FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Then show at least a slight hint of skepticism about your Trumpenfuhrer, a guy with the squirreliest ethical arrangements ever to sit in the White House and a guy who recorded lies nearly 3x faster than any other candidate in the last election (and this was going against Hillary, someone not exactly known for her veracity).

In that clusterf*ck of his first press conference in months, fact-checkers caught him lying or shading the truth ~15 times in the short time he was actually on stage. That's world-class lying in my book.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ss-conference/

I'm puzzled why you, a self-proclaimed skeptic of all politicians, is against having such a profoundly dishonest person releasing his tax returns, particularly considering his financial dealings all over the world. That's the furthest thing imaginable from being skeptical. You're about as skeptical of Trump as Kellyanne Conway is. Honestly, sometimes I think you are Kellyanne Conway.

I assure you that Ms Conway looks way better in a dress than I ever could.

This entire thread, to me, has not been about Trump. Oh, certainly he weighed heavily in the subject matter. This thread was far more about observations regarding the reporting in the mainstream media. There's no question that there was a certain level of hysteria in the media and on the left about a the prospect of a Trump presidency. I think that hysteria has ramped up a bit since the election.

Say what you want about the Wikileaks dumps, but they certainly painted a picture of a rather cozy relationship between the DNC and the press. That, and the rather thinly veiled effort by the press to cheer-lead for Hillary, and you're left with a media whose credibility has been battered and bruised. The most recent evidence was CNN's willingness to jettison their last vestiges of journalistic integrity to talk about documents that they've know for months had no credibility. It did give CNN several broadcast hours to advance all manner of speculation about "what this could mean for a Trump presidency if it was true".

Given all this, is it any wonder why the mainstream media's credibility is in the tank. Given recent behavior, one has to wonder if they even care. It also should be no surprise that as the mainstream media's credibility has eroded, the so called "5th estate" media sources have become more popular. If the media was interested in taking measures to address their credibility issues, I doubt we'd be talking about so called "fake news".

The media has a role to play. Whether or not one "trusts Trump", it should be the role of the media to report factually on the activities of government and elected officials. That role was specifically protected by the 1st Amendment. However, when the media picks sides as they so clearly did recently, they've abandoned that role. They should be taken to task for that. At least the NY Times has admitted that they lost touch. At least one small-market newspaper admitted that their coverage of the election lacked objectivity, and was influenced by stories / opinion sourced from major media outlets. Its a start, but I think we're a long way from a fix.

[bobabode]

I'm sure you don't look any worse than Rudy Ghouliani in a dress, Mike. Just don't let the 'Donald' anywhere near you if you do decide to start crossdressing.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I assure you that Ms Conway looks way better in a dress than I ever could.

This entire thread, to me, has not been about Trump. Oh, certainly he weighed heavily in the subject matter. This thread was far more about observations regarding the reporting in the mainstream media...

Then you should have called it something else. Your OP appeared just after the Pizzagate shooting, just as talk radio, Fox and Trump devised a strategy to co-opt the term to deflect the heat Trump was taking for Flynn, his son, Bannon and some of his own "fake news" tweets (e.g., 3 million illegal voters in California). Your strategy and language parroted exactly what I heard on Limbaugh on the way home from the gym just hours before you posted it.

I was personally upset at the Pizza shooting (and Flynn and his sons tweets spreading the kiddie sex ring garbage) and lashed out at you for what I still believe to have been you willingly participating in the right's effort to use their typical projection techniques to turn an argument on its head. In any event, if you want to talk about MSM bias, start and thread about it and knock yourself out. I'm done with this stupid argument that derived from your efforts to co-opt the term in service of your Trumpenfuhrer.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I'm sure you don't look any worse than Rudy Ghouliani in a dress, Mike. Just don't let the 'Donald' anywhere near you if you do decide to start crossdressing.

...nor will I allow any prostitutes to pee on my bed

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Then you should have called it something else. Your OP appeared just after the Pizzagate shooting, just as talk radio, Fox and Trump devised a strategy to co-opt the term to deflect the heat Trump was taking for Flynn, his son, Bannon and some of his own "fake news" tweets (e.g., 3 million illegal voters in California). Your strategy and language parroted exactly what I heard on Limbaugh on the way home from the gym just hours before you posted it.

I was personally upset at the Pizza shooting (and Flynn and his sons tweets spreading the kiddie sex ring garbage) and lashed out at you for what I still believe to have been you willingly participating in the right's effort to use their typical projection techniques to turn an argument on its head. In any event, if you want to talk about MSM bias, start and thread about it and knock yourself out. I'm done with this stupid argument that derived from your efforts to co-opt the term in service of your Trumpenfuhrer.

Believe what you wish. But remember early on you also referenced a WaPo reported about some analysis of "fake news" that WaPo has since distanced themselves from, some news story about the Sandy Hook shooting, the pope, etc. I also stated my belief that the fake news moniker has similar DNA to a long effort by the left use reporting to discredit political opponents. So, this thread has strayed pretty far from any focus on the "pizzagate" thing.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

I assure you that Ms Conway looks way better in a dress than I ever could.

This entire thread, to me, has not been about Trump. Oh, certainly he weighed heavily in the subject matter. This thread was far more about observations regarding the reporting in the mainstream media. There's no question that there was a certain level of hysteria in the media and on the left about a the prospect of a Trump presidency. I think that hysteria has ramped up a bit since the election.

Say what you want about the Wikileaks dumps, but they certainly painted a picture of a rather cozy relationship between the DNC and the press. That, and the rather thinly veiled effort by the press to cheer-lead for Hillary, and you're left with a media whose credibility has been battered and bruised. The most recent evidence was CNN's willingness to jettison their last vestiges of journalistic integrity to talk about documents that they've know for months had no credibility. It did give CNN several broadcast hours to advance all manner of speculation about "what this could mean for a Trump presidency if it was true".

Given all this, is it any wonder why the mainstream media's credibility is in the tank. Given recent behavior, one has to wonder if they even care. It also should be no surprise that as the mainstream media's credibility has eroded, the so called "5th estate" media sources have become more popular. If the media was interested in taking measures to address their credibility issues, I doubt we'd be talking about so called "fake news".

The media has a role to play. Whether or not one "trusts Trump", it should be the role of the media to report factually on the activities of government and elected officials. That role was specifically protected by the 1st Amendment. However, when the media picks sides as they so clearly did recently, they've abandoned that role. They should be taken to task for that. At least the NY Times has admitted that they lost touch. At least one small-market newspaper admitted that their coverage of the election lacked objectivity, and was influenced by stories / opinion sourced from major media outlets. Its a start, but I think we're a long way from a fix.

Thanks for the links.

It is obvious that enough of the public has realized that the major news outlets are not about news.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by bobabode

They must've emptied a Office Depot of manila folders for the props alone on that table alongside the podium. Sure would've been funny to see if any of those reams of paper had anything at all printed on them.

He kept yelling "fake news" at that reporter. He is not ready for prime time.

Any moron in Trump's situation would see the value of turning against Putin, if for no other reason than political survival. Trump won't turn and I think it is because the Russians have something on him. What else explains it?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by icenine

He kept yelling "fake news" at that reporter. He is not ready for prime time.

Any moron in Trump's situation would see the value of turning against Putin, if for no other reason than political survival. Trump won't turn and I think it is because the Russians have something on him. What else explains it?

I think you're right. Trump is probably up to his neck in debt to the Russian mob.

[whell]

Originally Posted by icenine

He kept yelling "fake news" at that reporter. He is not ready for prime time.

Any moron in Trump's situation would see the value of turning against Putin, if for no other reason than political survival. Trump won't turn and I think it is because the Russians have something on him. What else explains it?

Originally Posted by bobabode

I think you're right. Trump is probably up to his neck in debt to the Russian mob.

Yeah, its a great form of diplomacy to accuse other governments of all kinds of crap, particularly when you have no evidence.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Yeah, its a great form of diplomacy to accuse other governments of all kinds of crap, particularly when you have no evidence.

We have no evidence of Putin's treachery? Come now, Kellyanne.

Trump has criticized: Republicans, Democrats, the Pope, US elections, CIA, FBI, NATO, Meryl Streep. Trump hasn't criticized: Vladimir Putin.

- Garry Kasparov, Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation

It is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of Trump's fawning admiration of Putin, given that he has made a number of business trips to Russia, hired a bunch folks with close ties to and sympathy for Russia (Manafort, Flynn, Page, Tillerson, Bannon), encouraged Russian hacking efforts during his campaign, and refuses to release his tax returns. If he's squeaky clean, he has the capacity to prove it by releasing his tax returns, as every Presidential candidate has done for the past 50 years. Otherwise, he (and you) have no reason to complain about how people perceive his suspicious relationship with Russia. He's earned it.