Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Tuners
      2. Updates
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Blood Money
      2. Frontier Pursuits
      3. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      4. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

      1. GTANet 20th Anniversary
    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Fake News


Fake News  

96 members have voted

  1. 1. Is there fake news?

    • Yes, I believe there is some politically biased mainstream news channels
    • No, I believe mainstream news is legitimate and honest
    • I believe there's both honest and dishonest news, with some hiding their bias better than others
    • All mainstream news is bullsh*t
    • Other

Recommended Posts

Doctor Holliday
3 hours ago, Tyler said:

It's almost an insult, but I guess they're all dead anyway so who cares?

I mean, that's kind of the point, right? :lol:

Ultimately, our supposed intelligence and knowledge and wisdom is all relative to our time and place in history. If humanity survives another 2,000 years you can virtually guarantee that they will look back on us right now with the same air of superiority based on our ignorance of understandings that are yet to come.


Smart people and stupid people from hundreds of years ago are not much different than smart people and stupid people today. The only difference is what we consider to be verifiable facts for as long as they remain so. And when new information arrives that can update or replace those facts they will invariably evolve along with our perceived capacity to comprehend and integrate them into what we already know.


Give it enough time and everyone from the past eventually starts to look like a Caveman, regardless. The scary thing about this day and age is that suddenly there's a huge anti-intellectual movement being driven by an irrational distrust and disrespect for the established institutions of journalism, news media, and investigative reporting. Suddenly the "insult" is a badge of honor. Suddenly people refer to Ivy League graduates as a derogatory category of society. They think they're at war with the 'rich' or the 'elite...' and yet they're so utterly lost and drowning in the Fox News propaganda machine that they went ahead and voted for rich elite guy who will not do anything to help them.


For all of our pride and technology, future historians are going to look back on people living right now and decry our shameless ignorance and sheep-herd / group-think mentalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doctor Holliday said:

The scary thing about this day and age is that suddenly there's a huge anti-intellectual movement being driven by an irrational distrust and disrespect for the established institutions of journalism, news media, and investigative reporting. Suddenly the "insult" is a badge of honor. Suddenly people refer to Ivy League graduates as a derogatory category of society. They think they're at war with the 'rich' or the 'elite...' and yet they're so utterly lost and drowning in the Fox News propaganda machine that they went ahead and voted for rich elite guy who will not do anything to help them.

And the funny part is that most of the on-air people at Fox News live pretty damn cushy lives. They are by no means the "Average Joes" that I've seen and heard some of their audience describing them as, and that some often describe or portray themselves as. They're basically elite themselves, but they know that calling everybody else "elities" and slamming those other guys for being as wealthy as they are is good for business and keeps their audiences glued to their shows. If anything, the real average joes at Fox News are many of the people working behind the scenes. I read a book written by a former employee who noted that the pay was terrible compared to the same positions at other places, despite how much money Fox News actually has.


I did meet a local news journalist last year who described their experience in covering a Trump event, and they said that they never had so many insults, boos and thinly-veiled threats directed towards their crew at any similar political events they've covered in the past, including many Republican events and events for Trump's GOP opponents at the time. While obviously not everybody is like this, I think that too many people are still starting to view anybody who doesn't have ties to Fox News or other Trump-supporting outlets as "fake news," even if it's random local news stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Triple Vacuum Seal

Luckily, those who watch Fox News, CNN, and other television news juggernauts already have one foot in the grave and should croak within the next 20 years or so.  The average viewer is in their 60s and Fox New's audience is even older.  The personalities and anchors are only young because showbiz is all about sex appeal.


On the flip side, the most popular internet media alternatives are just as mind-numbing.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course TV and radio aren't what they used to be and both have an aging audience (who even knows what's going to happen to those industries once most of the audiences are basically gone in about 30 years, I feel like a lot of the programming is just going to shift to their websites and become free streams like how Sky News has), but a lot of young people and people who actually know how to use the internet and have electronic devices to access the web equivalents of these shows (basically, people who aren't senior citizens or stodgy old people) visit them all the time regardless, so it's not like the issue of misleading, biased or outright fake news will save itself thanks to the internet. It's just going to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:36 AM, Shermhead said:

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!

Nah man. Fake news was a technique by crazy right wing 'news' organizations on the internet that made up fake stories about the Clintons and such and then spread it all over social media. It was literally "fake news". Many crazy right wingers believed it and then spouted/shared the BS and it caught fire. In a classic case of right wing projection, Trump then just started calling any news that wasn't favorable to him 'fake news'. There is fake news, but it's not coming from mainstream media. Mainstream media does however have a right wing bias. Even the so called 'Liberal Media' like MSNBC is pro establishment politics and is in the center of the political spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are multiple types of fake news: Most prominent of which is fake news initiated by trolls wether acting on their own or part of a concerted intelligence effort to exert influence on foreign electoral politics; and fake news as a corollary of the 24-hour news cycle in the internet and social media age. Where 24-hour news networks have devolved into hubs for speculation often overtly and blatantly supporting a particular political colour. The majority of the airtime occupied by 'expert' panels, often with one or two from the other side of the aisle present, to attempt to maintain some semblance of credibility. The other say 10% devoted to actually reporting the news, the problem is that it's so interspersed with the endless opinion pieces that the line gets blurred beyond recognition. Good examples of this latter category are MSNBC, CNN and FOX News. This also applies to print and online news organisations but on a different level, and here the partisan approach is often even more transparent think along the lines of the Huff Posts, Mother Jones', Vox's and Breitbarts of the world. Non of above are examples of good journalistic practices. The closest you'll get to straightforward reporting are the business newspapers and outlets like AP. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSM news isn't fake. What they do is bad and incredibly selective reporting with an agenda. Usually a pro-corporate and pro-establishment agenda. But it isn't truly fake in the same sense that InfoWars, Breitbart and other right-wing lunatic websites are. MSM tend to report facts, just not all the facts, and they purposefully use guests that provide their "expert opinion", which is just a clever way to lie to your audience. Let's not forget that the MSM was integral in selling the Iraq war to the American population. In a way, what they do is more insidious than real fake news.

Edited by Darth Yokel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

News is no longer strictly journalism.  "News" morphed to contain editorialized entertainment, with a compliment of information.  That's why "news" broadcasts start out with some fact (for example, a tragic accident that occurred that day ) and then swing into editorializing it, most often by interviewing some expert or authority to give a very tailored soundbite they can play after the story, and then the entertainment generally comes in the form of how this information and opinion is meant to be taken.  Just like sitcoms give queue for joke with audience laughter, news broadcasts will then give subtle ( or not so subtle ) reactions by the hosts or other personalities to indicate which way to take it.  It is formulaic, and it's orchestrated.


It should be no big secret that most of the news organizations are generally owned by one large conglomerate, and the formula works for both sides.  Take the same event, run the fact, run a different editorial, and react to it differently, and suddenly people watching two different broadcasts about the same event both feel perfectly validated and vindicated about their preconceived notions.


Because that's really what it's all about: People have preconceived notions, we like to be entertained, and we like to feel validated in our beliefs and opinions.  What better way to ensure an audience than to give them what they want, and meanwhile it doesn't matter what actually happens, because through punditry, editorializing and just frank manipulation, news broadcasts deliver exactly what their viewer wants no matter what subject the news is actually about.  Stock market crashed?  Tune in to channel to see how it's the Democrat's fault, change 3 more channels up and you'll hear how it's the Republican's, and in between those channels you'll find two versions that manipulate different reactions out of people.  Channel 40 instills a general sense of fear and uncertainty, while Channel 41 stirs up anger and urgency.  Between each of them, Americans need only channel surf to get frightened and riled up about anything and it doesn't matter what their beliefs or values are, because they have a broadcast tailor-suited to pander to them.


It all come down to the news media wanting an audience.  Why do they, the media companies themselves, want an audience?  Advertising money, sponsorship money, etc.  Let's say AARP offers you 50 million to run their retirement plan commercial on your news program, and they want to reach people of retirement age; do you think they're going to be running that on Comedy Central''s 'The Daily Show' or something a younger demographic watches?  Of course not.  Same thing with all those commercials with Wilfred Brimely in it talking about diabetes.  They know their demographic is older, so they have to do what they can to attract the older audience.  Part of that is marketing toward stations which they know already have a viewership consisting of a higher proportion of that demographic, but another part is also putting pressure on broadcasters to modify programming to attract more of that demographic.  In the end it doesn't matter if they like CNN's bullsh*t or Fox New's bullsh*t, they're going to channel surf through them and see the same AARP ads.  That's just the simplest and most obvious example of that; imagine how many other targeted demographics there are.


Finally, the last facet of it is how it's abused politically.  The media companies, and those who want to advertise to their viewers, they're essentially just in it for the money.  People like to ascribe some kind of malevolent feature to media organization, when in reality they're just as much motivated by generating cash as any other company.  However, lobbyist organizations, campaign managers, law makers, etc. all realize, the same way that all these other companies do, that broadcast news is a tremendously powerful tool to manipulate an audience into believing they need a product, whether that be the new Swiffer mop, a competitive retirement plan. or a border wall.


One last thing...  People cast so much shade on broadcast companies and journalism, but they're just supplying the consumers what they want. They want to be entertained, they want to be manipulated to feel a certain way.  It's the same way you walk into a scary movie.  People don't realize the corruption of jouranlism followed suit with the corruption of critical thinking, and that the constant need for modern society to be entertained collided with our penchant to seek instant gratification, and that birthed cable news.  From there it's just been growing and becoming misconstrued as journalism.  "News media" is not journalism; actual journalism is dead, and we (the consumer) killed it.

Edited by Saggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't put the blame on citizens just trying to get information and context. Most people are too busy with life and work to go through all of the clutter. I don't mind that there are advertisements on TV, that's how they pay the bills. What I disagree with, and many people like me, is the outright fraud and abuse perpetrated by the left-wing (yes) news media.

Case-in-point the recent disclosure in the German magazine Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/der-spiegel-statement-on-relotius-fraud-case-a-1244896.html

That's not a simple mis-quote, that's literal FRAUD.

How about something closer to home? Remember the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape?


That guy up there, Matt Lauer. Let go from NBC over sexual abuse.


Over at CBS, Charlie Rose let go for the same reasons.


And his boss for the same reasons:


And the head of CBS, for (you guessed it) the same reasons:


That shows not only a clear pattern of abuse towards women, but also the truth. And in a news organization your reputation is pretty much all you have. So no, the consumer didn't kill the news media. Progressive ideology killed it, and we the citizens suffer as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

What I disagree with, and many people like me, is the outright fraud and abuse perpetrated by the left-wing (yes) news media....

...That shows not only a clear pattern of abuse towards women, but also the truth. 

I don't really think a few cherry-picked examples you happen to think align with your personal political views show a "clear pattern" of anything. I could perform a similar exercise with right-wing media figures- Roger Ailes was accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct and was forced to resign, Sean Hannity sexual harassment and manipulating video footage, Bill O'Reilly (plus domestic violence), Scott Brown... The difference is I don't pretend these are solely "right-wing" problems, because they're not. In fact, if there were a disparity between the numbers of accusations of this nature against right-wing pundits versus left-wing ones, I'd take an educated guess that it would be at least in part down to the desire for the former outlets to simply bury the story with payoffs and smear campaigns precisely because they care more about keeping people like Hannity in a job (and spouting vitriolic bilge) than they would about properly investigating allegations against them and punishing responsible persons.


It's pretty telling that you frame your comment "perpetrated by the left-wing (yes) news media". Either:


1) You don't believe these things happen in right-wing media outlets even though literally 5 seconds Googling demonstrates that they do, and are therefore so wilfully ignorant on the subject your comments have no worth, or;

2) You are aware these things happen in right-wing media outlets, just don't care because you're only offended by them when it suits a political purpose, and are therefore so intentionally and obviously biased on the subject your comments have no worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claas Relotius, the disgraced fraudster at Der Spiegel, was CNN's 2014 Journalist of the Year. Have you heard anything about this on CNN? Have they retracted their award?

CNN is pretty heavy into the Russian collusion narrative, you'd think that Russian bots would be a big story. But what happens when it's a false-flag operation? And helps the Democrats?


Radio silence from the most trusted name in journalism.

Here's some more fake news from the progressive left:

NBC falsely reports that Trump hasn't visited the troops in war zone: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-becomes-first-president-2002-not-visit-troops-christmastime-n951846

Washington Post covers the fact that Jamal Khasoggi was a paid agent of Qatar: https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/12/26/washington-post-hints-others-known-jamal-khashoggi-paid-qatari-intelligence-asset/

That's just from the past week or two.

But don't worry folks, there's nothing to see here, everything will be fine. Listen to your betters, they know better.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear ya @Spaghetti Cat but fake news isn't exclusive to the likes of CNN. There is fake news from all sides of the political spectrum, across many different major outlets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that, but it is a bit front loaded on one side isn't it?

Who would you consider would be on the other side of the spectrum from CNN and such? FOX News? Breitbart? Maybe the BLAZE, or the Federalist? What I'm saying is that it's a small number compared to CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, the Times, the Post, etc. Might be 10 to 1, but it feels like 100 to 1.

Give you an example, had on FOX yesterday and they were talking about a new missile from Russia. They kept calling it 'supersonic', it was their 'hypersonic' missile. Simple mistake, but it made it past the checkers and editors. Big bold chyron 'supersonic missile'. It was dumb, but I don't consider that to be fake news. Compare that to the NBC story. Is it not reasonable to ask if this is intentional to push a narrative? Especially given the track record?

Asked another way, give me a reporter from FOX who straight made-up stories like Claas Relotius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

Asked another way, give me a reporter from FOX who straight made-up stories like Claas Relotius.

Here's FOX's track record on statements made on air. (59% mostly false and worse)

Compare it with CNN's. (27% mostly false and worse)

Compare it with NBC's. (41% mostly false and worse)


Looking at percentages, FOX is by far the bigger spreader of fake news and statements than any other news channel. Your conclusion that left-wing (whatever that even means, lol, NBC and CNN being left in any way shape or form is a ridiculous notion by itself) media are the biggest spreader of fake news is wrong.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at what they are using to get those numbers.

According to the PunditFact website:

This scorecard shows the ratings for statements made on air by Fox, Fox News and Fox Business personalities and their pundit guests.

Personalities and guests being the key word here. Who would that be? According to the site Andrew Nopalitano, Juan Williams, Greg Gutfeld, etc. These aren't journalists, in fact Greg Gutfeld is a comedian. The are opinion and editorialists, not the news division, we're talking apples and oranges here. Infact the last item listed, from July 11th, deals with the interpretation of a court ruling, again an opinion.

What I'm saying is that the news divisions are making false statements, not the editorial side of things. If you have something like Brett Baier or one of their reporters lets see it. Doubt it's like what happened at Der Spiegel, which looks like two of their senior editors are out.

Let's see what the ole PunditFact website has to say about that: https://www.politifact.com/search/?q=Der+Spiegel

...hmmm not much. Must be the weekend, they'll get right on that after the holidays I'm sure.

.....wait this website is a fact-checker at Facebook? Yeah, that says all you need to know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Fox isn't 'fake news' because their absurd nonsense statements are mostly made by washed-up 'comedians' and all their anchors are talk radio blowhards that never went to school.


You're really stepping on your own point here. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

This scorecard shows the ratings for statements made on air by Fox, Fox News and Fox Business personalities and their pundit guests.

Sean Hannity is what? Bill O'Reilly is what? Laura Ingraham is what?  Megyn Kelly is what? 


Seriously, if you're gonna bitch about semantics, at least be correct about it. These are journalists from Fox News. Presenting fake stuff as if it was true. Presenting fake statements as if they were truth. The very thing you accuse the Left of doing exclusively more than any Right news outlet out there.


Stop moving the f*cking goalposts. Your argument was that "leftist media is the champion spreader of fakew news!" and cherrypicked an example. Where in that very case, the outlet at least took the steps to remove those individuals and retract the issue. Whereas with Fox News, they spew fake news all the time, get caught, complain, and continue doing it.


Oh and you want to know why Punditfact didn't have as many stories on Der Spiegel as they did on the others? BECAUSE ITS A f*ckING SITE AIMED AT AMERICAN POLITICS. Which is what we are dealing with here.


Sorry, you're still completely wrong. Both sides do spew fake news. The right does so in a lot more number than the left. I've showed you my evidence.


Where is yours? Show me the data backing up your assertion. Cherrypicking one example doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when Sean Hannity was spreading the Seth Rich conspiracy theory on his show that millions of people watch? Same theory pushed by the insane far-right websites? He only stopped and was forced to go on a vacation when Fox News got sued for it and when major advertisers decided to stop advertising during his show. How about that time they kept going on and on about the migrant caravan like it's a big giant threat that's going to destroy the US, only to stop reporting on it the day after the midterms?

How can someone talk about fake news without mentioning the news organization that was literally designed to be nothing more than a propaganda machine for the Republican party?


Oh, and how could I have forgotten this gem:



Edited by DareYokel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sean Hannity isn't a journalist, he's a opinion guy. A commentator.

Bill O'Reilly was let go over two years ago, also a commentator.

Laura Ingram is a radio host and commentator.

Megyn Kelly is a journalist, but was let go over two years ago and let go by NBC this past year. If you want to go back 2+ years to find some fake news from Mrs Kelly go right ahead, but it seams a bit desperate.

Again what I'm talking about are actual journalists or News Anchors. Your Brett Baier's, your Catherine Herridge's, your (ugh) Shep Smith's. You know, people who report the news, not commentators.

So for example:

NY Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/us/politics/state-department-curtains.html

The AP - https://www.dailywire.com/news/37865/associated-press-makes-another-colossal-error-joseph-curl

NPR - http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/30/npr-blatantly-lies-about-donald-trump-jr-s-2017-senate-testimony/

NBC - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/05/03/trump-attorney-michael-cohen-wiretapped-feds-white-house-call/577512002/

CNN - https://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/cnn-botches-major-bombshell-alleging-contacts-between-don-jr-and-wikileaks/

All had retractions of major stories in just the past year. All these 'mistakes' seem to fall on one side, funny that.

Heck even the Weather Chanel was getting in on the Fake News game, remember this one?


BTW it's been two weeks now, have our good friends over at CNN taken back the 2014 Journalist of the Year Award yet?


Nope, ol Claas is still rocking it. CNN must have more important stories to cover...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna put this here, since apparently you didn't bother to read that far:


On 12/30/2018 at 6:01 AM, Tchuck said:

Stop moving the f*cking goalposts.

Edited by DareYokel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DareYokel said:

I'm just gonna put this here, since apparently you didn't bother to read that far:

I'm going to second the above- you're getting lost in a largely meaningless semantic argument between "pundit" and "journalist", when the only practical distinction between the two is that the former can be much more liberal with the truth (and quite often is) because, by not actively identifying as a "journalist", they don't feel the need to abide by journalistic integrity or honesty, and can dress their drivel up as "a pundit's opinion". To the glazed eyeball that's lapping up their bullsh*t, it doesn't make one iota of difference. 


You've also totally failed to address most of Tchuck's points, again simply trying to win the argument through overwhelming weight of a pretty feeble and entirely cherry-picked Gish Gallop. All you've really got to province is actual statistical evidence that supports your statement, rather than randomly selected cherry-pickings.


On the subject of retractions, though, you are aware that many right-wing media outlets (obviously excepting those like Breitbart that simply stand by their bullsh*t even if it's demonstrably and falsifiable wrong) don't routinely issue explicit retractions when they get caught making sh*t up; they just quietly take down the offending article and ignore any requests for further clarification. You only need to look at how Fox handled the Seth Rich conspiracy theory to see this in action- simply "disappearing" the article without any kind of explicit retraction nearly a week after the initial responsible party admitted it was a bald-faced lie.


Compare the above to the CNN Russian Investment Fund-Trump financial ties:



  • Immediately took down the story
  • Replaced it with an apologetic Editor's note
  • Forced the resignation of three people (the reporter responsible, the editor and team executive editor)
  • Imposed tighter restrictions on stories on Russia, and changed the chain of editorial command.



  • Took six days to take the story down
  • Replaced it with a 404 page
  • Continued to editorialise about the false claims even after taking down the story
  • Retrospectively issued a statement when the reasoning for this removal was questioned
  • Still continued to editorialise about the false claims
  • Attacked CNN for their take-down and the associated resignations
  • Didn't sanction anyone responsible
  • Didn't change any of their editorial processes.



From where I'm sitting, the proof is in the handling of these falsehoods.


Oh, and:

Brett Baer had to retract two claims he made about the Hillary Clinton email scandal- that an indictment was incoming and that the server had been hacked by five foreign intelligence agencies. Almost no publicity given to it, no sanctions. 

Catherine Herridge was also complicit in the above- she just never issued a retraction for, say, parroting lies on Cheryl Mills that she'd picked up from the WaPo and decided to re-run with her own slant. Obviously, no sanctions.

Shep Smith pretty famously ran a piece on a Baltimore shooting that never happened. He did end up apologising for it at least. Yet again, no sanctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fox News literally claimed that antifa was going to overthrow the government in November and that machete wielding Islamists were coming in with the 'caravan' to turn Texas into Afghanistan. ffs.


And as I pointed out above, filling the airwaves with non-journalists who regurgitate sh*t from right-wing facebook groups doesn't let them off the hook for saying constant rubbish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ProTip: If your favorite newscaster starts his/her show with the top news stories of the day then they are a journalist. If he/she starts the show with a monologue they they are probably a pundit. That's the difference.

Now some of you would love to outlaw differing opinions and wrongthought but that's not how it works here.

As for Antifia they are a domestic terrorist group supported by...you guessed it CNN.


For those of you keeping track, CNN supports left-wing terrorist organizations and frequently makes up stories out of whole cloth...but FOX News and ORANGEMANBAD!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

CNN supports left-wing terrorist organizations

Where are you getting this? And where did you get the idea that CNN, an international, multibillion dollar corporation is left-wing? Do you even know what left-wing means?

Edited by DareYokel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

As for Antifia they are a domestic terrorist group supported by...you guessed it CNN.

Holy cow. I'm not gonna address your previous post because sivis has done a good job of dismantling it. You still failed to address my point and move the goalposts even further. Kudos.


But now this? Seriously? Antifa is a domestic terrorist group supported by CNN? Holy sh*t. This is fake news in its more pure form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN is unequivocally the FAKEST f*cking news there is. Followed very closely by MSNBC.


I see TDS is alive and well amongst many on this forum. No surprise, really. It's actually funny, and a bit rich, that our wealthy, successful president is living RENT FREE in your heads.


Reminds me of a quote I posted in another thread: "you'll never be criticized by someone doing more than you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Semaj 2JZ♢ said:

our wealthy, successful president

Oh boy, you're in for a surprise, aren't you? I could tell you now, but it's more fun not to.



So if any of you Trumpets actually cared about fake news, you'd care about this. But then you wouldn't be Trump supporters.

Edited by DareYokel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

ProTip: If your favorite newscaster starts his/her show with the top news stories of the day then they are a journalist.

What about if they have another individual run the top stories of the day before their reported segment? That's pretty normal for both.

If you're a figure presenting analysis, opinion and commentary on a self-identifying news network, you are either a journalist or masquerading as one. Journalists are not forbidden from editorialising any more than pundits are discussing subjects in the news.

Even the word "pundit" is generous in many of these cases, given that a pundit is supposed to be an expert on a subject matter rather than simply a talking head spouting what is usually utter drivel.


14 hours ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

Now some of you would love to outlaw differing opinions and wrongthought but that's not how it works here.

No, "how it works" is that there's an expectation on contributors to be able to back up their views with evidence-based information, and those that fail to do so are rightly subject to scrutiny and scorn. 

So far, you've failed to address pretty much every material point raised against you, got into a largely pointless semantic argument and then resorted to a frankly f*cking stupid Galileo gambit.

If I wanted to "outlaw" your "differing opinion" I could have done so many times over, but I haven't because you're far more useful as a living example of how not to debate rationally; a cautionary tale for other people (like Semaj 2JZ) who happen to wander in here; than you are as anything else.


14 hours ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

You do know that NewsPunch is literally a fake news site? 

That you've cited an outlet that's been revealed by the EU's East Stratcom Task Force as a Russian propaganda outlet, that's been repeatedly debunked by fact checkers, as if it were an authoritative source is frankly hilarious.


NewsPunch/YourNewsWire's credits include:

  • The PizzaGate conspiracy theory
  • Birther conspiracy theories
  • That the Vegas mass shooting and Manchester Arena bombing were false flag attacks
  • That vaccinations are a plot to depopulate the world, and that various figures who prominently support vaccination actually haven't had their children vaccinated
  • Various things posted on Reddit by QAnon
  • That voter fraud was responsible for Clinton's voter majority in the 2016 election
  • That the Clinton's "gifted" orphaned children to human traffickers 
  • That Anthony Bourdain was murdered by Clinton operatives
  • Justin Trudeau being the child of Fidel Castro
  • That Melania Trump hired an exorcist to clear the White House of the demons summoned by Obama

You're a joke, and an unapologetic perpetuator of obvious and indefensible lies.


14 hours ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

CNN supports left-wing terrorist organizations

The FBI maintains a list of wanted Domestic Terrorists. The US State Department contains a list of proscribed terrorist organisations. None of these are Antifa.

The assertion that Antifa is viewed by the FBI as a domestic terrorist group is simply false, and a simple Google search of indexed pages on the FBI's own website proves this

The DHS did, in one memo, refer to violent Anarchists who have been involved in violent disruption of right-wing protesters as conducting "domestic terrorist activities", but this isn't the same thing as equating Antifa as a movement with terrorism.

CNN has never expressed any kind of support for "left-wing terrorist organisations". It's also never expressed any kind of support for Antifa.


So, yet more indefensible lies from you.


When will the madness end?

When will you stop posting articles from obvious "fake news" sites simply because happen to correlate with your own political views? 

When will you stop accusing people of "censorship" for rightly ridiculing the fact you perpetuate the same thing you claim to be arguing against?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

When will the madness end? 

When will you stop posting articles from obvious "fake news" sites simply because happen to correlate with your own political views? 

When will you stop accusing people of "censorship" for rightly ridiculing the fact you perpetuate the same thing you claim to be arguing against?

When they develop a cure for Dunning-Kruger effect, probably.


But it goes deeper that that. People like Spaghetti Cat aren't interested in the truth in the slightest. They're authoritarians through and through. They want to bend the fabric of reality itself to serve them and to declare their ideology, prejudices and lies as the only and ultimate truths.

Edited by DareYokel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh yes a correction. According to the Politico site, who broke the story, here is the full quote:

"Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as ‘antifa’ had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as ‘domestic terrorist violence."


So Antifa practices domestic terrorism, and they are a loose-nit organization, they're just not a 'domestic terrorist organization' as previously stated. Corrected for the record.

But hey, what kind of domestic terrorism do these folks practice? Again according to the article:

"These antifa guys were showing up with weapons, shields and bike helmets and just beating the s*** out of people. … They’re using Molotov cocktails, they’re starting fires, they’re throwing bombs and smashing windows."

Property destruction, physical violence, bomb throwing...sounds pretty bad to me.

As for the CNN support. That would be Don 'Black Hole' Lemon, and Chris Cuomo, son of the Governor of New York (D).

Lemon on Antifa - "No organization is perfect" *careful don they aren't an organization*


Cuomo on Antifa - "All punches are not equal"


Should have provided those links earlier, just ran out of time. Enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.