GW Bush vs. Trump

[Scoots]

For that matter is it propaganda if it's just biased reporting that the people involved think is real and fair?

[blams]

Fox News often fabricates things. It's a hell of a lot of propaganda with news sprinkled in here and there. Its classified as entertainment. A good high level view of it would be brainwashing of my dad on Amazon prime.

Just an easy way to see what it is and what it has been for a long time.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[Scoots]

If the failed reporting is consistent and purposeful, I would consider it propganda.

I might be using that word more lightly than most people do.

Indeed you are. But the Nazis you believe are in charge certainly know what propaganda is.

[Scoots]

Speaking of propagandists.... When we figure out in 10 years we've been arguing with a russia AI bot... gonna feel so stupid

I can't figure out what kind of bot nasty is ... the bizarre positions he choose to stick to to the end are hard to put in a group.

[mngopher35]

On the table meaning somewhat within the purview of mainstream society.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Then I disagree as scoots has been noting this has long been discussed and an issue.

It’s more prevalent on actual mainstream media now calling out other mainstream media. Sure. Like I said that’s not an actual awareness that’s just “the other side is fake news” approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mngopher35]

Yes and no. Before the internet there were multiple established news sources to be used as a check ... 20 years ago in the Bay Area there were 7 newspapers and they were in major competition with each other so the papers were constantly trying to catch each other in mistakes let alone outright lies. Now with the internet a concerted effort can spread a lie so far it becomes hard to be certain it's fake, and the discipline to follow comments all the way to the a source that can be validated through a scientific journal and peer review or through multiple validated and reasonable sources ... is rare. I chose to narrow my consumption of media in part because the fact checking takes so long now

Well sure, that makes sense. It still wouldn’t mean you have access to checking misinformation outside of those handful of sources telling you. It’s not really in your control what they will fact check you are stuck with a bit more reliance on that mainstream media without the many options of today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mngopher35]

That's awesome, I grew up in america in the 90's, also post 911, no people were not aware that they were being fed propaganda. Like I said, we can disagree, that's fine. The concept of media being controlled by business was alive and kicking, but people never actually applied it to their perspective of news. Today, people do. So much so, some people just flat out believe the covid is a hoax. They're like the news just lies.

I see a clear difference. If you dont then ok. You dont have to agree.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

So your example that people are more aware of propaganda is a group of people not believing science but falling for propaganda pushed by mainstream media like fox about the pandemic because they point at legitimate science and call it fake?

That’s not an actual awareness of fake news...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mngopher35]

This is the type of "same type of shoe different feet" rhetoric drives me crazy. CNN is garbage. They play to their ratings. They have a liberal bias. But to act like they are both propaganda is just silly.

Do they politicize issues to misinform their viewers? Do they promote lies for the sheer reason of gaining votes? Do they hype up fear unreasonably?

Alot of the "hysteria from CNN" about Trump ended up being pretty damn accurate.

But Fox continues to promote lies about election fraud (and have for years). There' whole "voter fraud" campaign is merely and attempt to make it harder for people to vote, because it's advantageous to Conservative politicians. They've downplayed the dangers of normalizing radicalized viewpoints, and giving them credence, and never challenging them. People like Hannity were literally in direct contact with Trump and influencing his policy, and Trump was influencing their rhetoric.

I mean Covid a lone tells you quite a bit about Fox. A national pandemic where we desperately needed accurate information. ANd they used it to manipulate people and politicize it.

CNN is biased news, and they make mistakes. Fox is legitimately fake news, propagated by the government (or at least has been for the last 4 years).

If you consider yourself a liberal and are playing the "man in the middle" role on this issue you are part of the problem, and dead wrong.

Fox is worse, both are bad. I am not sure what the rest of the rant here is about but if you need me to say cnn is amazing because fox is worse... nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MRSpock]

Fox is worse, both are bad. I am not sure what the rest of the rant here is about but if you need me to say cnn is amazing because fox is worse... nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah my bad. I think I misread your post. On rereading I either misread or quoted you on accident.

[valade16]

I don't consume any of them but I think we need to start with a definition of "fake news".

Is it fake news if the headline puts a spin on a story that is disingenuous?

Is it fake news if the images used on a story put a spin on a story that is disingenuous?

Is it fake news if the a significant portion of the story is omitted to put a spin on a story that is disingenuous?

Or does a story have to be a total fabrication to qualify?

For that matter is it propaganda if it's just biased reporting that the people involved think is real and fair?

The definition of propaganda seems overbroad in this context (simply any fabricated or misleading information used to promote a particular viewpoint), and as such pretty much everything qualifies as propaganda.

But in trying to ascertain what is or is not fake news or propaganda, this is an interesting article:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...231043680.html

Matthew Sheffield started a conservative news site whose goal was to call out Liberal media bias, but over time he has come to believe he was wrong in his approach. Here are some of his quotes:

The problem, as he describes it, is that most conservatives think the purpose of journalism is to wage partisan political warfare, and that has created an ecosystem on the right where facts and truth are increasingly irrelevant.

“If you go to and look at the history of conservative media enterprises that are large scale and exist presently, every single one of them was created to propagate and propagandize for a particular political viewpoint, literally without exception,” Sheffield said in an interview on “The Long Game,” a Yahoo News podcast. “And that is not the case for just so many mainstream outlets.”

After Sheffield went to work at the Washington Examiner, where he was the newspaper’s first online editor, he says he realized that “U.S. conservatives do not understand the purpose of journalism.”

“I didn’t understand that journalism is supposed to portray reality,” he wrote.

The Examiner was the first place where Sheffield says he saw the kind of standards that differentiate “actual media and reporting institutions” — which may have inherent or even conscious bias — from right-wing websites for which partisan bias is the north star, the guiding principle.

“Truth for conservative journalists is anything that harms ‘the left.’ It doesn’t even have to be a fact,” he wrote. “I eventually realized that most people who run right-dominated media outlets see it as their DUTY to be unfair and to favor Republicans because doing so would somehow counteract perceived liberal bias.”

“Most conservative media figures have no journalism training or desire to fact-check their own side,” he added.


So in regards to what is fake news, obviously any news story that turns out to be entirely fabricated. But I think what makes a site propaganda or a fake news site is the continual and intentional pushing of stories that are knowingly not true or without evidence.

[mngopher35]

Yeah my bad. I think I misread your post. On rereading I either misread or quoted you on accident.

All good, I didn't overly disagree just wasn't sure where I had gone against it or anything. I don't watch either but they are often shared by others and the little I have seen FOX is clearly worse/more outrageous or dangerous more often.

[Bird of Prey]

So your example that people are more aware of propaganda is a group of people not believing science but falling for propaganda pushed by mainstream media like fox about the pandemic because they point at legitimate science and call it fake?

That’s not an actual awareness of fake news...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your mention of people "not believing science" as some kind of labeling done by the so-called WOKE CULTURE of the liberal media is just a great example of how stupid the liberals are. The truth is that the lion's share of people believe in science and to categorize half of America not believing in it is as stupid as it gets.

However, when a-hole so-called "scientists" deliberately lie about what is going on, people have a damned right to dispute their opinions and so-called "findings". Faucci is, to me, one of the greatest examples of a well known "scientist" who deliberately lied to the country about the history of the Covid virus, its origin, its lethality, the absolute creation of it in China and the the complicity of the WHO to cover-up what they did. NOw, this little vermin is shedding crocodile tears in his new post in Biden's administration about not being able to spread his lies on CNN and MSDNC. POOR BABY.

In the meantime, you want to talk about SCIENCE? Talk about OPERATION WARP SPEED and the magnificent job Trump did with the real SCIENTISTS on the development of not one but multiple vaccines to fight a virus that was deliberately made in China and used as a biological weapon against the world and especially the US.

Now instead of a man who tried like hell to PROTECT this country against China, Iran, and other merchants of terror in the world as well as protecting the US against mass illegal immigration , we've got a life time lying politician who used his political position to enrich himself and his family and now is a senile relic of his former pathetic self. And the country who gave him the lion's share of his money???? CHINA.

[spliff(TONE)]

My word.

[nastynice]

Well that's actually a huge topic. Even people who study history, psychology and other relevant intellectuals can have a problem accurately defining it.

What I get worried about is really the repetition of Fox and even worse Trump. The way he kept interrupting Biden in the debate saying "Hunter Biden" and "emails". This is how you manipulate someone's world view. Especially after 4 years of using the "fake news" narrative. And you slowly but surely connect these dots to create a new world view.

A good leftist example of this is Kyle Kulinski on secular talk (a terrible youtube channel). He pushes the "deep state" mythos, and constantly does the same thing. He constantly does the "i told you so", but constantly plays both sides. He repeats the same phrases constantly. Slowly changing them over time. Slowly downloading his worldview (or the worldview he wants you to believe). It's very intentional. And it's very manipulative.

CNN just isn't anywhere near Fox in this. It's comparing a sniffle to Colon cancer as far as danger goes.

As far as fox vs CNN, sure, no argument from me there. I felt, and still feel, like the right will eventually erase itself. They are too blatant and obvious with their agenda, I dont think it appeals to anyone in the middle.

I feel like this trump experiment is just a kind of last gasp for the right. They will have to change a lot of things in order to stay relevant.

If you look at a worldwide stage, our right wing would be considered an extremist party is majority of the world. It's just a matter of time imo.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[nastynice]

You didn't answer ... do you know what a politician is saying when they say "Trust me"?

I agree that the news media was different in the past but that doesn't really mean anything, you said the awareness of fake news is new and it's absolutely not.

If the news wasn't controlled by corporate interests in the 60s and 70s why does the move Network (1976) exist?

I said trust me after saying we just disagree. Not to sell you anything.

I never said it wasnt controlled by corporate, cmon this country fought for freedom over TEA. "Corporate" control is nothing new.

What does the movie network existing mean? lol, of course people have known this, it just wasnt as common as now. For example, talk to anyone about our business in south america, list out the countries where we have overthrown govts, and see if.people.knew this already or not. Vast majority dont. Whereas if you mention it about the middle east, many more people will be aware of.the idea of.us going to war for oil, etc.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk