Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Fake News

47 replies to this topic

Poll: Fake News (35 member(s) have cast votes)

Is there fake news?

  1. Yes, I believe there is some politically biased mainstream news channels (13 votes [33.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  2. No, I believe mainstream news is legitimate and honest (2 votes [5.13%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.13%

  3. I believe there's both honest and dishonest news, with some hiding their bias better than others (12 votes [30.77%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.77%

  4. All mainstream news is bullsh*t (10 votes [25.64%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.64%

  5. Other (2 votes [5.13%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.13%

Vote Guests cannot vote
Shermhead
  • Shermhead

    ryder nigga

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Mars

#1

Posted 10 August 2017 - 08:36 AM Edited by Shermhead, 10 August 2017 - 09:04 AM.

You've probably heard the term 'fake news', which was created by Donald Trump, spewed by someone at one point or another. The question is, do you believe it? What I mean by that is, do you think there is "fake news" (biased, one-sided, propaganda, ect) or do all news channels secretly have their biases, or are they all honest? Leave a comment and vote!


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#2

Posted 10 August 2017 - 08:46 AM Edited by Typhus, 10 August 2017 - 08:46 AM.

I think what's important to note is that the term "fake news" is just not helpful. It's a gross oversimplification.

The idea of complete journalistic impartiality is a good one, but how can it ever be truly achieved? Human bias will inevitably slip into reporting, be it in news articles or opinion pieces, there's really no stopping it. It seems to me that rather than carp about "fake news", the sound thing to do is widen the range of news sources you use.

 

Certainly, some oversight is required, primarily when journalists and pundits incite violence or prejudice against various social groups, but as soon as the "fake news" title entered the public lexicon, it was used for nothing so noble, and instead was a way to shrug off even the most valid and reasoned criticism of Trump and other right-wing populists.

  • Tchuck likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#3

Posted 10 August 2017 - 08:55 AM

This is an interesting topic but I don't think the initial post does it much, if any, justice. Do you mind expanding it a bit?
  • The7thOne likes this

Matty
  • Matty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2009
  • Australia

#4

Posted 10 August 2017 - 10:08 AM

My take on the whole 'fake news' thing is that there is a very stark difference between what can be considered actual fake news, content that is outright blatant lies designed to inflame and provoke rather than inform and challenge; and critical reporting, that may also be biased, that is often referred to by opponents as 'fake news'.

What Donald Trump and other Right-wing populist pundits and politicians dismiss as fake news is actually reporting by media outlets that they dislike because these media outlets do their jobs, critique and hold them to account for their actions.

News reports that are presented to cater to a particular political bent, whether Left or Right, aren't necessarily fake news. Such reports almost always refer to statements or quotes from all sides, for and against, of a particular argument in the main body but they may be headlined differently depending on the media outlet. For example, a Right-leaning publication reporting on controversial actions of a Right-wing politician may be headlined as "right-wing politician defends actions amid criticism", whereas a Left-leaning publication may headline the same report as "opponents lash actions of right-wing politician". It's the same story, it's still informing, but from two different angles to cater to their respective audiences. Both angles are biased, yes, but neither of them is fake news.

Both sides can also rubbish opinion and editorials on reported events as 'fake', but they aren't really news as it is the author's opinion, which will naturally be biased in one way or another, and people will either be for or against. A media outlet may publish wall to wall opinion pieces from journalists slamming the actions of a particular political leader, but that doesn't make that media outlet a propegator of fake news (though it would be easy for supporters of said politician to label and dismiss it as such).

However, any content that covers things that never happened, don't exist, or is outright conspiracy that flies in the face of reality or any credible evidence (think the birther movement, think climate change denialism, think "Muslims are taking over the West!", among others), that is only designed to provoke and inflame rather than inform and challenge; can be considered fake news, and that includes opinion and editorials on the basis of this as well.
  • El Diablo, Tchuck, Saggy and 1 other like this

Argonaut
  • Argonaut

    what did he mean by this

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#5

Posted 10 August 2017 - 11:11 AM Edited by Argonaut, 10 August 2017 - 11:16 AM.

I don't particularly appreciate the term 'fake news' and what it represents. From my perspective, it seems to have came about in the last two years within the commentariat as an unnecessary term for already explainable things- if a source is exaggerated the story is exaggerated, if a story fails to include an important fact it's disingenuous etc etc. Saying something is 'fake' is, as Typhus said, over simplistic, as the manner in which the story is fake must be explained. The presence of this after the term is used is now left to greater chance than when it wasn't in public lexicon- a time where I'd like to assume some form of it (explaining how the story is fake) came first.

 

What does it represent? Probably some form of impatience or irritation with how media, online and social, is influencing people's minds on current affairs in such 'tense' times. I don't think it's a good thing as it seems to be a part of assigning some sort of uniqueness or unexpectedness to the last two years of political events- an attitude I'm not keen on as one which plays into hysteria about our times. Whilst things have changed, we haven't woken up as completely different people, and the reasons for such developments can be traced back.

  • El Diablo likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#6

Posted 10 August 2017 - 12:23 PM

The term "Fake News" is, in effect, poisoning the well. It's designed explicitly to allow its user to invalidate anything an organisation prints without having to actually address claims made. Frankly, all news outlets have an editorial stance that could be construed as bias. The best way of being able to tell how "fake" one is is to look at how they respond to being called out on printing factually inaccurate rubbish. If they retract and apologise, reprimand people responsible etc, they're probably alright. If they double down on their bullsh*t, they're probably fake
  • El Diablo likes this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#7

Posted 10 August 2017 - 01:04 PM

The opening post of this topic is also inaccurate, the term 'fake news' was not created by Donald Trump. It was created by researchers in the Autumn of 2016 to describe articles circulating on Facebook and Twitter, that were deliberately fake.

Donald Trump took the term 'fake news' and used it to attack his opponents. As such you now have two definitions of 'fake news': News that are actually fake or news you don't like.

When Facebook say it is trying to combat 'fake news', it is referring to the original definition. Fact checking sites, such as PolitiFact, Snopes, etc. are focusing harder on tracking these fake news stories, because then Facebook will attack links to these fact checking sites, when someone posts a link to a fake news article.

I am frankly astonished to see that no one in this topic so far recognises that Donald Trump has ruined a perfectly good term. But it's not the only term he has ruined, like 'US President'.
  • El Diablo, darthYENIK, Tchuck and 5 others like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#8

Posted 10 August 2017 - 03:28 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 10 August 2017 - 03:37 PM.

The opening post of this topic is also inaccurate, the term 'fake news' was not created by Donald Trump. It was created by researchers in the Autumn of 2016 to describe articles circulating on Facebook and Twitter, that were deliberately fake.

It was actually popularized after Hillary Clinton had lost, and something other than her being a terrible candidate had to be blamed for her losing by the mainstream media. So then after she had already lost the mainstream media started running stories about pro Trump fake news on Facebook. When they still thought Hillary was going to win they didn't think that was even remotely interesting.

And then Trump, being a demagogou, started using it himself, but that came later.

Edit: Just found out it was already widely used before the result, and turns out I'm wrong on this lol. I remembered it being used a lot in the aftermath of the confusion about the result.

  • sivispacem likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#9

Posted 10 August 2017 - 05:12 PM

Edit: Just found out it was already widely used before the result, and turns out I'm wrong on this lol.


Hilariously so. It's like you created a magical narrative that perfectly fit your personal views and then imaginarily transposed it into reality.
  • El Diablo and Saggy like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#10

Posted 10 August 2017 - 05:22 PM

 

Edit: Just found out it was already widely used before the result, and turns out I'm wrong on this lol.


Hilariously so. It's like you created a magical narrative that perfectly fit your personal views and then imaginarily transposed it into reality.

It's mainly due to the fact that I follow Dutch news. I generally don't watch CNN. On Dutch news they started reporting on it immediately after Hillary lost, so that is why I estimated that to be the reason for it becoming a thing. But a five minute google search supported Svip's point that it became a thing in the months before the actual voting.

  • sivispacem likes this

Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#11

Posted 10 August 2017 - 08:51 PM Edited by Saggy, 10 August 2017 - 08:54 PM.

Edit: Just found out it was already widely used before the result, and turns out I'm wrong on this lol.

Hilariously so. It's like you created a magical narrative that perfectly fit your personal views and then imaginarily transposed it into reality.
It's mainly due to the fact that I follow Dutch news. I generally don't watch CNN. On Dutch news they started reporting on it immediately after Hillary lost, so that is why I estimated that to be the reason for it becoming a thing. But a five minute google search supported Svip's point that it became a thing in the months before the actual voting.
Dutch news is fake news. Take that, well.


I think what's interesting here is what sivis mentioned about news outlets retracting and reprimanding, but I believe this is more of a recent happening thanks to all the new attention being placed on credibility. CNN for example basically fired some of its correspondents after they failed to follow journalistic guidelines, but would the same thing have happened if there wasn't this massive scrutiny placed on them right now?

Then you have other organizations who never correct, never retract, and I don't even need to name names. The thing is, they're going to look better to their base of viewers because they have always assumed they were factul and honest. Meanwhile, CNN gets its hand caught in the cookie jar, and it makes the average person wonder how much they've got away with before getting caught. Meanwhile, their "trusted" network has never lead them astray (to their knowledge).

So what happens is the lying network that sticks to their lies appears more trustworthy. Best yet, any competing news organization that attempts to undermine their credibility can then once again be thrown into the "fake news" dismissal. Credibility becomes a matter of how often you repeat the same bullsh*t, and how vehemently you deny any evidence to the contrary.

It's ironic but certain news networks have realized that unrelenting dishonesty gains trust better than integrity and honesty. It's as certain news outlets ran on the same model crooked used car dealers would, and it just happens to be successful. The key is appealing to a certain demographic that resists critical thinking, and accepts... No, ABSORBS the messages they're putting out. That is what perpetuates things like the Birther movement, and keeps the networks that push such things relevant.

Long story short, organizations like CNN just end up looking like they've been caught with their pants down when they fail to live up to journalistic standards. On the contrary, outlets like Fox news who never have and never will operate on the same journalistic standards, never have to experience the same embraising moment because they have been running the entire operation with their parents down the whole time, and are supported by a viewership that would claim their pants were up as their big floppy member slaps them around in the face.
  • sivispacem likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#12

Posted 10 August 2017 - 09:11 PM

I'm not sure what the point is, here...

 

of course some news is biased.

but a lot of news isn't.

 

if you're just talking about television then the picture is skewed.

the majority of news journalism in the world occurs outside of cable TV.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#13

Posted 10 August 2017 - 09:18 PM

The reason people think CNN is dishonest is not because they explicitly lie all the time. It is because they are extremely biased, one sided, sensationalistic and superficial. The reason people are currently more pissed off at networks like CNN is because the CNN typical bias is just far more influential in the global media than the Fox news typical bias. It's likely to be true that Fox news lies explicitly more often than CNN. But the more influential the dishonesty, the more problematic it is.

Apart from that, I don't think the Fox viewers really trust Fox so much on factual accuracy, just like I don't think Trump voters think Trump is someone who is factually accurate. I don't really think they care as much about factual accuracy.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#14

Posted 10 August 2017 - 09:39 PM

I don't really buy into the assertion that CNN is anywhere near as biased as a small clique of people like to infer it is. Which isn't to say that it's impartial, but the view it's a particular bastion of sensationalistic drivel deserving of significant ire in the grand scheme of the utter supernova of f*ckwittery which characterises the entire US media landscape seems to rather over-egg the pudding.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#15

Posted 10 August 2017 - 09:57 PM

If you share the type of biases of the mainstream, then of course you won't think it is as problematic. So biases such as rather stereotypical mainstream feminism. A bias towards the idea that the police is a racist violent gang of thugs. Optimism about low schooled possibly illegal immigration. Neoconservative ideas about foreign policy. I'm sure if I think longer, I'll come up with more of these, but these are the sort of biases some people take issue with, especially if they are shoved down your throat with unreflective sensationalism. CNN actually have a very Hillary Clinton like world outlook. They generally do not tell obvious falsehoods, but their reporting is rather one sided uncritical sensationalism.


Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#16

Posted 10 August 2017 - 10:24 PM

The reason people think CNN is dishonest is not because they explicitly lie all the time. It is because they are extremely biased, one sided, sensationalistic and superficial. The reason people are currently more pissed off at networks like CNN is because the CNN typical bias is just far more influential in the global media than the Fox news typical bias. It's likely to be true that Fox news lies explicitly more often than CNN. But the more influential the dishonesty, the more problematic it is.
Apart from that, I don't think the Fox viewers really trust Fox so much on factual accuracy, just like I don't think Trump voters think Trump is someone who is factually accurate. I don't really think they care as much about factual accuracy.


https://www.usatoday...tion/555769001/

http://thefederalist...ical-discourse/

You might find these two articles interesting. The second is mainly an offering of the middle, show how it is an issue that can affect both sides, but the first one... Are you sure Fox Mews doesn't have more influence than you think?

I understand your feelings towards the mainstream media as a whole, and so as the big kahoona, CNN is naturally going to be an object of your ire as well, and produce much h more of the garbage in terms of volume. However, what's the alternative? Can you offer me a news source that has even half the credibility, that doesn't also get sucked into the sensationalistic game?

We kinda f*cked up in this country when news became entertainment. News use to be boring, dull, and unexciting but now they must all play the sensation game in order to stay funded and relevant. It's not so much the mainstream media that has co-opted news, as much as it is television media specifically that has done it. The true death blow to independent news and journalism was cable news shows. Before with the news on an hour a day on broadcast, they could handle that; but now they have to be interesting 24/7. It has lead to a degradation of journalism as its taken a backseat to entertainment.

News outlets find themselves now in a precarious position where they must manufacture sensation around a particular event. The politicians love this because then they can determine how the story is spun in order to influence their constituents. So for example, a NOAA report shows global warming occurring faster than we anticipated. CNN will run this as a chicken little end of the world piece, where Fox will run it as a conspiracy theory, and each constituent base will be enthralled and earning the respective outlet their ad revenue and Nielsen ratings. Meanwhile the actual information NOAA wanted to put out, well it gets distored, exagerated, dissmissed, belittled, but never actually consumed as information. Instead of being considered for policy change, it becomes fodder for Facebook arguments, just making it easier for the producers to determine what fears and apprehensions can be exploited and manipulated for even better viewership.

So in the end it doesn't matter how good a job journalists do, when it ultimately comes down to some producer who is not interested in journalism in the least. That's why even really great, well researched reports showing one thing, can be corrupted into what seem like biased spin. To be truly informed, one must take in all the spin on one issue and read between the lines, but most people just plain don't have the interest to do this even if they have the time and mental ability. That latter point is important because as much as I hate to subscribe to the idea that the majority of people are dumb, one must admit that a substantial number of people watching cable news networks probably don't have thr highest literacy or critical thinking skills to actually see what's written between those lines, and must rely on the earnestness of reporters who are only interested in appeasing the producers ratings grab.
  • El Diablo likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#17

Posted 11 August 2017 - 12:43 AM

If you share the type of biases of the mainstream, then of course you won't think it is as problematic. So biases such as rather stereotypical mainstream feminism. A bias towards the idea that the police is a racist violent gang of thugs. Optimism about low schooled possibly illegal immigration. Neoconservative ideas about foreign policy. I'm sure if I think longer, I'll come up with more of these, but these are the sort of biases some people take issue with...

wait; the mainstream media thinks police are racist gangs of violent thugs? I've really never gotten this impression. I'd like to know how exactly you've arrived at this conclusion. perhaps some examples would be nice. I don't watch CNN all day but maybe you're seeing things I haven't seen.

 

we should be optimistic about immigration in general. not sure what the "low schooled" remark has to do with anything. most people are already against "illegal" immigration. I haven't really noticed the media making big excuses for illegal immigrants as much as arguing for a way to provide them with legal paths and alternatives once they're already here; as opposed to just throwing them back across the border. sounds a little disingenuous on your part but perhaps you're consuming a lot more CNN than I.

 

"neoconservative ideas about foreign policy" is also pretty generic and going to require some examples...

 

CNN actually have a very Hillary Clinton like world outlook.

:lol:  seriously bro.

what does this even mean?


Happy Hunter
  • Happy Hunter

    Huntèr civil rights activist

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2016
  • None
  • Governor of San Andreas 2017
    Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#18

Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:34 AM Edited by Happy Hunter, 11 August 2017 - 01:45 AM.

You've probably heard the term 'fake news', which was created by Donald Trump

This isn't actually true. Actually, he started using it when the mainstream media and pro-Hillary companies, etc. used it against smaller news sources. It wasn't as prominent, so maybe not everyone remembers, but the mainstream media and others started slowly phasing it in - usually branding pro-Trump news sources as fake.

 

These same news sources turned it around; Trump picked up on it and joined in - then you're left with "You are fake news, very fake news" all the time.

 

Before that, I think the Chinese government might've used it to shut down journalists and censor people. I can't remember right now though, so that may or may not be true.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#19

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:29 AM

If you share the type of biases of the mainstream, then of course you won't think it is as problematic.


Even if this were true, which I don't think it is, and putting aside the astounding hypocrisy of claims like this, especially in the context of the complete nonsensical drivel you posted a few hours ago, this is a complete non sequitur. It completely unreasonable to assert that, just because someone may happen to hold views that (you think, usually incorrectly) align with those those of the MSM does not make them pathologically incapable of evaluating bias.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#20

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:39 AM

Sure you could still evaluate their bias to an extent. Part of the evaluation of their bias depends on how often you agree with them, but even if you agree with them, it would still be obvious how unreasonable they are concerning their opponents, and how one sided their coverage is, but seemingly you don't think that's true.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#21

Posted 11 August 2017 - 09:13 AM

Part of the evaluation of their bias depends on how often you agree with them

I don't think it does.

You either evaluate their editorial stance and presentation from a factual perspective, in which case your personal views are irrelevant.

Or you evaluate from a subjective perspective, correlating editorial stance with your own views and asserting that anything that doesn't match up is bias.

The difference is that only one of these- the first one- is actually an evaluation of bias rather than a manifestation of it.
  • Tchuck likes this

Mister Pink
  • Mister Pink

    XMD5A

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004
  • None
  • Best Poster [Music] 2016
    Best Poster [Music] 2015
    Best Poster [Music] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Music] 2013
    Best Contributor [Music] 2012

#22

Posted 11 August 2017 - 11:07 AM Edited by Mister Pink, 11 August 2017 - 11:09 AM.

....

wait; the mainstream media thinks police are racist gangs of violent thugs? I've really never gotten this impression. I'd like to know how exactly you've arrived at this conclusion. perhaps some examples would be nice. I don't watch CNN all day but maybe you're seeing things I haven't seen...

 

Unfortunately, yes, I just plucked this article here as it was the first one I found. 

https://www.nytimes....orce-finds.html

 

They're basing their opinion by data they collected by a task force that was set up in Chicago and then pushing a victim narrative that blacks are disproportionately focused on by police because of systemic racism. One of those pieces of data looks like this: 74% of the 404 people shot by police were black. But this is just due to racism, not like the people that were shot were probably committing more and/or running from the police. No, it's just racism. The article fails to knowledge that FBI statistics that people who are "victims" in all this are statistically committing more crimes like homicide. In fact the stats are something to the affect of nearly about 50% of homicides in the US between 1980 and 2008 were committed by a minority that make up 13% of the population. That's a least according to FBI. Other Harvard study suggests police might be more inclined to use handling forces such as pushing suspects up against a wall against blacks and hispanics but when it comes to shooting, they're more inclined to shoot whites. 

 

This USA Today article: 

Spoiler

 

Now, I'm not saying there isn't racists in society or even the police or the police are perfect. There have certainly been shootings by police that are just categorically wrong but in my opinion it's more dangerous to default to "see, cuz racism" narrative that mainstream media outlets like you espouse because you'll end up with a generation of people not taking any responsibility for their actions when they're being fed the narrative that they don't have a chance because racism is systemic in police force and it's out to get them.  

 

There's always a bias in the news but I've learned to digest the news from conservatives as well as liberal media. I find myself disagreeing with both sides. But one is usually good a correcting the other, especially if the data/research is poorly done the other is quick to point it out. I find myself disagreeing with people that I know only form their opinions of leftist media or vice versa. My uncle and intelligent man, programmer and former chemist reads only The Guardian and I find he was a little shocked when challenging his views on policing in the U.S. My point is, it's hard to get in to debate with someone who's only digesting media from one source. It's funny because even some friends have accused me of being a Trump supporter for simply challenging their viewpoint or someone who watches infowars (which the answer is no to both) merely for challenging what they've been listening to or digesting via mainstream media. 

 

Anyway I just plucked two articles out but I see police are racist articles all the time.

  • Eutyphro and Shermhead like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#23

Posted 11 August 2017 - 12:09 PM

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it's a non sequitur to assert that crime or even violent crime rates can be directly compared to the rate of fatal shootings by police officers. The only thing that determines the proportionality of any officer involved shooting is the exact circumstances. It's not unreasonable to state that ethnic minorities are massively disproportionately the victims of officer involved shootings- that's simply fact. Conversely it is unreasonable to try and infer that the rates of criminal offending justify this disparity.

As an aside, institutional racism in some US police forces is not really up for debate. Groups like the Lynnwood Vikings are the personification of this. White supremacist and neo-Nazi gangs like the Aryan Nations have explicitly called on their supporters to infiltrate law enforcement.
  • El Diablo, Tchuck and Fonz like this

Chiari
  • Chiari

    I'm everything you wish you were

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#24

Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:37 PM

A couple of years ago I was watching MSNBC break the news on a train crash in Pennsylvania in which 8 people were killed. Mind you, this was during prime time and in 2015. Chris Matthews stood opposite of Chris Hayes and asked the young man "Who's to blame for this? Is it the conductor? Is it Amtrack?" Without even a moment of hesitation, Chris Hayes responded: "Well, it really goes back the Bush administration"  and offered no explanation. Matthews just smiled, shook Hayes' hand and responded "Yeah, you're right" and then the segment ended.

 

All mainstream media is 'fake news'. IMO, fake news is the reporting of events influenced by bias, so the more biased a network is the faker the news is. Fox, NBC, and ABC are all fake. CNN, which was once fair, is even worse. The worst of the mainstream media is, of course, MSNBC. This network literally hired Al Sharpton (a race-baiting criminal) and Rachel Maddow (the most neurotic and unstable human being in MSM). MSNBC honestly isn't even worthy of being called news. 

 

But for some people, the news just isn't fake enough, and so they take to other media. There are actually people that are dumb enough to form their viewpoints based on comedy sketches. People tune into Bill Maher, Samantha Bee, Colbert, and John Oliver and then form their beliefs based around punchlines. It's incredible. 

 

As for the reporting of racially motivated killings by police, I think we're in real trouble here. For a few years now, we've been constantly looping footage of black men being shot by police without any facts or context. We have pundits say 'police are racist' or 'this is murder' or 'white supremacist America'.  Almost always, it becomes evident that the killing was justified. The media spends almost no time at all reporting that the killing was justified, and then some psycho racist gets radicalized by MSM and takes to the streets killing a handful of cops because they're white. There is no news anymore. There is only propaganda. 


Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#25

Posted 11 August 2017 - 05:17 PM

I actually think Stephen Colbert is funny, but to each his own.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    First of his name

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#26

Posted 11 August 2017 - 05:56 PM Edited by The Yokel, 11 August 2017 - 08:19 PM.

I think there's a difference between biased media and fake news. I consider fake news to be articles about things that literally didn't even happen. Like PizzaGate crap or slave children colonies on Mars. The kind of sh*t that was going on during the last year presidential campaign when all kinds of fake articles from dodgy websites appeared on the internet. As horrible as mainstream media are, most of them are not literally making up things that didn't happen. They take the truth, or some event that happened, and they spin it in a direction that corresponds with their political agenda. While I wouldn't put a fake news label on that kind of practice, it doesn't mean that it's acceptable or that it's somehow better than fake news.

  • El Diablo and Tchuck like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#27

Posted 11 August 2017 - 07:19 PM

welcome to the kitchen, Pink.
enjoy the heat.

https://www.nytimes....orce-finds.html

 

Other Harvard study suggests police might be more inclined to use handling forces such as pushing suspects up against a wall against blacks and hispanics but when it comes to shooting, they're more inclined to shoot whites. 

 


https://www.usatoday...lity/101481438/

 

Anyway I just plucked two articles out but I see police are racist articles all the time.

I appreciate you giving this the ole college try, but at this point you've got the implications wrong. Sivis has already pointed it out but I'll elaborate.

 

your first article is specifically about the Chicago PD and systemic racism in general. the 2nd article extrapolates this point with examples from other high-profile incidents of fatal force and racial profiling. the Harvard study confirms more of the same. but no one is arguing that American police don't have issues with racial discrimination or excessive force. certain areas of the country are obviously much better than others. some are much worse.

 

but this is very different than claiming that the mainstream news media is categorically identifying all police as "violent racist thugs." that was Euty's original point and you haven't exactly proven it yet. neither of you have proven it. you're welcome to try again.

 


There is no news anymore. There is only propaganda.

this is just blatant bullsh/t.

 

of course some news is propaganda.

but there is objective news and there are objective reporters and news outlets. just because certain news might make your beliefs look bad doesn't mean it's automatically propaganda. this is a gross oversimplification of the issue at hand. not that I expected much else from the likes of you...


Chiari
  • Chiari

    I'm everything you wish you were

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#28

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:00 PM

this is just blatant bullsh/t.

 

of course some news is propaganda.

but there is objective news and there are objective reporters and news outlets. just because certain news might make your beliefs look bad doesn't mean it's automatically propaganda. this is a gross oversimplification of the issue at hand. not that I expected much else from the likes of you...

 

You are precisely the person I was talking about when I mentioned morons forming their beliefs from satirists. I'm sure we'll both be watching Maher tonight; the difference is that after I laugh it off I'll put it out of my mind. You, however, will mold his jokes into your political views. I don't fully understand why you think it's appropriate for someone like you to reply to me, but I'll go ahead and humor you as if you were an equal.

 

Reporters are no longer in the mainstream media, except for in the day time when literally no one outside of a nursing home or break room is watching. What you see on CNN, Fox, MSNBC etc every night are commentators. They are giving you their opinions dressed up as news. Some people, like you, are stupid enough to eat up their speculation and spins as facts. Others see it for what it is, propaganda. The news is something like 'Russia is believed to have interfered in the US election'.Fake news, that you think is news, is the 8-month-long discussion that follows about whores urinating on beds, 

 

As for what the yokel is talking about in regards to entirely fabricated articles, I don't consider that to be fake news. You can call it bullsh*t, or fiction, or sh*tposting or whatever else really, but it is in no way news. 

  • Shermhead likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#29

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:14 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 12 August 2017 - 12:52 AM.

 that the mainstream news media is categorically identifying all police as "violent racist thugs." that was Euty's original point

That's bullsh*t. That wasn't my point. But they have a tendency to go for rather stereotypical narratives such as 'police are racist and kill blacks', 'potentially racist white cop shoots black man', probably because appealing to stereotypes provides good ratings. 'White man shot by cop' isn't as successful a headline, but it happens in quite similar numbers as black men being shot by police. Many incidents of white people killed by excessive police force have almost been completely ignored. I also have a feeling there's a more sinister divide and conquer strategy where corporate entities specifically want to keep racial tensions high to keep the population divided and resentful, but that is speculation.

  • Triple Vacuum Seal and Shermhead like this

Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#30

Posted 12 August 2017 - 12:42 AM

 

this is just blatant bullsh/t.

 

of course some news is propaganda.

but there is objective news and there are objective reporters and news outlets. just because certain news might make your beliefs look bad doesn't mean it's automatically propaganda. this is a gross oversimplification of the issue at hand. not that I expected much else from the likes of you...

 

You are precisely the person I was talking about when I mentioned morons forming their beliefs from satirists. I'm sure we'll both be watching Maher tonight; the difference is that after I laugh it off I'll put it out of my mind. You, however, will mold his jokes into your political views. I don't fully understand why you think it's appropriate for someone like you to reply to me, but I'll go ahead and humor you as if you were an equal.

 

Reporters are no longer in the mainstream media, except for in the day time when literally no one outside of a nursing home or break room is watching. What you see on CNN, Fox, MSNBC etc every night are commentators. They are giving you their opinions dressed up as news. Some people, like you, are stupid enough to eat up their speculation and spins as facts. Others see it for what it is, propaganda. The news is something like 'Russia is believed to have interfered in the US election'.Fake news, that you think is news, is the 8-month-long discussion that follows about whores urinating on beds, 

 

As for what the yokel is talking about in regards to entirely fabricated articles, I don't consider that to be fake news. You can call it bullsh*t, or fiction, or sh*tposting or whatever else really, but it is in no way news. 

 

 

OH yeah, I'm sure that your inane bias that "Almost always, the shooting is shown as justified," isn't a byproduct of drinking O'Reily/Limbaugh/Hannity/insert-some-conservative-talking-head-here brand of Kool-Aid.  This is what I love the most about conservatives, they are completely incapable of seeing how how they fall into the same cognitive dissonances, the same biases, the same fallacies of the Left they accuse of being misled.  You know the old phrase, "Wake up and smell what you're shoveling"? Well, the conservatives think what they're shoveling don't stink, and think that to a Dunning-Kruger level of ignorance.

 

But lets stick to one issue at a time.  If we diverge the path of police shootings that's going to become a debate in itself.  However, what can't be ignored, is your obvious bias.  You don't think that there's any possibility that your opinion on news networks is determined by that bias just like the rest of human society? #sh*tdon'tstink

 

While you mull that over, I really wonder, is there really that much of a difference between the comedians of the Left (Oliver, Stewart, Noah, and *cringes* Maher...  f*ck that guy though seriously.  Can we count Chelsea Handler instead?) and the "boogeyman" of the Right?  Seriously, I get the idea that formatting news into comedy might make it seem less credible, but do you honestly think the Right's talking heads are employing any less theatrics? The difference is while the Left likes to be entertained by jokes, the Right likes ghoststories.

 

But you can't discount either bit of information because of the presentation.  That's just f*cking stupid.  Do you think when I turn on some Right news source I go, "Oh boy, fake news."  No, I sit there and listen and consider what they've said, and I've seen more than enough exchanges like the one you claimed happened between what's-his-face and the other dipsh*t.  I mean my god, the way Tucker use to brown-nose Bill O'Rely, I'm surprised he doesn't have a permanent collar around his neck with how far up his ass he was at any given moment.  I can be just as generalist, and suppose these are probably the guys that you've cultivated most of your biases about police shootings from.  Not your views, but your biases. In any case, part of being impartial is stuffing that inner voice away and listening to what they're saying.  If you discount the facts as they are because they've been delivered in a comedic format, then all you're doing is robbing yourself of better comprehension of a given issue. Meanwhile, quite the opposite, if you embrace falsehoods as facts because they're delivered in the format you like, you only tarnish your comprehension of an issue. Between John Oliver and Bill O'Reily, I certainly have seen O'Reily "distort" facts a little more than to get a laugh.... http://www.politifac...-about-shootin/

 

The thing is that bias is not necessarily a bad thing, but you have to acknowledge it exists whenever you're disseminating any piece of information, and you have to pay attention to your own biases as well.  It's really sad to me the level of critical thinking skills that has been completely lost on people when they watch or read any kind of media, to the point where it's literally became a black and white thing that just re-enforces those biases. In truth it's become this way deliberately, and I think one thing we could agree on is that cable-news media hasn't been about information for a long time. It's all entertainment for the media companies, and divide-and-conquer tactics for the political parties taking advantage of this platform.  It's not like I don't have my cynicism about those sources, and a larger propensity to take other sources at their word, but if you can't recognize and moderate that, then you're not impartial, you're not a moderate, you're just the other side of the same coin.

 

If you really think there's a difference between someone like John Oliver and Bill O'Reily in terms of how legitimate they each are as a source of information, then you're too far to one side.  Dismissing either source of information as "fake news" instead of disseminating it critically is essentially the pinnacle of ignorance.  Maybe you should stop listening to the talking heads screaming "fake news" and pick your head up out of the sand.

 

You know who "fake news" people remind me of?  Stupid ass stoners that thought every single negative piece of information or fact about marijuana that exists was some kind of disinformation piece in the grand conspiracy theory. Pointing at the mainstream media as "fake news" is pretty much just as daft.  The "mainstream media" exists in their mind like a group of shadowy faces surrounding a table in a darkened room.  It's almost more like they try to label it as if it was one cohesive entity, the "mainstream media", like it's just some nuisance animal run amok. 

 

The news media is not really that complicated, and the idea that it runs as some kind of cohesive entity is just so laughably contrary to how news actually media works.  Between journalists, reporters ( and yes reporters are distinct from journalists ), producers, editors, and so forth there is such a clash of interests that there is generally a 10:1 ratio of "news" that gets left out, to "news" that makes it into the front page or on the prime-time news hour. The only reason there is any collusion, any hint of a political influence, is because basically all of these different news networks and publications are actually owned by a handful of individuals.  Between Viacom and Time Warner there really are basically only two cable news channels.  The simple reality is that the all mighty dollar reigns supreme, so when it comes time to present the news, it comes down to what producers and editors know are going to get ratings or ad revenue, that will get them funding, that will allow them to slip in actual news among sensationalism. Those stories will always slip in through the cracks as long as there are journalists who want to get the truth out there, but the problem is their numbers are waning, and what you have left are reporters/commentators and talking heads who just want information to fit their narrative, and producers and editors who just want that narrative to get more viewers/readers and get ad revenue.  The only way politics comes into this picture at all, is because of the huge contributions that politically motivated donors make to the parent companies of media broadcast companies. It has effectively turned the cable news media world into "Spy vs Spy", and is slowly chipping away at print journalism.

 

Take politics out of it for  second, remember the difference in coverage of the Canadian Parliament Shooting?

 

 

But instead of us just bitching and moaning about this...

 

What would the solution be?  State-run news outlets with no susceptibility to funding influences? Yeah, well, then you just have to wonder if they're operating as a state-run propaganda outlet.  I think one strategy might be to cap the amount of advertising that can be done on a "news" show.  The main reason that networks keep coming up with a different "news program" and "news network" is because it just means more airtime for ads, and more potential ad revenue.  If you capped that at a certain level, it would remove some of the need for them so sensationalize everything in order to get more viewership.

 

The other problem though is donations and contributions from politically motivated benefactors.  I believe it should be policy that news programs must disclose who their contributors were even up to a PARENT level. So for example if Fox News or MSNBC gets a charitable donation from the Kochs or from George Soros respectively, but it comes through their parent companies (Time Warner and Viacom?  See, I don't even know ) then that should be disclosed at the beginning of the program. Most programs of any merit still elect to disclose their sponsors and contributors like this, but cable news tries to hide it.

  • El Diablo, Tchuck, Triple Vacuum Seal and 1 other like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users