Fakenews from HuffPo

[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.