Fakenews from HuffPo

[Bengalzona]

(12-21-2016, 03:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: (although both of you could tone it down a notch, but none of my business).

Wise words from our European brother. 

[Bengalzona]

(12-21-2016, 03:17 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: 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.

CNN - legit - my right-wing friends claim it is left-leaning (personally, I don't know)

FOX NEWS - partisan right - the TV news is generally legit, the radio is often not legit
NSNBC - I don't watch, my right-wing friends unanimously claim it is partisan left (but I'm not sure that they watch either)
BREITBART - partisan right - 50% legit, 50% fake
HUFFPO - partisan left - 50% legit, 50% fake
WASHPO - left leaning, but generally legit
ABC - don't know, don't watch
NBC - don't know, don't watch
NPR - nonpartisan, legit
BBC - nonpartisan, legit
USATODAY - nonpartisan, legit (but if you are reading this for news, you are just as well off reading a marquis in Times Square... not much content)
NY TIMES - left leaning, but generally legit
LA TIMES - No idea
CINCY ENQUIER - No idea 
WALL STREET JOURNAL - nonpartisan, legit

I wonder how many people who judge media outlets have actually viewed them and how much they have viewed them if they have? I have a feeling that many people just go by what they hear from others ("Everyone knows you can't trust THAT rag!!!"). Admittedly, I have to plug my nose when I see something from Breitbart. But I have seen it and have seen some legit news reporting from it (not enough that I would ever trust it). I rate it and HuffPo about the same. 

But this "blaming the media" business is all just a game anyway. Media bias was around at the founding of the country. But back then there was no social media to fuel the "blaming the media" game. Instead, they had what used to be known as 'conventional wisdom'. You knew a paper was going to report something one way or another just from their track record. People seek that CW today. Unfortunately, most are too lazy to judge for themselves. They would rather trust another media outlet to tell them, and then converse with like-minded friends through social media to have their own bias re-affirmed. 

The current "blaming the media" rage was born during the Watergate Scandal and Vietnam. A lot of people on the right at the time felt the media should "stand behind the President and the war, regardless". This was meant to mean only printing or broadcasting stories of the President and the war in a good light. The media at the time, which was bound by FCC rules from the late 60's, published and broadcast the facts of the war and the ongoing case instead. This was a betrayal in the eyes of the right, which had hoped that a WWII-style propaganda blitz would win support for both the war and the President. Since the media did not do what the Right wanted, pretty much all media was lumped into a "can't trust the mainstream left" category. Ironically, mainstream media at the time may have been been the most unbiased it has ever been in our history. The complaint was actually that the media didn't have a bias.

Right wing rage smoldered for about 15 years until Ronald Reagan, in one of his last acts as President, had the FCC rules changed. This allowed for the creation of purely partisan media outlets starting in the early nineties. Radio led the way since newspapers and network TV at the time still tried to conform to the old FCC rules. Rush Limbaugh became "the Voice of the Right" in the nineties. Rupert Murdoch and Richard Ailes launched Fox News in 1996 as a partisan TV network. Partisan left media would follow. The growth of the internet and social media later only fueled the partisanship. Fox's viewing audience was 97 million in 2015. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2016, 03:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

Fair enough, but I would like to point out the hypocrisy of the bold. Does the left worry about words losing their current meaning when they use words like: bigot, racists, phobic, Jim Crow, hate, ect....when they wish to describe things that offend them? Sure we could split the hairs and say those terms are "appropriate" for the given situation; however, we all know (more often than not) they are used for effect and not for accuracy.



In my experience is the only time the left balks against word usage is when their terms are directed at them.

A. "You're a racist, bigoted, xenophobic, Jim Crow law supporting, hater"

B. "You seem fairly closed-minded on the subject"

A. "Hey, let's tone down the name calling"

[hollodero]

(12-21-2016, 06:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Fair enough, but I would like to point out the hypocrisy of the bold. Does the left worry about words losing their current meaning when they use words like: bigot, racists, phobic, Jim Crow, hate, ect....when they wish to describe things that offend them? Sure we could split the hairs and say those terms are "appropriate" for the given situation; however, we all know (more often than not) they are used for effect and not for accuracy.

OK, two things.
First, I widely agree with you here.
But why "hypocrisy"? I speak my mind, not the mind of "the left". I'm criticizing those things coming from "the left" too, the demonising, the oversimplifying, the words that are thrown around too lightly. And then some stuff.
But that has nothing to do with the matter at hand...? Which is more about semantics really.

(12-21-2016, 06:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: In my experience is the only time the left balks against word usage is when their terms are directed at them.

That might or might not be, I just again honestly wonder why you seem to make an effort to conjoin my words and opinions with words of "the left".

Other thing I truly wonder:
When you say "terms are directed at them" - do you feel that the word "fake news" is directed against the conservative right?
Because it really isn't. It's directed against, well, "fake news" as defined - that happen to have a somewhat right-wing background.
In fact I really wonder why the conservative right is not just as much against "fake news" as the left is. It really seems like a bipartisan issue. Only reason I see for that: The fake news are "right" as well, you share a common enemy (the left), so the enemy of my enemy... or something within these lines. I truly feel in the debate you kind of forget to condemn "fake news" and instead try to make the case of equivalency - which to me sounds like a false equivalency. HuffPost is not like the forged "mass rape and government cover up" stories. There are important nuances to the word "fake" that are not to be neglected. And you know that. So how comes?

(12-21-2016, 06:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: A. "You're a racist, bigoted, xenophobic, Jim Crow law supporting, hater"

B. "You seem fairly closed-minded on the subject"

A. "Hey, let's tone down the name calling"

Hey, I feel you. I'm with you on this one 100%. The pattern is quite real and quite common, and it annoys me as hell too.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2016, 07:09 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK, two things.
First, I widely agree with you here.
But why "hypocrisy"? I speak my mind, not the mind of "the left". I'm criticizing those things coming from "the left" too, the demonising, the oversimplifying, the words that are thrown around too lightly. And then some stuff.
But that has nothing to do with the matter at hand...? Which is more about semantics really.


That might or might not be, I just again honestly wonder why you seem to make an effort to conjoin my words and opinions with words of "the left".

Other thing I truly wonder:
When you say "terms are directed at them" - do you feel that the word "fake news" is directed against the conservative right?
Because it really isn't. It's directed against, well, "fake news" as I define them - that happen to have a somewhat right-wing background.
In fact I really wonder why the conservative right is not just as much against "fake news" as the left is. It really seems like a bipartisan issue. Only reason I see for that: The fake news are "right" as well, you share a common enemy (the left), so the enemy of my enemy... or something within these lines. I truly feel in the debate you kind of forget to condemn "fake news" and instead try to make the case of equivalency - which to me sounds like a false equivalency. HuffPost is not like the forged "mass rape and government cover up" stories. There are important nuances to the word "fake" that are not to be neglected. And you know that. So how comes?


Hey, I feel you. I'm with you on this one 100%. The pattern is quite real and quite common, and it annoys me as hell too.

Notice that the pronoun "they" was used when referring to the left. It is entirely up to the reader to determine if he or she is a part of they. 

[hollodero]

(12-21-2016, 07:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Notice that the pronoun "they" was used when referring to the left. It is entirely up to the reader to determine if he or she is a part of they. 

Well, you pointed out the hypocrisy of the bold, which were my words. Hence: my words were hypocritical to you. Your reason for your hypocrisy claim was "things the left says and does" - things I didn't say or do. Hence, you conjoined my words to words of the left... :) but whatever.

I'm part of the left because I share most of their stances and opinions. That does in no way mean I'm less critical towards their means and arguments and behaviour. Just trying to get things real.

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 12:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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?

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.

The definition was not referring to "editorials" but to "editorial decision-making or reporting you disagree with." Editorial decision-making concerns what gets published as news and what is cut or added in any piece, including straight news.

To re-quote: “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”.

Expanding the term "fake news" Fox-style, to cover whatever you don't like, renders it useless as a descriptor. You are perfectly free to follow your own whims and use it as a rejoinder for editorial-decision making or reporting you disagree with.  But unless you can demonstrate the value of making "fake news" a catch all term, I am sticking with the limited reference for clarity.

And your "Oh thank Glob" has set the standard and tone for your "point by point" responses so far. 

With my further clarification of terminology hopefully past us, can you now respond to the points I made in post # 9 on this thread without adding biographical particulars or publicly monitoring your feelings as you write?  Once again--

How does one article from HuffPo establish that "left-leaning sites engage the very same behavior" etc. just as much as right-leaning sites.

Speaker Paul Ryan--not a "left-leaning" Democrat--thinks at least one of Trump's comments fits the textbook definition of racism. We are talking about a guy who was sued twice for housing discrimination. That is not "fake news" even by your standards.

If you want to claim your HuffPo article is fake news because it refers to Trump as a "bigot," I and millions of others--including members of Trump's own party--do not find the charge plainly false. It is not like claiming Obama is Muslim born in Kenya. So your ONE EXAMPLE hardly holds up unless you can make it clear why such terms as "bigot" and "racist" and "sexist" do not apply to Trump, and do so without rendering the terms useless by expanding them to apply to all behavior.

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 05:09 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: The current "blaming the media" rage was born during the Watergate Scandal and Vietnam. A lot of people on the right at the time felt the media should "stand behind the President and the war, regardless". This was meant to mean only printing or broadcasting stories of the President and the war in a good light. The media at the time, which was bound by FCC rules from the late 60's, published and broadcast the facts of the war and the ongoing case instead. This was a betrayal in the eyes of the right, which had hoped that a WWII-style propaganda blitz would win support for both the war and the President. Since the media did not do what the Right wanted, pretty much all media was lumped into a "can't trust the mainstream left" category. Ironically, mainstream media at the time may have been been the most unbiased it has ever been in our history. The complaint was actually that the media didn't have a bias.

Right wing rage smoldered for about 15 years until Ronald Reagan, in one of his last acts as President, had the FCC rules changed. This allowed for the creation of purely partisan media outlets starting in the early nineties. Radio led the way since newspapers and network TV at the time still tried to conform to the old FCC rules. Rush Limbaugh became "the Voice of the Right" in the nineties. Rupert Murdoch and Richard Ailes launched Fox News in 1996 as a partisan TV network. Partisan left media would follow. The growth of the internet and social media later only fueled the partisanship. Fox's viewing audience was 97 million in 2015. 

Well said. I would only add that following the FCC rule changes, much formerly fringe commentary worked its way into mainstream media and political discourse to create a "base" of many millions. Formerly, claims that fluoridation was a Communist plot and that Eisenhower himself was a Communist reached few people and had little authority. Now there are competing centers of news authority--some competing by virtue of their lax standards--making news a commodity-driven business providing some segments of the population with news they want rather than one oriented towards what citizenry need to make informed decisions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-21-2016, 03:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

All excellent points (take notes Dill).  As stated before I'm a huge proponent of words having a definition and being properly used via that definition.  If the term fakenews is defined as the stories made up whole cloth, in your example by kids in Macedonia, then no, neither HuffPo nor Breitbart peddle in fakenews.  To me, the term applies anytime a news article perverts or distorts facts in an attempt to influence opinion rather than to inform.  How things are phrased goes a long way towards this.  Including quotes from people in which their opinions are presented as fact goes even further.  Either a troy is hard news or it's an editorial, mixing the two generates a fake news story IMO.  Whether we want that kind of story to be included in the fakenews category is yet another.  

Quote: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.

Which again goes back to definition.  We have, unfortunately, created the worst kind of debate here, one over semantics.  However, you do agree with my original point 100%, that HuffPo and Breitbart are two sides of the same coin.  This point was the entire thrust of this thread so I'm glad to see it has been made, to rational people.

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 07:09 AM)hollodero Wrote: In fact I really wonder why the conservative right is not just as much against "fake news" as the left is. It really seems like a bipartisan issue. Only reason I see for that: The fake news are "right" as well, you share a common enemy (the left), so the enemy of my enemy... or something within these lines. I truly feel in the debate you kind of forget to condemn "fake news" and instead try to make the case of equivalency - which to me sounds like a false equivalency. HuffPost is not like the forged "mass rape and government cover up" stories. There are important nuances to the word "fake" that are not to be neglected. And you know that. So how comes?

This question is at the root of my disagreement with SSF, which began on another thread.  A number of mainstream (not "leftists") journalists responded to fake news when the story first broke by attempting to define it clearly and creating online "primers" to help people determine what is false and what not. My link in post #13 above is one example.

Right wing commentators, on the other hand, took a much different tack. They expanded the reference to include pretty much everything they don't like. E.g., a comment like Hillary's "deplorables" is called fake news by Sean Hannity, though, it was never presented as news.  Pollsters who put Hillary ahead of Trump the week before the election were also producing fake news, according to him. Rush says that is all CNN produces. They also called stories about the CIA claim that Russia hacked the DNC to influence the outcome of the elections "Fake News." So basically anything they did not like.

I do not find this a big mystery. For a week or so after reporters discovered that fake news producers had much more success with right wing audiences, there was near hysteria from Hannity, Rush and some other Fox commentators in the rush to call everything fake.  Once the definition was sufficiently expanded, EVERYONE was consuming fake news. It was no longer a right wing phenomenon.This is, of course, not limited to Fox.

A left-wing Paper like the Washington post shows its "bias" by reporting a CIA findings as news. Breitbart and American thinker report the CIA findings as "fake news."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/12/cia-russian-hacking-story-sham/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/fake_news_the_cia_says_russia_preferred_trump.html

That is one reason why I took care on this thread to define my use of the term. Also, I do not follow Fox in calling mainstream or garden-variety liberal journalists "leftists." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-21-2016, 10:00 AM)Dill Wrote: The definition was not referring to "editorials" but to "editorial decision-making or reporting you disagree with." Editorial decision-making concerns what gets published as news and what is cut or added in any piece, including straight news.

To re-quote: “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”.

On this we agree completely.  It's reserved for news articles that are deliberately meant to disinform.  A hard news article with deliberate mistakes, mistakes intended to influence opinion is fake news.  A hard news article that mixed editorial opinion into the story and presents it as fact is fakenews. So, exactly the kind of article I posted in the OP.

Quote:Expanding the term "fake news" Fox-style, to cover whatever you don't like, renders it useless as a descriptor. You are perfectly free to follow your own whims and use it as a rejoinder for editorial-decision making or reporting you disagree with.  But unless you can demonstrate the value of making "fake news" a catch all term, I am sticking with the limited reference for clarity.

Except I didn't and everyone else in this thread, sans you, completely gets it.

Quote:And your "Oh thank Glob" has set the standard and tone for your "point by point" responses so far. 

You have learned well at the feet of Fred.

Quote:With my further clarification of terminology hopefully past us, can you now respond to the points I made in post # 9 on this thread without adding biographical particulars or publicly monitoring your feelings as you write?  Once again--

How does one article from HuffPo establish that "left-leaning sites engage the very same behavior" etc. just as much as right-leaning sites.

Please, I could pull examples all day and everyone but you knows this.

Quote:Speaker Paul Ryan--not a "left-leaning" Democrat--thinks at least one of Trump's comments fits the textbook definition of racism. We are talking about a guy who was sued twice for housing discrimination. That is not "fake news" even by your standards.

Cherry picking one point out of dozens doesn't make for a good argument.  Regardless, it's still an opinion and opinion should not be stated as fact in a hard news article.  Do you not agree with this?

Quote:If you want to claim your HuffPo article is fake news because it refers to Trump as a "bigot,"

Ahahaha, more cherry picking.  That is one example, hardly the most egregious one, of many deliberate errors in this article that I highlighted.  Like I said you're a true disciple of Fred, when you can't respond to the point as a whole you focus on one small example within that you feel you can squeeze a point out of.  It's sad and obvious and no one is buying it.

Quote:I and millions of others--including members of Trump's own party--do not find the charge plainly false. It is not like claiming Obama is Muslim born in Kenya. So your ONE EXAMPLE hardly holds up unless you can make it clear why such terms as "bigot" and "racist" and "sexist" do not apply to Trump, and do so without rendering the terms useless by expanding them to apply to all behavior.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. 

[GMDino]

Not to derail too much, but...

Just had a discussion on Facebook that started with someone demanding respect for Trump because he had respected Obama even though he disagreed with him.

I called him out and provided examples (thank you FB search) of multiple times he not only showed disrespect but flat out lied about the President. He defended his outright false statements as his "opinions". Which I reassured him he is welcome to have...but they are demonstrably false.

Over the course of the "discussion" one of his friends proudly announced that everything he said about the President (he's a Muslim, he's a racist, he's gay) was 100% true and as "proof" linked a video of Obama talking about "his Muslim faith".  

That was an honest to goodness true video with the words coming unedited from the President's mouth.  And from that she believed he admitted his was a Muslim.

When provided with the exchange that happened right BEFORE that statement to put the words into the context of the discussion and showing that Obama's words were accurate but not an admission of anything other than McCain was not trying to make an issue of saying Obama was of the Muslim faith she said I was providing "fake news" because the video was linked from a "Soros backed site" (Snopes).

So we both provided accurate, 100% true videos.

Hers was titled and described as the President admitting he was a Muslim.

Mine was the same video, only about 30 seconds longer, and provided context to the statement he made.

And she dismissed it because of the site it was linked to.

Neither was "fake".

One was false.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-21-2016, 05:09 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: CNN - legit - my right-wing friends claim it is left-leaning (personally, I don't know)

FOX NEWS - partisan right - the TV news is generally legit, the radio is often not legit
NSNBC - I don't watch, my right-wing friends unanimously claim it is partisan left (but I'm not sure that they watch either)
BREITBART - partisan right - 50% legit, 50% fake
HUFFPO - partisan left - 50% legit, 50% fake
WASHPO - left leaning, but generally legit
ABC - don't know, don't watch
NBC - don't know, don't watch
NPR - nonpartisan, legit
BBC - nonpartisan, legit
USATODAY - nonpartisan, legit (but if you are reading this for news, you are just as well off reading a marquis in Times Square... not much content)
NY TIMES - left leaning, but generally legit
LA TIMES - No idea
CINCY ENQUIER - No idea 
WALL STREET JOURNAL - nonpartisan, legit

I wonder how many people who judge media outlets have actually viewed them and how much they have viewed them if they have? I have a feeling that many people just go by what they hear from others ("Everyone knows you can't trust THAT rag!!!"). Admittedly, I have to plug my nose when I see something from Breitbart. But I have seen it and have seen some legit news reporting from it (not enough that I would ever trust it). I rate it and HuffPo about the same. 

But this "blaming the media" business is all just a game anyway. Media bias was around at the founding of the country. But back then there was no social media to fuel the "blaming the media" game. Instead, they had what used to be known as 'conventional wisdom'. You knew a paper was going to report something one way or another just from their track record. People seek that CW today. Unfortunately, most are too lazy to judge for themselves. They would rather trust another media outlet to tell them, and then converse with like-minded friends through social media to have their own bias re-affirmed. 

The current "blaming the media" rage was born during the Watergate Scandal and Vietnam. A lot of people on the right at the time felt the media should "stand behind the President and the war, regardless". This was meant to mean only printing or broadcasting stories of the President and the war in a good light. The media at the time, which was bound by FCC rules from the late 60's, published and broadcast the facts of the war and the ongoing case instead. This was a betrayal in the eyes of the right, which had hoped that a WWII-style propaganda blitz would win support for both the war and the President. Since the media did not do what the Right wanted, pretty much all media was lumped into a "can't trust the mainstream left" category. Ironically, mainstream media at the time may have been been the most unbiased it has ever been in our history. The complaint was actually that the media didn't have a bias.

Right wing rage smoldered for about 15 years until Ronald Reagan, in one of his last acts as President, had the FCC rules changed. This allowed for the creation of purely partisan media outlets starting in the early nineties. Radio led the way since newspapers and network TV at the time still tried to conform to the old FCC rules. Rush Limbaugh became "the Voice of the Right" in the nineties. Rupert Murdoch and Richard Ailes launched Fox News in 1996 as a partisan TV network. Partisan left media would follow. The growth of the internet and social media later only fueled the partisanship. Fox's viewing audience was 97 million in 2015. 

The LA times is very left leaning, as you would expect, and the WSJ is definitely right leaning editorial column wise.  The WSJ does a very good job of separating hard news and editorial comment though.  As usual you do a good job highlighting the problem and it's origins.  Partisan news primed people to swallow any story that reinforced their preconceived opinions.  Anyone who doesn't care enough to follow multiple sources is going to be ill informed as a result.

[BmorePat87]

(12-21-2016, 10:00 AM)Dill Wrote: The definition was not referring to "editorials" but to "editorial decision-making or reporting you disagree with." Editorial decision-making concerns what gets published as news and what is cut or added in any piece, including straight news.

To re-quote: “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”.

Expanding the term "fake news" Fox-style, to cover whatever you don't like, renders it useless as a descriptor. You are perfectly free to follow your own whims and use it as a rejoinder for editorial-decision making or reporting you disagree with.  But unless you can demonstrate the value of making "fake news" a catch all term, I am sticking with the limited reference for clarity.

I think there are two good uses of the term "fake news" and you are bringing up good points.

The first usage that I agree with is how SSF used it in this thread. A story deliberately misled and, arguably, outright lied to the readers. 

The second usage is actual fake news. Just made up stories, often times originating on fake websites, sometimes picked up by more "legitimate" sites. 

Maybe we need a harsher term for the first usage because, in my opinion, it is worse when someone generally accepted to be a journalist at something considered to be a news organization lies or fabricates stories. At least fake news sites can be clearly identified as fake news (by someone looking with an objective eye). 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-21-2016, 12:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think there are two good uses of the term "fake news" and you are bringing up good points.

The first usage that I agree with is how SSF used it in this thread. A story deliberately misled and, arguably, outright lied to the readers. 

The second usage is actual fake news. Just made up stories, often times originating on fake websites, sometimes picked up by more "legitimate" sites. 

Maybe we need a harsher term for the first usage because, in my opinion, it is worse when someone generally accepted to be a journalist at something considered to be a news organization lies or fabricates stories. At least fake news sites can be clearly identified as fake news (by someone looking with an objective eye). 

+5,000

It is absolutely worse for a journalistic source to engage in the kind of behavior that caused this thread to be created.  The problem, for some, is that this notion does not fit into their preconceived partisan definition of the fakenews talking point.  Including deliberately false information, and opinion presented as fact, in a hard news story is far more insidious than a completely false story created by a Macedonian teenager so he can make some money, get bottle service at the club and get laid that weekend.  We should expect better from a journalist than a 19 year old trying to get laid.

[Benton]

(12-21-2016, 05:09 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: CNN - legit - my right-wing friends claim it is left-leaning (personally, I don't know)

FOX NEWS - partisan right - the TV news is generally legit, the radio is often not legit
NSNBC - I don't watch, my right-wing friends unanimously claim it is partisan left (but I'm not sure that they watch either)
BREITBART - partisan right - 50% legit, 50% fake
HUFFPO - partisan left - 50% legit, 50% fake
WASHPO - left leaning, but generally legit
ABC - don't know, don't watch
NBC - don't know, don't watch
NPR - nonpartisan, legit
BBC - nonpartisan, legit
USATODAY - nonpartisan, legit (but if you are reading this for news, you are just as well off reading a marquis in Times Square... not much content)
NY TIMES - left leaning, but generally legit
LA TIMES - No idea
CINCY ENQUIER - No idea 
WALL STREET JOURNAL - nonpartisan, legit

.

. 

good summation. I would add, the la times would be right leaning. Not sure on the enquirer, I only read the sports. ABC and NBC I would put as fairly down the middle, but they tend to by like USA today. If you're hearing about it there, good chance you've heard about it before.

out of all of what's available, I recommend npr. Sure, they don't have the made up stories people seem to crave, but if you're looking for news, you aren't looking for that anyway.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-21-2016, 05:09 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: CNN - legit - my right-wing friends claim it is left-leaning (personally, I don't know)

FOX NEWS - partisan right - the TV news is generally legit, the radio is often not legit
NSNBC - I don't watch, my right-wing friends unanimously claim it is partisan left (but I'm not sure that they watch either)
BREITBART - partisan right - 50% legit, 50% fake
HUFFPO - partisan left - 50% legit, 50% fake
WASHPO - left leaning, but generally legit
ABC - don't know, don't watch
NBC - don't know, don't watch
NPR - nonpartisan, legit
BBC - nonpartisan, legit
USATODAY - nonpartisan, legit (but if you are reading this for news, you are just as well off reading a marquis in Times Square... not much content)
NY TIMES - left leaning, but generally legit
LA TIMES - No idea
CINCY ENQUIER - No idea 
WALL STREET JOURNAL - nonpartisan, legit

I wonder how many people who judge media outlets have actually viewed them and how much they have viewed them if they have? I have a feeling that many people just go by what they hear from others ("Everyone knows you can't trust THAT rag!!!"). Admittedly, I have to plug my nose when I see something from Breitbart. But I have seen it and have seen some legit news reporting from it (not enough that I would ever trust it). I rate it and HuffPo about the same. 

But this "blaming the media" business is all just a game anyway. Media bias was around at the founding of the country. But back then there was no social media to fuel the "blaming the media" game. Instead, they had what used to be known as 'conventional wisdom'. You knew a paper was going to report something one way or another just from their track record. People seek that CW today. Unfortunately, most are too lazy to judge for themselves. They would rather trust another media outlet to tell them, and then converse with like-minded friends through social media to have their own bias re-affirmed. 

The current "blaming the media" rage was born during the Watergate Scandal and Vietnam. A lot of people on the right at the time felt the media should "stand behind the President and the war, regardless". This was meant to mean only printing or broadcasting stories of the President and the war in a good light. The media at the time, which was bound by FCC rules from the late 60's, published and broadcast the facts of the war and the ongoing case instead. This was a betrayal in the eyes of the right, which had hoped that a WWII-style propaganda blitz would win support for both the war and the President. Since the media did not do what the Right wanted, pretty much all media was lumped into a "can't trust the mainstream left" category. Ironically, mainstream media at the time may have been been the most unbiased it has ever been in our history. The complaint was actually that the media didn't have a bias.

Right wing rage smoldered for about 15 years until Ronald Reagan, in one of his last acts as President, had the FCC rules changed. This allowed for the creation of purely partisan media outlets starting in the early nineties. Radio led the way since newspapers and network TV at the time still tried to conform to the old FCC rules. Rush Limbaugh became "the Voice of the Right" in the nineties. Rupert Murdoch and Richard Ailes launched Fox News in 1996 as a partisan TV network. Partisan left media would follow. The growth of the internet and social media later only fueled the partisanship. Fox's viewing audience was 97 million in 2015. 

Not surprising, but this is pretty much how I see things.  FOX is definitely 'right'  and MSNBC is definitely 'left' and I see CNN as in the middle.  When 24hr news channels first came around I watched it constantly.  I hardly watch it anymore, as I just view them as talking heads.  However I do read the paper (an actual news paper) almost everyday.  Typically I read both the Cincinnati Enquirer and USA today.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

News Report: "Donald Trump walked down the street today"

MSNBC Report: "Donald Trump took a stroll today to flaunt his election"
FOXNEWS Report: "Because of Obama and the Left, Donald Trump had to walk to dinner because of Liberal regulations in New York"

There is no more "News", only opinion.

[BengalHawk62]

(12-21-2016, 03:17 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: 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-  center/left
FOX NEWS-  right
NSNBC-  center/left?
BREITBART- right
HUFFPO- left
WASHPO- ???
ABC- center
NBC- center/left
NPR- center
BBC- left
USATODAY- ???
NY TIMES-  ???
LA TIMES- ???
CINCY ENQUIER-  ???
WALL STREET JOURNAL- ???

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

?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-21-2016, 01:59 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: ?

Are the ones with ??? news outlets you've not heard of?