Fakenews from HuffPo

[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.