FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Accuse them of doing what you do.

Child. All you've to this discussion contributed is accusations that I'm "lying". You've offered nothing to back that up so apparently that's your response when you disagree with something but can't articulate why. I'm sad for you.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Child. All you've to this discussion contributed is accusations that I'm "lying". You've offered nothing to back that up so apparently that's your response when you disagree with something but can't articulate why. I'm sad for you.

Everything you say is exactly as true as that bit.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Hey Finn, you're priceless in this thread, and you're doing a great job demonstrating how an average American like you can create "fake news". Pulling Hughes quote out of context is using fine technique for the creating of fake news.

So, I guess you're OK with Trump and his NSA tweeting obvious lies and shattering any standards for political discourse and honesty. How low are you willing to let him go before his actions strike you as beneath the dignity of the office and possibly dangerous for the nation? If he hasn't gotten there in past 1.5 years, I guess there's nothing he could do that you wouldn't defend.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, I guess you're OK with Trump and his NSA tweeting obvious lies and shattering any standards for political discourse and honesty.

This thread isn't about me Finn. But I certainly understand - given how poor some of your arguments have been - why you might want to change the subject.

[whell]

Fake news about fake news.

Clinton blasts 'epidemic' of fake news

Hillary Clinton on Thursday decried the spread of fake news online, calling it an “epidemic” that Congress should take action against.

“Lives are at risk — lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.”

“It’s a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly,” she said.

Following the playbook, Dems manufacture a crisis over a nutjob in a pizzaria then call on government to "fix" it. We have to fix it, of course, because "lives are at risk."

Why weren't they interested in fixing the media and internet hate fest that spun up and resulted in violence against police?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

This thread isn't about me Finn. But I certainly understand - given how poor some of your arguments have been - why you might want to change the subject.

It is indeed about you denying the existence of fake news (look again at your OP, along with your post above), interestingly on the same day that Fox and talk radio took up the same campaign, just as Michael Flynn starting taking heat for tweeting fake news from the White House on a story that resulted in a pizza joint getting shot up. One can only surmise that this was done to provide cover for der Trumpenfuhrer who himself (along with several top level appointees around him) is a consumer and purveyor of fake news and whose campaign benefited greatly from it.

Your arguments are typical right wing projection, similar to White Nationalists claiming that everybody but themselves are racists. Just as they contend that those who point out racism are the real racists, stories that point out fake news are themselves fake news. Up is down, down is up.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It is indeed about you denying the existence of fake news (look again at your OP, along with your post above), ....

We could just as easily make it about your flimsy arguments. There's far more of those here than anything else.

Originally Posted by finnbow

It is indeed about you denying the existence of fake news....

It is indeed not. In fact, I pointed out right here in this thread the fake news that YOU posted, and that Bob posted.

Fake news certainly exists. One need look no further than, for example: "The attacks in Benghazi where part of a spontaneous response to a Youtube video". Or, "If you like your plan you can keep it." Or, "This stimulus will fund shovel ready jobs that will spur the economy and reduce unemployment." And who can forget Dan Rather's made up documents about Bush's National Guard Service? Or NBC's creative editing of George Zimmerman's 911 call? Of the fact that Brian Williams still works for NBC? Or that Piers Morgan made up photos of Brit soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, got fired for it, but had no trouble being hired by CNN thereafter?

What truly exists is the Left's selective indignation about it, and their suggestions and threats (Obama and Hillary - the two most prominent Dems there are) to use the machinery of government to "fix" it. It is an opportunistic way to trash the 1st Amendment, with the left poised to put themselves in a position to determine what is "fake news" and what isn't.

And there you are advocating for it and defending it. Lovely.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Fake news certainly exists. One need look no further than, for example: "The attacks in Benghazi where part of a spontaneous response to a Youtube video". Or, "If you like your plan you can keep it." Or, "This stimulus will fund shovel ready jobs that will spur the economy and reduce unemployment."

None of these are examples of fake news. They are politicians making false, exaggerated and/or misinformed statements. This is yet another example of you trying to obfuscate and project. I take it you realize that Trump lied or grossly exaggerated somewhere around 3X as much as the next worse candidate during the campaign. This is not fake news. It is a candidate lying.

OTOH, Trump or Flynn retweeting about 3 million illegal votes in CA, thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey and Hillary Clinton's child sex ring are indeed examples of fake news, their endorsement of which is certainly troublesome. In fact, Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently characterized Flynn's tweets as "demented." Are you OK with a demented NSA who believes and distributes conspiracy theories?

What truly exists is the Left's selective indignation about it, and their suggestions and threats (Obama and Hillary - the two most prominent Dems there are) to use the machinery of government to "fix" it. It is an opportunistic way to trash the 1st Amendment, with the left poised to put themselves in a position to determine what is "fake news" and what isn't.

And there you are advocating for it and defending it. Lovely.

If Trump and Flynn quit slinging false news and lumping praise upon one of its worst practitioners (Alex Jones), this wouldn't be an issue that Fox, talk radio and you would feel a need to discredit.

As Thomas Jefferson famously said, "A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate." It seems you disagree with the esteemed Mr. Jefferson.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

None of these are examples of fake news. They are politicians making false, exaggerated and/or misinformed statements.

Couldn't help but notice that you edited out the parts of my post that you thought didn't quite fit the template. You're getting more like a reporter from WaPo (or maybe HuffPo) every day.

Of course they are examples of fake news. The Dems spoon fed these nuggests to the press, and they ran with them. Any interest in whether these statements were factual came much, much later if it came at all.

Originally Posted by finnbow

OTOH, Trump or Flynn retweeting about 3 million illegal votes in CA, thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey and Hillary Clinton's child sex ring are indeed examples of fake news, their endorsement of which is certainly troublesome. In fact, Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently characterized Flynn's tweets as "demented." Are you OK with a demented NSA who believes and distributes conspiracy theories?

A have much less problem with a tweet than I do having the mainstream press acting like the communication arm of the White House or the State Department. The bias of the mainstream press - and I strongly suspect that another aspect of this "fake news" BS is the media trying to white-wash their bias in the last election cycle - was obvious. It was so obvious that at least one local paper in FL recognized it, and how their recycling of feeds from major news services was impacting their readers perception of the paper's objectivity, that they issued an editorial to their readers acknowledging their errant reporting. Pretty obvious when you read the whole editorial that the editor is no fan of Trump, but here's what the editorial stated:

Has the media been biased against Trump? Yes, we believe so, especially lately. Trump's every utterance, no matter how innocuous, is now parsed, analyzed and criticized by a litany of political pundits. The wire services that the Daily Commercial subscribes to churn out stories almost daily that fact check Trump, which is warranted given his penchant for exaggeration and duplicity. Yet those same services turn out so few stories that fact check Clinton, who also has a strained relationship with the truth.

Originally Posted by finnbow

As Thomas Jefferson famously said, "A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate." It seems you disagree with the esteemed Mr. Jefferson.

No, I agree wholeheartedly. Where you and I seem to disagree is whether the news needs to be "controlled". Hell, you posted a graph that purported to measure "fake news", but you couldn't even articulate the criteria used to identify that fake news.

The news needs no "filter" as Obama proposed, particularly not a filter regulated by the govt and certainly not the left. We don't need the reincarnation of Pravda here, but you sound like you long for the "good old days" of the Soviet state controlled media.

[nailer]

The news is always filtered. By the sources and each recipient.