"Fake News"

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks

Ban "fake news" sites?

Yes
1
13%
No
7
88%
 
Total votes: 8

User avatar
PresMuffley
Posts: 1047
Joined: 06 Feb 2017, 12:00

Re: "Fake News"

Postby PresMuffley » 26 Feb 2017, 14:52

Larson E. Whipsnade wrote:Just remember that the two or three most prolific posters are a bit simple.


What wrongheaded thinking I've seen here pales in comparison to what was on display at the IMDb politics board so that's definitely a plus. Though it would be nice if a few more people joined dicussions here. Was this forum once a vibrant community full of lively debate?
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

User avatar
Eddie Shah environment
hounds people off the board
Posts: 17996
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Location: pursued by the enraged queen

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Eddie Shah environment » 26 Feb 2017, 15:20

It was - altho' it's been a while.
Dimbo wrote:The media are run by the CIA. They write what they tell them to write.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23666
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 26 Feb 2017, 15:25

Jimbo wrote:From the New York Times the news is that Thomas Perez, Obama's former labor secretary narrowly won the vote for chairman of the Democratic party and that the favorite, Congressman Keith Ellison, lost.

From The Intercept is the same story but with this opening paragraph

MINNESOTA DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN Keith Ellison lost his bid to become the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Saturday after a scorched-earth smear campaign targeting his religious faith, his affinity for the Nation of Islam in his youth, and his support for Palestinian rights alongside a secure Israel.


What makes the NYT fake news is that this angle is not even mentioned in their front page article. That Ellison is a Muslim or his stance on Israel is not even mentioned. That prominent Jews would leave the party would leave if Ellison won was unsaid in the Times. As I said before, a journalistic nod to this unsettling information would be valuable info but to the Times it doesn't exist and yet it is the entire angle of The Intercept's story. Is the Intercept bombastic in it's indignation over this? Maybe, a bit, but at least it is informational. The Times, fake news.


Ok. Let's use this example.

First off...let's look at the NYT link you provided. Oh wait! You didn't provide one. Here's what appears to be their main story on the vote:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/u ... ction.html

Compare that to the Intercept story you seemingly accept as "real news":

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.the ... stine.html

The NYT article gives a lot of detail about the various currents running through the race. But you are right - they omit any mention of a "scorched earth smear campaign" against Ellison. The problem is...so does the Intercept. They make the charge - but they characterize the following as a campaign:

1. The stated opinions of Haim Saban and Alan Dershowitz.

2. An email sent by Jack Rosen of the American Jewish Congress to DNC members to reject Ellison's bid.

3. A statement of opposition from the anti-defamation league.

4. The fact that Perez (horrors!) spoke to Jewish groups (without making any reference to Ellison's past statements at all).

Does the above actually add up to a "scorched-earth campaign? Was it actually a central issue in the DNC chair selection process? The Intercept doesn't even attempt to make that case.

They do inexplicably take a short diversion to mention that South Carolina DNC chair Jamie Harrison was whipping votes at the gathering...something that was inferred as problematic due to association with the John Podesta Group. The Intercept doesn't bother to explain the inclusion of this data-point. It's just thrown in as if to insinuate something shady.

But that is, in your opinion...the "real" news, eh Jimbo?

I'll actually agree that the Times could have made their story more complete by mentioning Ellison's troubles with the Jewish Community (though it could be viewed as perpetuating a smear if they had). That said, the NYT story mentions that Ellison and Perez seemed pretty amiable with each other during the campaign...and were even seen dining together this week. That story is corroborated elsewhere by other news sources like this:
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/ ... ions%3Famp

So if the New York Times is "fake news" for leaving out the Ellison's Jewish tensions - does that make the Intercept fake news for leaving out the evidence of mutual cooperation between Ellison and Perez?

More to the point - can you just admit that you liked the slant of the Intercept piece more, because it plays to your bias?

C'mon...just admit it.
Last edited by Davey the Fat Boy on 27 Feb 2017, 17:53, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 15284
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Jimbo » 26 Feb 2017, 16:12

I already admitted the Intercept article was bombastic but the points it makes are very salient ones and yet they're omitted by the NYT. This is not the most egregious example of fake news but just an example of how by omission the Times under-informs citizens of what is really going on. Had I depended on the Times article I would know nothing about how Israel policy shaped the election outcome which means the difference between a progressive party and the boring losing party, the Republican light party, the war party, the neo-McCarthy party that it has become.
Gadfly

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23666
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 26 Feb 2017, 16:54

There is no evidence that Israel policy did shape the outcome. The Intercept fails to make a case for that.

But what that article DOES do is:

1. Allege a "smear campaign" without bothering to address critical issues like: Who is waging the campaign? What do they stand to gain from waging it? What evidence is there that it has been effective? What are the central accusations that make up the campaign?Why are the accusations implied in the campaign are unfair?

2. Hints strongly at some kind of shady involvement by the South Carolina DNC chair without bothering to contextualize their inclusion of his involvement in any way.

This isn't a matter of the Intercept merely being "bombastic." In both of the above cases the writer of this piece clearly takes for granted that his readers catch his drift. He doesn't feel the need to explain why accusing someone of guilt by association with John Podesta is significant. Nor does he feel the need to flesh out the existence of an actual smear campaign against Ellison. He knows his audience, and he trusts that they'll draw the lines themselves.

The Intercept piece is frankly a horrible piece of journalism. It only makes any sense in the realm of Sanders dead-enders who view the Ellison DNC bid as a battleground in their war on the "DNC establishment" - and as with the Sanders campaign itself, it's taken as an article of faith that they can only fall short due to conspiracies and smears. In that context, an abstract raising of the Podesta spectre makes complete sense.

The definition of propaganda is:

"Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

The NYT piece isn't pushing a particular POV. It simply reports about the event. The Intercept piece has literally no value outside the perspective of a Sanders-centric world view. It is almost textbook propaganda.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 15284
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Jimbo » 26 Feb 2017, 17:17

Gadfly

User avatar
PresMuffley
Posts: 1047
Joined: 06 Feb 2017, 12:00

Re: "Fake News"

Postby PresMuffley » 26 Feb 2017, 17:57

Davey the Fat Boy wrote: what that article DOES do is:

1. Allege a "smear campaign" without bothering to address critical issues like: Who is waging the campaign? What do they stand to gain from waging it? What evidence is there that it has been effective? What are the central accusations that make up the campaign? Why are the accusations implied in the campaign unfair?


This is a much better article:
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/04/the-smear-campaign-against-keith-ellison-is-repugnant-but-reveals-much-about-washington/

the writer of this piece clearly takes for granted that his readers catch his drift.


I think most people who frequent the site do catch his drift, as they have more than likely read the article I linked to above.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23666
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 26 Feb 2017, 20:49

I guess we aren't distinguishing between journalism and opinion journalism anymore.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
PresMuffley
Posts: 1047
Joined: 06 Feb 2017, 12:00

Re: "Fake News"

Postby PresMuffley » 26 Feb 2017, 21:17

Let's see... the extremely intelligent, highly respected, well-informed, world-renowned, Pulitzer Prize winning (amongst many other awards) Glenn Greenwald or some internet dude who claims to have worked in a newsroom. Sorry. You lose, buddy.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23666
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 27 Feb 2017, 01:43

PresMuffley wrote:Let's see... the extremely intelligent, highly respected, well-informed, world-renowned, Pulitzer Prize winning (amongst many other awards) Glenn Greenwald or some internet dude who claims to have worked in a newsroom. Sorry. You lose, buddy.


Uh...no. It's not me vs. anyone. We were discussing which news is "real." It appears that you and Jimbo prefer opinion journalism to journalism. That's fine by me, I suppose. I understand the urge to have your bias confirmed. But let's not be a dick about it.

For the record, I'm not a fan of Mr. Greenwald's, but I don't dispute his credentials or his reputation. But I hope you don't use that line of argument often. We could surely play dueling world-renown prize-winning journalists all day.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 15284
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Jimbo » 27 Feb 2017, 02:17

Davey the Fat Boy wrote: It appears that you and Jimbo prefer opinion journalism to journalism.


Wrong. I prefer complete journalism. That Israel is a hot button is no excuse for the Times to omit its relevance to Ellison's loss. And this is nowhere nearly the first time where the Times skirts around Israel's more than tangential involvement in almost every US fought middle eastern war. Not that I wish any ill will on Israel but it will only be when all the facts, when the truth of the matter is laid out that a peaceful path forward can be found.
Gadfly

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23666
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 27 Feb 2017, 03:35

Jimbo wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote: It appears that you and Jimbo prefer opinion journalism to journalism.


Wrong. I prefer complete journalism. That Israel is a hot button is no excuse for the Times to omit its relevance to Ellison's loss. And this is nowhere nearly the first time where the Times skirts around Israel's more than tangential involvement in almost every US fought middle eastern war. Not that I wish any ill will on Israel but it will only be when all the facts, when the truth of the matter is laid out that a peaceful path forward can be found.


That's an absolute bunch of crap.

Ellison's Jewish problem wasn't about Israel policy. There wasn't any pro-peace imperative in making mention of it in that piece.

It's pretty clear that the so-called alternative press sees some utility in trying to paint Ellison as the victim of a widespread vicious Israel smear. In truth, he got the amount of scrutiny you'd expect for a guy who had some of the comments he had in his background. None of which stopped him from getting 200 votes out of 435 against a well-respected former cabinet member.

I get that you want this to be blown up into something bigger - but the truth is, he simply didn't win.
Last edited by Davey the Fat Boy on 27 Feb 2017, 03:39, edited 1 time in total.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23666
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 27 Feb 2017, 03:36

Ugh...if you accidentally hit "quote" instead of edit - you can apparently post 4 non-erasable pats pretty easily. :oops:
Last edited by Davey the Fat Boy on 27 Feb 2017, 03:41, edited 1 time in total.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23666
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 27 Feb 2017, 03:37

:!:
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23666
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 27 Feb 2017, 03:39

Accidental post
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 15284
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Jimbo » 27 Feb 2017, 03:49

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote: It appears that you and Jimbo prefer opinion journalism to journalism.


Wrong. I prefer complete journalism. That Israel is a hot button is no excuse for the Times to omit its relevance to Ellison's loss. And this is nowhere nearly the first time where the Times skirts around Israel's more than tangential involvement in almost every US fought middle eastern war. Not that I wish any ill will on Israel but it will only be when all the facts, when the truth of the matter is laid out that a peaceful path forward can be found.


That's an absolute bunch of crap.

Ellison's Jewish problem wasn't about Israel policy. There wasn't any pro-peace imperative in making mention of it in that piece.

It's pretty clear that the so-called alternative press sees some utility in trying to paint Ellison as the victim of a widespread vicious smear. In truth, he got the amount of scrutiny you'd expect for a guy who had some of the comments he had in his background. None of which stopped him from getting 200 votes out of 435 against a well-respected former cabinet member.

I get that you want this to be blown up into something bigger - but the truth is, he simply didn't win.


Davey, I get that you have your head so far up HRC's ass you can see the missing emails but the truth is I really and truly don't give a shit about the Democratic party. I don't even really care who drives the corporate funded jalopy. They're done as a force. But in a thread about "fake news," a neologism for skewed or false reportage, I care that the "Paper of Record" is so full of lies and omissions, sad to say, it now needs to be as suspect as Infowars or Fox News.
Gadfly

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23666
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 27 Feb 2017, 03:54

And yet the example you posted was demonstrably skewed and guilty of greater omissions than the one you denounced.

Just be honest. Your main criteria for news is whether it confirms your existing opinions. Stop trying to couch it in terms more noble than that.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
PresMuffley
Posts: 1047
Joined: 06 Feb 2017, 12:00

Re: "Fake News"

Postby PresMuffley » 27 Feb 2017, 04:48

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:Uh...no. It's not me vs. anyone. We were discussing which news is "real." It appears that you and Jimbo prefer opinion journalism to journalism. That's fine by me, I suppose. I understand the urge to have your bias confirmed. But let's not be a dick about it.


The article I posted clearly spelled out in a rather straightforward manner all of the points you were concerned about. He used facts, presented evidence, gave numerous links to back up his points, yet apparently in your world that's merely his opinion. When people put such a tremendous effort into being a lunkhead as you have done here there is indeed a reason for me to be a dick.

For the record, I'm not a fan of Mr. Greenwald's


No need to set the record straight, I'm quite adept at catching ones drift.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23666
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: "Fake News"

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 27 Feb 2017, 04:56

PresMuffley wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:Uh...no. It's not me vs. anyone. We were discussing which news is "real." It appears that you and Jimbo prefer opinion journalism to journalism. That's fine by me, I suppose. I understand the urge to have your bias confirmed. But let's not be a dick about it.


The article I posted clearly spelled out in a rather straightforward manner all of the points you were concerned about. He used facts, presented evidence, gave numerous links to back up his points, yet apparently in your world that's merely his opinion. When people put such a tremendous effort into being a lunkhead as you have done here there is indeed a reason for me to be a dick.


Sad that you don't even understand the distinction between journalism and opinion journalism.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
PresMuffley
Posts: 1047
Joined: 06 Feb 2017, 12:00

Re: "Fake News"

Postby PresMuffley » 27 Feb 2017, 05:39

From my first post regarding The Intercept on the previous page: it would be disingenuous to state that they are purely a news outlet as much of what they report is also editorialized - though I must say, I do tend to agree with the perspective they put forth.

It would appear that not only do you have difficulty in comprehending straightforward statements but also nuance. And if you truly believe objective journalism has ever existed, well... we all need a bit of fantasy now & then to help make it through life. I wish you the best on your journey.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.