Posted on 01/09/2017 9:39:42 PM PST by 867V309
Writing at the Washington Post, Margaret Sullivan bemoans the fact that conservatives have flipped the meaning of “fake news” from a term used by the mainstream media to attack stories that are troublesome for progressives to a label to call out the media’s false narratives:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
We’ve had nearly 4 decades of fake news trumpeted about the planet via broadcast media. How refreshing to know so many recognize it as such.
They figured a repeat of the “Swift Boat” play, but forgot that in this case, even the most clueless liberals realize all MSM is actually propaganda, albeit for their own side, but BS nonetheless.
If the shoe fits...
WaPo: “Fake News® is our registered trademark. It symbolizes everything we stand for. We’ll sue if you use it.”
The Washington Post is crying “Uncle”. They can’t handle the heat as they are the true authors of ‘fake news’.
Also, no (to the author of the WP article) - I won’t stop using this term. I’ve become fond of calling out the liars.
You can usually tell what the Left is up to by what they accuse others of. In this case they revealed themselves very accurately.
You earned the label, wear it proudly!
I’ll have what she’s having...
Me,too
The libholes got sloppy when they decided to generate and push the fake-news meme. It was too easy to use it against them.
““People seem to confuse reporting mistakes by established news organizations with obviously fraudulent news produced by Macedonian teenagers.”
Well, why shouldn’t they be confused? After all, the net effect in both cases is to disseminate false information to the public. What’s the difference between the effect of “the pope endorsed Trump” and the numerous completely false articles WaPo published about “the russians hacked the power grid”. Both are false.
Does motivation really matter? In fact, it’s a far worse offense for putatively credible media sources to publish false information and information so deliberately slanted that it might as well be false, because the “credible” media sources hold themselves out as, well, credible, whereas the “pope endorsed Trump” media make no such claims.
By continuing to publish false and/or grotesquely biased information, the “credible” media sources simply increase the confusion by demonstrating that there ARE no credible sources and thus the putatively credible sources become to be rightfully considered to be no more credible than the obvious “the pope endorsed Trump” media sources.
“illustrates how efficient the conservative media machine has become,””
right. the “conservative media machine”. you know, kinda like the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, but only with media.
The reality is that there IS no “conservative media machine”, but what there IS are tens of thousands of people like me who are relentless in countering fake stream media propaganda by posting commentary that SHOULD have been included in the published articles in the first place IF the intent had been to publish the complete picture instead of publishing blatant propaganda.
Yep, the incredible amount of fake news coming from the ‘mainstream’ is truly amazing.
Ten more days until the inauguration, I can’t wait!
Having a mix of libs on my Facebook list it has been quite amazing to see how fast they buckle retreat or unfriend in the face of opposition. I dare say they are surrounded with zeeks in the wire and have no idea which way to shoot. Our side has been on the defense long enough to know where and whothe enemy is.
Fake News Media.
Winning
WAPO an NYTimes are “Fake News”.
All the fake news thats fit to print.
Yep. Two or three exchanges in a mild debate, and they're gone. Poof. You've been un-friended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.