Fake News

Shrike

Flower Potted, Maxed & Rio'd
^^^All of which are owned by Enterprise Holdings^^^

I agree that National/Alamo are a better experience...usually.
 
Shrike,
  • Like
Reactions: florduh

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
"I've got blisters on my fingers." Ringo Starr
I had to look it up to even know the context. But, why "fake news"?


Edit to add actual fake news:
“We were down almost 33%, and of course, the reason is COVID. But it’s how this president mishandled COVID. What’s the proof? Lots of countries are dealing with COVID, right? Why are we down almost a third of our GDP growth, and yet Germany was down 10%?”
--Chris Cuomo
(Here's hoping it was a misunderstanding of annualized numbers and not an intent to decieve.)
 
Last edited:

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
How covid-19 conspiracy videos keep getting millions of views

...Misinformation peddlers are getting better at finding big audiences. Conspiracy theories are typically seen as thriving at the wild fringes of online thought. But that’s not really how some of the more successful videos have spread over the past few months. Prominent figures in the anti-vaccine movements began seeking out audiences with larger, more mainstream YouTubers to get their beliefs in front of larger audiences.


Also helping? Media coverage, whether sympathetic or outraged. The doctors’ press conference was livestreamed by Breitbart, with the caption, “BREAKING: American Doctors Address COVID-19 Misinformation with SCOTUS Press Conference” before the post was deleted. Breitbart has more than 4.5 million Facebook followers.


Takedowns can boost—not block—the cycle. Some far-right figures have, for years, claimed that technology platforms are secretly conspiring to silence conservative political thought. As soon as the press conference started disappearing from mainstream social media, supporters began to re-upload new copies of the video and share it. By then it had added appeal as a video that mainstream forces “don’t want you to see.” This makes it more likely to be seen by those who already don’t trust these institutions, exacerbating the problem.
...
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: florduh

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
A lot of talk of getting rid of the debates today. Must be just random people coming to the same conclusion at the same time.

Democrats Urging Biden Not to Debate Trump

Let’s Scrap the Presidential Debates

It’s time to rethink the presidential debates

Now, I'm one to not give much care for debates after the primaries. We pretty much know where everyone stands and all we're watching for is some "gotcha" moment to push some .001% of the population into a different voting block. The nation will not die if debates are not held--especially in the made-for-TV style they use today.

The "fake news" portion is how it suddenly comes up now like it was just what came to mind as a right thing to do and not because of increasing rumors over Biden's ability to debate at all.




If early voting is underway before the scheduled debates, then it seems unfair to early voters to have those debates as scheduled. But so much work went in to the schedule that it seems unfair to change it. So I guess the fairest thing might be to skip the debates this year. 🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/Y4JccPbKtE
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) August 4, 2020
 
Last edited:
Tranquility,

Siebter

Less soul, more mind
The "fake news" portion is how it suddenly comes up now like it was just what came to mind as a right thing to do and not because of increasing rumors over Biden's ability to debate at all.
Dude, are you even remotely serious?

Person, man, woman, camera, TV. I think he can cope with that level.
 

RUDE BOY

Space is the Place
The "fake news" portion is how it suddenly comes up now like it was just what came to mind as a right thing to do and not because of increasing rumors over Biden's ability to debate at all.

You only have to watch trump try to form complete sentences and watch one of Bidens speeches or interviews. . . In a serious debate where tRump would be held to being truthful Biden would tear the brain dead moron a new asshole.

I do understand that tRump is busy studying for his rorschach test so. . .
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Two votes for debates!

(I don't think you were at the meeting. You might check before taking the Go Debates! side.)


(Babylon Bee, satire)
Democrats Propose New Debate Format Where Biden Is Tied Up Backstage With His Mouth Duct-Taped Shut

U.S.—Democrats have proposed a new debate format they find acceptable: one where Joe Biden is tied up backstage with his mouth duct-taped shut.

"This is the only fair way to do it," said a DNC spokesperson. "To allow our candidate to speak would simply be an unfair advantage to the candidate who has some semblance of rational thought left in his brain. Besides, we're trying to win here. Tying up our candidate and stuffing a sock in his mouth has been shown to improve his poll numbers significantly."

The format will feature Trump just shouting at an empty podium while Biden is safely secured by his handlers backstage. Moderators can ask Biden questions, but he will only be able to respond with muffled grunts from somewhere behind the curtain. Trump is expected to respond to Biden's two minutes of silence by saying, "Wrong!" and "Sad!" over and over again.

The Trump campaign has agreed to the terms as long as Trump is also tied up backstage with his mouth duct-taped shut.
 
Tranquility,

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Are we seriously going to debate whether there should be a debate :lol:

Presidential Debate Approach Using Lie Detectors is Thrown Out
Lie detectors will be replaced by "real time fact checking" because a lie detector doesn't work when the person believes their own lies.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Another insider resigns:
A Brutal Assessment of Cable News


Ninety-Five Theses, Nailed to the Door of Cable News


I have no idea if the recently resigned MSNBC producer Ariana Pekary thinks of herself as left, right, or center. I do know that when she describes the problems she saw behind the scenes at MSNBC, I see the same thing on this side of the screen — and I suspect I am not alone:
“We are a cancer and there is no cure,” a successful and insightful TV veteran said to me. “But if you could find a cure, it would change the world.”
As it is, this cancer stokes national division, even in the middle of a civil rights crisis. The model blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentive to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others . . . all because it pumps up the ratings.
This cancer risks human lives, even in the middle of a pandemic. The primary focus quickly became what Donald Trump was doing (poorly) to address the crisis, rather than the science itself. As new details have become available about antibodies, a vaccine, or how COVID actually spreads, producers still want to focus on the politics. Important facts or studies get buried.
This cancer risks our democracy, even in the middle of a presidential election. Any discussion about the election usually focuses on Donald Trump, not Joe Biden, a repeat offense from 2016 (Trump smothers out all other coverage). Also important is to ensure citizens can vote by mail this year, but I’ve watched that topic get ignored or “killed” numerous times.
Context and factual data are often considered too cumbersome for the audience. There may be some truth to that (our education system really should improve the critical thinking skills of Americans) — but another hard truth is that it is the job of journalists to teach and inform, which means they might need to figure out a better way to do that. They could contemplate more creative methods for captivating an audience. Just about anything would improve the current process, which can be pretty rudimentary (think basing today’s content on whatever rated well yesterday, or look to see what’s trending online today).
. . . I understand that the journalistic process is largely subjective and any group of individuals may justify a different set of priorities on any given day. Therefore, it’s particularly notable to me, for one, that nearly every rundown at the network basically is the same, hour after hour. And two, they use this subjective nature of the news to justify economically beneficial decisions. I’ve even heard producers deny their role as journalists. A very capable senior producer once said: “Our viewers don’t really consider us the news. They come to us for comfort.”
Bingo. Viewers of Rachel Maddow do not tune in to hear her say, “Actually, the president made the right call today, I have to give him credit” any more than Sean Hannity viewers tune in to hear, “Boy, the president made a terrible mistake, and he’s going to get a lot of deserved flak for this one.” Viewers know what they’re going to get — reassurance that the viewpoint they had before they tuned in is correct, and that everyone who disagrees is, in the words of a former MSNBC host, “the worst person in the world.”

I hope somebody in the cable-news world heeds Pekary’s assessment — which sure looks accurate to me — and is willing to try something different in another time slot, perhaps with Pekary or someone like her calling the shots of how the news ought to be covered. Just try covering the news with depth and nuance and take a shot at leaving viewers knowing more than before they tuned in. Who knows, some people might like it, particularly people who don’t watch cable news right now, because they find it a predictable shout-fest.

Back in May I observed:

Some corners of our media world have done an excellent job covering this [metaphorical invasion of the pandemic]; others, not so much. We’ve seen journalists offer confident early predictions that the coronavirus would be less dangerous than the seasonal flu, journalists insist that the public should not wear masks before insisting that it should, and journalists continue to take Chinese government statements on the pandemic at face value. Even worse, some media have continued to give their audiences the equivalent of the stock numbers — obsessing over whether it was racist to use the label “Wuhan virus,” relentlessly covering reporters’ fights with the president, giving us in-depth coverage, dissection, and criticism of Chris Cuomo’s coronavirus diagnosis and recovery, informing us of the latest virus-related celebrity controversies.
. . . a roundtable of wonky health experts concluding, “This is complicated, state governments are probably going to make mistakes, and a lot of people will be dissatisfied no matter what” does not make for particularly entertaining television — particularly given an audience that’s been conditioned for a few decades to expect every issue to be settled by a Team Red pundit and a Team Blue pundit going at it like a pair of Rock ’Em Sock ’Em Robots.
 
Tranquility,
Top Bottom