Maher agrees with Fake News Narrative

[Stewy]

(01-27-2024, 06:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Why do you suppose it is important to Fox to keep the "fake news" narrative going?

I continue to wonder what sort of criteria you set forth for news organizations.

His "criteria" is "if it's not what I want to hear or already believe, then it must be a lie".   It's the definition of being brainwashed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2024, 12:24 PM)Stewy Wrote: His "criteria" is "if it's not what I want to hear or already believe, then it must be a lie".   It's the definition of being brainwashed.

In this regard he has a lot of company here.  My issue here is that his story isn't "fake news", it's a direct quotation of a famous left wing pundit.  Tear a Fox News fake story to shreds all day, but this instant attack on OP over a story that isn't fabricated or exaggerated is a bit beyond the pale. 

[Stewy]

(01-29-2024, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In this regard he has a lot of company here.  My issue here is that his story isn't "fake news", it's a direct quotation of a famous left wing pundit.  Tear a Fox News fake story to shreds all day, but this instant attack on OP over a story that isn't fabricated or exaggerated is a bit beyond the pale. 

*shrugs*  I do not click on anything FOX news related ,so I guess I should thank you for clarifying.  Willful ignorance on my part I suppose.  

However, my analysis of the OP's motivations stands.

FYI - I am not a liberal.  I read multiple, middle of the road news sites.  FOX is just not among them because it isn't a NEWS site, but entertainment.

[Luvnit2]

The irony of saying I am brain washed because my beliefs do not align with your beliefs.
These are know liberal far left new sites.

CNN
MSNBC
NBC
CBS
ABC
NYT
WAPO
Politico

Are you saying you never listen or read anything from these sites? What is your main news source?

You admit you don't ever listen or read Fox News digital, yet you condemn them. Maybe, you have been brain washed to believe Fox News is far right when in reality it is not far right, but how would you know?

I stand by my OP, a liberal (not Fox news or me) admitted NYT is a fake news newspaper. I would knot know personally as I quit reading that rag 25 years ago due to their far left ideology.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-27-2024, 07:35 PM)bjf123 Wrote: The story that resulted in a retraction being needed could have been page one above the fold. The retraction, if even printed, is going to be buried somewhere obscure where most people will never see it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

C'mon man, an organization as prestigious and highly esteemed at the New York Times would never do that, would they?  I mean doing something like that could lead to dishonorable reporting in front page stories, with a loosely worded retraction buried in the classified ads a week or two later serving as "atonement" for allowing less that the full truth to be published.

[Dill]

(01-29-2024, 01:44 PM)Stewy Wrote: *shrugs*  I do not click on anything FOX news related ,so I guess I should thank you for clarifying.  Willful ignorance on my part I suppose.  
However, my analysis of the OP's motivations stands.
FYI - I am not a liberal.  I read multiple, middle of the road news sites.  FOX is just not among them because it isn't a NEWS site, but entertainment.

Agreed.

Fox is on record--court record--admitting its business model is to provide its audience with the news they want to hear. "Neither red nor blue but Green."

That's a rather different standard from NYT and WaPo.

One way of Fox pushing back against its widespread loss of credibility is to undermine that of news sources,
who take much more care in vetting sources.

Enter Bill Maher, a liberal, certainly, but no "far leftist" as the Right likes to portray him. He makes a general statement about "liberal" news
following a "narrative," including our flagship organizations, and that instantly sanctions a round of "both sidesism" and false
equivalence, as if all were really Fox News if we are being "honest." 

This just suggests to me that many people do not really think much about how news should be read by news consumers.
Many just imagine "objective" news and find "bias" here and there to buttress their own beliefs. Since no one can be a
first hand witness to all news events, they are relying on some sources and reporters some where for news--including
determination that other sources are "fake news"--but mostly relying on "personal credibility" of sources. That's why so much is
made of WHO said what in OP, and little question of his powers of assessment.

For anyone serious in demanding accurate and reliable news sources, Trump's presidency should be a lessen what follows from
declaring anything you don't like "fake news" and creating a "narrative" that it is just everywhere.

[Foolishpride]

(01-29-2024, 02:10 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The irony of saying I am brain washed because my beliefs do not align with your beliefs.
These are know liberal far left new sites.

CNN
MSNBC
NBC
CBS
ABC
NYT
WAPO
Politico

Are you saying you never listen or read anything from these sites? What is your main news source?

You admit you don't ever listen or read Fox News digital, yet you condemn them. Maybe, you have been brain washed to believe Fox News is far right when in reality it is not far right, but how would you know?

I stand by my OP, a liberal (not Fox news or me) admitted NYT is a fake news newspaper. I would knot know personally as I quit reading that rag 25 years ago due to their far left ideology.




Seriously?  LMFAO!

Media Bias Chart | AllSides

[Luvnit2]

(01-29-2024, 03:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Agreed.

Fox is on record--court record--admitting its business model is to provide its audience with the news they want to hear. "Neither red nor blue but Green."

That's a rather different standard from NYT and WaPo.

One way of Fox pushing back against its widespread loss of credibility is to undermine that of news sources,
who take much more care in vetting sources.

Enter Bill Maher, a liberal, certainly, but no "far leftist" as the Right likes to portray him. He makes a general statement about "liberal" news
following a "narrative," including our flagship organizations, and that instantly sanctions a round of "both sidesism" and false
equivalence, as if all were really Fox News if we are being "honest." 

This just suggests to me that many people do not really think much about how news should be read by news consumers.
Many just imagine "objective" news and find "bias" here and there to buttress their own beliefs. Since no one can be a
first hand witness to all news events, they are relying on some sources and reporters some where for news--including
determination that other sources are "fake news"--but mostly relying on "personal credibility" of sources. That's why so much is
made of WHO said what in OP, and little question of his powers of assessment.

For anyone serious in demanding accurate and reliable news sources, Trump's presidency should be a lessen what follows from
declaring anything you don't like "fake news" and creating a "narrative" that it is just everywhere.

Trump exposed "Fake News" and why all of the fake news sources hate him. People can see what is reported on both sides. CNN and MSNBC refused to cover Trump campaign speeches. How far left and 3rd world country can you get that Biden media attempting to control the narrative by not allowing their own viewers to watch the Trump speeches and let them decide for themselves. They literally are saying their viewers are not smart enough to decipher a speech so they refuse to show it.

Trump has also exposed our Justice department as being biased by showing the world their work attempting to work with Democrats to literally put the top GOP candidate in jail versus attempting to beat him at the ballot box in November. Trump and Republicans have exposed the current 2 tier system of justice. Again, why everyone hates and fears him.

Any logical person can look at Biden and Trump and realize one candidate Trump's policies helped deter illegal immigration, did well with the economy with great and low inflation numbers (5%) over 4 years or less than 1.3% inflation on average per years. He provided a tax cut (Biden will not do a tax cut when Trump's tac expires, if so he would have already done it0 and Trump's policies improved wages higher. than inflation. In contrast, Biden' economic policies have cost an average net loss of income of $11,000 per family (with Trump's tax cuts) while Trump over his 4 years put more money in. the pockets of low and middle income workers.

Trump kept us out of wars and followed up by killing Soleimani who was Iran's leader of terror around the world. Biden is a disaster on the border as he allows our country to be overwhelmed by unvetted illegal immigrants, to date anywhere between 8 to 10 million in 3 years. How many do not share our beliefs? How many want to push their agenda and harm our country. How many are a part of terror cells with plans to kill Americans on our own soil?

The fake news agenda to destroy Trump and look the other way at our border crisis will someday have blood on their hands. Some will have family and friends killed on US soil by terrorists or illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are not vaccinated, have no money, no job so why we see all of the illegal immigrants robbing and stealing. Our country is a mess and Joe Biden and liberal policies need to take responsibility and then help the Republicans fix it.

[Luvnit2]

Here is another left leaning news fact checker delivering more fake news.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-hard-hat-debacle-latest-black-mark-left-leaning-fact-checking-site-snopes

Biden hard hat debacle is latest black mark for left-leaning, fact-checking site Snopes
The latest gaffe from Snopes over the weekend has put a spotlight on the fact-checking site’s left-leaning slant.

"Snopes is the kid that thinks they're the smartest student in the room and the apple of the teacher's eye, but in reality, they're the one everyone makes fun of for being a smart aleck," NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck told Fox News Digital.

Snopes, which is largely taken as gospel by the media elite, has been referred to by CNN as "the internet’s oldest and best-known fact checker," and once partnered with Facebook on a truth-finding venture. Snopes' own website boasts that it has been cited in publications such as The New York Times and Washington Post, while staffers have appeared on ABC, CNN and NPR.
Snopes reversed one of its rulings over the weekend to admit that President Biden did, in fact, wear a construction hard hat backwards. Biden was pictured during a visit to union workers in Wisconsin and the photo showed Biden noticeably wearing the hard hat backwards, with the strap and tightening knob clearly visible.

Snopes' published an initial fact check, admitting the photo was authentic but insisting the president was correctly wearing the protective headwear.

"It does look, at first glance, like Biden was wearing that hard hat backwards. But after comparing it to other photos and videos of the same event, we were forced to reach the opposite conclusion: The hat on Biden's head was facing forward, bill to the front, not backward," Snopes initially claimed.

Social media users blasted Snopes, as hard hats universally have the tightening strap on the back. The liberal fact check site then issued an about-face.

"The prevailing counter-argument is that if the suspension of the hat has been purposely configured by its owner such that the bill and tightening knob are worn to the back (as was the case of the hat Biden wore), to wear that hat with the bill facing forward is, practically speaking, to wear it backwards. Therefore, it's argued, it's actually true that, in the photo op discussed below, Biden was wearing it backwards. The strap and tightening knob, which should have been behind Biden's head, were on his forehead," Snopes editors wrote in an updated version of the fact check.

SNOPES FACT-CHECKS ITS OWN CO-FOUNDER, CATCHES HIM PLAGIARIZING 54 ARTICLES FOLLOWING INTERNAL REVIEW

[Dill]

(01-29-2024, 09:27 AM)bjf123 Wrote: During one of Obama’s campaigns, an Ivy League school did a study of coverage of both candidates and whether they reported positive or negative stories about the candidates. Fox was the most balanced, running the same ratio of positive vs negative stories about each. CNN was next, but was something like 55% positive for Obama and 55% negative for the other side. MSNBC was by far the worst, with something like 90% negative on McCain or Romney (don’t remember which) and 90% positive on Obama.

Seems like your implied criterion for quality news here is "balance" then. 

You are assuming that news organizations presenting roughly the same amount of positive and negative "stories" are doing the best job. 

Do I have that right? You didn't provide links so it's hard to evaluate the methodology here, e.g., how "positive" and "negative" are determined.

[StoneTheCrow]

(01-30-2024, 01:45 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Here is another left leaning news fact checker delivering more fake news.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-hard-hat-debacle-latest-black-mark-left-leaning-fact-checking-site-snopes

Biden hard hat debacle is latest black mark for left-leaning, fact-checking site Snopes
The latest gaffe from Snopes over the weekend has put a spotlight on the fact-checking site’s left-leaning slant.

"Snopes is the kid that thinks they're the smartest student in the room and the apple of the teacher's eye, but in reality, they're the one everyone makes fun of for being a smart aleck," NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck told Fox News Digital.

Snopes, which is largely taken as gospel by the media elite, has been referred to by CNN as "the internet’s oldest and best-known fact checker," and once partnered with Facebook on a truth-finding venture. Snopes' own website boasts that it has been cited in publications such as The New York Times and Washington Post, while staffers have appeared on ABC, CNN and NPR.
Snopes reversed one of its rulings over the weekend to admit that President Biden did, in fact, wear a construction hard hat backwards. Biden was pictured during a visit to union workers in Wisconsin and the photo showed Biden noticeably wearing the hard hat backwards, with the strap and tightening knob clearly visible.

Snopes' published an initial fact check, admitting the photo was authentic but insisting the president was correctly wearing the protective headwear.

"It does look, at first glance, like Biden was wearing that hard hat backwards. But after comparing it to other photos and videos of the same event, we were forced to reach the opposite conclusion: The hat on Biden's head was facing forward, bill to the front, not backward," Snopes initially claimed.

Social media users blasted Snopes, as hard hats universally have the tightening strap on the back. The liberal fact check site then issued an about-face.

"The prevailing counter-argument is that if the suspension of the hat has been purposely configured by its owner such that the bill and tightening knob are worn to the back (as was the case of the hat Biden wore), to wear that hat with the bill facing forward is, practically speaking, to wear it backwards. Therefore, it's argued, it's actually true that, in the photo op discussed below, Biden was wearing it backwards. The strap and tightening knob, which should have been behind Biden's head, were on his forehead," Snopes editors wrote in an updated version of the fact check.

SNOPES FACT-CHECKS ITS OWN CO-FOUNDER, CATCHES HIM PLAGIARIZING 54 ARTICLES FOLLOWING INTERNAL REVIEW

Snopes, you’re pissing down my leg, knock it off!

Snopes: FALSE, it’s raining.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2024, 01:44 PM)Stewy Wrote: *shrugs*  I do not click on anything FOX news related ,so I guess I should thank you for clarifying.  Willful ignorance on my part I suppose.  

However, my analysis of the OP's motivations stands.

FYI - I am not a liberal.  I read multiple, middle of the road news sites.  FOX is just not among them because it isn't a NEWS site, but entertainment.

Eh, it's both.  It's the worst offender of the big three, to be sure.  To say they provide no news items would be false, but I can understand not wanting to shift through the stories to find the hard news.  As for OP's motives, he's a very right leaning guy, he's never made any secret of that.  Consequently, I view his posts through that lens,

Maher is not wrong, which is why the far left attacks dogs immediately pounced on this.  The media is failing us, and instead of focusing solely on Fox as the worst offender, we should all be asking why we can't get unslanted news on anything approaching a regular basis anymore.  Unfortunately, for some admitting there's a problem in this regard is seen as somehow exculpating the excesses of Fox.  Hence it must be vehemently denied.

[Stewy]

(01-30-2024, 05:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Eh, it's both.  It's the worst offender of the big three, to be sure.  To say they provide no news items would be false, but I can understand not wanting to shift through the stories to find the hard news.  As for OP's motives, he's a very right leaning guy, he's never made any secret of that.  Consequently, I view his posts through that lens,

Maher is not wrong, which is why the far left attacks dogs immediately pounced on this.  The media is failing us, and instead of focusing solely on Fox as the worst offender, we should all be asking why we can't get unslanted news on anything approaching a regular basis anymore.  Unfortunately, for some admitting there's a problem in this regard is seen as somehow exculpating the excesses of Fox.  Hence it must be vehemently denied.

Fair enough.  And you're right.  I am sure F News posts real news occasionally if not accidentally.

[grampahol]

Bill Maher is still trying in vain to scrape the moron label off his forehead.. /end case  The defense rests..  

[StoneTheCrow]

(01-31-2024, 02:33 PM)grampahol Wrote: Bill Maher is still trying in vain to scrape the moron label off his forehead.. /end case  The defense rests..  

Got his ass!

[HarleyDog]

(01-27-2024, 02:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: So Maher believes the "narrative" that the news is slanted and he's not bright enough to read a retraction if the story was wrong so its the fault of the paper?

The way I perceive the point is you can print lies and then a week later do a retraction stating you made an error. However, by then, many people have already formed an opinion and a retraction will either not be read, or not convinceable. Seriously, most articles written, readers don't know there is a retraction unless a big deal is made of it. They surely don't advertise their intent to mislead you. I feel this happens more than people realize.

I would say I'm an average to below-average reader when it comes to articles. First, the headline needs to grab my attention (although wild headlines which appear too clickbaity I avoid). Second, If the article doesn't keep me interested by the end of paragraphs 2-3, I'm out. Thirdly, when I read an article, I may skim through updates on the same topic as other articles come out, but once I've read about a topic once, my interest rapidly declines when other articles are written. 

[GMDino]

(01-31-2024, 02:58 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: The way I perceive the point is you can print lies and then a week later do a retraction stating you made an error. However, by then, many people have already formed an opinion and a retraction will either not be read, or not convinceable. Seriously, most articles written, readers don't know there is a retraction unless a big deal is made of it. They surely don't advertise their intent to mislead you. I feel this happens more than people realize.

I would say I'm an average to below-average reader when it comes to articles. First, the headline needs to grab my attention (although wild headlines which appear too clickbaity I avoid). Second, If the article doesn't keep me interested by the end of paragraphs 2-3, I'm out. Thirdly, when I read an article, I may skim through updates on the same topic as other articles come out, but once I've read about a topic once, my interest rapidly declines when other articles are written. 

There is a difference between printing "lies" and needing to issue a retraction.  Most legitimate news sources don't print lies even if they are wrong some times.

Retractions can be about minor details.  If the entire story is wrong a new story will be written usually.

I see two problems at work here:

1) People do not trust the media...especially when it conflicts with their pre-conceived notions.

2) Like you most people don't read whole articles unless they are interested in them.

We have entire swaths of "media" pretending to be "news".  We need a more educated viewer/reader to tell the difference between them and actual news sources.

There are plenty of issues with "be first" and 24/7 news needing to fill time, but that doesn't mean everyone is lying.  Or that only the OTHER side is lying.  Hell, I don't know if MOST are lying or just presenting the facts in a way to fit their narrative.

[Luvnit2]

(01-29-2024, 03:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Agreed.

Fox is on record--court record--admitting its business model is to provide its audience with the news they want to hear. "Neither red nor blue but Green."

That's a rather different standard from NYT and WaPo.

One way of Fox pushing back against its widespread loss of credibility is to undermine that of news sources,
who take much more care in vetting sources.

Enter Bill Maher, a liberal, certainly, but no "far leftist" as the Right likes to portray him. He makes a general statement about "liberal" news
following a "narrative," including our flagship organizations, and that instantly sanctions a round of "both sidesism" and false
equivalence, as if all were really Fox News if we are being "honest." 

This just suggests to me that many people do not really think much about how news should be read by news consumers.
Many just imagine "objective" news and find "bias" here and there to buttress their own beliefs. Since no one can be a
first hand witness to all news events, they are relying on some sources and reporters some where for news--including
determination that other sources are "fake news"--but mostly relying on "personal credibility" of sources. That's why so much is
made of WHO said what in OP, and little question of his powers of assessment.

For anyone serious in demanding accurate and reliable news sources, Trump's presidency should be a lessen what follows from
declaring anything you don't like "fake news" and creating a "narrative" that it is just everywhere.

Help us out, how did they Vett the Trump Russian Collusion story played over and over again may times a day for years? When did they issue a retraction and apology to POTUS Trump for their extremely poor reporting? 

[Luvnit2]

(01-30-2024, 05:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Eh, it's both.  It's the worst offender of the big three, to be sure.  To say they provide no news items would be false, but I can understand not wanting to shift through the stories to find the hard news.  As for OP's motives, he's a very right leaning guy, he's never made any secret of that.  Consequently, I view his posts through that lens,

Maher is not wrong, which is why the far left attacks dogs immediately pounced on this.  The media is failing us, and instead of focusing solely on Fox as the worst offender, we should all be asking why we can't get unslanted news on anything approaching a regular basis anymore.  Unfortunately, for some admitting there's a problem in this regard is seen as somehow exculpating the excesses of Fox.  Hence it must be vehemently denied.

To be clear, 20 years ago i was considered a moderate conservative, also voted for Strickland (Democrat) for Ohio governor, voted for Clinton twice and voted For Obama's first term.

I have not changed a bit, but the characterization of my political views have changed dramatically. I am all in for freedom of religion, right to life, our military, police, strong economic policies, strong foreign policy, peace through strength of Reagan and Trump policies to deter endless wars. I am for free speech, even speech I don't agree with the content. I am for a strong border and feel Trump's policies deterred illegal immigrants from seeking asylum at the border, they used the legal channels put into law by Congress.

I also do not agree with everything any politician says, regardless of party. I am not a fan of Trump the person, but love his policies which align with my beliefs. I love my country knowing she is not perfect.

If this makes me far leaning right in today's political environment, then so be it. I am very comfortable in my beliefs and in my own skin.

I will continue to call out things I feel are wrong like attempting to remove your main competition from the ballot (3rd world country type crap) because you think it will weaken his base, get him kicked off the ballot all in attempt to not let voters decide in November who should be the next POTUS.

I also think Biden has weaponized the DOJ, actually started with Obama with IRS and then going after the 2016 Presidential candidate Donald Trump long before the 2016 election. I am not alone, polls show the majority now feels the DOJ has been compromised. They see it for themselves, a 2 tiered system of justice, heavy handed towards Trump and Conservatives and handled with kit gloves for Joe Biden and Democrats.

I don't care which side of the aisle weaponizes the DOJ, it is 100% wrong and more 3rd world type crap I never thought I would see in my lifetime.

I am all for law enforcement being applied fairly, I used to have great respect for the FBI, but no longer trust the FBI leadership to be unbiased. The AG is supposed to be unbiased, but again during the Obama presidency, his AG Eric Holder bragged his was Obama's wing man, a pure violation of separation of powers and. the beginning of major weaponization by Democratic Presidents. This should scare the hell out of every citizen, but sadly because Democrats are te beneficiary, they bury their heads in the sand versus looking at it though an unbiased lens.

[Dill]

(01-31-2024, 03:57 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Help us out, how did they Vett the Trump Russian Collusion story played over and over again may times a day for years? When did they issue a retraction and apology to POTUS Trump for their extremely poor reporting? 

This from the guy who still thinks the Steele Dossier launched the investigation into Trump's campaign.

Don't see why any should issue a retraction for responsible reporting. Trump and his people reached out to Russians. Played ball with them wherever the Russians let them. 

The Trump campaign was investigated for collusion, which resulted in jail time for at least seven of them--though not for Trump's son, who agreed to meet with a Russian operative to get dirt on Hillary. The "liberal media" reported the investigation without constantly crying foul and "fake news."

I don't see exactly what to apologize for here.  Fox just bent you to the belief it was all a baseless attack and the supposedly biased investigation proved no wrongdoing. And now you are imposing political criteria on reporters who report what they are supposed to report.

Both the FBI and reporters did their job. You ought actually read the liberal press instead of following Hannity's reporting of it.