Fake News and Legitimate News

[EveningStar]

I've seen the accusation of "fake news" thrown out a lot here at Free Republic.

I have some questions for you:

• What do you define as "fake news"?
• What spurred you to use the accusation of "fake news" in your posts?
• What news sources do you trust?

[tiki]

I think for most if it says CNN, WAPO or NYTs.

So many times you read the article it doesn’t match the inflammatory title or if you find a transcript or video you see that while their stories contain some truth it skews them to seem the opposite.

[Chad N. Freud]

First:

•What do you define as “fake news”?.

•What news sources do you trust?

[hole_n_one]

Fake news does not necessarily have to be false for it to be fake.

• To make something that is or has been treated in the past as insignificant and now present it as of such magnitude that it requires all day coverage is fake news.
• To omit certain facts when reporting on actual news is fake news.
• Polls are fake news

[tinyowl]

Fake news is outright lying, making up facts ... but it's also an attempt to manipulate the narrative via partial presentation of the facts where you can claim 'I didn't lie,' or clearly adding ... editorial ... word choices.

Ultimately, whether blatant misrepresentation of physical facts or not, it's claiming to be merely reporting facts when in fact the underlying intention is to misrepresent the truth, or merely not care about the truth in an attempt to cause a reader's mind to believe something you want them to believe while at the same time they themselves believe they have just read an unbiased presentation of news. I.e 'What Actually Happened."

Also, it's fine to be biased so long as you're clear that you take a certain position. Breitbart doesn't pretend to not have a viewpoint. The MSM does. It's fine to be biased so long as everyone knows you are. (Many here would argue, as would I, that at the end of any year of reporting, Breitbart has in fact been less biased than the MSM.)

For CNN, NYT, practically every alphabet org, and the other many many many orgs that qualify as fake news, they are blatantly lying by not admitting they are carrying a propaganda message for certain interests. Even a story that is 100% technically factual leaves out facts, is worded a certain way, was handpicked to cause the reader/listener to walk away with a negative attitude toward the right, or a less negative attitude or positive attitude of the left.

I don't 'trust' any news organization ... I read, and read more, and wait, and after taking in enough points, the true shape appears. In most cases, I find that conservative news sources tend to be full of opinion but do not leave out significant facts (because they know their listeners/readers will skewer them - conservatives prefer the truth backed up by evidence and statistics ... i.e. proof ...) so usually I can be pretty certain that the more mainstream conservative sources will not totally misrepresent reality by either blatantly lying about it or leaving out significant portions. They know the truth will come out. The CNN's don'e have to worry about that because their audience doesn't follow up on truth ... they merely want to be told what they already want to believe, and leave it at that.

In the end, though, 99% of communication is non-verbal, and even verbal communication is 99% about what's included and what's left out.

So to me fake news is ... like the judge in the (60's?) who defined community standards said 'lewd and lascivious' can not be defined but you know it when you see it ...

We all know what fake news is. Determining the actual truth is a matter of sifting through 5 - 50 points of data and then waiting for more information to come up, and the picture appears.

Liberals don't have an interest in facts, only confirming evidence. So, they seek only 1 point of data, maybe another confirming one (CNN then the NYT) ... and then they put their heads in the sand. I have a friend whos a liberal voter -> not an activist or leader -> and she simply can not stand any fact. Any time she brings up some horrible thing Trump did or said, in a happy triumphant voice, like she's finally got me, I put the comment in context, note how it was twisted and taken out of context (or, frankly, sometimes he just says something stupid) ... and it's never long before she doesn't want to here me be rational and factual ... because the MERE pointing out of facts highlights that she's been misled by her media sources.

[Pollster1]

What do you define as “fake news”?
- It varies, but “news” that relies on innuendo with no facts, such as the Russian hacking claims, is fake news.
- News reported to support an agenda, such as the sympathetic reports on illegals whose lives are “being disrupted” are fake news.
- NPR is the height of fake news, at least in terms of what I hear (captive audience when riding with my wife): in a typical hour, every story will be either pro-trans, pro-gay, pro-illegal, pro-Obamacare, pro-Muslim, anti-Israel, or anti-Trump, without exception.

What spurred you to use the accusation of “fake news” in your posts?
It is important to distinguish reports that should be accepted, at least in terms of their facts, from those that should be questioned in every respect.

What news sources do you trust?
None. I’m not at the “trust but verify” level with even one news source. I evaluate each news report individually to see if it should be trusted.

[BenLurkin]

This kind of headline and lede: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3529377/posts

[Slyfox]

"Fake News" was not an item until Pizzagate became an item.

The lamestreamers got the message from their bosses that they had to get everyone to watch out for "fake news" that just might lead people to know the truth about all the human (sex) traffickers within their midst.

Nuff said.

[onyx]

• What do you define as "fake news"?
  
  

  Unsourced or anonymously sourced news by a so-called insider or a so-called spokesman close to the president or the subject of the news , particularly whenever the news eminates from the pages of publications with a political agenda against President Trump personally and politically, and politically against Republicans in general.
  
  The gossip that passes for news is outright garbage that even High School girls could top! I know that for a fact, given I was a very innovative High School girl once upon a time!
  
  The same agenda applies to the Alphabet channels and Cable channels, save for OANN and Fox News.

  
  
  
  
  
• What spurred you to use the accusation of "fake news" in your posts?
  
  

  See above

  
  
  
  
  
• What news sources do you trust?
  
  

  OANN and Fox News, Fox Business News, Bloomberg (most of the time), Zero Hedge, Forbes, Gateway Pundit, etc.
  
  My local newspaper is only useful for local news because it uses the NYT, Washington Post & AP wire services for National news and editorials, which I find shameful. I'm happy to conclude my subscription at the end of this month and I'm planning to inform the editor and the ownership of my reasons.

  
  
  
  

Happy now, EveningStar?
Hope so!
God bless you and your beloved wife.

[fruser1]

Fake news is what the russians call disinformation.

I use the term only because it became popular thanks to the dems coining it. Before, I’d just say “don’t believe everything you read in the papers.” “Fake news” takes less space.

I don’t believe anyone. I am a paranoid freak. I depend on critical thinking and what I believe is good principled judgment.

[EveningStar]

God bless you and your beloved wife.

Thank you, onyx. I appreciate that a lot. :)

[Phlyer]

Fake news is outright lying, making up facts ... but it's also an attempt to manipulate the narrative via partial presentation of the facts . . .

Several people have responded with comments on unverified claims, or making a big deal out of a small story just because it fits the narrative. I don't disagree with their comments. But your comment brought to mind a specific example (from several years ago, before the 'fake news' label was used anywhere).

The format was, "Some Republicans claim that (X) . . . but Mrs. Clinton's defenders maintain that . . ."

This is lying with pseudo-quantitative formulations.

Journalists are expected to use the most applicable characterization of pseudo-quantitative labels. In the normal structure, there are 'few', 'several', 'many', 'most', etc., with 'some' being more like 'a few' than 'many.' So the above format is essentially, "A few partisan political operatives claim (implying that there is no substantiation, since anything can be 'claimed') one thing, while the unified team of non-partisan (since no partisan affiliation was mentioned) 'defenders' (nary an aggressive person among them) steadfastly and bravely 'maintain' the opposite.

It was 'true' in that every word was factual, but it was misleading. Taking it apart, it was not only Republicans who believed (X) (it wasn't really about Hillary being a crook, but it might as well have been so I'll use that). Independents believed that as well - I know because I am one. And if those who believe she is a crook are not limited to partisan Republicans, then that is not a 'fair' characterization. Also, while we may have been a minority of the total population (or might not), there were certainly a lot of us in absolute terms, so it would have been just as 'true' to say, "Many Americans recognize that Hillary Clinton is a crook, but some Democrat operatives claim it's not true."

So, what is 'fake news?' It's any report which deliberately conveys an impression that is not the best possible use of language (even if the writer is so biased he/she doesn't recognize the misleading nature of the formulation), as well as any report which claims to be factual but does not present actual fact beyond correctly quoting someone. It's not 'true' just because you get the quotes correct, if those you quote are lying.

[PAR35]

What news sources do you trust?

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

[tinyowl]

Yep.

And ... a lot of the things we're talking about can't be proven in a court of law. The Times was apparently just busted for quoting Trump as saying 'we're going to tell the undocumented to get the hell out' when in fact he said 'the gangsters, drug dealers' etc. (that's an accurate paraphrase -> the Times simply replaced 'Criminals' with 'Undocumented' -> so in that case that would be a flat out lie.

But a lot of it is intentionally misleading the listener with omission and commission.

If one believes in the Left's mission, then one might argue 'the press is fighting the good fight.'

But that doesn't change the fact even those people must grant that the press is lying about the fact that they are fighting a fight rather than 'reporting what happened'.

So, it's totally fake "journalism."

Stated as simply as possible: They do not see their job as 'when the listener/reader walked away, he had a more accurate view of what actually happened - what actually TOOK PLACE - in the physical universe today, and when I added my opinion, it was clearly my opinion, and that opinion could not be mistaken by anyone but a fool for the section where I was reporting what happened in the physical universe, what actually took place..'

On NPR - you can just hear it in their voices as they interview each other ... dripping with disdain and hatred. And THAT is communication with a fake news violation of commission.

So while reading the simple news, already carefully selected, they are practically mocking Trump. These days they don't even try to hide it.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Almost everything from the Ministry of Propaganda is fake news in one way or another. Even if they present some factual information, they twist the presentation to fit their agenda.

The best example is their coverage of illegal aliens.
They never use the correct term and they always use euphemisms like undocumented immigrant.
Immigrants earn that title by applying in their home country, paying their fees, waiting their turn and complying with the laws.
Whenever an illegal alien is arrested, they always refer to them as being from wherever they happen to be living currently and hide the fact that they are illegal aliens.
Lately they have been inundating us with stories of the fear illegal aliens have of being returned to their own countries as if we have no right to have laws and enforce them.
They knew they were breaking in when they did.
Almost all of the media, including Fox News, has been propagandizing the public to accept the illegal alien inundation as a fait accompli that we have no choice but to accept and abandon the rule of law and surrender our country with amnesty.

[a fool in paradise]

Celebrity tweets about politics are never newsworthy, regardless of what Facebook says.

Weekly polls outside of election season are not newsworthy.

Gotcha journalalism is not newsworthy.

Lies by omission are fake news.

Manufactured quotes and scandals are fake news.

Hashtags are not newsworthy.

Online petitions are not newsworthy.

DNC talking points are fake news.

[a fool in paradise]

Friday afternoon Wolf Blitzer was on CNN discussing the “impending” impeachment of Donald Trump. Fake news? You decide.

[a fool in paradise]

The press loves to play the game where they’ll have a declarative headline: “Mr. Trump is a (fill in the blank)” and they’ll excuse the libel by burying in the piece the opinion as being from someone OTHER than the editor ‘...says Alec Baldwin’ or ‘...says Maxine Waters’

[Responsibility2nd]

I saw this thread last night. Didn’t have time to comment then, but will give you my two cents now.

Fake News can actually be true and factual. But with an agenda to deceive and mislead.

For example. There have been more than a few stories in the press of American citizens selling out and moving to a foreign country. Because Trump won the election. Is this true? Are people really that stupid that this could happen?

Sure.

But it takes an irresponsible “Fake News” media to sniff out these idiots and make a story out of it.