"Fake News" in Today's Political Climate

[dawny0826]

So, I watched this:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=502795550251375

I don't buy the spiel that "liberal" media is "fake" media (in definitive terms) when implicating that President Trump has done or said something stupid, morally questionable and/or divisive.

I've always recognized bias in the media, particularly when it comes to politics. I have no problem calling bull when I see bull, regardless as to the media outlet.

I suppose that many here also recognize that America has come to this odd place where it seems that media coverage that reflects negatively upon Trump is deemed by many (not all) of his supporters as "fake news".

I remembered verbatim what Trump said about the protests and violence in Charlottesville. I'm a Virginian. This hit very close to home.

Trump's statements were recorded. There is visual and audible evidence that he referenced people from "both sides" being at fault for the violence in Charlottesville and not exclusively within the context of the issue, but, also within the context of the violence on scene during the protests.

Here's a recording and article quoting Trump saying the very thing that "fake news" claimed he said and which Steve Cortes vehemently denies.

https://www.nytimes.com/.../trump-press-conference...

I don't necessarily accept that Trump is directly condoning violence against his opposition, but, I've heard and seen him make irresponsible comments for the purpose of fueling the divide between the left and right and for applause and approval from his fandom. I think it's shameful that he does this and it's just as disconcerting that his die-hard fandom doesn't seem willing to entertain any notion of wrong doing on his part.

I think that this is a dangerous mind set to have in a free society. Truth, I strongly feel, is hard to land on without the consideration of varied perspectives in today's troubled political climate.

What are your thoughts?

Is mainstream media truly "fake news" if it doesn't support your political views or allegiance to President Trump?

If you reject that Trump is responsible for fueling divisiveness and violence directly or indirectly, what is your reasoning?

 

[Stevicus]

Here's a recording and article quoting Trump saying the very thing that "fake news" claimed he said and which Steve Cortes vehemently denies.

https://www.nytimes.com/.../trump-press-conference...

This link didn't work for me.

I don't necessarily accept that Trump is directly condoning violence against his opposition, but, I've heard and seen him make irresponsible comments for the purpose of fueling the divide between the left and right and for applause and approval from his fandom. I think it's shameful that he does this and it's just as disconcerting that his die-hard fandom doesn't seem willing to entertain any notion of wrong doing on his part.

I think that this is a dangerous mind set to have in a free society. Truth, I strongly feel, is hard to land on without the consideration of varied perspectives in today's troubled political climate.

I look back over the history of our country, and there have been times when we've had sharp, violent divisions. The most notable is, of course, the Civil War, but there were other times, too - such as during the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement.

What are your thoughts?

Is mainstream media truly "fake news" if it doesn't support your political views or allegiance to President Trump?

If you reject that Trump is responsible for fueling divisiveness and violence directly or indirectly, what is your reasoning?

I've never really trusted the mainstream media; I think they have a pro-corporate agenda which has remained largely the same - even long before Trump came on the scene. For decades, they've been advocating policies which screw the working classes and make the rich richer - and this is what has created the kindling and fuel for the "fire" that we're seeing today.

It existed before Trump became president, but few people noticed it or wanted to address it in earnest. I say this as one who has had an avid interest in politics and debate for much of my life, and I've noticed certain trends and patterns in how public debate has gone. I think what frustrates me the most about all of this is the knee-jerk reaction on the part of some to point the finger at Trump and say "it's all Trump's fault."

This doesn't mitigate anything Trump has personally done or said himself, but the larger issue is that nobody noticed any of these issues before Trump was elected!

Because nobody was paying attention. Consumerism, globalism, capitalism, hedonism, greed, apathy, complacency - these have been the order of the day in America for decades. The result has left tens of millions in a disaffected underclass where they struggle to survive every day - and this is what has fueled the anger we're seeing today. If people didn't actually notice it before Trump's election, then I have to wonder: Where have they been these past 30-40 years?

 

[ecco]

One of the most important things all wannabe dictators do is diminish the press. In some countries, that means eliminating all but one source and then controlling that source.
The best Trump can do, for now, is convince the sheeples that everything bad about Trump is Fake News. He has been very successful.

 

[ecco]

I've never really trusted the mainstream media; I think they have a pro-corporate agenda which has remained largely the same - even long before Trump came on the scene. For decades, they've been advocating policies which screw the working classes and make the rich richer - and this is what has created the kindling and fuel for the "fire" that we're seeing today.
...
Because nobody was paying attention. Consumerism, globalism, capitalism, hedonism, greed, apathy, complacency - these have been the order of the day in America for decades. The result has left tens of millions in a disaffected underclass where they struggle to survive every day - and this is what has fueled the anger we're seeing today.

Nonsense. It's all about FEAR.
Richard Nixon played on the fears of the fearful. Bush used Willie Horton. Trump used(s) Illegals: Mexicans and Muslims.

Most of Trumps supporters do not struggle to survive every day. Those that do, blame it on Mexicans taking their jobs.

If people didn't actually notice it before Trump's election, then I have to wonder: Where have they been these past 30-40 years?

I haven't noticed that "Consumerism, globalism, capitalism, hedonism, greed, apathy, complacency" have been pushed on us by the mainstream media for the past 30-40 years.

Maybe you could give some concrete examples.

 

[Stevicus]

Nonsense. It's all about FEAR.
Richard Nixon played on the fears of the fearful. Bush used Willie Horton. Trump used(s) Illegals: Mexicans and Muslims.

Most of Trumps supporters do not struggle to survive every day. Those that do, blame it on Mexicans taking their jobs.

And you know this for a fact, do you? You may have a point about fear, but you're only looking at superficialities and not delving further into what, exactly, they might fear. The OP's question was about what may be fueling divisiveness and violence in society - much of which has nothing to do with Mexicans or Muslims.

I haven't noticed that "Consumerism, globalism, capitalism, hedonism, greed, apathy, complacency" have been pushed on us by the mainstream media for the past 30-40 years.

Maybe you could give some concrete examples.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention? That pretty much proves the point I was making. People don't pay attention to what's going on, they can't seem to connect A to B.

You want concrete examples? I wouldn't even know where to begin. We can start with just about every advertisement on every media outlet - if you want concrete examples. The media support capitalism. They send a very clear message that money is all that matters - and that those who have are "winners" while those who don't have are "losers." You've never noticed any of this stuff? You must really live in a bubble.

"Don't worry, be happy." Does that ring a bell? Maybe you've been doing that so much that you can sit here now and say "I haven't noticed."

 

[Nakosis]

What are your thoughts?

Is mainstream media truly "fake news" if it doesn't support your political views or allegiance to President Trump?

If you reject that Trump is responsible for fueling divisiveness and violence directly or indirectly, what is your reasoning?

Mainstream media is not news, so the idea of passing itself of as news is fake. While there are IMO actual news reporters, "news" actual unbiased reporting is not really mainstream. It buried in non primetime slots. Actual unbiased news doesn't bring in the ratings. So any of the various opinion and news commentary shows are fake news regardless of their support for or against Trump.

Religion, morals, political affiliation, race, culture, gender... The human race is divisive by nature. It's not something to be blamed on one man, either directly or indirectly.

What we would really need is an individual capable of overcoming man's divisive nature. Trump is not that person. I doubt anyone on the Republican or Democratic side is that person. The two party system itself has become divisive. You'd need someone independent of political parties.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is just too easy to selectively ignore or disqualify dissenting voices in the current environment.

That is dangerous not only because it encourages immersion in echo chambers, but also because it encourages complete disregard and ridicule towards those who hold different views.

That by its turn actually emboldens fringe views and lends them that much more of a self-image of legitimacy and blinds them to even basic awareness of their true levels of bias.

That is how we end up with entirely ridiculous "controversies" such as the flat earthers, the anti-vaccine movement, the 9/11 "truther", the "birthers", Brexit Leavers, white supremacists and the like. Everyone has a voice, including the madmen... and we all end up at least a bit more anxious for that.

One useful care that I think we all should take is to follow the historical record of everyone's stances, including the press and media themselves. There is nothing wrong with changing one's mind, but we are generally still not used to open admissions of such change. There is worth in learning to open ourselves to those admissions, to respect them, and to encourage them.

A related matter is the reputation of media itself. We very often make snap, blanket judgements of whole plataforms due to their supposed ideological stances. Sometimes that is earned, but there is a danger of assuming stances where they do not exist.

We should not refrain from acknowledging when Fox News takes a sober stance, nor when Trump happens to be right. Not anymore than we should hesitate to say that Colbert or Cortez spoke silly or irresponsible things when it comes to that. Respect is something to be earned... and perhaps ironically, so is despisal.

A major challenge in that necessary adjustment will be time management. There is simply not much use in spending much time listening to a run-of-the-mill creationist, or a Sean Hannity, a Zakir Naik, a Ben Shapiro or an Ann Coulter, and even making the attempt risks encouraging an undeserved perception of legitimacy towards those people, further confusing and compounding the issues.

Therefore, a significant adjustment in social etiquette is necessary. I expect that very soon we all will learn to include some form of polite yet brief and direct statement of refusal of exposure in our repertories. Something that says upfront that we are not convinced that there is anything constructive to learn from a received invitation. That by its turn will create a need for equally brief statements of how fair we feel those refusals to be and how much of a hope for reconsideration we hold.

That will unavoidably hurt, but I see no other way of being honest and reasonably respectful towards each other, so that there are at least clear stances and trustworthy information for deciding how to proceed in our interactions. It seems to me that a no small measure of the apparent motivation of Trump supporters and the like is a perception of imposed silence over their voices. It is ultimately to everyone's benefit to learn better avenues of hearing their voices less confrontationally and more effectively, up to and including giving clear, reliable perceptions of how willing we are to listen to their views in the specifics. If nothing else, that will enable them to have the satisfaction of convincing us where we are capable of being convinced, which should at least humanize everyone a bit and hint of further steps of mutual understanding and accepting that may be taken.

 

[metis]

Trump has long been known as a con-man and being self-centered, but he also acts like he's the don in the Mob. It's so unfortunate that he's blindly followed by a sizable minority who are so willing to overlook his lies and his blatant lack of even the most basic religious and humanistic morals.

 

[74x12]

The MSM has been caught lying over and over. Trusting them on any topic is trusting known liars.

 

[ecco]

And you know this for a fact, do you? You may have a point about fear, but you're only looking at superficialities and not delving further into what, exactly, they might fear. The OP's question was about what may be fueling divisiveness and violence in society - much of which has nothing to do with Mexicans or Muslims.

Maybe you and I watched different Trump rally speeches. The loudest cheers of approval were when Trump screamed "We're gonna build a wall and who's gonna pay for it?" and the crowd screamed back "Mexico".

Why did they all want a wall with Mexico? The answer to that can be seen from the people Trump trotted out as supporters: Families that had lost loved ones to Illegal Mexican immigrants.

We can also go by Trump's characterization of the Mexicans: Rapists & Gang members.

Trump sold FEAR and the Sheeples bought it.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention? That pretty much proves the point I was making. People don't pay attention to what's going on, they can't seem to connect A to B.

See above.

You want concrete examples? I wouldn't even know where to begin. We can start with just about every advertisement on every media outlet - if you want concrete examples. The media support capitalism. They send a very clear message that money is all that matters - and that those who have are "winners" while those who don't have are "losers." You've never noticed any of this stuff? You must really live in a bubble.

I haven't noticed that "Consumerism, globalism, capitalism, hedonism, greed, apathy, complacency" have been pushed on us by the mainstream media for the past 30-40 years.

Maybe you could give some concrete examples.

Earlier you blamed the mainstream media, which you distrust, of promoting "Consumerism, globalism, capitalism, hedonism, greed, apathy, complacency". Now we see it's "just about every advertisement on every media outlet"

It's obvious that you don't know the difference between reporting the news, voicing editorials, and advertising.

"Don't worry, be happy." Does that ring a bell? Maybe you've been doing that so much that you can sit here now and say "I haven't noticed."

I, and most people I know don't blindly buy in to "Don't worry, be happy.". However, we also don't build underground bunkers, stocked with a year's supply of flash-dried foods. We also realize that Americans shoot and kill far more Americans than Muslim terrorists. In other words, we don't live in fear of manufactured fear.

 

[ecco]

Mainstream media is not news, so the idea of passing itself of as news is fake. While there are IMO actual news reporters, "news" actual unbiased reporting is not really mainstream. It buried in non primetime slots. Actual unbiased news doesn't bring in the ratings.

These are from last nights CBS Evening News. Similar stories aired on NBC and ABC. All three are mainstream media.

Trump expected to issue first veto over border emergency
Beto on concerns over his experience: "It depends on what kind of experience you're looking for"
Death of reputed Gambino boss proves mob is still alive and well
Connecticut's top court rules gun maker Remington can be sued
Black boxes may hold clues in deadly plane crash

"Parts of me are very bitter," says Ohio GM worker on last day

Companies cut ties with Lori Loughlin and her daughter amid admissions scandal​

Which of these would you consider to be Fake News?
Which of these would you consider "not actual news"?

Here are headlines from WAPO

49 killed in terrorist attack at mosques in New Zealand - 3 suspects in custody after shootings in Christchurch

Christian conservatives in Trump administration work to restrict access to abortion worldwide

A shadowy group trying to overthrow Kim Jong Un raided a North Korean embassy in broad daylight

North Korea threatens to suspend denuclearization talks with the United States​

Which of these would you consider to be Fake News?
Which of these would you consider "not actual news"?

 

[ecco]

Religion, morals, political affiliation, race, culture, gender... The human race is divisive by nature. It's not something to be blamed on one man, either directly or indirectly.

Yet one man can make the divide greater and play to the fears of people on one side.

 

[ecco]

That is how we end up with entirely ridiculous "controversies" such as the flat earthers, the anti-vaccine movement, the 9/11 "truther", the "birthers", Brexit Leavers, white supremacists and the like. Everyone has a voice, including the madmen... and we all end up at least a bit more anxious for that.

With the exception of the flat-earthers, all the others are based on irrational fear.

 

[Nakosis]

Yet one man can make the divide greater and play to the fears of people on one side.

Any man can do that. At the same time we are not all simple sheep that have no choice except to march to the drum of the shepherd.

 

[ecco]

The MSM has been caught lying over and over. Trusting them on any topic is trusting known liars.

Some serious examples would go a long way to changing your comments from assertion to factual statements.

Also, I couldn't help but notice that your comments sound a lot like the comments creos make about science.

 

[LuisDantas]

With the exception of the flat-earthers, all the others are based on irrational fear.

I'm not sure about the flat-earthers either.

There seems to be also a component of need for feelings of control, or at least awareness. It is not easy for adults to accept that they just don't understand the nuances of matters of significance.

 

[Nakosis]

These are from last nights CBS Evening News. Similar stories aired on NBC and ABC. All three are mainstream media.

I don't see these news broadcasts as mainstream anymore. CBS, NBC, ABC, really? These are dinosaurs.

Trump expected to issue first veto over border emergency
Beto on concerns over his experience: "It depends on what kind of experience you're looking for"
Death of reputed Gambino boss proves mob is still alive and well
Connecticut's top court rules gun maker Remington can be sued
Black boxes may hold clues in deadly plane crash

"Parts of me are very bitter," says Ohio GM worker on last day

Companies cut ties with Lori Loughlin and her daughter amid admissions scandal​

Which of these would you consider to be Fake News?
Which of these would you consider "not actual news"?

Here are headlines from WAPO

49 killed in terrorist attack at mosques in New Zealand - 3 suspects in custody after shootings in Christchurch

Christian conservatives in Trump administration work to restrict access to abortion worldwide

A shadowy group trying to overthrow Kim Jong Un raided a North Korean embassy in broad daylight

North Korea threatens to suspend denuclearization talks with the United States​

Which of these would you consider to be Fake News?
Which of these would you consider "not actual news"?

Can you not tell the difference between news and new commentary for yourself?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, I watched this:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=502795550251375

I don't buy the spiel that "liberal" media is "fake" media (in definitive terms) when implicating that President Trump has done or said something stupid, morally questionable and/or divisive.

I've always recognized bias in the media, particularly when it comes to politics. I have no problem calling bull when I see bull, regardless as to the media outlet.

I suppose that many here also recognize that America has come to this odd place where it seems that media coverage that reflects negatively upon Trump is deemed by many (not all) of his supporters as "fake news".

I remembered verbatim what Trump said about the protests and violence in Charlottesville. I'm a Virginian. This hit very close to home.

Trump's statements were recorded. There is visual and audible evidence that he referenced people from "both sides" being at fault for the violence in Charlottesville and not exclusively within the context of the issue, but, also within the context of the violence on scene during the protests.

Here's a recording and article quoting Trump saying the very thing that "fake news" claimed he said and which Steve Cortes vehemently denies.

https://www.nytimes.com/.../trump-press-conference...

I don't necessarily accept that Trump is directly condoning violence against his opposition, but, I've heard and seen him make irresponsible comments for the purpose of fueling the divide between the left and right and for applause and approval from his fandom. I think it's shameful that he does this and it's just as disconcerting that his die-hard fandom doesn't seem willing to entertain any notion of wrong doing on his part.

I think that this is a dangerous mind set to have in a free society. Truth, I strongly feel, is hard to land on without the consideration of varied perspectives in today's troubled political climate.

What are your thoughts?

Is mainstream media truly "fake news" if it doesn't support your political views or allegiance to President Trump?

If you reject that Trump is responsible for fueling divisiveness and violence directly or indirectly, what is your reasoning?

It wasn't so bad when it had the Fairness Doctrine in news.

What you see today is the result of the removal of that policy. People can't make informed choices anymore and news sources went tabloid and pretty much chucked journalistic integrity and responsibility right out the window.

 

[Nakosis]

It wasn't so bad when it had the Fairness Doctrine in news.

What you see today is the result of the removal of that policy. People can't make informed choices anymore and news sources went tabloid and pretty much chucked journalistic integrity and responsibility right out the window.

I don't know how much this would actually affect some stations. I doubt FOX news would have to change it's format at all. I don't know anyone who consistently watches CNN, I don't know if it'd affect them any.

I hear folks complaining about liberal bias in the media. I myself don't watch enough of these other shows to pass judgement on them. Do you really think this would have much of an affect?

 

[ecco]

I don't see these news broadcasts as mainstream anymore. CBS, NBC, ABC, really? These are dinosaurs.

Well, when Trump assails the "Main stream media" these are the companies that he goes after. For print media it's primarily WAPO and NYT.

So perhaps you consider them dinosaurs, but to Trump they are the enemy that he needs to disparage constantly.

Can you not tell the difference between news and new commentary for yourself?

I see that you were unable to respond to my comments. That's OK. I understand.