Social media users accuse CNN of ‘fake news’ over ‘staged’ London attack pro

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

CNN has denied staging a crowd of protesters for a news shot in the wake of the London Bridge attacks, after conservative Twitter users accused the broadcaster of manufacturing “fake news”.
In a video uploaded by user @markantro on Monday, CNN anchor Becky Anderson can be seen standing to one side while police and TV producers assist a group of Muslim women assemble a makeshift memorial featuring flowers and protest signs.
“Look at all the people around me here, behind me here, sad about last night but hopeful for tomorrow,” Anderson says in the news clip.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/social-media-users-accuse-cnn-of-fake-news-over-staged-london-attack-protest/news-story/48d9966b71d72a26149b9f9ebae75465

This is like a pantomime rehearsal! And a real eye opener into how the mainstream media operates in this day and age. It's 90% outright lies and propaganda now.


The old saying is true; don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.

Would you call this fake news?

Samaris

Can't really make enough out from the video. Camera crew sets up, sees group who are legitimately having a protest, want to get a film of them but would prefer to stay with the camera trained down the road as it's more recognizable for viewers, ask them to come and rearrange themselves over here in front of the camera - you stand here, you're taller, so stand at the back, etcetera.

Or maybe they kidnapped a few people, forced them into headscarves, shoved placards into their hands and have guns trained on them offscreen to make sure they protest adequately.

Or maybe they organised it well in advance, bring your own placard.

Tbh, I think the first is the most likely in which case I really don't care.

I would not call this fake news
It looked like two groups (supporters + media) coming together for an arranged video piece in front of a police cordon at the recent terrorist attack

If the supporters/group are sincere, then what is fake about this?

Mickeroo

Are those supposed to be actors with the placards or what?

Collie D

Arranged? Quite likely

Fake? Less so

keano_afc

CNN and fake news? Surely not...

suicide_circus

CNN

Completely Non-fake News

conditioned games

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/social-media-users-accuse-cnn-of-fake-news-over-staged-london-attack-protest/news-story/48d9966b71d72a26149b9f9ebae75465

This is like a pantomime rehearsal! And a real eye opener into how the mainstream media operates in this day and age. It's 90% outright lies and propaganda now.


The old saying is true; don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.

Would you call this fake news?

But if you highlight the bias and controlled manipulation of the mainstream media then your labeled a conspiracy theorist by those that would rather not understand how the world operates. Not the first time fake news CNN were caught manipulating a live event, they did the same with a black lifes matter protest a year ago when they filmed Cops pushing protesters that was staged for CNN.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

CNN have previous form with this kind of behaviour though. Did anyone see when they got busted interviewing an 'anti-Trump protestor' who was actually their own cameraman! It was actually the CNN anchor who called it out.
North Korean levels of comical nonsense...

Phoebas

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

This is like a pantomime rehearsal! And a real eye opener into how the mainstream media operates in this day and age. It's 90% outright lies and propaganda now.

What exactly is the allegation of fake news. Are you saying that CNN instigated the protest? Were they CNN employees / paid by CNN?

silverharp

saw this on twatter same group in a different location :cool: they seem to be doing a tour of London :pac:

Persephone kindness

FOX vrs CNN.

I will go with CNN.

Hank Scorpio

Lights, camera, action!

It's probably just innocent although I feel no remorse over CNN or the BBC getting flack. Apparently they were on a street corner and the Police allowed them through to fill the background void. If anythings misleading it's multiple news outlets using the same small group in multiple stories.

Samaris

conditioned games wrote: »

But if you highlight the bias and controlled manipulation of the mainstream media then your labeled a conspiracy theorist by those that would rather not understand how the world operates. Not the first time fake news CNN were caught manipulating a live event, they did the same with a black lifes matter protest a year ago when they filmed Cops pushing protesters that was staged for CNN.

If the cops were happy to be organised into being filmed shoving protesters for the sake of CNN, then said cops are bloody idiots that deserve all the bad press they got from it. Why would you even put yourself into that position of deliberately showing your police force in a bad light for the sake of a media institution? In short, what?

Hank Scorpio

Since we're posting random CNN videos

Persephone kindness

Everything has to be stage managed for a news station. That is life. If there is a protest there and they want footage they have to make sure no one does bunny ears.

arayess

Persephone kindness wrote: »

FOX vrs CNN.

I will go with CNN.

can you explain why?
cnn are equally as biased as fox .

If you fancy your news as misleading with a dash of progressive liberal...don't be shy say so.

but don't bull**** that CNN in any more newsworthy than fox

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

saw this on twatter same group in a different location :cool: they seem to be doing a tour of London :pac:

This group could be just trying to get their message out there. What is the problem?

Where is the fake news?

conditioned games

Persephone kindness wrote: »

FOX vrs CNN.

I will go with CNN.

I would go with neither. The 6 media corporations in America are all controlled by those same people at the top of the hierarchical pyramid structure in this world. Their aim is to the sow seeds of division and play people off against each other. I would not trust fake news CNN no more than Fox news. They are both controlled mainstream outlets used to manipulate people.

Phoebas

silverharp wrote: »

saw this on twatter same group in a different location :cool: they seem to be doing a tour of London :pac:

That makes them committed, but it doesn't make them fake.

This looks like a group of genuine people out with their placards and the media and police facilitating them. And, obviously with the demand for 24 hour rolling news coverage, this is going to get airtime (if it was a bunch of people with ISIS flags, it'd be world news).

I wish that when people call this 'fake', they'd spell out exactly what they mean by that.

Persephone kindness

arayess wrote: »

can you explain why?
cnn are equally as biased as fox .

If you fancy your news as misleading with a dash of progressive liberal...don't be shy say so.

but don't bull**** that CNN in any more newsworthy than fox

ok we are all friends here. Cool?

You prefer fox ok. I prefer CNN or BBC or RTE. I am a leftie I suppose.

But I think we can all get along

Carlos Orange

Collie D wrote: »

Arranged? Quite likely

Fake? Less so

So it is staged but not fake?

gramar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8m_ZfRAtuM

conditioned games

Persephone kindness wrote: »

ok we are all friends here. Cool?

You prefer fox ok. I prefer CNN or BBC or RTE. I am a leftie I suppose.

But I think we can all get along

You prefer CNN while I neither prefer CNN or Fox. I prefer to look at the bigger picture and understand what are they trying to achieve.

Annasopra

How is this fake news?

Samaris

arayess wrote: »

can you explain why?
cnn are equally as biased as fox .

If you fancy your news as misleading with a dash of progressive liberal...don't be shy say so.

but don't bull**** that CNN in any more newsworthy than fox

I find CNN less inclined to rewrite reality than Fox, but yes, I am on the liberal side of the spectrum. CNN certainly has its flaws (lots) but I've lost all respect for Fox by now, despite having tried to give them a fair shot.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

It's a good source for a generally informed fact-check on the general approach of most media sources*. It's worth bearing in mind that a bias is not itself inherently -wrong-; where the problem arises is if that bias is allowed to influence the facts that get stated (and of course noting the -interpretation- given to the facts which is usually the most influenced by bias). The further left or right, the more likely that it might filter in because it's more important to those writing/producing it. I've got it on Fox there, but CNN is also Mixed and its bias is just left of centre-left.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

Fox comes out worse most of the time and that is a -terrible- politifact score by anyone's standards. But that's definitely not reason to believe that CNN is a paragon of anything, including sense.

Still though, I think people are jumping the gun and onto the shark assuming that the video above means anything.

*Believe me, I had fun researching this on a car journey a while back. Okay, how do I know that mediabiasfactcheck is unbiased? Overall, I measured based on Politifact and snopes as background sources as I have regularly found them reliable. So far, I have not found anything to indicate that mediabiasfactcheck is anything but intentionally unbiased and factual.

Persephone kindness

conditioned games wrote: »

You prefer CNN while I neither prefer CNN or Fox. I prefer to look at the bigger picture and understand what are they trying to achieve.

I know they are more worried about their pension plan not getting sued by showing the drunk guy on the street corner and having their hair and make up on fleek. Trust me.

Persephone kindness

Production value is part of broadcast News Media. Broadcasting has a standard. Offensive signs have to be filtered. Strange unpredictable people or traffic or birds song or anything...and yes sometimes there is a narrative.

If you want to really know. Get involved ...do some broadcast journalism yourself.

enfant terrible

Persephone kindness wrote: »

Everything has to be stage managed for a news station. That is life. If there is a protest there and they want footage they have to make sure no one does bunny ears.

Yes I'm sure if it was Fox News doing the staging you would be fine with it.

Hank Scorpio

Samaris wrote: »

I find CNN less inclined to rewrite reality than Fox, but yes, I am on the liberal side of the spectrum. CNN certainly has its flaws (lots) but I've lost all respect for Fox by now, despite having tried to give them a fair shot.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

It's a good source for a generally informed fact-check on the general approach of most media sources*. It's worth bearing in mind that a bias is not itself inherently -wrong-; where the problem arises is if that bias is allowed to influence the facts that get stated (and of course noting the -interpretation- given to the facts which is usually the most influenced by bias). The further left or right, the more likely that it might filter in because it's more important to those writing/producing it. I've got it on Fox there, but CNN is also Mixed and its bias is just left of centre-left.

Just left, you're having a laugh.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641

"The coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive."

Persephone kindness

enfant terrible wrote: »

Yes I'm sure if it was Fox News doing the staging you would be fine with it.

Please don't make assumptions about me. I might be fairer than you think.

I take things as I find them to be. Just because I think differently doesn't mean I am wrong.

enfant terrible

Samaris wrote: »

I find CNN less inclined to rewrite reality than Fox, but yes, I am on the liberal side of the spectrum. CNN certainly has its flaws (lots) but I've lost all respect for Fox by now, despite having tried to give them a fair shot.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

It's a good source for a generally informed fact-check on the general approach of most media sources*. It's worth bearing in mind that a bias is not itself inherently -wrong-; where the problem arises is if that bias is allowed to influence the facts that get stated (and of course noting the -interpretation- given to the facts which is usually the most influenced by bias). The further left or right, the more likely that it might filter in because it's more important to those writing/producing it. I've got it on Fox there, but CNN is also Mixed and its bias is just left of centre-left.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

Fox comes out worse most of the time and that is a -terrible- politifact score by anyone's standards. But that's definitely not reason to believe that CNN is a paragon of anything, including sense.

Still though, I think people are jumping the gun and onto the shark assuming that the video above means anything.

*Believe me, I had fun researching this on a car journey a while back. Okay, how do I know that mediabiasfactcheck is unbiased? Overall, I measured based on Politifact and snopes as background sources as I have regularly found them reliable. So far, I have not found anything to indicate that mediabiasfactcheck is anything but intentionally unbiased and factual.

The obvious counter balance to Fox would be MSNBC not CNN

Yourself isit

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How is this fake news?

It's clearly staged. We don't know if the protests were legitimate beforehand or not but they were being marshalled into a place where they weren't originally.

Samaris

enfant terrible wrote: »

The obvious counter balance to Fox would be MSNBC not CNN

Yes, but I was talking about the two stations already raised :P

namloc1980

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How is this fake news?

Whatever about fake news, it's definitely staged news. Calling it a poignant scene was a stretch.

sydthebeat

People calling it "broadcast standards " should look up for making of gonzo journalism

Samaris

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Just left, you're having a laugh.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641

"The coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive."

I am not, I am going on clear-cut cases of "this was truthful", "this was a lie", "this was mostly true, but certain facts were left out" and "this was mostly true, but interpreted according to a bias".

There is another reason why the majority of reporting may be negative on Trump. Is it, maybe, just possible, that the man might actually be repeatedly doing and saying idiotic stuff that keeps crashing and burning and is therefore being reported negatively upon? I do not think this is beyond the bounds of possibility, and when the claims made by Trump and the claims made regarding him by the media are compared, most of the media comes out better.

Tbh, all you need to do to be "reporting negatively on Trump" is to -quote- the man.


Edit: This is not to say that either any given media network is either 100% accurate or has never reported wrongly - a better judge is how they correct actual errors and misrepresentations. But judging them by how they report on Trump may be an error! You need a wider base than just Trump coverage, given his 1001 scandals so far, some petty, some huge, to be more certain on judging any media network. If you wanted to judge by how nice they are to Trump, your "most accurate source" would end up being Breitbart!

Collie D

psinno wrote: »

So it is staged but not fake?

I said arranged. These guys arranged to be there, maybe a news crew were informed to publicise it. Doesn't make it fake which would imply actors to me

Hank Scorpio

Samaris wrote: »

I am not, I am going on clear-cut cases of "this was truthful", "this was a lie", "this was mostly true, but certain facts were left out" and "this was mostly true, but interpreted according to a bias".

There is another reason why the majority of reporting may be negative on Trump. Is it, maybe, just possible, that the man might actually be repeatedly doing and saying idiotic stuff that keeps crashing and burning and is therefore being reported negatively upon?

Or perhaps, as exposed by Wikileaks during the campaign most of the mainstream media bar fox were colluding with HRC and the DNC and are plugging this Russian collusion story without a shred of actual evidence to cover for her loss.

Do you know the CNN emailed the DNC regularly for questions to ask Republicans? That's beyond the point of bias, it's collusion.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-colluded-on-questions-for-trump-cruz/article/2606651

Edit: We'll never agree anyhow so no point turning this into a political debate.

silverharp

as it is put the boot into CNN day, Stereotyping A spelling Bee champ the other day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hqzeCb-DU8

B_Wayne

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Or perhaps, as exposed by Wikileaks during the campaign most of the mainstream media bar fox were colluding with HRC and the DNC and are plugging this Russian collusion story without a shred of actual evidence to cover for her loss.

Do you know the DNC emailed in this case since we're talking about, CNN regularly for questions to ask Republicans? That's beyond the point of bias, it's collusion.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-colluded-on-questions-for-trump-cruz/article/2606651

CNN are little more than a wing of the Democratic national party.

Trump does a great job every week at causing his own scandals. There is currently an investigation into the Russia situation so to conclude it is entirely baseless, intelligence services and even members of GOP think it deserves an investigation. It's your own biases coming in here.

conditioned games wrote: »

You prefer CNN while I neither prefer CNN or Fox. I prefer to look at the bigger picture and understand what are they trying to achieve.

Yep, a new world order controlled by the Rothschild's is what you believe in. It's nonsensical and has no credible proof.

Hank Scorpio

B_Wayne wrote: »

Trump does a great job every week at causing his own scandals. There is currently an investigation into the Russia situation so to conclude it is entirely baseless, intelligence services and even members of GOP think it deserves an investigation. It's your own biases coming in here.

The investigations been going on since July of last year, sorry if I'm skeptical after hearing the same shíte about Russia for the past 8 months. But yeah, no bias at all.

Samaris

Most of the mainstream media bar Fox, and you link to the Washington Post? :P

So is the Washington Post lying in their negative coverage of Trump too? Presumably they are lying about their interest in the Russia probe, which seems to have a hell of a lot of smoke.

I am Dubious on Wikileaks. I was dubious in the past and I remain dubious as an awful lot of what they say is unprovable. I am even more dubious on wikileaks as indeed they express to be neutral but appear extremely partisan. Maybe that is because the Republicans have never done anything, but maybe it is not. So I do take what they release with a grain of salt as it is primarily one person that decides what to release and what to withhold with absolutely no oversight whatsoever. Media coverage oversight isn't perfect either, but there is at least an effort at it.

No, I do not absolutely trust CNN - I have made that clear (repeatedly). Here, I do not know the laws covering this sort of thing, but I see no real issue with a network getting questions from opposing parties (from BOTH opposing parties) to cover the questions that their base and the undecideds want answers to. I am unconvinced from that link alone that what happened was "collusion" in this case.

So, has Wikileaks emphasised this particular email exchange to develop a story (that would be misuse of bias to circumvent and interpret the facts), or was it only going on with one party and one political standpoint? CNN claims otherwise. Until it is investigated further (and preferably other networks for their views on the system), that is where it stands. (Yes, there are linked issues with Donna Brazil and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz that make it worth investigating). I just wouldn't want to make a clear-cut "this is absolutely the be all and end all" from the information currently out there.

The Backwards Man

All news is fake except the news I agree with.

Persephone kindness

The Backwards Man wrote: »

All news is fake except the news I agree with.

Some of the news I agree with is definitely fake.

Annasopra

Yourself isit wrote: »

It's clearly staged. We don't know if the protests were legitimate beforehand or not but they were being marshalled into a place where they weren't originally.

I think there is a difference between staged and fake. If these guys were indeed paid actors I could understand calling it fake.

Hank Scorpio

Samaris wrote: »

Most of the mainstream media bar Fox, and you link to the Washington Post? :P

So is the Washington Post lying in their negative coverage of Trump too? Presumably they are lying about their interest in the Russia probe, which seems to have a hell of a lot of smoke.

I am Dubious on Wikileaks. I was dubious in the past and I remain dubious as an awful lot of what they say is unprovable. I am even more dubious on wikileaks as indeed they express to be neutral but appear extremely partisan. Maybe that is because the Republicans have never done anything, but maybe it is not. So I do take what they release with a grain of salt as it is primarily one person that decides what to release and what to withhold with absolutely no oversight whatsoever. Media coverage oversight isn't perfect either, but there is at least an effort at it.

No, I do not absolutely trust CNN - I have made that clear (repeatedly). Here, I do not know the laws covering this sort of thing, but I see no real issue with a network getting questions from opposing parties (from BOTH opposing parties) to cover the questions that their base and the undecideds want answers to. I am unconvinced from that link alone that what happened was "collusion" in this case.

So, has Wikileaks emphasised this particular email exchange to develop a story (that would be misuse of bias to circumvent and interpret the facts), or was it only going on with one party and one political standpoint? CNN claims otherwise. Until it is investigated further (and preferably other networks for their views on the system), that is where it stands. (Yes, there are linked issues with Donna Brazil and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz that make it worth investigating). I just wouldn't want to make a clear-cut "this is absolutely the be all and end all" from the information currently out there.

That's the Washington examiner. The Washington Post is the one John Podesta works at and who's owner has a 600m contract with the CIA.

The argument on Wikileaks is the typical garbage, they dumped batches of emails they received without manipulation or narrative. Just raw data.

Funny how people on the left loved Wikileaks when they were dumping stuff which hurt Republicans. CNN claims otherwise? Yeah, they claim viewing the emails was illegal. Come learn through out filtered platform like the good little sheep you are.

Persephone kindness

I still agree with it.

Persephone kindness

The email coverage by fox was largely fake narrative.

hatrickpatrick

Samaris wrote: »

Can't really make enough out from the video. Camera crew sets up, sees group who are legitimately having a protest, want to get a film of them but would prefer to stay with the camera trained down the road as it's more recognizable for viewers, ask them to come and rearrange themselves over here in front of the camera - you stand here, you're taller, so stand at the back, etcetera.

Moronic if so, given the current climate of extreme suspicion towards the mainstream media from the disillusioned portions of the electorate (both left and right). Any sort of stage management of what is billed as something organic is going to be viewed with outright hostility, and given the bullsh!t shenanigans which went on during the US election (both in the primaries with regard to Clinton v Sanders, then in the general with regard to Clinton v Trump) it's hardly surprising that a lot of people have zero tolerance for this sort of thing.

I saw a clip last week in which the BBC were caught interviewing the same "random passer by" on multiple different occasions across multiple dates. Clearly he isn't a random passer by but somebody who has been coached to be good in front of the camera - nothing wrong with that as long as they're honest about it.

coulagh2017

CNN- Clinton News Network