More consistently than the apologies or redactions from the perpetrators of Fake News on Twitter and Facebook.
I don't believe these leftist run organizations will follow their own rules on this, even if they are written so as to be even-handed. It is perfectly clear that this is an effort to stifle speech that they do not agree with and that the Democrat left is frustrated by. Speech which in many cases is true, even though they would like to have people think otherwise. If this was only about screening out spam BS articles, such as 'Chelsea Clinton the spawn of Hillary and a space-gremlin from Alpha-Centauri', and articles that are as completely nonsensical as that, then I would be in favor of screening them out. But as I think even you know very well, in part because of the timing and circumstances of this current kerfuffle, that is not all this is about and there is zero chance of this screening stopping there. This is just another backdoor effort along the lines of the "Fairness Doctrine" and the left's "Politically Correct" speech and thought codes, which of course includes the leftist led campaigns to bully, harass and intimidate people who dare to have different views on global warming, homosexual marriage, race issues, etc., into silence in frightening and totally unacceptable ways. No benefit of the doubt should be extended to these people that they will handle any of this in an honest, fair or even-handed manner. They have proven themselves consistently and relentlessly to be the exact opposite of these things. They lie without hesitation or remorse. They are corrupt, highly-partisan, underhanded, and not to be trusted. Not at all. So as much as you keep trying to craft this as being only about restricting a very narrow range of blatantly and obviously false stories, it absolutely isn't, and virtually everyone knows it, even if they are not honest enough to come out and say so.
When the daily show chops up interviews (altering the questions in editing, rearranging the responses, etc...) to make whomever they are interviewing seem stupid I never hear you lefties complain about 'misinformation'. The left loses one dam election because they nominate the most hated presidential candidate in modern history and they blame 'misinformation'. Occam's razor says , maybe the left just inst very compelling. this doesn't even make them wrong.
I'm not OK with manipulating what people say for political reasons, regardless of whether it comes from the left or right. I'll just quote myself from a couple years ago: So, can we get back to the topic at hand, or is your view that its OK to spread misinformation so long as it's advantageous to your political cause?
The left doesn't complain about the Daily Show because they aren't idiots who think the Daily Show is about informing people like supposed news stories are.
The issue with fact checking sites is they take allegations and presume innocent w/out proof and deciding they are false. The absence of proof does not make something (un)true.
I asked if you'd be against steps to address that problem if done in a manner that avoids political bias, but I didn't get a clear answer. So I'm clear, are you saying that such steps cannot be taken in an unbiased manner so its pointless to even discuss it, or that you would be for such steps if they were truly unbiased, but you very much doubt that would happen in this case? Or maybe something else. Just trying to understand you.
Actually, yes liberals are idiots who trust the Daily show as a trusted news source, as supported by the poll results below:
I did give you a clear answer. Here is it again: If this was only about screening out spam BS articles, such as 'Chelsea Clinton the spawn of Hillary and a space-gremlin from Alpha-Centauri', and articles that are as completely nonsensical as that, then I would be in favor of screening them out. But as I think even you know very well, in part because of the timing and circumstances of this current kerfuffle, that is not all this is about and there is zero chance of this screening stopping there. This is just another backdoor effort along the lines of the "Fairness Doctrine" and the left's "Politically Correct" speech and thought codes, which of course includes the leftist led campaigns to bully, harass and intimidate people who dare to have different views on global warming, homosexual marriage, race issues, etc., into silence in frightening and totally unacceptable ways. No benefit of the doubt should be extended to these people that they will handle any of this in an honest, fair or even-handed manner. They have proven themselves consistently and relentlessly to be the exact opposite of these things. They lie without hesitation or remorse. They are corrupt, highly-partisan, underhanded, and not to be trusted. Not at all. So as much as you keep trying to craft this as being only about restricting a very narrow range of blatantly and obviously false stories, it absolutely isn't, and virtually everyone knows it, even if they are not honest enough to come out and say so. So to the extent that this continues to be discussed or implemented, it should always be pointed out and discussed as the partisan effort instigated by the Democrat left to silence their political opponents that it obviously is.
Not nearly with as much gusto, attention, and haste as the original "fake" story was published. And in many cases the damage was already done.
White that is idiotic, it isn't the fault of the Daily Show. The Daily Show doesn't pretend to be journalism.
The Morning Joe team on MSNBC performs a sober analysis of the role of "Fake News" in Hillary's loss in the election. Even the Huffington Post person is discussing this rationally in this clip. Maybe some of these people are starting to settle down a little bit. Once again, I suffered through the re-election of Barack Obama and the subsequent four years, so I am not unsympathetic to the emotional strain that this kind of a loss can put on someone. But let's make no mistake about one thing. This sudden emphasis on "Fake News" comes from Hillary's loss and the concern that the Democrat left has with their inability to absolutely dominate the political 'narrative'. A few comments from the segment: Joe: “When you look at this ‘fake news,’ and you see what happened up at Harvard and you hear everybody writing articles saying millennials cost Hillary Clinton the election, and dogs with three legs cost Hillary Clinton the election, and comets passing in the night– Hillary Clinton cost Hillary Clinton the election. Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff cost Hillary Clinton the election.” Mika: “Ugh, I don’t think people are ready to hear that, Joe.” Joe: “Listen, if you care about Democrats digging out of the hole that they have put themselves in now, you’ve got to ask yourself; what have Democrats done to so offend Americans that they only have 11 governorships, they’ve lost control of the Senate, they’ve lost control of the House, they lost 900 legislative seats over the past six years?” Joe: “It wasn’t fake news. It was something much, much bigger.”
'Member that time Politifact fact checked Jon Stewart and he admitted he was wrong? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ewarts-epic-rundown-politifacts-fact-checks-/ Politifact 'members.
I don't know what they want Labeling is all I want . . . . THIS IS A SATIRE SITE is enough of a label for me I think that is the biggest thing . .. I want the consumer to have as much information as possible to make their decisions . . . . .. . Being deceptive and covert about everything bothers me and makes me suspect everything Rocket River
Was the Fairness Doctrine such a horrible thing? Once News moved into the ENTERTAINMENT side of networks . . . .it went down hill they had more focus on pulling ratings than telling the facts Rocket River
Not if you are a doctrinaire leftist who is intent on throttling the free speech rights of your political opponents.
There's a lot of anger being directed at the lack of accountability in personas making and repeating large boastful lies. Judging from the media's outrage, it seems it's more about the media not being the only platform to spin spin spin. Rather than a lack of accountability in general. I heard that Breitbart was able to leak some anti-Clinton stories that eventually NYT and Wapo picked up, which then legitimized the claims that an institution with better fact checking capabilities would've sat on. This legitimization was substantiated with other media orgs picking those stories up. It seems that accountability takes a lot more work and effort by the reader these days, but that doesn't necessitate clamping down on speech, rather more empathy and face to face conversations that these "fake news" mediums appeal to. http://theweek.com/articles/663436/snarling-contempt-behind-medias-fake-news-hysteria In the wake of a stunning election result, many people — especially in the media — have struggled for an explanation. Rather than acknowledge the obvious and prosaic answer — that voters in swing states chose change rather than the status quo — analysts have sought a Unified Theory of Donald Trump's Success. Trump couldn't possibly have won fair and square, the assumption goes, so all that's left is to identify whatever went wrong and banish it so this never happens again. Over the past week, the consensus Unified Theory from the media is this: Blame fake news. This explanation started with BuzzFeed's analysis of Facebook over the past three months, which claimed that the top 20 best-performing "fake news" articles got more engagement than the top 20 "mainstream news" stories. Nowhere in BuzzFeed's article does author Craig Silverman demonstrate a correlation between that data and voter persuasion, let alone a causal connection. Instead, the analysis offers a look at how articles of potentially questionable provenance could go viral quickly. That leaves a lot of questions begging in the "fake news threw the election" explanation. There are also serious problems with the evidence BuzzFeed presents. As Timothy Carney points out at the Washington Examiner, the "real news" that Silverman uses for comparison are, in many cases, opinion pieces from liberal columnists. The top "real" stories — which BuzzFeed presented in a graphic to compare against the top "fake" stories — consist of four anti-Trump opinion pieces and a racy exposé of Melania Trump's nude modeling from two decades ago. That didn't stop others in the media from making the leap from bad analysis to causal connections with absolutely no evidence in support of it. The New York Times began running news stories on the pernicious influence of "fake news," and even President Obama used it as an opportunity to lecture about the dangers it presents to democracy. "If we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not," Obama intoned from Berlin, "and particularly in an age of social media when so many people are getting their information in sound bites and off their phones, if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems." Earlier, Obama complained to The New Yorker, "Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth don't matter. You attract attention, rouse emotions, and then move on. You can surf those emotions. I've said it before, but if I watched Fox I wouldn't vote for me!" The president seems to leave out the fact that he won both of his elections in that same environment. In fact, there's nothing new here at all, except for a new outlet for the same paternalism that helped drive the election outcome two weeks ago. Those who came out on the losing end of the election want Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to hire an "executive editor" to cull all but the most acceptable news sources before Facebook users can make up their own minds. Zuckerberg has said he'll look into ways to identify misinformation, but scoffed at the "fake news" theory of the election. "Voters make decisions based on their lived experience," he said after the election. "I think there is a certain profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason why someone could have voted the way they did is because they saw some fake news." Zuckerberg hit the nail on the head. Rather than deal with the lack of connection that Clinton and Democrats made with voters — including in House, Senate, and state legislative races — Democrats and the media would prefer to reject those voters as hicks and rubes who can't tell the difference between facts and opinions, and between false stories and facts. It goes beyond a lack of empathy; it's outright contempt. That contempt from elites in media and politics may or may not have produced the electoral results seen two weeks ago, but it certainly explains the shock that has resulted from it. That contempt is also reflected in the push to shut down commentary and pressure Facebook into editing their social media network to allow only those sources deemed acceptable by those in power, politically and culturally. They are creating a new social panic within their own circles and doubling down on paternalism. Don't expect that to end well when the midterm elections roll around in two years.
