Trump now accused of colluding....

[Dill]

(09-14-2018, 07:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke. I see you have your heels dug in. The newspaper titled the opinion piece and the title is fake.

At this point I'm just talking to myself as I fear you have our fingers in your ears going lalalalalala. Enjoy your weekend,

Seems to me you have your heels dug in. That's why you are checking out. You don't have an adequate or usable definition of fake news but continue to assert "fake news" regardless.

And not the first time that, in the middle of a discussion, you suddenly decide someone still attempting to reason with you can't be reasoned with, and sign off--lalalalala--like it's really all the other guy.

It is an MO as much as converting specific examples of extremely bad behavior to general, neutral terms and then dismissing them with the claim "both sides do it."

[*bfine32*]

(09-15-2018, 12:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Seems to me you have your heels dug in. That's why you are checking out. You don't have an adequate or usable definition of fake news but continue to assert "fake news" regardless.

And not the first time that, in the middle of a discussion, you suddenly decide someone still attempting to reason with you can't be reasoned with, and sign off--lalalalala--like it's really all the other guy.

It is an MO as much as converting specific examples of extremely bad behavior to general, neutral terms and then dismissing them with the claim "both sides do it."

The definition is a news organization titling an article that Trump bears some responsibility for a tragedy that hitting the east coast while he has zero to do with it.

I'm really not sure how much slower I can type that.

Your assertion that someone disengages with a debate of someone because of the reasons you provide is the biggest issue with this forum. I stated numerous times why this is fake news, Matt didn't want to hear it, so I said OK. Now you come in with "you should say more".

Do YOU want to answer the question posed that was too hard for Matt or Fred to answer?

If a news article is titled "Trump Cures Cancer"; yet the article is simply about him looking for ways to cure cancer is that fake news?

[Belsnickel]

(09-15-2018, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do YOU want to answer the question posed that was too hard for Matt or Fred to answer?

You never asked me a question too difficult to answer. You asked me a question based on a false premise. Something that is not purporting to be news can't be called fake news. So the obvious answer in your faulty rhetorical is the first option: those that deny pollution's impact.

[BmorePat87]

(09-15-2018, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The definition is a news organization titling an article that Trump bears some responsibility for a tragedy that hitting the east coast while he has zero to do with it.

I'm really not sure how much slower I can type that.

Your assertion that someone disengages with a debate of someone because of the reasons you provide is the biggest issue with this forum. I stated numerous times why this is fake news, Matt didn't want to hear it, so I said OK. Now you come in with "you should say more".

Do YOU want to answer the question posed that was too hard for Matt or Fred to answer?

If a news article is titled "Trump Cures Cancer"; yet the article is simply about him looking for ways to cure cancer is that fake news?

It's an Op-Ed, so it's all opinion based. Are you challenging the facts of the article or the conclusions and opinions in it?

[GMDino]

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 09:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No.

Do you have a followup

When did you stop?

(09-15-2018, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If a news article is titled "Trump Cures Cancer"; yet the article is simply about him looking for ways to cure cancer is that fake news?

Not fake because I read the article.

Then when someone claims "Trump cures cancer" I point out how stupid they are for not reading the article.  Just like what happened in this thread.

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 09:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's an Op-Ed, so it's all opinion based. Are you challenging the facts of the article or the conclusions and opinions in it?

Nope, I challenging the title, really the only part of the article the WAPO had any influence over. The title is fake news. Now you Fred, Matt and others can say "well just read the article and you will see there's truth in the writings; however, none of that changes the title WAPO chose to assign the Op-Ed.

At this point it's just silly. No one on the left is going to give merit to the fact that titles such as this contribute to the fake news Trump (not bfine) cries about. So I will concede the point. The title of the Op-Ed in no way aids Trump in his claims of media bias and fake news.

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 08:49 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You never asked me a question too difficult to answer. You asked me a question based on a false premise. Something that is not purporting to be news can't be called fake news. So the obvious answer in your faulty rhetorical is the first option: those that deny pollution's impact.

Yeah, I should have said refuse to answer; seemed like a pretty straight forward question to me, but for some reason (I know) you will not answer.

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2018, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I challenging the title, really the only part of the article the WAPO had any influence over. The title is fake news. Now you Fred, Matt and others can say "well just read the article and you will see there's truth in the writings; however, none of that changes the title WAPO chose to assign the Op-Ed.

At this point it's just silly. No one on the left is going to give merit to the fact that titles such as this contribute to the fake news Trump (not bfine) cries about. So I will concede the point. The title of the Op-Ed in no way aids Trump in his claims of media bias and fake news.

So you challenge their opinion that "Trump is complicit". That's not "fake news", it's an opinion. 

I certainly understand that we have an issue in this country with people taking their news via headlines and blurbs, so seeing something like this would trigger someone into having an emotional reaction before reading it (or without reading it at all). It does give more ammunition to those who desire to see this epidemic of fake news in our country, of a corrupt and untrustworthy news media, but we shouldn't be coddling this anti intellectualism just because the President uses it to spread his lies and attacks on a very important facet of democracy. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 01:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you challenge their opinion that "Trump is complicit". That's not "fake news", it's an opinion. 

I certainly understand that we have an issue in this country with people taking their news via headlines and blurbs, so seeing something like this would trigger someone into having an emotional reaction before reading it (or without reading it at all). It does give more ammunition to those who desire to see this epidemic of fake news in our country, of a corrupt and untrustworthy news media, but we shouldn't be coddling this anti intellectualism just because the President uses it to spread his lies and attacks on a very important facet of democracy. 

Okey Doke. I will note the majority's views on new media headlines and how they cannot be fake news if the article is filled with facts.

[fredtoast]

Funny how when everyone who was squealing about this "fake news" was asked what was fake about it they had ZERO facts to back up their opinion that Trumps policies have not contributed to global warming already.  They just think it has not.


"FAKE NEWS!!!!"

"Why is it fake"

"BECAUSE MY OPINION IS DIFFERENT!!!!"

[Belsnickel]

(09-17-2018, 12:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I should have said refuse to answer; seemed like a pretty straight forward question to me, but for some reason (I know) you will not answer.

Hmmm...

(09-17-2018, 08:49 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You never asked me a question too difficult to answer. You asked me a question based on a false premise. Something that is not purporting to be news can't be called fake news. So the obvious answer in your faulty rhetorical is the first option: those that deny pollution's impact.

[Dill]

(09-15-2018, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The definition is a news organization titling an article that Trump bears some responsibility for a tragedy that hitting the east coast while he has zero to do with it.

I'm really not sure how much slower I can type that.

Your assertion that someone disengages with a debate of someone because of the reasons you provide is the biggest issue with this forum. I stated numerous times why this is fake news, Matt didn't want to hear it, so I said OK. Now you come in with "you should say more".

Do YOU want to answer the question posed that was too hard for Matt or Fred to answer?

If a news article is titled "Trump Cures Cancer"; yet the article is simply about him looking for ways to cure cancer is that fake news?

The term "fake news" originally entered U.S. political discourse back in fall '06, where it emerged as part of the Trump-disputed Russian attack on our presidential election. It referred to anonymous forum posts which purveyed false information (Foreign sources pay the Clinton's with kidnapped children as well as money) and websites which 1) used fake names to represent themselves as legitimate news sources (Denver Guardian), 2) posted fabricated news articles designed largely to discredit Hillary, and 3) could be traced to places like Macedonia and sites south of St. Petersburg in Russia. 

Responsible journalists at the time used the term "fake news" in reference to such sites, deliberately fake from their titles and contents right down to the source.  The definition could be legitimately extended to any "news" source 1) misrepresenting its self as professional and 2) purveying information KNOWN to the purveyor to be false.

But Trump immediately seized on the term to reference the most responsible news sources in the U.S. who published articles criticizing him and giving voice to people stiffed by his businesses or accusing him of sexual harassment.  His surrogates--especially Hannity, Rush, and Kellyanne--amplified this misdirection, Fox news further expanding their megaphone.

Your use of the term "fake news" here aligns with the Trump/Hannity usage, not the responsible journalistic.  What others have sought to explain to you is that title you call "fake" heads what is called an "opinion piece."  The job of the title is to describe the content of the piece. 

So the first question to be settled is whether the title conveys the content of the piece, which is that "when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks." Does the title "Another hurricane is about to batter our coast. Trump is complicit"reflect this opinion accurately?  If so, then it is not "fake."

The second question is whether the opinion comes to a sincerely reached and valid conclusion. That means checking 1) the current scientific consensus on the relation between climate change, human activity producing carbon emissions, and the increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes, and  2) Trump's response to the consensus. Does he ignore or dispute it when he could be using his tremendous power to mitigate the causes of extreme weather? 

If it is found that Trump not only ignores the scientific consensus, but works against it, then the only definition of "fake news" which applies to this article is the Trump/Hannity one--anything critical of Trump, regardless of what used to be called 'truth'.  Now you might dispute the scientific consensus, or that Trump disputes it, but that hardly makes the opinion piece, or its title, "fake" outside of Trumpworld.

Calling the title or article "fake news" is just another misguided effort to run interference for Trump by muddying otherwise clear waters, diverting attention and discussion away from a real problem just to squeeze out a sour lemon drop of credibility for Trump charges of "media bias." (Well the title at least is "fake news"!!)

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 01:37 PM)Dill Wrote: The term "fake news" originally entered U.S. political discourse back in fall '06, where it emerged as part of the Trump-disputed Russian attack on our presidential election. It referred to anonymous forum posts which purveyed false information (Foreign sources pay the Clinton's with kidnapped children as well as money) and websites which 1) used fake names to represent themselves as legitimate news sources (Denver Guardian), 2) posted fabricated news articles designed largely to discredit Hillary, and 3) could be traced to places like Macedonia and sites south of St. Petersburg in Russia. 

Responsible journalists at the time used the term "fake news" in reference to such sites, deliberately fake from their titles and contents right down to the source.  The definition could be legitimately extended to any "news" source 1) misrepresenting its self as professional and 2) purveying information KNOWN to the purveyor to be false.

But Trump immediately seized on the term to reference the most responsible news sources in the U.S. who published articles criticizing him and giving voice to people stiffed by his businesses or accusing him of sexual harassment.  His surrogates--especially Hannity, Rush, and Kellyanne--amplified this misdirection, Fox news further expanding their megaphone.

Your use of the term "fake news" here aligns with the Trump/Hannity usage, not the responsible journalistic.  What others have sought to explain to you is that title you call "fake" heads what is called an "opinion piece."  The job of the title is to describe the content of the piece. 

So the first question to be settled is whether the title conveys the content of the piece, which is that "when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks." Does the title "Another hurricane is about to batter our coast. Trump is complicit"reflect this opinion accurately?  If so, then it is not "fake."

The second question is whether the opinion comes to a sincerely reached and valid conclusion. That means checking 1) the current scientific consensus on the relation between climate change, human activity producing carbon emissions, and the increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes, and  2) Trump's response to the consensus. Does he ignore or dispute it when he could be using his tremendous power to mitigate? 

If it is found that Trump not only ignores the scientific consensus, but works against it, then the only definition of "fake news" which applies to this article is the Trump/Hannity one--anything critical of Trump, regardless of what used to be called 'truth'.  Now you might dispute the scientific consensus, or that Trump disputes it, but that hardly makes the opinion piece, or its title, "fake" outside of Trumpworld.

Calling the title or article "fake news" is just another misguided effort to run interference for Trump by muddying otherwise clear waters.

OK.

[Goalpost]

Here's some fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/new-york-times-backtracks-on-a-tale-about-some-expensive-curtains/2018/09/14/57b53eda-b850-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b27964f1e51


Of course the story is over now. No further questioning or headlines why Obama bought the curtains. Intent of the story was to smear Trump and Haley.

[Dill]

(09-15-2018, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do YOU want to answer the question posed that was too hard for Matt or Fred to answer?

If a news article is titled "Trump Cures Cancer"; yet the article is simply about him looking for ways to cure cancer is that fake news?

LOL those scardy cats Matt and Fred give in too easily. :whiteflag:

If Trump really is "looking for ways to cure cancer" then according to the responsible journalistic definition, no, your example would not be "fake news." And not even under the Trump/Hannity definition, since misinformation in Trump's favor is just "news" overlooked by the liberal media. Could be added to the list of "80 things Trump accomplished during his first year."

Responsible journalists would call the title "inaccurate," not fake. 

Fuzzy, logically inconsistent definitions create muddy questions, not "hard to answer" ones.
   
 

[Dill]

(09-17-2018, 02:05 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Here's some fake news.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/new-york-times-backtracks-on-a-tale-about-some-expensive-curtains/2018/09/14/57b53eda-b850-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b27964f1e51

Of course the story is over now.  No further questioning or headlines why Obama bought the curtains.  Intent of the story was to smear Trump and Haley.

The story would be fake news under the Trump/Hannity definition. Yes.

Fake news sources don't retract and clarify their errors, as the WaPo does here.

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2018, 01:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke. I will note the majority's views on new media headlines and how they cannot be fake news if the article is filled with facts.

I mean, it's true. Fake news is fabricated news. Opinions you disagree with that are backed by facts aren't "fake", they're just debatable. 

Calling opinions we disagree with "fake news" lessens the threat of actual fake news. 

[BmorePat87]

this is fake news:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161115023815/http://denverguardian.com/2016/11/05/fbi-agent-suspected-hillary-email-leaks-found-dead-apparent-murder-suicide/

Websites with fabricated stories that were spread around in an effort to convince people that the stories were true.

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2018, 02:05 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Here's some fake news.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/new-york-times-backtracks-on-a-tale-about-some-expensive-curtains/2018/09/14/57b53eda-b850-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b27964f1e51


Of course the story is over now.  No further questioning or headlines why Obama bought the curtains.  Intent of the story was to smear Trump and Haley.

Nothing in the story was fake. It had a misleading headline and a misleading picture. Totally unacceptable, but the NYT corrected the story and issued an apology. 

News organizations face an incredibly higher standard than our elected officials and they admit their mistakes far more than our elected officials do. It's part of the reason why they are so credible, even if the masses don't accept their credibility. Journalist face losing their entire career over bad reporting.