All the news that isn't

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
Seems there are some that think conservatives lap up fake news like cats @ milk and are using that tactic to distance themselves from their embarrassment of believing the polls/news pre-election.

The good news is that less than 1/3 have faith in the MSM as "When they polled just conservative Republicans, it was 14%. So the 32% level is the average American." so a lot of people (regardless of political affiliation) are waking up.

Gallup first began asking if Americans trusted the mainstream media in 1972. America’s trust and confidence in mainstream media stood at its highest level back in 1976 at 72%. Of course, that was due to the investigative journalism regarding Vietnam, and naturally Woodward and Berstein, with the Watergate scandal.



Following that period, the media began to attack the right with Reagan. By the late 1990s, the Americans’ trust in the media fell steadily into the low to mid 50% level.

Following 2005, the trust in mainstream media dropped into the mid 40% range. It has consistently been below a majority level ever since the 2007 economic decline. However, after the 2016 election and the extreme bias for Hillary, where virtually 99% of mainstream media deliberately tried to manipulate the people to vote for Hillary, the trust factor has collapsed to 32%. When they polled just conservative Republicans, it was 14%. So the 32% level is the average American.






Our models on the confidence in American mainstream media using the Gallup Poll data projects a sharp decline into 2019/2020, which is the bottom of the current 8.6-year Economic Confidence Model. This will be 43 years from high. Note that 2007 was 31 years from that peak. It was 2007 and the collapse in the economy that has marked the collapse in public confidence in government and the media.



We should expect that the media will viciously attack Donald Trump in a futile effort to cling to some level of importance and to desperately try to demonstrate that they were not wrong with 99% of the media endorsing Hillary. But the media willingly conspired to make Hillary president. They will now try to vindicate themselves by trashing Trump at every possible chance. They will now fuel the civil divide and help lay the foundation for the collapse of the United States itself by turning left against right. Even the New York Post wrote that what they were witnessing was the end of journalism. They will do everything to try to change Congress in 2018. It appears that will be their last stand. The younger generation does not buy newspapers and magazines. Their end is near.

Trump summoned the mainstream TV media to Trump Tower for a meeting. Whether he can persuade them to stop the supporting of civil unrest remains to be seen. Lester Holt, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos and Wolf Blitzer all headed to this private meeting. All have demonstrated outrageous bias and have disgraced the very purpose of a free press as they all tried to influence the people rather than report the news. Even Saturday Night Live made fun of how biased mainstream media has been...
​
(Missing video posted earlier in the thread.)
Click to expand...
LOL, this from a person who trusts Bannon to give him his information. Hey Choomer, the mainstream press has dropped in public trust beginning in Reagan's era because they reported the truth when Republicans didn't and attacked the media in the same manner as Nazis in '33. The right wing despises a free press.

You, on the other hand have no concept of truth. You are like one of those simple organisms that eat and shit from the same orifice. Except you talk through it too.
 
choomer

choomer

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, later located on page 24:

Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.​

'But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker, its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote “the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier.”

Criticism culminated this week when the "Naked capitalism" blog threatened to sue the Washington Post, demanding a retraction.

Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections?'

So WaPo warns about fake news and then posts an "editorial note" saying it's not responsible for fact checking front page news showcasing an anonymous website that is revising the list it crafted so diligently to warn us about alt-right Russian propaganda?


:D
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
There's nothing like a man fired for falsely reporting the news debasing other news sources as "fake news".

Click to expand...
"fake news" is an oxymoron.

disseminating misinformation designed to achieve a political end is called propaganda.

what brian williams did is called exaggerating.

what you are doing is called proving how stupid white supremacists are on a public forum.

now let's get back to your conspiracy theory (aka propaganda) about how obama is a secret kenyan muslim homo.
 
choomer

choomer

Well-Known Member
Seems Glenn Greenwald has some thoughts on the MSNBC hypocrisy as well.

"Hard-Core Clinton Fanatic" Manufactured "Viral Fake News" That MSNBC Used To Discredit Wikileaks
Authored by Glenn Greenwald via The Intercept,

The phrase “Fake News” has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as “terrorism” and “hate speech”; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

One of the most egregious examples was the recent Washington Post article hyping a new anonymous group and its disgusting blacklist of supposedly pro-Russia news outlets – a shameful article mindlessly spread by countless journalists who love to decry Fake News, despite the Post article itself being centrally based on Fake News. (The Post this week finally added a lame editor’s note acknowledging these critiques; the Post editors absurdly claimed that they did not mean to “vouch for the validity” of the blacklist even though the article’s key claims were based on doing exactly that).

Now we have an even more compelling example. Back in October, when WikiLeaks was releasing emails from the John Podesta archive, Clinton campaign officials and their media spokespeople adopted a strategy of outright lying to the public, claiming – with no basis whatsoever – that the emails were doctored or fabricated and thus should be ignored. That lie – and that is what it was: a claim made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth – was most aggressively amplified by MSNBC personalities such as Joy Ann Reid and Malcolm Nance, The Atlantic’s David Frum, and Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald.

That the emails in the Wikileaks archive were doctored or faked – and thus should be disregarded – was classic Fake News, spread not by Macedonian teenagers or Kremlin operatives but by established news outlets such as MSNBC, the Atlantic and Newsweek. And, by design, this Fake News spread like wildfire all over the internet, hungrily clicked and shared by tens of thousands of people eager to believe it was true. As a result of this deliberate disinformation campaign, anyone reporting on the contents of the emails was instantly met with claims that the documents in the archive had been proven fake.

The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC’s intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I documented on October 11, he tweeted what he – for some bizarre reason – labeled an “Official Warning.” It decreed: “#PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done.” That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like Reid and Frum (“expert to take seriously”).

All of that, in turn, led to an article in something called “The Daily News Bin” with the headline: “MSNBC intelligence expert: WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton.” This classic fake news product – citing
<snip - more at https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/>
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
Congratulations Buckold, you were able to find the one fake news site in a list of 200 (quoted, not posted) and it only took you ~3 weeks.
It's a banner week ain't it Buckold?
Click to expand...
i actually have a whole thread dedicated to the propaganda sites you think are good sources of information.

i literally just pick a site out of the list at random and take a screenshot of their homepage, and it is good for laughs.

but the fact is that you bemoaned the fact that this neo-nazi, white supremacist website was called out for being propaganda.

and there is no way to undo that.

you fucking jew hating neo-nazi scumbag. i'd love to personally put a bullet in your head. nazis need shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top