Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 73 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1094

Thread: Fake News

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    17,682

    Fake News

    There have been so many blatantly false or dramatically slanted reports on so many news outlets it's impossible to know if what you are seeing is actually true.

    We've all known for years that Fox wildly slants their reporting and spits out numbers that are deceptive at best. Fox has been doing it, and they've been winning ... and winning gets copied.

    The news is too shallow because shallow is easy to sell. We need to champion in-depth reporting.

    Great reporters should be championed for doing it "right" and they should be the voice of the media rather than the marketing people.

    The News isn't always going to be easy, there are complicated things going on and we need news that isn't trying to dumb it down. The news is for real adults.

    The only "major" news outlet I know of that hasn't lead me astray that I know of is Reuters. I love that they put the "Life" section last ... the sports/entertainment/gossip stuff all gets put at the bottom ... where it belongs. They don't ignore it but they don't push it out front either.

    Any other news sources you haven't seen make egregious errors?
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alot fearful people with alot guns.
    Posts
    7,564
    Big differences between news outlets and now.

    1. New outlets weren't meant to be rating busters or entertainment during the sixties.
    2. They didn't bend over to big business. Often stories are killed because it offensive the new outlet owners or contributors.
    3. You have new outlets, now, who cater to a viewpoint and shape the news around that view, ie FOX.
    4. New outlets are willing to tone down their stories for excess to elected officials or to cover wars as embedded reporters working with the military views. The last part is a result of the problems the military and government officials had with the press during the Vietnam war, who they blame for causing us to withdraw from that country. Now we can have decade long wars or conflicts with no problems from the press.
    I am sure I am missing some other changes as well.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    17,682
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    Big differences between news outlets and now.

    1. New outlets weren't meant to be rating busters or entertainment during the sixties.
    2. They didn't bend over to big business. Often stories are killed because it offensive the new outlet owners or contributors.
    3. You have new outlets, now, who cater to a viewpoint and shape the news around that view, ie FOX.
    4. New outlets are willing to tone down their stories for excess to elected officials or to cover wars as embedded reporters working with the military views. The last part is a result of the problems the military and government officials had with the press during the Vietnam war, who they blame for causing us to withdraw from that country. Now we can have decade long wars or conflicts with no problems from the press.
    I am sure I am missing some other changes as well.
    1. Actually the TV news was essentially government sponsored ... about as far from profit as possible.
    2. There has never been a good US car review show or magazine because they are always catering to business. Top Gear showed what's possible if you don't care about your sponsors ... but they edit it for US consumption because in the US the BBC runs ads.
    3. There have ALWAYS been news outlets that cater to a viewpoint. Heck many were named for their viewpoint ... and many have dropped that part of their name. The Santa Rosa Press Democrat is one that is still doing it today.
    4. I hadn't really though of that negative aspect of press embedding in war. I just didn't like that it seemed to cheapen it with what came out when what was promised (and what did come out when it first started) was the real opinions and experiences of the average soldier.
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,546
    it would be a shorter list of what news sources have not had fake news, misleading headlines, biased reporting.
    the list might be comparable to Conservative author Michael J. Knowles recent book titled "Reasons to Vote For Democrats" which is actually full of blank pages.

    those on TV are more interested in hit pieces for ratings. they're not honest journalists, they're reality characters on TV.
    those with print are more interested in buzz, buys, or hits on the internet.

    I don't know how America would get back to real journalism. it would take the media to make the decision themselves to be better and stop with what they have been doing, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alot fearful people with alot guns.
    Posts
    7,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    1. Actually the TV news was essentially government sponsored ... about as far from profit as possible.
    2. There has never been a good US car review show or magazine because they are always catering to business. Top Gear showed what's possible if you don't care about your sponsors ... but they edit it for US consumption because in the US the BBC runs ads.
    3. There have ALWAYS been news outlets that cater to a viewpoint. Heck many were named for their viewpoint ... and many have dropped that part of their name. The Santa Rosa Press Democrat is one that is still doing it today.
    4. I hadn't really though of that negative aspect of press embedding in war. I just didn't like that it seemed to cheapen it with what came out when what was promised (and what did come out when it first started) was the real opinions and experiences of the average soldier.
    2. You are going to compare a trade magazine to the Press? One is set in the constitution as the watchdog of the government? If it should be the watchdog of the government, shouldn't it be free, without restraint from government or big business, to investigate as it choose? News reporters are saying that there are major stories that have been altered or dropped due to outside pressures from big business or government officials.

    3.My bad, I apologize. I was thinking more along TV news. Being over sixty, the news you got from the three major networks back in the sixties, where pretty much the same with a slight tingle of that networks believes. Now you have FOX who is vastly different then CNN. New is now, more cater to the social niche they are try to get

    4. I brought this up because, comparing the Vietnam war coverage to the Iraq invasions, we don't hear about the suicide rate among the soldiers or the effect the war have on the innocence. The news, unhindered by the military, covered drug addiction among the troops as well as photo of naked children running from a napalm attack. These types of coverage deeply effect Americans and fuelled the anti-war protest of the times. I often wonder if the Vietnam war would have gone on longer if it's war correspondences had the same restriction that their present day counter-part had.
    Last edited by WES445; 03-10-2017 at 12:30 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba
    Posts
    12,920
    Online news ftw

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    17,682
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    it would be a shorter list of what news sources have not had fake news, misleading headlines, biased reporting.
    the list might be comparable to Conservative author Michael J. Knowles recent book titled "Reasons to Vote For Democrats" which is actually full of blank pages.

    those on TV are more interested in hit pieces for ratings. they're not honest journalists, they're reality characters on TV.
    those with print are more interested in buzz, buys, or hits on the internet.

    I don't know how America would get back to real journalism. it would take the media to make the decision themselves to be better and stop with what they have been doing, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
    That's what I asked for.
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    17,682
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    2. You are going to compare a trade magazine to the Press? One is set in the constitution as the watchdog of the government? If it should be the watchdog of the government, shouldn't it be free, without restraint from government or big business, to investigate as it choose? News reporters are saying that there are major stories that have been altered or dropped due to outside pressures from big business or government officials.

    3.My bad, I apologize. I was thinking more along TV news. Being over sixty, the news you got from the three major networks back in the sixties, where pretty much the same with a slight tingle of that networks believes. Now you have FOX who is vastly different then CNN. New is now, more cater to the social niche they are try to get

    4. I brought this up because, comparing the Vietnam war coverage to the Iraq invasions, we don't hear about the suicide rate among the soldiers or the effect the war have on the innocence. The news, unhindered by the military, covered drug addiction among the troops as well as photo of naked children running from a napalm attack. These types of coverage deeply effect Americans and fuelled the anti-war protest of the times. I often wonder if the Vietnam war would have gone on longer if it's war correspondences had the same restriction that their present day counter-part had.
    2. I was using Top Gear because it is a big obvious example of the fundamentally broken viewpoint of advertisers and their influence on the media as a whole. At the same time Top Gear was always under pressure to be more politically correct and was neutered in that way as well. The news done well is really entertaining if you care ... if you don't care it all looks the same.

    3. True ... and I championed Fox for at least offering a counter viewpoint, but they did it a little too well and now the rest have followed them in the WAY they do things rather than just the idea that all news has a slant.

    4. I have no doubt the war in Vietnam would have gone on longer without the journalists telling the stories both with words and film.

    I've been talking to people for years about how the press has failed us ... for me back to Reagan (who was neither as bad nor as good as some people say he was) ... with clearly having an angle to the point at times of vendetta.

    I'm not a conspiracy sort of person but the machine is too interwoven and too complex for us to even fathom how to change it let alone to know who is actually driving.

    So ... thus far nobody has offered a news source that we can rely on except my initial mention of Reuters.
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    2. I was using Top Gear because it is a big obvious example of the fundamentally broken viewpoint of advertisers and their influence on the media as a whole. At the same time Top Gear was always under pressure to be more politically correct and was neutered in that way as well. The news done well is really entertaining if you care ... if you don't care it all looks the same.

    3. True ... and I championed Fox for at least offering a counter viewpoint, but they did it a little too well and now the rest have followed them in the WAY they do things rather than just the idea that all news has a slant.

    4. I have no doubt the war in Vietnam would have gone on longer without the journalists telling the stories both with words and film.

    I've been talking to people for years about how the press has failed us ... for me back to Reagan (who was neither as bad nor as good as some people say he was) ... with clearly having an angle to the point at times of vendetta.

    I'm not a conspiracy sort of person but the machine is too interwoven and too complex for us to even fathom how to change it let alone to know who is actually driving.

    So ... thus far nobody has offered a news source that we can rely on except my initial mention of Reuters.
    There's this network called vice, few years back they had some really really good documentaries about the whole Syria and Isis situation.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    20,806
    The right has done a remarkable job of inculcating their constituency. They have branded the mainstream media and really anyone who disagrees with them as biased, so now they distrust anything but conservative sources. This makes it easier to say whatever you want because anything contradictory is now biased and fake.

    They setup an echo chamber and locked the door. Even pot smoking hippy liberals like Fingerbang say that all mainstream media is a propaganda machine for the left. So where do you think he's getting his news?

    Special is now so against any news but the most conservative sites he's effectively a "repeat" button for whatever conservative news sites want to say.

    I can't criticize it too much because it's extremely effective. They knew their constituency was already wary of science and higher education (such as Evolution, Global Warming, Affirmative Action, etc.) so they just pushed that distrust a step further. If someone dismissed all contradictory facts as biased simply because they are contradictory, how can you change their mind?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,984
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The right has done a remarkable job of inculcating their constituency. They have branded the mainstream media and really anyone who disagrees with them as biased, so now they distrust anything but conservative sources. This makes it easier to say whatever you want because anything contradictory is now biased and fake.

    They setup an echo chamber and locked the door. Even pot smoking hippy liberals like Fingerbang say that all mainstream media is a propaganda machine for the left. So where do you think he's getting his news?

    Special is now so against any news but the most conservative sites he's effectively a "repeat" button for whatever conservative news sites want to say.

    I can't criticize it too much because it's extremely effective. They knew their constituency was already wary of science and higher education (such as Evolution, Global Warming, Affirmative Action, etc.) so they just pushed that distrust a step further. If someone dismissed all contradictory facts as biased simply because they are contradictory, how can you change their mind?
    The tactics are very diff. Fox News is very brainwashy, just very straight forward, pass opinion off as news, type a bull ****. It's more of a, if you already agree with us, we're the perfect station to tune into so you can root.

    CNN is very different, they're very behind the scenes. Like we'll present fact as fact, but we're gonna very subtly present them in a particular light in order to just judge you into thinking of it one way.

    Breitbart is probably the only honest source out there. Very even keel and just about the facts. No opinion, no white supremacy, just like in the good old days

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,326
    CNN, Fox, MSNBC ect ect aren't really news channels. You get about 99% opinion. The real news happens when the **** goes down somewhere, and some obscure person you've never heard of is ducking so he / she doesn't get shot. When the Boston bombings happened, CNN had great coverage. But its really the people there on the ground and Camera crew bringing it to you, not Don Lemon telling you how he feels about it.

    My advice to anyone who wants to get some news without bias is simple. Look for the Who, What, Where and When. Don't bother listening to the why anymore.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    12,078
    It's really bad, really, really, bad.

    For years it was MSNBC, CNN, etc, biased for the left and Fox biased for the right. The CNN people would tell you they're center and Fox is the biased one and vice versa. It's gone far beyond a bias now. They're in bed with officials.

    So this provides an opportunity for organizations that aren't the majors to come in and provide goof content. But they're completely batshit crazy, even worse.

    We live in the time of conspiracy theory news. The grand Russian conspiracy vs. psychic vampire child molestars.

    Infowars, Buzzfeed, Breitbart, Huffington Post....

    No real journalism, no real reporting, it's just about creating a headline that might fit the narrative.
    Bachelors III . . . In the Inn. . . Lanas Garage 4/18/75 . . . lpswitch with Snake, Hards and Mendy . . .B.D.W.B. . . Ambition: I want Dooleys Job . . . Saturday Night Live . . . Bathroom Brawls . . . Living at Snakes . . . WHERE IS MUSKY. - John Tortorella

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    That's what I asked for.
    I must have read the last part too fast. I thought it said this..
    Any other news sources you have seen make egregious errors?

    at this point everyone and everything has to be questioned.
    but I bet you're still going to have some here thinking there are reliable/reputable sources (like CNN) and just completely ignore the names/media that were outted by wikileaks.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    20,806
    It's weird that everyone who complains about mainstream media bias only ever mentions CNN. They aren't mainstream media are they? Certainly no more or less than Fox News.

    When I think mainstream, I think ABC, CBS, NBC. Are they biased as well?

Page 1 of 73 1231151 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •