DescentBB

The Newsy's just don't seem to understand that printing fake news is not going to build up trust with the public at large. Once you lose that trust it is harder ti win it back. The latest example is the Washington Post, a left leaning paper. Don't know if they thought they were doing Obama any favors but you be the judge.

The first case isis how Russia is to blame for the spread of fake news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... b2e16b2a2b
Or:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... ng-w452543

Unfortunately not true and the story has a editors note saying the core story is not true.

The second fake news is how Russia "invade" our electrical grid. Note at top of article Editors note:

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... b583c7ef33

Why do this? Well it seems circulation increased and so making fake news worthy of use. I think all it does is paint journalists in a slimy grime that will take years of sanitizing detergent to clean.

We'd better NOT be taking the security of our electrical grid lightly. It IS a serious threat, some of it from Russia too.

http://www.securityweek.com/us-electric ... vulnerable

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/18/technol ... index.html

hilarious, Woody, on too many levels to even address. Feed into the narrative.


Sorry, but I'll pass on your fascist attempts to obscure truth and journalism.

callmeslick wrote:hilarious. Feed into the narrative.

I'm glad you find it amusing that news stories are fake. How does this help you? Oh, thats right, your a Dem so approval is automatic.

At what point will you consider any news real woody? When it only heaps praise upon your new commander in chief?

tunnelcat wrote:At what point will you consider any news real woody? When it only heaps praise upon your new commander in chief?

Also when it talks about Democrats/Liberals being evil, incompetent, or stupid.

Poor journalism is not fake news.

Results are the same.

tunnelcat wrote:At what point will you consider any news real woody? When it only heaps praise upon your new commander in chief?

Real news is when they get the facts straight and don't manufacture a deliberate false story. Has nothing to do with Trump or liberals.

Vander wrote:Poor journalism is not fake news.

If the paper does not have competent editors to make sure the reporters writings are correct, then poor journalism or not it is still fake.

There's a difference between trying to get a story right but getting it wrong, and trying to get a story wrong.

Vander wrote:Poor journalism is not fake news.

thank you!! It's that all or nothing argument in another form. Since a report is imperfect, or an outlet has made errors, all subsequent reports are immediately to be discounted. Except, when it suits.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:At what point will you consider any news real woody? When it only heaps praise upon your new commander in chief?

Real news is when they get the facts straight and don't manufacture a deliberate false story. Has nothing to do with Trump or liberals.

But, how would you KNOW woody? Like Krom indicated, is it when that news comes only from a conservative source do you believe it's real? I knew a very conservative in-law who absolutely refused to believe that Nixon had done anything wrong when the Watergate scandal broke years ago. She was absolutely livid about it and blamed those damned liberals for Nixon's fall. I've seen you dismiss a lot of more liberal sounding real news stories than some of that fake conservative news you love to post about, and sometimes get corrected on. What's that saying? If you don't believe in the messenger, you won't believe the message. To be fair, liberals are guilty of this also, so I'm not singling you out as an evil conservative or something.

callmeslick wrote:

Vander wrote:Poor journalism is not fake news.

thank you!! It's that all or nothing argument in another form. Since a report is imperfect, or an outlet has made errors, all subsequent reports are immediately to be discounted. Except, when it suits.

I think it's more about motive. There are news sites that

1) make honest mistakes
2) make honest mistakes but often because their political ideology created a blind spot
3) intentionally fabricate news to appeal to a specific political ideology

Fake news is #3. Wapo is somewhere in #1 or #2.

Moreover, sites in #1 and #2 typically post corrections whereas those in #3 do not or even double down.

good summation, Jeff.

Here's Trump praising his favorite real news outlet.