CNN fake news network

super_furry

So obsessed with American news networks, American politics, American social issues. Tell us something relevant, what's Dobbo using in the gruige these days comrade?

ligerdub

CNN was obviously a fake news channel to anyone with a degree of skepticism about anything (over the past year I mean). It was barely scratch the surface stuff at times. Some of the stories were bordering on parody. The fact that they were so obviously anti-Trump only made this more apparent.

You can debate the other ones if you wish, but CNN are in a league of their own in this regard, complete garbage. They sold their reputation for numbers, a potentially fatal flaw.

Dohnjoe

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Yes, a proven liar. Just like CNN now.

CNN isn't "one" person. It's an organisation. Some journalists ran a sketchy story, and they have been fired and the story retracted

The problem is that now all the loonbags and political extremes will use this as an excuse to smear CNN at every opportunity. To shoot down any story that doesn't agree with their world view as fake

Trump is a populist, and frequently uses this tactic. It's proved effective at getting him elected, but it has no logical or reasonable merit. Each outlet has a reputation and a level of accountability. CNN has naturally and quite rightly received reputational damage from this story.

Cienciano

ligerdub wrote: »

CNN was obviously a fake news channel to anyone with a degree of skepticism about anything (over the past year I mean). It was barely scratch the surface stuff at times. Some of the stories were bordering on parody. The fact that they were so obviously anti-Trump only made this more apparent.

You can debate the other ones if you wish, but CNN are in a league of their own in this regard, complete garbage. They sold their reputation for numbers, a potentially fatal flaw.

The phrase "fake news" was originally for complete made up stories, like conspiracy theory shít that infowars post. But it's changed to be anything that people disagree with. I knew straight away that you're going to be a supporter of trump because of that post. And of course after checking your post history, I was right.

"Fake news" is just a phrase to dismiss any news story that doesn't support peoples agenda. Now you can conveniently dismiss everything CNN say as "fake news" because you've labelled the entire network as fake. Same way the alt right can dismiss every opinion poll now. Because after all, trump won the election and most polls had Hillary down to win. Now they ignore every poll because they happen to have Trumps approval rating low. Convenient again. Would the same people label polls and cnn as fake if they were coming out with stories and results they wanted to here? Of course now.

It's confirmation bias on steroids.

20Cent

Trump knew that he would be having a lot of scandals during his presidency. To combat this he has consistently sown the seeds of distrust in all organisations or entitys that challenge him. He has been doing this from the very beginning of his campaign and it has worked well for him.

It has been hugely damaging to democracy and government in the the US. like dictators only he can be the source for truth everything else is fake.

wes

Trump and his supporters have 0 credibility. The man is a pathological liar. It make more sense to assume that anything Trump says is a lie, and the same goes for his supporters.

CNN for all its faults did the right thing, they corrected the article and took measures to make sure it wouldn't happen again. That is how a real media outlet operates, unlike Breitbart and Infowars and other fake news outlets.

Captain Obvious

ligerdub wrote: »

Some of the stories were bordering on parody.

So is Trump himself though.

stunmer

Mischaracterisation, lying or fake news?

You decide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAEy5yjX4S8

hatrickpatrick

20Cent wrote: »

For:
The US intelligence agencies report with a high confidence that Russian government interfered with US election.

The same US intelligence agencies who reporter with a high confidence that Saddam Huessein had weapons of mass destruction, who told the world repeatedly that there were no secret prisons and that "of course the United States does not torture", who assured the public that they were not indiscriminately monitoring private communications without a warrant and then trotted out the "Russian defector" line when one brave intelligence agent decided to blow the whistle on their abuses of power?

Yeah, their word is certainly iron clad evidence that something is true. And they're totally above lying for political reasons. :pac;

Trump himself has said Russian colluded in the election.

Trump says a lot of things. He has even less credibility than the intelligence agencies.

The bottom line here is that the Democrats tried to f*ck over their progressive base in order to install a third way neoliberal war hawk in the White House and they were caught with their trousers down. Trump is God-awful but is we absolve the Democratic Party of blowing the election for themselves, we open the door to having another pseudo-liberal DINO shoved down everyone's throats in 2020. It's not worth it.

20Cent

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The same US intelligence agencies who reporter with a high confidence that Saddam Huessein had weapons of mass destruction, who told the world repeatedly that there were no secret prisons and that "of course the United States does not torture", who assured the public that they were not indiscriminately monitoring private communications without a warrant and then trotted out the "Russian defector" line when one brave intelligence agent decided to blow the whistle on their abuses of power?

Yeah, their word is certainly iron clad evidence that something is true. And they're totally above lying for political reasons. :pac;

Why wouldn't Putin try to sway the election to his preferred candidate. It's not like he's got a moral compass or some love of democracy. It would be very strange if the Russians didn't have any involvement.

Dohnjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The same US intelligence agencies who reporter with a high confidence that Saddam Huessein had weapons of mass destruction,

Indeed, it's a famous example. Actually they were right he did. He just didn't have anything significant nor a large active weapons program like was claimed or indicated - however the politicians involved (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz) knew the info was shaky, but went ahead and pressed like it was rock solid (same with not disclosing rendition nor the scale of torture)

Intelligence agencies are not infallible, they have produced faulty information in the past

However they have also produced hundreds/thousands of pieces of correct information. They have decent oversight - and negligence and lapses usually come to light eventually. A bit like the American press - not the best in the world nor considered top of the press freedom index but relatively credible as a whole

Dohnjoe

20Cent wrote: »

Why wouldn't Putin try to sway the election to his preferred candidate. It's not like he's got a moral compass or some love of democracy. It would be very strange if the Russians didn't have any involvement.

Almost certainly there was involvement, the only real debate is how much. Even a recent Trump tweet admits Russian involvement (but tries to pin blame on Obama)

Elmer Blooker

The phrase "fake news" was originally for complete made up stories, But it's changed to be anything that people disagree with.

I watch both RT and BBC regularly.
One outlet defends bloodthirsty jihadist terrorists by calling them "moderates" "rebels" "opposition" "fighters" ....
The other one calls them TERRORISTS. I know who I disagree with!

wes

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I watch both RT and BBC regularly.
One outlet defends bloodthirsty jihadist terrorists by calling them "moderates" "rebels" "opposition" "fighters" ....
The other one calls them TERRORISTS. I know who I disagree with!

Putin just put them in charge instead. See Chechnya.

Amusing that your are defending a Russian propaganda outfit.

The poor BBC, gets it from both the left and right for being biased, which tells me there relatively unbiased, when compared to other outfits.

biko

The funniest bit of this whole debacle is how the left have turned 180 degrees and now hate Russia, home of their faith.

Dohnjoe

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I watch both RT and BBC regularly.
One outlet defends bloodthirsty jihadist terrorists by calling them "moderates" "rebels" "opposition" "fighters" ....
The other one calls them TERRORISTS. I know who I disagree with!

RT is Russian state propaganda straight from the Kremlin

5% of Russians speak English - that should give you a clue

The BBC, whilst not perfect, is light years ahead in terms of credibility, accountability, quality of journalism and impartiality.

They are on opposite ends of the spectrum

ligerdub

Dohnjoe wrote: »

RT is Russian state propaganda straight from the Kremlin

5% of Russians speak English - that should give you a clue

The BBC, whilst not perfect, is light years ahead in terms of credibility, accountability, quality of journalism and impartiality.

They are on opposite ends of the spectrum

Standards have slipped massively over the last year or so. Their recent Panorama pieces have been terrible.

ligerdub

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So is Trump himself though.

Start a thread on that then. This is about CNN.

ligerdub

Cienciano wrote: »

The phrase "fake news" was originally for complete made up stories, like conspiracy theory shít that infowars post. But it's changed to be anything that people disagree with. I knew straight away that you're going to be a supporter of trump because of that post. And of course after checking your post history, I was right.

"Fake news" is just a phrase to dismiss any news story that doesn't support peoples agenda. Now you can conveniently dismiss everything CNN say as "fake news" because you've labelled the entire network as fake. Same way the alt right can dismiss every opinion poll now. Because after all, trump won the election and most polls had Hillary down to win. Now they ignore every poll because they happen to have Trumps approval rating low. Convenient again. Would the same people label polls and cnn as fake if they were coming out with stories and results they wanted to here? Of course now.

It's confirmation bias on steroids.

I'm not a "Trump supporter", I don't have a vote, what am I going to do, give him a fiver or something?

What I am is against biased hit pieces, of which CNN has been the commander in chief for over a year now. I'd have no issue with any of these outlets sticking to valid criticisms (many of which I agree with) but some of this stuff has been off the wall.

Almost all of your post is off-topic so I'm not going to debate that. Start a new thread on Trump if you want, boards.ie could do with another one surely.

CNN can be labelled as fake news if any of their stuff at all is known to be false internally, and that's pretty evident at this point. It's like the old joke:


So a man walks into a bar, and sits down. He starts a conversation with an old guy next to him. The old guy has obviously had a few. He says to the man:
"You see that dock out there? Built it myself, hand crafted each piece, and it's the best dock in town! But do they call me "McGregor the dock builder"? No! And you see that bridge over there? I built that, took me two months, through rain, sleet and scoarching weather, but do they call me "McGregor the bridge builder"? No! And you see that pier over there, I built that, best pier in the county! But do they call me "McGregor the pier builder"? No!"
The old guy looks around, and makes sure that nobody is listening, and leans to the man, and he says:
"but you **** one sheep..."

Captain Obvious

ligerdub wrote: »

Start a thread on that then. This is about CNN.

Well if the thing they are reporting on is like a parody then it stands to reason their reporting of that would appear like a parody.

Dohnjoe

ligerdub wrote: »

CNN can be labelled as fake news

Fake news refers to a story, typically planted, which is totally false

A classic recent example is e.g. that the Pope backed Trump - which was an untrue story deliberately put into circulation to sway low-information voters

The phrase has been since hijacked to smear entire organisations.

Distorted news is something else, and more common, in which a narrative or agenda is inserted into stories (similar to RT and Breitbart)

After that we have left-leaning/right-leaning. Like the Guardian and the Telegraph in the UK.

So we can say that CNN is editorially biased, but to call the whole enterprise "fake news" is a little bit disingenuous

20Cent

Trumps latest brainfart tweets.

Attacking the media for criticism again.
Would think he would have more important things to do presidenting instead of reviewing tv shows.


Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago
More
I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don't watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..

..to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!

super_furry

biko wrote: »

The funniest bit of this whole debacle is how the left have turned 180 degrees and now hate Russia, home of their faith.

Give over. Outside of the fringe lunatics, the "left" has never seen Russia as anything other than a dictatorship where normal working people are treated like crap. There's no-one on the mainstream left in Ireland who thinks that Russian communism was a good idea or that Putin's dictatorship is something to aspire to.

ligerdub

20Cent wrote: »

Trumps latest brainfart tweets.

Attacking the media for criticism again.
Would think he would have more important things to do presidenting instead of reviewing tv shows.


Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago
More
I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don't watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..

..to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!

Is this relevant to this thread?

ligerdub

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Fake news refers to a story, typically planted, which is totally false

A classic recent example is e.g. that the Pope backed Trump - which was an untrue story deliberately put into circulation to sway low-information voters

The phrase has been since hijacked to smear entire organisations.

Distorted news is something else, and more common, in which a narrative or agenda is inserted into stories (similar to RT and Breitbart)

After that we have left-leaning/right-leaning. Like the Guardian and the Telegraph in the UK.

So we can say that CNN is editorially biased, but to call the whole enterprise "fake news" is a little bit disingenuous

They have been filmed quite literally saying they are putting out "bull****". I'm not sure how clearcut you want this to be exactly.

mcmoustache

silverharp wrote: »

there is a project Veritas undercover video out now as well where their producers admit they aren't doing proper journalism and as far as they are concerned there is no Russia story

Project Veritas. With a name like that, I'd imagine that they're a fairly honest outfit run buy an honest man. In fairness to them this time, however, this looks like a raw recording of something that actually took place.

Regarding CNN though, they've been producing bullshít for over 20 years. I think they invented the "Lots of opposing voices screaming at each other" genre. Remember flight MH370? CNN spent months covering that. Then there's Wolf Blitzer Breaking News featuring day old stories.

They do have some decent journalists and produce some good stuff from time to time, though. It's a pity that they have so much bullshít filler padding it all out.

ligerdub

Senna wrote: »

Just my opinion:
The September 11 attacks killed reputable media, they had an overload of news to report on and the public just couldn't get enough, "breaking news" was actually important news that people wanted to hear. Viewership sky rocketed, every distribution method was being consumed in larger and larger quantities, of course they actually lost millions because of the attacks and stopping advertisements, but it heralded the sensational news broadcasts that everything they report on was "breaking news", I remember watching "exclusive footage" that was cctv from a few blocks away that showed a fire brigade pass by and then the dust cloud covering the window, that's all it was.
As things returned to normality, they wanted that dependence on the media to "tell people what to think" and to get that, they have to be the first to report it, even when the source is unreliable and never validated.

Maybe I'm completely wrong and social media has to share some blame, but I seen a huge change in how news is reported since 9/11.

Very good post IMO.

20Cent

Van Jones responds to the O'Keefe video.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/29/opinions/much-ado-about-nothing-burger-van-jones/index.html

Disturbing that Sarah Huckabee Sanders endorsed it and encouraged others to view it despite not knowing if it was accurate or not. The White house doesn't care about truth.

BillyBobBS

20Cent wrote: »

Van Jones responds to the O'Keefe video.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/29/opinions/much-ado-about-nothing-burger-van-jones/index.html

Disturbing that Sarah Huckabee Sanders endorsed it and encouraged others to view it despite not knowing if it was accurate or not. The White house doesn't care about truth.

Van Jones will be always known as a stooge now. His career is ruined as he has been outed as fake news.

20Cent

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Van Jones will be always known as a stooge now. His career is ruined as he has been outed as fake news.

Just a two second clip convinces you? like the editing isn't suspicious lol talk about gullible. Van Jones has a long and successful career ahead of him.