Fakenews from HuffPo

[*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"