Fakenews from HuffPo

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I was recently challenged on my assertion that Breitbart and HuffPo are two sides of the same coin, one left leaning and the other right.  Both use hyperbolic headlines designed to provoke outrage, both heavily engage in identity politics (again on opposite sides of the coin) and both tend to express opinions hidden inside hard news articles and present them as fact.  I was challenged to post an example, a perfect one surfaced today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-flynn-freedom-party-nazis_us_5859367ee4b08debb78af7c2

Within this story about Flynn meeting with a member of a major Austrian political party, which BTW had to have the word Nazi thrown in as often as possible, the following statement was made and presented as fact.

Quote:“This is not just any opposition party: It is one with Nazi sympathies,” said Daniel Serwer, a former state department official who’s now a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “Nor is Flynn any national security adviser. He is a documented conspiracy propagator. His long-term strategy colleague, Steve Bannon, is an ethnic nationalist and anti-Semite. The president-elect is an anti-Muslim and anti-immigration bigot.”

To the first, it is patently illegal in Austria to have "Nazi sympathies" an, I'm sure intentionally, vague claim to make and seemingly made to get another chance to use the word Nazi.  Steve Bannon is then stated to be an "ethnic nationalist and anti-Semite" a claim stated as fact when, in fact, this is an opinion and a shaky one to hold at best.  Trump is then presented as an "anti-Muslim and anti-immigration bigot".  Again, an opinion stated as fact.
Whether you agree with these opinions or not is not the point, nor do I care if you do.  The point of this thread is to point out that left leaning sites engage in the very same behavior and indulge in "fakenews" just as much as right leaning sites.  One is castigated by the media as a whole and the other is completely ignored.  This blatant double standard is a significant factor in Trump's victory.  Hypocrisy should be called out and reviled regardless of who engages in it. 

[BmorePat87]

Both operate as glorified blogs where anyone with an agenda can contribute.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 03:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Both operate as glorified blogs where anyone with an agenda can contribute.

I completely agree with you.  Unfortunately there are some on this site that don't share this opinion because HuffPo aligns with their political leanings.


As further evidence, observe the deliberately deceptive headline;

MIKE AND REICH: FLYNN MET LEADER OF EX-NAZI PARTY

Ex-Nazi party?  You mean a party that used to be the Nazi party and then became something else?  That's how the headline is worded.  Except that's not true.  #fakenews

[hollodero]

First off, I tend to agree with the thread's initial standpoint (up to a point).

(12-20-2016, 03:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To the first, it is patently illegal in Austria to have "Nazi sympathies" an, I'm sure intentionally, vague claim to make and seemingly made to get another chance to use the word Nazi.  

Well, you don't really know our freedom party FPÖ, obviously. And you're somehow right, we have a Verbotsgesetz, wherein it's forbidden to openly commit to National Socialism, the NSDAP or deny the holocaust and all that. But the freedom party sure does walk the line here. Just as an example, the currently defeated presidential candidate (and colleagues) walked into the parliament with a blue flower - a former Nazi symbol. And sure they claim that's a huge coincidence and they never intended and bla, but what it really is is some kind of flirtation. There are several similar incidents, like FPÖ politicians quoting SA slogans ("I did not know it was a Nazi slogan"); the former head once said that the Third Reich had a decent job policy, and so on and so on...

...and the party's founders back in '45 indeed were former Nazis (and some allegedly other folk). So well, there is more truth to the words in the article than you might assume.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 03:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: First off, I tend to agree with the thread's initial standpoint (up to a point).


Well, you don't really know our freedom party FPÖ, obviously. And you're somehow right, we have a Verbotsgesetz, wherein it's forbidden to openly commit to National Socialism, the NSDAP or deny the holocaust and all that. But the freedom party sure does walk the line here. Just as an example, the currently defeated presidential candidate (and colleagues) walked into the parliament with a blue flower - a former Nazi symbol. And sure they claim that's a huge coincidence and they never intended and bla, but what it really is is some kind of flirtation. There are several similar incidents, like FPÖ politicians quoting SA slogans ("I did not know it was a Nazi slogan"); the former head once said that the Third Reich had a decent job policy, and so on and so on...

...and the party's founders back in '45 indeed were former Nazis (and some allegedly other folk). So well, there is more truth to the words in the article than you might assume.

I'm glad you decided to post in this thread as you, obviously, have a front seat view on this story.  I'm actually fairly familiar with the politics involved, I know more about world and national events than local ones.  I am aware of the "flirtations" as you put and I believe that is an apt description.  However, the headline states "ex-Nazi party", this is factually incorrect.  Party founded by ex-Nazi would be, but they, deliberately IMO, did not say that and instead went with the inflammatory, and wholly inaccurate, headline on display.

As someone in Austria you can confirm that this is a major political party in the country and that meeting with them is not, even remotely, analogous to meeting with the Klan or white power Nazi's.  The article certainly tries to steer the reader's opinion in that direction.  To use an example that more are familiar with, would you consider them to the left or right of Front National, or about the same?  My opinion would be that they are very similar.

[hollodero]

(12-20-2016, 03:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm glad you decided to post in this thread as you, obviously, have a front seat view on this story.  I'm actually fairly familiar with the politics involved, I know more about world and national events than local ones.  I am aware of the "flirtations" as you put and I believe that is an apt description.  However, the headline states "ex-Nazi party", this is factually incorrect.  Party founded by ex-Nazi would be, but they, deliberately IMO, did not say that and instead went with the inflammatory, and wholly inaccurate, headline on display.

As someone in Austria you can confirm that this is a major political party in the country and that meeting with them is not, even remotely, analogous to meeting with the Klan or white power Nazi's.  The article certainly tries to steer the reader's opinion in that direction.  To use an example that more are familiar with, would you consider them to the left or right of Front National, or about the same?  My opinion would be that they are very similar.

I agree with everything you said here. 

(And I'd also go with "similar" regarding FN.)

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 03:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: Just as an example, the currently defeated presidential candidate (and colleagues) walked into the parliament with a blue flower - a former Nazi symbol. And sure they claim that's a huge coincidence and they never intended and bla, but what it really is is some kind of flirtation.

"Wir saubern Graz"    No wait!  Didn't mean it that way . . . .

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 09:00 PM)Dill Wrote: "Wir saubern Graz"    No wait!  Didn't mean it that way . . . .

You might want to take notes from the person you quoted as to how to actually respond to a thread topic.  Don't worry, I know why you didn't and so does everyone else.  We won't make you say it "out loud".

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 03:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To the first, it is patently illegal in Austria to have "Nazi sympathies" an, I'm sure intentionally, vague claim to make and seemingly made to get another chance to use the word Nazi.  Steve Bannon is then stated to be an "ethnic nationalist and anti-Semite" a claim stated as fact when, in fact, this is an opinion and a shaky one to hold at best.  Trump is then presented as an "anti-Muslim and anti-immigration bigot".  Again, an opinion stated as fact.
Whether you agree with these opinions or not is not the point, nor do I care if you do.  The point of this thread is to point out that left leaning sites engage in the very same behavior and indulge in "fakenews" just as much as right leaning sites.  One is castigated by the media as a whole and the other is completely ignored.  This blatant double standard is a significant factor in Trump's victory.  Hypocrisy should be called out and reviled regardless of who engages in it. 

"Fake news" refers to news content and sites which are wholly fabricated. That's what I mean when I use the term. An article on Breitbart like this http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/  would not qualify.

Not sure how one article from HuffPo could establish that "left-leaning sites engage the very same behavior" etc. just as much as right-leaning sites.

But that aside, would you dispute that Trump has proposed policies that single out Muslims for special exclusions? I believe Trump once said that Mexico is sending us "rapists," and that he wants to send home the Dreamers. I could probably add a few more additional points, but I would rather jump to the question of how one defines and applies words like "bigot."

Most online dictionaries will define a bigot as someone intolerant of other religions and ethnic groups, as well as to those holding other view points.  I am guessing you would agree that someone who is intolerant of bigots is not himself, thereby, a bigot. (But I am not sure, so I am asking.)  And I am guessing that most bigots do not think they are bigots and will claim you are biased or wrong for calling them such.

So when does behavior fit the definition?  Seems like the liberals might have the advantage here, since they are always proposing standards of racial, religious, gender and ethnic equality. Though some say they are intolerant of intolerance.

Am I a bigot if I say Mexicans are "rapists"?  Not all, but a lot of them. Immigrants for example. Wouldn't a bigot say that is just a fact?  If Trump is calling Mexicans "rapists" on right wing sites, is that the same as liberals calling Trump a "bigot" on liberal sites? An example of a double standard?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 09:31 PM)Dill Wrote: "Fake news" refers to news content and sites which are wholly fabricated. That's what I mean when I use the term. An article on Breitbart like this http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/  would not qualify.

Oh, why didn't you tell everyone that you have your own super special definition of the word?  See, I see the term fake and I interpret that to mean "not genuine".  When you report false information among factual information that, to me, would indicate "not genuine"  But you roll with your definition and we'll all stop bothering to discuss this topic with you.

[Aquapod770]

HuffingtonPost is straight up garbage (as is Breitbart). But thanks to them I know which ones of my facebook friends are idiots. Unfortunately it's a lot

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 09:46 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: HuffingtonPost is straight up garbage (as is Breitbart). But thanks to them I know which ones of my facebook friends are idiots. Unfortunately it's a lot

Haha, thank you.  The comments section of either will make you want to sterilize yourself.  I will admit that, in this regard, Breitbart is worse.  It may be that they are more loosely moderated though.

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, why didn't you tell everyone that you have your own super special definition of the word?  See, I see the term fake and I interpret that to mean "not genuine".  When you report false information among factual information that, to me, would indicate "not genuine"  But you roll with your definition and we'll all stop bothering to discuss this topic with you.

You are speaking for "all" now?

Defining one's terms for discussion is one of the things people do to avoid miscommunication.
And which one of us has the "super special definition"?

Mine derives where the public discussion of fake news begun last month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/12/07/how-the-war-against-fake-news-backfired/?utm_term=.587537df9b92

Fake news can refer to deliberately fabricated stories, often with the purpose of making money for the creators. (Think of those Macedonian teenagers looking to strike it rich on the gullibility of American audiences reading about politics.) It can also refer to comedy or satirical news, faked for the purposes of entertainment. Both of these types of stories are often shared across social media — and are taken as true by some readers. (The problem of what responsibility platforms such as Facebook have in creating algorithms that promote phony stories predates this election-induced panic, but it is central to the current discussion.)

But there has been a new development:

Fake news can now also refer to the phenomenon of a news source publishing something that is inaccurate but is still believed and shared by readers. This includes sites such as Gateway Pundit, which, in the weeks before the election, regularly published outright false stories that became talking points on the conservative Internet. And as the boundaries between “fake” and “unreliable” have become more permeable, conservatives have begun saying that the mainstream outlets they already don’t trust should be called “fake,” too.

How should someone who thinks words should have clear meaning respond to this? I choose to follow this advice, since it promises greater accuracy in reference and clarity in discussion:

Is this column or review or news report I disagree with fake news?
Not if it doesn’t meet the definition above. “Fake news” is not a one-size-fits-all rejoinder for editorial decision-making or reporting you disagree with Stick with “that’s not news”.

You are not required to follow this suggestion. Just know that I am. And this is the second time you have heard it, backed with links to responsible journalists trying to sort out fake from real news.

Now you have been doing your gol darndest to get me to come over and respond to this thread. I have done so.

Are you going to respond to the substantive post I have contributed or continue to fly off topic in a pique every time I post?

[Rotobeast]

(12-20-2016, 09:31 PM)Dill Wrote: "Fake news" refers to news content and sites which are wholly fabricated. That's what I mean when I use the term. An article on Breitbart like this http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/  would not qualify.

Not sure how one article from HuffPo could establish that "left-leaning sites engage the very same behavior" etc. just as much as right-leaning sites.

But that aside, would you dispute that Trump has proposed policies that single out Muslims for special exclusions? I believe Trump once said that Mexico is sending us "rapists," and that he wants to send home the Dreamers. I could probably add a few more additional points, but I would rather jump to the question of how one defines and applies words like "bigot."

Most online dictionaries will define a bigot as someone intolerant of other religions and ethnic groups, as well as to those holding other view points.  I am guessing you would agree that someone who is intolerant of bigots is not himself, thereby, a bigot. (But I am not sure, so I am asking.)  And I am guessing that most bigots do not think they are bigots and will claim you are biased or wrong for calling them such.

So when does behavior fit the definition?  Seems like the liberals might have the advantage here, since they are always proposing standards of racial, religious, gender and ethnic equality. Though some say they are intolerant of intolerance.

Am I a bigot if I say Mexicans are "rapists"?  Not all, but a lot of them. Immigrants for example. Wouldn't a bigot say that is just a fact?  If Trump is calling Mexicans "rapists" on right wing sites, is that the same as liberals calling Trump a "bigot" on liberal sites? An example of a double standard?

The Trump "Mexicans = Rapists" quote is fake news, in the respect that it was plucked from one of Trump's nearly incoherent ramblings.
It's easy to do with him, given his speech patterns.
Now, I will grant that he seemed to amend his statement, but it wasn't just outright equating everyone crossing the border as human filth (although everyone that does IS committing a felony).

I'm not going to search and link, so I'll paraphrase.
He did say that we were not getting Mexico's best coming across, we were getting murderers and rapists, and probably along with some very nice people.

Not really defending the Golden-God Emperor, that's just the way it went down.

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 10:37 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: The Trump "Mexicans = Rapists" quote is fake news, in the respect that it was plucked from one of Trump's  nearly incoherent ramblings.
It's easy to do with him, given his speech patterns.
Now, I will grant that he seemed to amend his statement, but it wasn't just outright equating everyone crossing the border as human filth (although everyone that does IS committing a felony).
I'm not going to search and link, so I'll paraphrase.
He did say that we were not getting Mexico's best coming across, we were getting murderers and rapists, and probably along with some very nice people.

I am aware of Trump's original words. My point is not that Trump said all Mexicans=Rapists. That is why I wrote this:

Am I a bigot if I say Mexicans are "rapists"?  Not all, but a lot of them. Immigrants for example. Wouldn't a bigot say that is just a fact?  If Trump is calling Mexicans "rapists" on right wing sites, is that the same as liberals calling Trump a "bigot" on liberal sites? An example of a double standard?

I will be happy to pare down the numbers--but to what exactly?
And what would be the point of calling any immigrants rapists except to excite loathing and fear of them? Adding as an
after thought that some are nice people doesn't negate the damage or intent, does it?

When Bengals fans to come to Heinz Field for a Steelers game, Ohio is not sending its best people. There are murderers and rapists. Of course, some of them are nice people.

I am joking, of course. A LOT of Bengals fans are not rapists. But Trump was serious. And you would be ticked off if you thought I was serious.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-20-2016, 10:46 PM)Dill Wrote: I am aware of Trump's original words. My point is not that Trump said all Mexicans=Rapists. That is why I wrote this:

Am I a bigot if I say Mexicans are "rapists"?  Not all, but a lot of them. Immigrants for example. Wouldn't a bigot say that is just a fact?  If Trump is calling Mexicans "rapists" on right wing sites, is that the same as liberals calling Trump a "bigot" on liberal sites? An example of a double standard?

I will be happy to pare down the numbers--but to what exactly?
And what would be the point of calling any immigrants rapists except to excite loathing and fear of them?  Adding as an
after thought that some are nice people doesn't negate the damage or intent, does it?

When Bengals fans to come to Heinz Field for a Steelers game, Ohio is not sending its best people. There are murderers and rapists. Of course, some of them are nice people.

I am joking, of course. A LOT of Bengals fans are not rapists. But Trump was serious. And you would be ticked off if you thought I was serious.

Nah, we understand that the typical Steeler fan base is all that you've had to go, in your lifetime.  Poor 'lil fella, we'll light a candle for you.  However, Pennsylvania voted for Trump.  Not much that you can do with that one..

[Rotobeast]

(12-20-2016, 10:46 PM)Dill Wrote: I will be happy to pare down the numbers--but to what exactly?
And what would be the point of calling any immigrants rapists except to excite loathing and fear of them? Adding as an
after thought that some are nice people doesn't negate the damage or intent, does it?

And I stated the fact that I felt he amended his statement.
But as we've all learned here, feelings don't really do much in proving any point.
We can only go off of facts, even if the subject is a douche.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 10:28 PM)Dill Wrote: You are speaking for "all" now?

Kind of an odd statement for you to make considering I was responding to your doing exactly what you just accused me of doing.

Quote:Defining one's terms for discussion is one of the things people do to avoid miscommunication.
And which one of us has the "super special definition"?

You?

Quote:Mine derives where the public discussion of fake news begun last month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/12/07/how-the-war-against-fake-news-backfired/?utm_term=.587537df9b92

You mean from the super unbiased Washington Post?

Quote:Fake news can refer to deliberately fabricated stories, often with the purpose of making money for the creators. (Think of those Macedonian teenagers looking to strike it rich on the gullibility of American audiences reading about politics.) It can also refer to comedy or satirical news, faked for the purposes of entertainment. Both of these types of stories are often shared across social media — and are taken as true by some readers. (The problem of what responsibility platforms such as Facebook have in creating algorithms that promote phony stories predates this election-induced panic, but it is central to the current discussion.)

You do notice the word "can" in the first sentence right?  Would not an accurate definition of fake news be a story whose intent is not to inform but to influence opinion through the mixing of fact and opinion?  Maybe done is such a way that the less discerning reader would have difficulty separating the two?  Yah oder nein?

Quote:But there has been a new development:

Fake news can now also refer to the phenomenon of a news source publishing something that is inaccurate but is still believed and shared by readers. This includes sites such as Gateway Pundit, which, in the weeks before the election, regularly published outright false stories that became talking points on the conservative Internet. And as the boundaries between “fake” and “unreliable” have become more permeable, conservatives have begun saying that the mainstream outlets they already don’t trust should be called “fake,” too.

So fake stories are "fake news" but partially fake stories are not?

Quote:How should someone who thinks words should have clear meaning respond to this? I choose to follow this advice, since it promises greater accuracy in reference and clarity in discussion:
Is this column or review or news report I disagree with fake news?
Not if it doesn’t meet the definition above. “Fake news” is not a one-size-fits-all rejoinder for editorial decision-making or reporting you disagree with Stick with “that’s not news”.

Editorials absolutely.  Since no one here has argued that editorials, which, by definition, are opinion I'm not sure what your point is.  Would you agree that editorializing in a hard news article is a bad idea, possibly leading to deliberate misinformation?

Quote:You are not required to follow this suggestion.

Oh, thank Glob!

Quote:Just know that I am. And this is the second time you have heard it, backed with links to responsible journalists trying to sort out fake from real news.

Wait, what?  You posted one link from a clearly biased source.  How is this an iron clad mic drop?

Quote:Now you have been doing your gol darndest to get me to come over and respond to this thread. I have done so.

If by that you mean calling out your erroneous claims then sure.

Quote:Are you going to respond to the substantive post I have contributed or continue to fly off topic in a pique every time I post?

Gooby please, I answer each of your posts point by point.  Merely declaring that I dodge your points does not make it so.  Also, pique?  You'd be hard pressed to find one occasion of my becoming truly irritated with you.  After all I deal with the less intelligent for a living, you're hardly a burden by comparison.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

So while the current debate (between DILL and SSF) has me riveted! I am curious as to what some of you think are legit news organizations? I'll create a list of the main stream media (as I think it is anyway, and tell me what you think...partisan, bipartisan, left, right, nonpartisan, and regardless partisanship whether it's legit or fake.

CNN
FOX NEWS
NSNBC
BREITBART
HUFFPO
WASHPO
ABC
NBC
NPR
BBC
USATODAY
NY TIMES
LA TIMES
CINCY ENQUIER
WALL STREET JOURNAL

I know there's more, but we'll start with that.

[hollodero]

(12-21-2016, 12:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So fake stories are "fake news" but partially fake stories are not?

Well, kind of... here's the thing. I'm sympathetic with your stance (although both of you could tone it down a notch, but none of my business). The problem is that by calling HuffPost "fake news" you throw different things into one pot. And then the claim "well, it's just the same here or there" might derive, and that is actually not true.
There is a difference betwee biased, opinionated, badly researched articles and "fake news". First, there is responsibility for what you write in a newspaper, something that does not apply for the Macedonian fake news producer who produces made-up clickbait. Second, I figure you have to see some kind of difference between exaggerating some underlying truth (up to actually being factually incorrect) and completely inventing certain events (like mass rapes, like police covering the deeds) where there is not a single layer of truth behind it.
There is a "layer of truth" when calling our FPÖ a Nazi party. I do not think it's an accurate description and some claims are factually wrong, but it's not entirely out of the blue.

This being said. Please don't take that as me defending HuffPost articles. I'm not. I hate the left-wing media for distorting the truth, and I hate them for providing such fine examples. It makes really for a legit argument for the "other side" by simply saying "look, they are not better, they manipulate just the same and then they ride the holier than you attitude".  And it IS a legit argument, no way around that, and very persuasive. Nothing gained for the own cause.
Still, the term "fake news" is kind of reserved for a development that is actually different. By definition of the term, that is.

Or asked differently, would you call FOX, Breitbart et al. "fake news" too?
- If you do, then the term loses its current meaning and we have to invent a new word for the Macedonian fake stories (instead of "fake news") and nothing is gained.
- If you don't, then I believe you do not have a case. HuffPost articles are not disproportionally more opinionated or biased then Breitbart articles.