Trump Accuses NYT of being Fake News

[Kuzcotopia]

On twitter, about 45 minutes ago.

It was only a matter of time. I was actually expecting this in about 6 months, but apparently, he blew his wad and couldn't wait to slowly and insidiously build the narrative the way Steve Bannon wants him to**.

Now one of the top paragons of investigative journalism is being accused of being "fake news."

What a claim.

If you honestly agree with the claim that Trump has made this morning, that the New York Time is "fake news", then you must tell me honestly what method you are using to determine fake from real. You must share which news outlet you watch/read on a daily basis, and provide the methodology on how you discern the difference between fake and real.

Trump seems to have a method. What is it?

If you can't substantiate this claim in any real way, then have have to admit you have sacrificed your own partisan perspective for reality, and must accept that your belief that the NYT charge of "fake news" is an irrational one.

** The first paragraph is unsubstatiated and written to be satirical. Most likely, there is no timeline, and Trump just rage-tweeted. Let me say that again, the President of the United States of America likely rage-tweeted.

 

[Revoltingest]

The term fake news has evolved faster than a flu virus.
Originally referring to completely fabricated news, most users appear to now apply it to anything with an error or agenda.
I'm old school, so I prefer the original meaning, so I say Trump is wrong.
But under the new definition, Trump is arguably correct.
Ref....
NY Times Admits Biased Coverage on Trump

 

[Kemosloby]

I believe it is "fake news", or "faux news" if you prefer, when the news stops reporting on what has already happened and begins reporting on what is going to happen...but we make an exception for weather.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The term fake news has evolved faster than a flu virus.
Originally referring to completely fabricated news, most users appear to now apply it to anything with an error or agenda.
I'm old school, so I prefer the original meaning, so I say Trump is wrong.
But under the new definition, Trump is arguably correct.
Ref....
NY Times Admits Biased Coverage on Trump

The claim was that the NYT is fake news. . .

This link is admitting (self-admitting) to some bias in the 2016 election.

My own Houston Chronicle, a conservative minded paper, failed to endorse him either.

These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's Hillary Clinton

This says a lot of disparaging things about Trump's character and tempement, and doesn't even bother with substantive issues.

Biased?. . . Of course. Biased towards sanity, frankly. A newspaper choosing a candidate is nothing new. NYT admission is a rededication to integrity.

Besides, you didn't answer my questions on the OP.

 

[Stevicus]

So, he's pointing out that the New York Times made incorrect predictions about the elections, and he calls it "fake news"? I guess I must be a bit unclear on what constitutes "fake news."

Of course, that doesn't mean that the media should consider themselves above criticism, nor should anyone ever consider that the media hold the moral high ground over the politicians. I can't consider the New York Times or any major media outlet to be a "paragon" of anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

Biased?. . . Of course. Biased towards sanity, frankly. A newspaper choosing a candidate is nothing new. NYT admission is a rededication to integrity.

This speaks to the sanctimony of the left, ie, that they alone have The Truth.
To disagree with them is to eschew sanity.
They're utterly unable to reason outside of their own little echo chamber.
It smacks of religious zeal.

Besides, you didn't answer my questions on the OP.

I did....by addressing the differing interpretations of the term, "fake news".
I speculated Trump might be using the newly evolved definition.
One could argue that the NYT is an anti-Trump arm of the DNC,
& that artfully presented news is simply one of their tools of the trade.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Biased news is not Fake or a Lie. It is news from a single perspective.
Very little news can guarantee the total removal of all opinion, so is always written from someone's perspective.

Most Murdock news outlets do not hide their allegiances and editorial direction. we know where they are coming from. It is mostly opinion dressed as news and extremely biased.

In the case of the NYT it is controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family Who own 88% of the class b shares.
However the owner of the largest holding of class A shares is Carlos Slim, a Mexican businessman and the world's second richest person.
It is perhaps this Mexican connection to a man much richer than himself, that gets up Trumps nose.

 

[Augustus]

This speaks to the sanctimony of the left, ie, that they alone have The Truth.
To disagree with them is to eschew sanity.
They're utterly unable to reason outside of their own little echo chamber.
It smacks of religious zeal.

There has been (and worryingly still is) far too much of this among a certain group of educated left to centre right people. It is a wonderful case study in cognitive dissonance.

Their worldview has an assumption of the inevitability of liberal progress, as education grows then Reason will win out over outdated traditions and emotions. Prejudices and barriers will crumble in a tolerant and multicultural world as we move towards The End of History.

Being intelligent, rational people who (in their minds) have arrived at their political views through Reason alone, anyone who disagrees significantly must have arrived at their positions through lack of intelligence, irrationality or being duped.

To think otherwise would challenge the very essence of their worldview and force them to admit it is not based on a timeless and universal Truth, but is a product of time and place borne of a specific cultural context. Especially, seeing as this timeless Truth seems to be dying a slow death (as any worldview premised on human rationality is likely to) rather than marching on its inevitable path.

And you are right, it is not fundamentally different from the way religious folk bend reality to match their worldview.

This is from a slightly different context, but illustrates the situation pretty well:

Coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalitional collectivities than as individuals. Paradoxically, a political party united by supernatural beliefs can revise its beliefs about economics or climate without revisers being bad coalition members. But people whose coalitional membership is constituted by their shared adherence to “rational,” scientific propositions have a problem when—as is generally the case—new information arises which requires belief revision. To question or disagree with coalitional precepts, even for rational reasons, makes one a bad and immoral coalition member—at risk of losing job offers, her friends, and her cherished group identity. This freezes belief revision.

Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human appetite to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally.

 

[habiru]

'Racist lies': NY Times declares war on Trump

The New York Times history of false reporting exposed by TimesWatch

 

[Kuzcotopia]

This speaks to the sanctimony of the left, ie, that they alone have The Truth.
To disagree with them is to eschew sanity.
They're utterly unable to reason outside of their own little echo chamber.
It smacks of religious zeal.


I did....by addressing the differing interpretations of the term, "fake news".
I speculated Trump might be using the newly evolved definition.
One could argue that the NYT is an anti-Trump arm of the DNC,
& that artfully presented news is simply one of their tools of the trade.

Truth is truth. Has nothing to do with a liberal perspective. The reason I posted my own local paper like that as because it's a conservative paper.

Do you call it an "arm of the DNC" simply because it paints an unflattering to someone on the right Calling the NYT an arm of the DNC is a bold claim, for which there is little to no evidence.

When it comes to Trump, NYT editors merely came to the same conclusions that many conservative paper editors came to. . . That he isn't fit to be president.

If you want to make that argument that the NYT is fake news, or an arm of the DNC, then demonstrate it, and explain your methodology. And differentiate it from conservative papers around the country who said the same thing.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

'Racist lies': NY Times declares war on Trump

The New York Times history of false reporting exposed by TimesWatch

Thanks for the links. Can you answer my concerns in the OP regarding your methodology for discerning true can fake news?

 

[habiru]

The Times’s Endorsement of Hillary Clinton
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/opinion/the-timess-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton.html

New York Times to Donald Trump: We won't retract

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/opinion/why-hillary-wins.html

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Being intelligent, rational people who (in their minds) have arrived at their political views through Reason alone, anyone who disagrees significantly must have arrived at their positions through lack of intelligence, irrationality or being duped.

You said a lot, so I have to focus.

This section is a stawman assumption about liberals in general. It also does not address the concerns as laid out in the OP.

Why must any criticism of the right's tactics (not true policy positions, mind you. . . Just their tactics) be met with this strawman that we automatically think the other side is stupid or deluded.

Not sure I made that claim here or anywhere. . . I am suggesting that the claims "NYT is fake news," or "clearly liberally biased" are unsubstantiated claims.

Also, I am specifically asking those who agree with Trump to lay out evidence or reasoning for their claims. . . Why does that imply my liberal views are superior?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The Times’s Endorsement of Hillary Clinton
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/opinion/the-timess-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton.html

New York Times to Donald Trump: We won't retract

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/opinion/why-hillary-wins.html

Congrats. I just posted the endorsement by the Houston Chonicle. Why is the NYT fake news, and The Houston Chonicle not fake news?

Or is any cricicism of Trump fake news? By what method do you use to tell the difference?

 

[Revoltingest]

Truth is truth. Has nothing to do with a liberal perspective.

I'm not a big believer in truth....except for mathematical truths....the old a prior v a posteriori divide.
Anyone reporting The Truth will choose which facts to report, & which to ignore based upon their agenda.
Even then, 97.2% of time they're opinion elevated to "fact", eg, "Trump is a liar.", "Hillary is corrupt.".
So everyone has their own "truth"....liberals, conservatives, libertarians, commies, the faithful, etc.
Tis good to avoid embracing truth.
It's an illusion which impedes seeing other perspectives.

Do you call it an "arm of the DNC" simply because it paints an unflattering to someone on the right Calling the NYT an arm of the DNC is a bold claim, for which there is little to no evidence.

It's a joke about how they typically favor Democrats.
As for evidence, even they themselves admitted it in this campaign.

When it comes to Trump, NYT editors merely came to the same conclusions that many conservative paper editors came to. . . That he isn't fit to be president.

Note that Trump is not a conservative, so I'd expect them to oppose him.
And I thoroughly understand not wanting him to be Prez.
I'd rather not have this lesser of 2 awfuls there.
But I favor news which informs rather than instructs.

If you want to make that argument that the NYT is fake news, or an arm of the DNC, then demonstrate it, and explain your methodology. And differentiate it from conservative papers around the country who said the same thing.

As a pedant, I stick to the strict definition of "fake news", which doesn't apply to even biased sources like NYT, Wa Po, Fox, NPR.
Although each will at times publish fake news unknowingly, eg, Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair.
Note that I read NYT articles regularly.
I just don't treat them as gospel.
Ain't nobody perfect.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'm not a big believer in truth....except for mathematical truths....the old a prior v a posteriori divide.
Anyone reporting The Truth will choose which facts to report, & which to ignore based upon their agenda.
Even then, 97.2% of time they're opinion elevated to "fact", eg, "Trump is a liar.", "Hillary is corrupt.".
So everyone has their own "truth"....liberals, conservatives, libertarians, commies, the faithful, etc.
Tis good to avoid embracing truth.
It's an illusion which impedes seeing other perspectives.

It's a joke about how they typically favor Democrats.
As for evidence, even they themselves admitted it in this campaign.

Note that Trump is not a conservative.
And I thoroughly understand not wanting him to be Prez.
But I favor news which informs rather than instructs.

As a pedant, I stick to the strict definition of "fake news", which doesn't apply to even biased sources like NYT, Wa Po, Fox, NPR.
Although each will at times publish fake news unknowingly, eg, Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair.
Note that I read NYT articles regularly.
I just don't treat them as gospel.
Ain't nobody perfect.

Agreed. Truth is truth, but it doesn't mean that I know it either.

I don't think anyone would disagree that attempting to understand a methodology for discerning between fake and real news, or even biased news, is a bad idea. . .

But I am tired of the constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated claims coming from this president, and many who support him, that automatically write off most media outlets as irredemably biased or even fake.

Who knows, maybe they are. . . But I want to shift that claim from a Premise justifying further claims . . . to a Conclusion that requires it own argument first.

I have yet to hear those arguments from anyone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed. Truth is truth, but it doesn't mean that I know it either.

I don't think anyone would disagree that attempting to understand a methodology for discerning between fake and real news, or even biased news, is a bad idea. . .

But I am tired of the constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated claims coming from this president, and many who automatically write off most media outlets as irredemably biased.

Who knows, maybe they are. . . But I want to shift that claim from a Premise justifying further claims to a Conclusion that requires it own argument first.

I have yet to hear those arguments from anyone.

He certainly is prone to making rash statements.
Let's just hope that the ones which harm the public good are few.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Revoltingest,

The term fake news has evolved faster than a flu virus.
Originally referring to completely fabricated news, most users appear to now apply it to anything with an error or agenda.
I'm old school, so I prefer the original meaning, so I say Trump is wrong.
But under the new definition, Trump is arguably correct.
Ref....
NY Times Admits Biased Coverage on Trump

NewsMax is a conservative-slanted site, so it's no surprise to me they'd make such an unfounded accusation. I located the actual letter they and the NY Post refer to from NYT publisher Sulzberger and exec. editor Baquet, and, unsurprisingly to me, they admit to no such bias (source). What they do state is the question of how Trump's "unconventionality" may have led the media to "underestimate his support among American voters." There is no admission of being biased in its coverage of Trump, though - just an admission to underestimating how many people support him.

As even former Republican congressman and critic of liberal media bias Joe Scarborough put it, "Mr. Trump was becoming increasingly erratic." He asked rhetorically, “How balanced do you have to be when one side is just irrational?” (source) Even a moderately observant and objective person cannot help but notice the man's statements have consistently been irrational and to an obvious degree. Frankly, he's conjured "alternative facts" from whole cloth perhaps every time he's been interviewed or spoken publicly. It's like he can't help himself but to compulsively lie and stir controversy on a daily basis. I myself was most astounded to find so many people supporting him in spite of what was an obvious deal-breaker for me. So obvious, it's been very easy to assume he can't possibly con enough people into believing his malarkey to actually win. Quite bluntly, I think the sentiment among his detractors, myself included, can be summed up as "people aren't that stupid... are they?!"

To call Trump simply "erratic" or "unconventional" is an gross underestimation of fact though, and not the reverse. It's a testament to the journalistic integrity of the NYT, and to their discipline, to call him thus. In reality, Trump is very demonstrably both ignorant and uneducated about reality, and a compulsive liar at best... or worse, he's a calculating and cynical opportunist who purposely uses misinformation to manipulate the public. Since the beginning of his campaign, he's not only repeatedly lied, but his actual policies as well are based on falsehoods rather than facts.

Starting with his Mexican wall idea, as a for instance. Not only have more illegal immigrants been leaving the country than entering over the past decade (source), but we already have a wall (source). WE ALREADY HAVE A WALL!! Nobody thought about this?! Seriously?! Nobody thought to ask, if Trump is going to make a campaign promise to build a wall, with his apparently equally uninformed supporters chanting to "build the wall!" at his rallies, perhaps checking to see if we don't already have one MIGHT be a good idea?! Whether we build a second wall or just add sections to the existing one, we will not help the illegal immigration problem (source). Increasing the staff at ports of entry in order to specifically aid in searching for small-quantity drug searches would be a much more effective use of our energy and money (source).

I could cite many more examples. His inaugural address was fraught with many falsehoods: he presented an image of a nation in serious decline, when in fact we've recovered from the 2007-2008 stock market crash and resulting major recession quite well. Most of what he's claimed is factually wrong in one way or another...

My point is, the man is clearly a bad joke, and so it was easy for even the moderately observant among us to relate with the NYT and other media institutions when they underestimated just how large Trump's support base was. He really is THAT BAD. This goes beyond the realm of normal political differences. It's not a matter of whether one favors left-leaning or right-leaning policies, but rather a matter of favoring policies based on reason and reality vs policies based on ignorance and falsehoods.

 

[habiru]

Thanks for the links. Can you answer my concerns in the OP regarding your methodology for discerning true can fale news?

Well only way how I figured out who is lying or not. There has been a world wide march against Monsanto going on for years that none of these mainstream medias has not covered it at all. But they had covered the stories about the pandas at the zoo given birth to their millionth cub. They will not reported about this march, it is because they doesn't want to bring in awareness to there products. And George Soros owns the majority of their stocks. And so from ever since then, a lot of Activist knows that the media are controlled by the Establishment. But the reporters that does a report about them,that they whines up being fired. And so, if you want to find out about fake news, you better start listening to the real activist that has been dealing with the media for decades. But not these activist like BLM and etc.. that are in someone's pocket.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hi Revoltingest,

NewsMax is a conservative-slanted site, so it's no surprise to me they'd make such an unfounded accusation. I located the actual letter they and the NY Post refer to from NYT publisher Sulzberger and exec. editor Baquet, and, unsurprisingly to me, they admit to no such bias (source). What they do state is the question of how Trump's "unconventionality" may have led the media to "underestimate his support among American voters." There is no admission of being biased in its coverage of Trump, though - just an admission to underestimating how many people support him.

As even former Republican congressman and critic of liberal media bias Joe Scarborough put it, "Mr. Trump was becoming increasingly erratic." He asked rhetorically, “How balanced do you have to be when one side is just irrational?” (source) Even a moderately observant and objective person cannot help but notice the man's statements have consistently been irrational and to an obvious degree. Frankly, he's conjured "alternative facts" from whole cloth perhaps every time he's been interviewed or spoken publicly. It's like he can't help himself but to compulsively lie and stir controversy on a daily basis. I myself was most astounded to find so many people supporting him in spite of what was an obvious deal-breaker for me. So obvious, it's been very easy to assume he can't possibly con enough people into believing his malarkey to actually win. Quite bluntly, I think the sentiment among his detractors, myself included, can be summed up as "people aren't that stupid... are they?!"

To call Trump simply "erratic" or "unconventional" is an gross underestimation of fact though, and not the reverse. It's a testament to the journalistic integrity of the NYT, and to their discipline, to call him thus. In reality, Trump is very demonstrably both ignorant and uneducated about reality, and a compulsive liar at best... or worse, he's a calculating and cynical opportunist who purposely uses misinformation to manipulate the public. Since the beginning of his campaign, he's not only repeatedly lied, but his actual policies as well are based on falsehoods rather than facts.

Starting with his Mexican wall idea, as a for instance. Not only have more illegal immigrants been leaving the country than entering over the past decade (source), but we already have a wall (source). WE ALREADY HAVE A WALL!! Nobody thought about this?! Seriously?! Nobody thought to ask, if Trump is going to make a campaign promise to build a wall, with his apparently equally uninformed supporters chanting to "build the wall!" at his rallies, perhaps checking to see if we don't already have one MIGHT be a good idea?! Whether we build a second wall or just add sections to the existing one, we will not help the illegal immigration problem (source). Increasing the staff at ports of entry in order to specifically aid in searching for small-quantity drug searches would be a much more effective use of our energy and money (source).

I could cite many more examples. His inaugural address was fraught with many falsehoods: he presented an image of a nation in serious decline, when in fact we've recovered from the 2007-2008 stock market crash and resulting major recession quite well. Most of what he's claimed is factually wrong in one way or another...

My point is, the man is clearly a bad joke, and so it was easy for even the moderately observant among us to relate with the NYT and other media institutions when they underestimated just how large Trump's support base was. He really is THAT BAD. This goes beyond the realm of normal political differences. It's not a matter of whether one favors left-leaning or right-leaning policies, but rather a matter of favoring policies based on reason and reality vs policies based on ignorance and falsehoods.

A few thoughts.....
- We still have a problem with illegals entering the country, the fact that some have been leaving notwithstanding.
- The "wall" is about increasing security at the border. Of course we already have some physical walls. No doubt he plans to add more, but it's not about a continuous physical wall....rather, it's about what a wall does. This also means more border agents, better monitoring, stronger enforcement.
Btw, a continuous wall would devastate some wildlife, eg, big cats.
- You say he's a "joke", but in the context of his dysfunctional competition, he doesn't look all that terrible.
- He doesn't speak with much precision or forethought.
- Ignorance & falsehood also lurked in Obama's regime, so it's not unique to Trump.