what they want in order to get ratings. They give their left wing audience what they want to hear. Then are surprised when thing don't work out the way they made up.

Wow, that was an impressive number of generalisations for such a short text. You sure must know a lot about all journalists, their motivation and claimed lack of knowledge in order to conclude what you do. And you sure must know a lot about reality to since you can conclude they don’t have a clue.

Let us know the facts all of this is based on.

[Charles]

I am going to start calling these types of idiotic statements "Jimisms" - Yogi Berra has nothing on you.

You wrote that regarding the following statement that Jim wrote: "Journalism is about facts Sparko, about reporting the facts, not about being neutral or about telling you what you want to hear."

We had this discussion not very long ago regarding a Harvard Study claiming media was biased against Trump. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Against-Trump

The main claim of the study was that because coverage on Trump was negative to a high degree, then it was biased. In other words, it was not neutral, was the point.

I always wondered how one could come to that conclusion without evaluating the facts about the situation. If the truth about a given topic is negative, then why should press coverage not be mainly negative (that would go for any topic)? But if one holds that negative coverage is not neutral, then neutral coverage would not be in accordance with the truth, if the truth was mainly negative, given this definition of "neutral".

[Tassman]

You wrote that regarding the following statement that Jim wrote: "Journalism is about facts Sparko, about reporting the facts, not about being neutral or about telling you what you want to hear."

We had this discussion not very long ago regarding a Harvard Study claiming media was biased against Trump. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Against-Trump

The main claim of the study was that because coverage on Trump was negative to a high degree, then it was biased. In other words, it was not neutral, was the point.

I always wondered how one could come to that conclusion without evaluating the facts about the situation. If the truth about a given topic is negative, then why should press coverage not be mainly negative (that would go for any topic)? But if one holds that negative coverage is not neutral, then neutral coverage would not be in accordance with the truth, if the truth was mainly negative, given this definition of "neutral".

Yes, it's Trump's own actions, Tweets, lies and contradictions that are negative. The MSM merely reports it...with the exception of of his own personal propaganda machine, i.e. Fox and Breitbart.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, the facts are neutral, but the spin put on them by the likes of Fox or Breitbart, unlike other MSM...

Sorry, what? Are you saying the liberal media doesn't spin the facts? Are you seriously suggesting that? Because that would be an idiotic thing to say, even for you.

[Mountain Man]

Er, if the headline accurately reflected the content of the article, then the article was wrong. "Contributions made to the building of the very fabric" is quite different in implication than "built very fabric".

I call this a difference without a distinction. And, yes, I would say the same thing even it was a CNN article. A headline that paraphrases the story is a common practice in the news business. What bothers me more are stories that contain blatantly untrue claims.

[One Bad Pig]

Wow, that was an impressive number of generalisations for such a short text. You sure must know a lot about all journalists, their motivation and claimed lack of knowledge in order to conclude what you do. And you sure must know a lot about reality to since you can conclude they don’t have a clue.

Let us know the facts all of this is based on.

It is broadly accurate, AFAICT. There are, of course, exceptions.

[One Bad Pig]

I call this a difference without a distinction. And, yes, I would say the same thing even it was a CNN article. A headline that paraphrases the story is a common practice in the news business.

I'm not sure you quite got the gist of what I was saying. I am quite aware that that is a common practice. That's why I said that if the headline was an accurate paraphrase, the ARTICLE ITSELF was wrong.

What bothers me more are stories that contain blatantly untrue claims.

Yes, that is somewhat worse, but lots of people pay the most attention to headlines and then just skim the article. Papers like the NYT have a bad habit of burying important qualifiers on page A6, where most people will miss them.

[Sparko]

Yes, the facts are neutral, but the spin put on them by the likes of Fox or Breitbart, unlike other MSM, don't even pretend to be neutral. And of course Donald Trump sets the tone with his infamous "truthful hyperbole" and "alternative facts".

Funny how the only one actually coming out and admitting that they are "spinning" fake news is CNN.

And not only that, but CNN officially admitted that the hidden video was legitimate and didn't even try to deny the allegations made on it.

CNN says a clandestine video of one of the network's producers criticizing its coverage of President Trump is legitimate, further fraying an already strained relationship between the news network and the White House.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ork/432423001/

Or was this your lame attempt to imitate the MSM and put a spin on the facts?

[Sparko]

Wow, that was an impressive number of generalisations for such a short text. You sure must know a lot about all journalists, their motivation and claimed lack of knowledge in order to conclude what you do. And you sure must know a lot about reality to since you can conclude they don’t have a clue.

Let us know the facts all of this is based on.

Watching the news.

[Charles]

Watching the news.

The news or the fake news? And how does it allow you to conclude this: "Journalists are nothing but media hacks today. They are just bloggers with a tie. They are not well informed. Heck they live in a little bubble with no clue what is going on in America."?

[Sparko]

You wrote that regarding the following statement that Jim wrote: "Journalism is about facts Sparko, about reporting the facts, not about being neutral or about telling you what you want to hear."

We had this discussion not very long ago regarding a Harvard Study claiming media was biased against Trump. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Against-Trump

The main claim of the study was that because coverage on Trump was negative to a high degree, then it was biased. In other words, it was not neutral, was the point.

I always wondered how one could come to that conclusion without evaluating the facts about the situation. If the truth about a given topic is negative, then why should press coverage not be mainly negative (that would go for any topic)? But if one holds that negative coverage is not neutral, then neutral coverage would not be in accordance with the truth, if the truth was mainly negative, given this definition of "neutral".

You must not actually watch the news much - at least the news in the USA. The reason they are biased is because they keep making up stories, using anonymous sources, only reporting the negative stories about Trump, and downplaying any positive stories, and they openly opine their biased OPINIONS right there in the story. When Obama was president, they did just the opposite. They openly praised him, reported everything with a positive spin, and downplayed most negative news or ignored it altogether.

[Sparko]

The news or the fake news? And how does it allow you to conclude this: "Journalists are nothing but media hacks today. They are just bloggers with a tie. They are not well informed. Heck they live in a little bubble with no clue what is going on in America."?

like I said, by watching (and reading) the news. And seeing it all fall apart as the real facts are uncovered.

Like them all reporting that Hillary was going to win by a landslide and Trump didn't stand a chance. Then seeing their shocked faces as Hillary LOST. Then trying to come up with excuses why their polls failed. Then doing the same thing in the special election. They don't have a clue what the real Americans believe or want. They live in their own liberal bubble, and think that the whole country thinks like they do.

[RumTumTugger]

like I said, by watching (and reading) the news. And seeing it all fall apart as the real facts are uncovered.

Like them all reporting that Hillary was going to win by a landslide and Trump didn't stand a chance. Then seeing their shocked faces as Hillary LOST. Then trying to come up with excuses why their polls failed. Then doing the same thing in the special election. They don't have a clue what the real Americans believe or want. They live in their own liberal bubble, and think that the whole country thinks like they do.

because they think they are the ones who should control what the American people think.