Fake News

[Montegriffo]

Dying of senile dementia more like, What's with all the fossils in positions of power over there?
Ours may be fuck ups but at least they are lucid fuck ups.

[The Conservative]

Dying of senile dementia more like, What's with all the fossils in positions of power over there?
Ours may be fuck ups but at least they are lucid fuck ups.

Does that mean they knowingly are fucking up? That isn't exactly a great bar to boast about...

[Montegriffo]

Dying of senile dementia more like, What's with all the fossils in positions of power over there?
Ours may be fuck ups but at least they are lucid fuck ups.

Does that mean they knowingly are fucking up? That isn't exactly a great bar to boast about...

It isn't exactly a boast.

[Montegriffo]

Why is it not an issue for you that Trump seems to rely solely on Fox news for information?

it is, i agree totally, i don't like how cozy he is with his friendly press, i especially didn't like when he went on stage with hannity. by comparison i didn't like how cozy the last guy was with the overwhelmingly lefty press corp, i didn't like the insider deals revealed in the wikileaks emails and i didn't like the targeted spying on hostile press reporters. was that an issue for you?

OK. So we can both agree that the media on all sides can be deliberately misleading, manipulating and even criminal in the way that it reports important issues. I hope that we can also agree that we all get the majority of the information we use to form our opinions on those issues from the media? It is up to us to apply our own filters and find our own truths.
So with that in mind is it helpful to try to paint one side or another as better or worse at promoting ''fake news''?
Does the volume of outlets matter more than the volume of lies?
How helpful to the truth is it to have a President that labels criticism as fake news and makes regular attacks on the ''free'' press and excludes certain sources from press briefings and eventually gives up on them in favour of tweeting out his opinions instead so that he can avoid scrutiny?
Journalism, like democracy, is ultimately floored but what is the alternative?
Isn't it better to use our time to discuss the statements and actions of the leaders themselves? Should we be outraged when they tell us outright lies and deliberately misinform us or should we, like Capps, just support those who are best at deceiving us?
Is it sensible to make false equivalencies about ''lies on a bus'' with predictions about the consequences of voting leave? Especially when those making the predictions then worked hard to mitigate the possible outcomes as Mark Carney did as the head of the Bank of England.
People like Rees Mogg and Farage have spent the last 3 years labelling media predictions about the dire results of a no-deal Brexit as ''project fear'' while at the same time suppressing their own studies and reports into the consequences and the plans they are putting into place to mitigate them.

Sure, we can discount most of the opinions from the extremes but to try to label the media as a whole (as some here do, not necessarily you personally) as fake news and rely only on internet conspiracy sites is just blinkering ourselves. It is especially short-sighted to base that opinion on the number of outlets one side has compared to the other.
What is important, IMO, is to discern the lies from the truths rather than spend our time counting outlets or relative ratings between those outlets.
Even more wasteful of our time would be to get into arguments about where each outlet lies within our own personal definitions of left or right.

Democracy would indeed die in darkness, but only if we let it.

[PartyOf5]

OK. So we can both agree that the media on all sides can be deliberately misleading, manipulating and even criminal in the way that it reports important issues. I hope that we can also agree that we all get the majority of the information we use to form our opinions on those issues from the media? It is up to us to apply our own filters and find our own truths.
So with that in mind is it helpful to try to paint one side or another as better or worse at promoting ''fake news''?
Does the volume of outlets matter more than the volume of lies?
How helpful to the truth is it to have a President that labels criticism as fake news and makes regular attacks on the ''free'' press and excludes certain sources from press briefings and eventually gives up on them in favour of tweeting out his opinions instead so that he can avoid scrutiny?
Journalism, like democracy, is ultimately floored but what is the alternative?
Isn't it better to use our time to discuss the statements and actions of the leaders themselves? Should we be outraged when they tell us outright lies and deliberately misinform us or should we, like Capps, just support those who are best at deceiving us?
Is it sensible to make false equivalencies about ''lies on a bus'' with predictions about the consequences of voting leave? Especially when those making the predictions then worked hard to mitigate the possible outcomes as Mark Carney did as the head of the Bank of England.
People like Rees Mogg and Farage have spent the last 3 years labelling media predictions about the dire results of a no-deal Brexit as ''project fear'' while at the same time suppressing their own studies and reports into the consequences and the plans they are putting into place to mitigate them.

Sure, we can discount most of the opinions from the extremes but to try to label the media as a whole (as some here do, not necessarily you personally) as fake news and rely only on internet conspiracy sites is just blinkering ourselves. It is especially short-sighted to base that opinion on the number of outlets one side has compared to the other.
What is important, IMO, is to discern the lies from the truths rather than spend our time counting outlets or relative ratings between those outlets.
Even more wasteful of our time would be to get into arguments about where each outlet lies within our own personal definitions of left or right.

Democracy would indeed die in darkness, but only if we let it.

You want to equate the RW media's shoplifting of a candy bar with the LW media's robbing of bank while taking hostages and having shootout with the police.

All of this "both sides are bad, we should discuss actions and not media hype, we need to discern lies from truth" from the guy who posts endless Trump cartoons. Piss off.

[Montegriffo]

Yes, humourous memes, that's what we are talking about here.
You got me.

[Fife]

Don't look now, snowflakes, but it's all fake. All of it.

[PartyOf5]

Yes, humourous memes, that's what we are talking about here.
You got me.

You are talking about things like this: "Should we be outraged when they tell us outright lies and deliberately misinform us or should we, like Capps, just support those who are best at deceiving us?" You, Monty. The same person that fully supports those deceiving YOU with all their Trump cartoons. Yet you gleefully post them without questioning anything the anti-Trump media tells you. Once again you prove your hypocrisy. Calling out other posters for things you do all the time.

[Montegriffo]

Sure, memes and cartoons are biased. If you have any complaints about whether they are based on truths or not then address that (with evidence) but don't just whine like a bitch because they don't align with your misguided world view.

True-Trump doctored days old forecast to save face
True-US military planes diverted to struggling Prestwick airport to re-fuel (at a higher cost) and put up crew in the nearby Trump golf resort.
True-Trump invited terrorist Muslims to the US for peace talks.

You get the point (well you probably don't but hey ho chihuahuas bite ankles, whatcha gonna do)

[PartyOf5]

don't just whine like a bitch

Says the one constantly crying about ankle biting. You even did it in the same post.

You just can't help but be a hypocrite in every way possible.