"Fake News" in Today's Political Climate

[ecco]

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

Wow. You make a sweeping comment about the MSM repeated lying. I ask for "Some serious examples" and the best you can do is post a video with no attribution as to who made the video.

That show that you cannot support your allegation about the MSM lying. I'm not surprised.

 

[ecco]

What's a creos?

Creationists. Biblical Fundamentalists.

 

[74x12]

Creationists. Biblical Fundamentalists.

So you claim we speak against science? Define science.

 

[ecco]

So you claim we speak against science? Define science.

Where did I say that? Are you referring to this post...

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

 

[Shad]

Wow. You make a sweeping comment about the MSM repeated lying. I ask for "Some serious examples" and the best you can do is post a video with no attribution as to who made the video.

I gave an example in which CNN editing created the appearance of a peaceful and "calming" statement which was really a call for a race targeted riot.

That show that you cannot support your allegation about the MSM lying. I'm not surprised.

Wrong. It proved CNN lied which is all your asked for. Try again son.

Also read the posts. I didn't make the allegation. I provide evidence of it. Try again son.

 

[Stevicus]

I am completely unsympathetic to:
People who blame immigration for their loss of jobs.
People who believed Trump would bring back coal mining jobs.
People who believed Trump would bring back automobile manufacturing jobs.
People who believed Trump would bring steel mill jobs.
People who fear getting blown up by a Muslim or shot by Mexican but have no problem with automatic weapons being available to any good American that wants them.
People who believed (believe) that Mexico would pay for the border wall.

I could go on.

I would imagine that the people you cite above are equally unsympathetic to you and your beliefs as well. So, where does that leave us? I guess the only thing left to do is to draw the battle lines and let both sides fight it out. No chance for peace in today's political climate. Is that your final answer?

 

[Stevicus]

In your first quoted comment, you blamed the "mainstream media". When I asked for examples, you couldn't find any. So you then stated the problem was with advertisers.

That's the contradiction. That's why I said you didn't know the difference between reporting the news, voicing editorials, and advertising.

So, the mainstream media has no advertising? Is that your claim here?

 

[sooda]

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?

Good post. Trump is about populism and nationalism. His narrative is that America is a mess and only he can fix it. This is the stuff of nightmares and historically it has moved the mob.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't fear him as much as I despise him and what he is doing to this Country.
I compare him to Mussolini. Fat, arrogant, loud-mouthed, egomaniac.

Fear and hatred are generally linked to each other.

Not as many as in the past now that Trump has buddied up to Putin.

I don't think there was ever any real reason to fear the Russian, neither in the past nor in the present day.

Why do find it necessary to conflate "fear" with "offensive"?

It depends on the context and subject matter. If something is deemed so offensive as to necessitate its removal from social media or other venues of public discourse, then it's safe to assume that it must be due to fear. The presumption is that open discussion of certain topics may constitute a clear and present danger - of which there would be an understandable fear.

There's no shame in admitting to fear. The only real question is how people react to it and what they do about it. Some people react to it with equally strong emotion. Others try to hide from it or bury it so that no one will see it. There are very, very few who would like to talk it out and try to reach some sort of compromise or resolution. If we use anger and pride as a way of masking and concealing the fears we're reluctant to admit, then it's not surprising that the rhetoric becomes more escalated, which was the point raised in the OP of this thread.

 

[sooda]

So you claim we speak against science? Define science.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

[ecco]

I gave an example in which CNN editing created the appearance of a peaceful and "calming" statement which was really a call for a race targeted riot.

How can you or I tell what was and was not edited? Should I just take your word for it?

ecco:
That shows that you cannot support your allegation about the MSM lying. I'm not surprised.​

Wrong. It proved CNN lied which is all your asked for. Try again son.

The only thing it proved is that you can not support your allegations.

Also read the posts. I didn't make the allegation. I provide evidence of it. Try again son.

Since you are referring to me as "son" that would make you very old. Perhaps that's why your feeble brain cannot remember what you posted and why you confuse allegations with evidence.

If there are so many examples of MSM lying, you surely can find a good example. But take your time gramps. I wouldn't want you to fall off your computer chair and bang your head again.

 

[ecco]

I would imagine that the people you cite above are equally unsympathetic to you and your beliefs as well.

Yes. That's obvious from reading through this or similar threads.

So, where does that leave us? I guess the only thing left to do is to draw the battle lines and let both sides fight it out. No chance for peace in today's political climate. Is that your final answer?

"Today's political climate"?

For What It's Worth - Wikipedia
"For What It's Worth (Stop, Hey What's That Sound)" (often referred to as simply "For What It's Worth") is a song written by Stephen Stills. It was performed by Buffalo Springfield, recorded on December 5, 1966, and released as a single on Atco Records on December 23, 1966. ​

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me
I've got to beware

[Chorus]
Think it's time we
Stop! Hey
What's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong
People speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance
From behind

[Chorus]

Singing songs and carrying signs
Getting so much resistance
From behind

[Chorus]

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line
The Men come and shoot you down

[Chorus]

Hey! What's that sound
Look what's going down.​

It seems you don't have much of a sense of history.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
In your first quoted comment, you blamed the "mainstream media". When I asked for examples, you couldn't find any. So you then stated the problem was with advertisers.

That's the contradiction. That's why I said you didn't know the difference between reporting the news, voicing editorials, and advertising.​

So, the mainstream media has no advertising? Is that your claim here?

I rarely put things into boldface but in your case...

That's why I said you didn't know the difference between reporting the news, voicing editorials, and advertising.

For the news, the editors decide what does or does not get reported.
For advertisements, the media has little choice aside from refusing hate advertising or fraudulent advertising.

I know it might be hard, but do try to understand the difference.

 

[Stevicus]

It seems you don't have much of a sense of history.

Yeah, I know that song, too.

So, what's your point here? You're not exactly taking the Dale Carnegie approach, so I guess you'd rather keep going in a more belligerent and violent direction.

 

[Nakosis]

So, you cannot defend your above comment. I didn't think so.

So, you cannot defend your above comment. I didn't think so.

Which comment?

 

[ecco]

If something is deemed so offensive as to necessitate its removal from social media or other venues of public discourse, then it's safe to assume that it must be due to fear. The presumption is that open discussion of certain topics may constitute a clear and present danger - of which there would be an understandable fear.

On the other hand, Trump stirs the fear pot with things that do not "constitute a clear and present danger". He manufacturers the fear.

There's no shame in admitting to fear. The only real question is how people react to it and what they do about it. Some people react to it with equally strong emotion. ... There are very, very few who would like to talk it out and try to reach some sort of compromise or resolution.

What is the compromise resolution when one is faced with fearmongering for the sake of instilling false fears?

If we use anger and pride as a way of masking and concealing the fears we're reluctant to admit, then it's not surprising that the rhetoric becomes more escalated, which was the point raised in the OP of this thread.

If we use fearmongering as a way of gaining political followers, then it's not surprising that the rhetoric becomes more escalated, which was the point raised in the OP of this thread.

 

[ecco]

Yeah, I know that song, too.

Then why did you single out "today's political climate"? This Country, like most Countries, has been divided since before its inception.

I would imagine that the people you cite above are equally unsympathetic to you and your beliefs as well. So, where does that leave us? I guess the only thing left to do is to draw the battle lines and let both sides fight it out. No chance for peace in today's political climate. Is that your final answer?

So, what's your point here? You're not exactly taking the Dale Carnegie approach ...

I was never a big believer in Dale Carnegie or any other kumbaya approaches.

, so I guess you'd rather keep going in a more belligerent and violent direction.

Absolutely not. But the tone is set by the top and towards the top. Obama never used hate speech or belittled people. Clinton never used hate speech or belittled people. Trump, made his political mark by attacking Obama with the birther issue. Trump, made his political mark by screaming "lock her up". Trump made his political mark by attacking and belittling his primary opponents. Trump made his political mark by attacking the press. Trump made his political mark instilling fear about Muslims and Mexicans. Trump made his political mark instilling fear about Iran's nukes. Etc. Etc. Etc. Ad nauseam.

 

[ecco]

Which comment?

Do try to keep up. This comment...

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.

In response, I posted this...

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"?

So, I'll ask again...
Which of these would you consider to be Fake News?
Which of these would you consider "not actual news"?

 

[74x12]

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Which I am not against.

 

[Nakosis]

​

So, I'll ask again...
Which of these would you consider to be Fake News?
Which of these would you consider "not actual news"?

Nothing relevant to my comments here, what do you think needs defending?