Fake News

[RUDE BOY]

To start with pretty well everything about "clinton emails, the clinton foundation and benghazi" is pure fantasy. . . these hearings, court cases and investigations they talk about just aren't happening in the real world. . . purely flights of imagination and bull shit.

 

[Tranquility]

To start with pretty well everything about "clinton emails, the clinton foundation and benghazi" is pure fantasy. . . these hearings, court cases and investigations they talk about just aren't happening in the real world. . . purely flights of imagination and bull shit.

I understand your feelings on the matter. But, I'm looking for a specific example to see if the feelings are based on Judical Watch representations or your interpretations of what those who disagree with their perspective say about them.

For the fantasy hearings and court cases, there are online resources like PACER where we can see the status of active litigation. Anyone can use them. I'd assume that an organization with so much apparent hatred towards them that focuses on freedom of information act litigation would be careful about claiming things easily disproved with a moment on the web by a detractor.

 

[RUDE BOY]

They reported for months that there was a congressional investigation into the Clinton foundation. . . there wasn't . . . they are saying now that there are still ongoing investigations into what happened in Benghazi and that's a lie. . . they reported the Clinton foundation funneled funds for everything from weddings to buying houses, that was false . . . they claimed Obama turned the FBI into a KGB type organisation . . . they lied and said Nancy Pelosi spent $100,000 of taxpayers money on food and booze while traveling on military aircraft. . . ISIS has camps in mexico, that's a lie. . . Then you have all the conspiracy bull shit about the murderous Clinton family and a trail of bodies and issues like voter fraud. . . they do nothing but feed alt right hate with lies and innuendo.

I do watch their stuff on their YouTube channel and haven't been on their website for awhile

They're just another extreme right wing propaganda / fringe news web site.

 

[His_Highness]

IMO....Some seem to feel that fake news is anything that doesn't agree with their own belief systems. I believe there needs to be more to it and that fake news isn't spin doctoring. Fake news, to me, is spin plus an accusation taken as fact that someone fucked a chicken.

How about a 12 step program based on......Hi, I'm His_Highness and I've got confirmation bias.

I watch both CNN and Fox when a new story-line presents itself. I get a kick out of watching the same story unfold with a differing bias. It's a education when watching both channels play up a fact or leave out a fact that spins the story the way their consumers prefer it. I understand why they do it....if they didn't lean in like that their consumers would lean out.

What catches me off guard are the times when I'm watching the counter-point to my own confirmation bias and find myself saying...holy shit...those talking points actually work in "their" favor when presented that way instead of the way I prefer. I know they left out blah-blah-blah or linked a fact to something very loosely related but in our "too lazy to look it up, please spoon feed me" world the puzzle pieces can be made to fit without straying too far from the, excuse the expression, facts.

And for what it's worth....I've seen real news presented fairly on both channels even when the main topic was Trump. It's the "infomercials and cult of personality shows" they imply are news where the presenter is straddling the fence between entertainment and reporting that disgust me. Some consumers can't tell the difference between responsible journalism and fear mongering, viewer pandering, bullshit.

Neither side has a patent on spin or fake news.

 

[Tranquility]

I watch both CNN and Fox when a new story-line presents itself. I get a kick out of watching the same story unfold with a differing bias. It's a education when watching both channels play up a fact or leave out a fact that spins the story the way their consumers prefer it. I understand why they do it....if they didn't lean in like that their consumers would lean out.

See also:
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

It is a news concanator that takes articles on a subject from (at least they claim) the left, right and center. You can see yourself how subtle wording can make a big difference in how you perceive the same fact. Sometimes, the wording is not so subtle. It is also good to get a local news paper/station's take on the matter. They have to live in the area where events take place and, while they mess up as much as anyone, there does not seem to be as high a narrative behind the stories because they have the benefit of bringing in the locals.

Otherwise, the narrative is the money.

All you need is find a certain percentage of people who will buy into whatever you are peddling and you have an income stream.

 

[Tranquility]

This is one that might not rise to "fake" because it is not false reporting. It is absent reporting. We know the press cares if someone big, important or not, is out of the public light for a while:

We also know another person who has been out of the public light for a bit:

The thing is, people know if she has any chance to recover from her lung surgery right now. They removed two tumors from the lungs and they were certainly biopsied. If they were lung cancer, you could make an argument they were spontaneously generated and luckily caught early and she has a reasonable chance of a full recovery. If they were not lung cancer, they indicate a spread of another cancer to the lungs and zero people make it 18 months and an extraordinarily few make it 6 months.

Would the results of the biopsy be newsworthy? Why isn't anyone asking?

If someone claims to know, you won't find it on youtube.

https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2019/0...k-down-on-recommending-conspiracy-videos/amp/

While the article starts with general concern of conspiracy theories:

“Borderline content” includes videos featuring fake miracle cures for serious diseases, claiming the earth is flat and making blatantly false claims about historic events such as 9/11, according to the company. It did not provide further examples. Such content doesn’t violate YouTube’s community guidelines, but the company says it comes close.
​

A conspiratorially-minded person reading between the lines of current events might take this as the key quote:

This month, a Washington Post investigation found a YouTube search for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s initials “RBG” turned up videos from the far-right — some of which falsely alleged doctors are keeping her alive with illegal drugs — which outnumbered results from reliable news sources.
​

Now, do I believe doctors are keeping "RBG" alive with illegal drugs? No. But, I do know that there are facts out there that will give important information to us about the direction of our country that are being purposefully withheld from us. If the media wants to fight fake news, the best way is with sunshine. Put the accurate facts out early and often and let people make up their minds rather than push a narrative.

 

[Tranquility]

In regards to the above, if proof of life is required, don't rely on a video:

 

[Tranquility]

https://www.apnews.com/b94fea4b4a2a408fabcf756da790ff27

Just an article about a sighting of RBG at a show. What's "fake" about it?

The picture.

The headline says, "Ginsburg makes 1st public appearance since cancer surgery." Right below it is a big well-lit shot of the Justice looking fit. You have to get into the depth of the article to find, "The National Constitution Center, which sponsored the concert, did not permit photography." In other articles, you find she was sequestered in the back of the auditorium separated from others and no photographs were taken.

Since the article also quoted her son who said she was walking a mile a day and starting to meet with her personal trainer twice a week, I'm sure she'll be hearing arguments in the next bank that starts on Feb 18th.

 

[RUDE BOY]

The picture.

It's a stock photo of RBG in the court chamber. . . see the chair? How is it Fake?

It's from the official group portrait of The Court from November 30th 2018.

 

[Tranquility]

It's a stock photo of RBG in the court chamber. . . see the chair? How is it Fake?

It's from the official group portrait of The Court from November 30th 2018.

I agree there is no factual error. The picture is stock and of RBG and the article is probably true.

If you look at the headline and the picture (as most do), what do you think the article is trying to say?

My take is the article's purpose is to reassure people RBG is healthy and happy and going out to take care of things. Yet....well, we'll see if the State of the Union or her job in hearing arguments is as important to her as attending a show.

 

[RUDE BOY]

So what was your point? Nothing but stirring the pot or what?

Some Typical alt right bullshit and conjecture right there . . . without a fucking doubt.

 

[Tranquility]

So what was your point? Nothing but stirring the pot or what?

Some Typical alt right bullshit and conjecture right there . . . without a fucking doubt.

My "point" was to show how the media lies. That you don't see it is fine. I recommend some of the sites I've previously recommended to show how different media use wording and placement to tell the story they want to tell rather than report the facts. It has nothing to do with "alt" or "right".

What do YOU think the point of the article was?

 

[RUDE BOY]

I don't understand how you can think there's anything FAKE about it. . . it's only fake when seen through your bias.

Pretty near every major news service has used the same picture of RBG since it was taken, I've seen it in the last week on The Hill, Fox news, CNN, USA today. . .

The article was just a "yeah, RBG is alive and well" little fluff piece.

 

[Tranquility]

I don't understand how you can think there's anything FAKE about it. . . it's only fake when seen through your bias.

Pretty near every major news service has used the same picture of RBG since it was taken, I've seen it in the last week on The Hill, Fox news, CNN, USA today. . .

The article was just a "yeah, RBG is alive and well" little fluff piece.

I guess we'll find out if she is alive and well tonight, right?

 

[RUDE BOY]

I guess we'll find out if she is alive and well tonight, right?

What the fuck are you trying to say?

 

[Tranquility]

What the fuck are you trying to say?

For the reasons I wrote earlier, I believe she is not going to fully recover from her surgery.

If she shows tonight, the country will get to see her and put rumors to rest. If she shows at oral arguments on the 18th the country will see her ability to participate and put the rumors to rest. If she does not show to oral argument, either she is too sick and is not going to recover, OR, she is still on the mend and felt going to the show was more important than doing her job.

 

[macbill]

It is not uncommon for spokespersons to minimize illness. Certainly everyone hopes for the best, but we should not be surprised if she is mortally ill. You can bet every news organization has an obituary ready just in case.

 

[Tranquility]

It is not uncommon for spokespersons to minimize illness. Certainly everyone hopes for the best, but we should not be surprised if she is mortally ill. You can bet every news organization has an obituary ready just in case.

The first job, at least it used to be, of a newly-minted journalist at a news source was to update obituaries. There's file cabinets full of pre-written obits (Edit: Just reread my post and realize how dated I am. I assume there are no longer any file cabinets, but computer folders.) that need to be updated due to life events and the new guy was the one that got to do them. There's nothing wrong in preparing for what is going to happen to us all.

It is ALSO the job of spokespersons to polish the apple in the way that best suits their boss/clients. There is nothing wrong with that either. It is SOP, expected and makes sense.

The problem is, the media's unquestioned acceptance of the apple without appropriate followup. If you walk into your kid's room and ask if he took the money from your desk and the reply is something like, "I don't have your money." a smart parent might follow-up a moment to see if it is just a lie of omission. (As, while they took it, they already gave it to Joe to buy weed.)

 

[Tranquility]

http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/05/why-the-demand-for-fake-news-is-a-far-mo

An article saying the demand for fake news is more of a problem than the supply of it. A couple of quotes from it:

I don't want to say that "fake news" doesn't matter. But to the extent that it matters, it would appear the problem is less the supply than the demand: the willingness, indeed the desire of large numbers of people to believe transparent falsehoods.
​

---------------------

But the problem here goes beyond simple ignorance. As Coyne suggests, many people are actively eager to believe dubious claims, so long as doing so confirms their preexisting views. Particularly in our current environment of severe political polarization, partisans often act not as truth-seekers, but as "political fans" eager to endorse anything that supports their position or casts the opposing party and its supporters in a bad light. These biases affect not only ordinary voters, but also otherwise highly knowledgeable ones, and even policymakers and politicians. This helps explain why many people eagerly consume crude misinformation, without giving careful thought to the validity of the claims made.​

 

[Tranquility]

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/06/state-american-fact-checking-completely-useless/

Are those who check the facts part of the narrative?

TL/DR on key points:
-Hyper-precision fact-checking that creates the impression that a Republican is misleading the public:

-Fact-checking subjective political assertions:

-Partisan talking point masquerading as a fact check:

-Fact-checking meant to obscure actual facts:

-Update: Factchecking a truthful statement by demanding that Trump highlight information that has absolutely nothing to do with his contention.


Edited to add:
It's not like anything being talked about is new.

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=text

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, “by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.” Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.​

--Thomas Jefferson, 1807 letter to John Norville

 

[RUDE BOY]

Why do you mainly cite alt right shit sites in the Fake news thread? What a joke.

 

[Tranquility]

Why do you mainly cite alt right shit sites in the Fake news thread? What a joke.

If your premise were true, I suspect the article should be easy to rebut. I note, you have not. But, the article was not posted for the truth it contains, but the Truth it contains. I take no position on if any of the fact checkers were more correct than the person they were checking. (Obviously, Trump is the guy being checked all the time modernly so he is going to be woven through any article on the subject.) My position is to show how the fact checkers operate. There, discussion is more useful.

What do you think about the overall points made about how fact checkers operate? Do you believe the examples used in the article fair? Why or why not?

I agree The Federalist is on the right. However, when you use the term "alt right" you imply something more. What do you claim the term "alt right" means and why do you include The Federalist?

 

[Tranquility]

RBG has shown up. Not in public, but, at a private meeting at the Supreme Court.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/430168-ginsburg-back-at-supreme-court

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was back at the Supreme Court on Friday for the justices’ private conference.

The Supreme Court’s public information office told The Hill Ginsburg was attending the meeting in which the justices consider requests to review cases. Ginsburg has been absent from the court since undergoing surgeryin late December to remove two cancerous nodules from her lower left lung.

The 85-year-old missed oral arguments last month while recovering at home from the procedure. Her absence marked the first time in more than 25 years on the bench she was forced to miss arguments due her health.

The justices have been on winter recess for the last month, but are due back on the bench for oral arguments on Tuesday.
​

I would expect such an article to be written as she prepares to get back to work. No press release, however, so we can't check to see if she was said to be "attending the meeting in which the justices consider requests to review cases" OR if she was "attending the meeting" and then the reporter tried to put it in context of what such meeting usually entail. All the reports are worded much the same way so I'm assuming it is because AP put out the story and they're just using the same facts. But, do a search for yourself and see how the different stories are slightly different in describing the sole issue as to why it is News at all.

 

[RUDE BOY]

RBG has shown up. Not in public, but, at a private meeting at the Supreme Court.

She started back working in her chambers on Monday the 11th of February . . . supreme court justices don't do much in public.

 

[Tranquility]

She started back working in her chambers on Monday the 11th of February . . . supreme court justices don't do much in public.

I guess that means the Supreme Court "public information officer" either lied or we have another example of fake news.

Go to any of a number of articles up in regards to her attending today's meeting and see something similar to the claim in the article linked and quoted above.

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was back at the Supreme Court on Friday for the justices’ private conference."
and
"Ginsburg has been absent from the court since undergoing surgeryin late December to remove two cancerous nodules from her lower left lung."

So, has she been absent from the court since undergoing surgery or has she been working in chambers?

Edit:
I don't know if it is just more refined than earlier articles that I looked at minutes after they posted, but this one makes it more clear:

https://kfdm.com/news/nation-world/supreme-court-says-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-back-at-work

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has returned to work at the building for the first time since lung cancer surgery in late December.