CNN fake news network

diograis

gitzy16v wrote: »

Well they do have to report actual news to try gain some credibility back.

No need to get so worked up,youll give yourself a heart attack.

I love it when defenders of Trump's latest antics are proven wrong with their own links and continue on like nothing happened. It gives me life :pac:

BillyBobBS

CNN are as bad as Fox or RT at this stage. Fake news is their calling sign.

The problem today isn't intentional for most news outlets. Its a result of quantity being more important than quality. Stories aren't being checked properly, updates are rushed and hasty, and press releases are simply swallowed and naively regurgitated whole.

And its not just the US outlets, RTE and BBC are equally guilty.

For example RTE reported a big drugs haul recently, and initially reported it as cannabis and cocaine. Fair enough, that was the original thoughts of the gardai. However, when it shortly afterwards became clear that there was no cocaine, they changed the first paragraph to remove the reference to cocaine..... but forgot to read the article though and allowed later references to a cocaine seizure to remain.
That was fake news, not deliberate, just careless and lazy journalism.

BBC often do 'medical breakthrough' stories. Most of these treatments never see the light of day afterwards. Why? Because these stories are based on press releases put out by the people doing the 'breakthrough', either to puff up their reputation, obtain research funds or encourage people to sign up for trials. There apears to be no objective assessment of the claims before such stories get aired.

Similarly most environmental stories are based on press releases put out by NGOs. These may be factually true (or may not) but there is always a spin from the perspective of the organisation who puts them out. Invariably these get published in totality. Thats also fake news.

This will continue, and indeed get worse, until standards of the main news organisations improve.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem today isn't intentional for most news outlets. Its a result of quantity being more important than quality. Stories aren't being checked properly, updates are rushed and hasty, and press releases are simply swallowed and naively regurgitated whole.

And its not just the US outlets, RTE and BBC are equally guilty.

For example RTE reported a big drugs haul recently, and initially reported it as cannabis and cocaine. Fair enough, that was the original thoughts of the gardai. However, when it shortly afterwards became clear that there was no cocaine, they changed the first paragraph to remove the reference to cocaine..... but forgot to read the article though and allowed later references to a cocaine seizure to remain.
That was fake news, not deliberate, just careless and lazy journalism.

BBC often do 'medical breakthrough' stories. Most of these treatments never see the light of day afterwards. Why? Because these stories are based on press releases put out by the people doing the 'breakthrough', either to puff up their reputation, obtain research funds or encourage people to sign up for trials. There apears to be no objective assessment of the claims before such stories get aired.

Similarly most environmental stories are based on press releases put out by NGOs. These may be factually true (or may not) but there is always a spin from the perspective of the organisation who puts them out. Invariably these get published in totality. Thats also fake news.

This will continue, and indeed get worse, until standards of the main news organisations improve.

The thing is that in the rush to get a story out mistakes will be made and it's worse with 24hr journalism. If you don't have the details that are on another channel people will switch. This makes for sloppiness and a ridiculous amount of flashy graphics that are designed to attract attention.


That's the problem with all news media nowadays. But especially with web based and TV based news. It's all about the viewers or the clicks.

That however is completely different to saying that they have an agenda.

silverharp

Some fake news over the weekend

WinnyThePoo

silverharp wrote: »

Some fake news over the weekend

Did you bother to read the last few posts?

Grayson

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Did you bother to read the last few posts?

Of course they didn't. They're just copying and pasting from some alt right site. And as much as they might decry the "fake news" they'll swallow any old bull that's on those sites.

Water John

Are the NYT being accused of Fake News over the last few days too?

Strange silence on that.

gitzy16v

diograis wrote: »

I love it when defenders of Trump's latest antics are proven wrong with their own links and continue on like nothing happened. It gives me life :pac:

I think your confused.

diograis

BillyBobBS wrote: »

CNN are as bad as Fox or RT at this stage. Fake news is their calling sign.

Fox news, while is glaringly biased to Republican interests and back in 2001 were screaming terrorism 24/7, starting to hold Trump mouthpieces to account, but still dreadful. RT is self admitted Russian propaganda.

To claim CNN is as bad as either is as funny as it is wrong. Try watching it sometime.

diograis

gitzy16v wrote: »

I think your confused.

*you're

you came out with BS about CNN claiming G20 protests were peaceful. This was disproven. You ignored this as you do not agree with the conclusion it leaves. Quod erat demonstrandum.

diograis

Water John wrote: »

Are the NYT being accused of Fake News over the last few days too?

Strange silence on that.

Nah it's just the failing New York Times :P no mention of how fake they are at all, it seems they realise how ridiculous it's all beginning to sound

gitzy16v

diograis wrote: »

*you're

you came out with BS about CNN claiming G20 protests were peaceful. This was disproven. You ignored this as you do not agree with the conclusion it leaves. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Your still confused.
I did no such thing.
I said they desperately tried to show the protesters in a good light.
I also said they still reported the trouble because they still have to report actual news.
Get back in your box grammar nazi

Ann_Landers

Deleted User wrote: »

BBC often do 'medical breakthrough' stories. Most of these treatments never see the light of day afterwards. Why? Because these stories are based on press releases put out by the people doing the 'breakthrough', either to puff up their reputation, obtain research funds or encourage people to sign up for trials. There apears to be no objective assessment of the claims before such stories get aired.

And the media are just so goddamn bad at reporting on science matters. They will cherry-pick some piece of data out of context because it sounds sexy but will fail to understand the significance of what it says and go off on some other angle with it. Very frustrating.

Ann_Landers

Ann_Landers wrote: »

And the media are just so goddamn bad at reporting on science matters. They will cherry-pick some piece of data out of context because it sounds sexy but will fail to understand the significance of what it says and go off on some other angle with it. Very frustrating.

Yes, but where you are wrong is that its not the media who are cherry picking... its whoever supplies them with the press release that has already done the cherry picking and spinning and the correspondent swallows it.

Very few specialist reporters actually know their subject. They just know what makes 'interesting' copy, an entirely different matter.

Its no wonder that people are sceptical about things such as global warming when everything given to them by the media has an agenda, although the journalist might not know enough about the subject to realise that they're being played.

Ann_Landers

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, but where you are wrong is that its not the media who are cherry picking... its whoever supplies them with the press release that has already done the cherry picking and spinning and the correspondent swallows it.

IMO, that's no excuse. Any scientific breakthrough has literature published on it or the journalist can contact the principal investigator who can break it down into layman's terms whilst still driving home the findings of the research. It's not like the press release is the only information available to the media organisations. Any good scientist should be able to communicate the findings in layman's terms and any good journalist should be able to make contact with the relevant scientific. Science isn't this esoteric field that is impenetrable.

Ann_Landers

Ann_Landers wrote: »

IMO, that's no excuse. Any scientific breakthrough has literature published on it or the journalist can contact the principal investigator who can break it down into layman's terms whilst still driving home the findings of the research. It's not like the press release is the only information available to the media organisations. Any good scientist should be able to communicate the findings in layman's terms and any good journalist should be able to make contact with the relevant scientific. Science isn't this esoteric field that is impenetrable.

Im certainly not excusing it, the contrary in fact. Im saying that these journalists work from press releases, which have already spun/slanted/faked the news...and are too lazy/careless/busy/uneducated to make the effort and take the time to be objective.... thereby disseminating fake news.

Ann_Landers

Deleted User wrote: »

Im certainly not excusing it, the contrary in fact. Im saying that these journalists work from press releases,

I'm not sure what you were saying I was wrong about then? They work from these press releases alone where they shouldn't hence my point that media science reporting is terrible. You can't blame the PR puff press releases alone, journalists should pull the finger out and look beyond them. They don't because they want the sexy headline. Again, media reporting on science is awful. My whole point.

Ann_Landers

Ann_Landers wrote: »

I'm not sure what you were saying I was wrong about then? They work from these press releases alone where they shouldn't hence my point that media science reporting is terrible. You can't blame the PR puff press releases alone, journalists should pull the finger out and look beyond them. They don't because they want the sexy headline. Again, media reporting on science is awful. My whole point.

I dont disagree at all. My only point of difference is your assertion that journalists cherry pick. As in a journalist sits down and decides what story/slant to publicise next. They don't because most don't have the ability or even care. They simply use whatever material comes their way, and this is what leaves us wide open to 'fake news'.
If I put out a press release tomorrow saying that scientists projections are that only Croagh Patrick will be above the waves in 200 years time, it would get published, despite being nonsense!

Water John

Most journalists are under constant pressure to produce, copy. Thus news media have aggregated the actual ground work to the PR people of the third party, mainly.
Haven't heard much about Fake News on that infamous meeting about adoptions, in the last few days.
They drip fed it well and left Donald Jnr. hang himself out to dry.

BillyBobBS

CNN now leading the news with a story about some clown Trump has fired instead of multiple Islamic terror attacks across Europe. Absolute gimps of the highest order.

pjohnson

BillyBobBS wrote: »

CNN now leading the news with a story about some clown Trump has fired instead of multiple Islamic terror attacks across Europe. Absolute gimps of the highest order.

Muslims killing people is hardly front page news. Its just regular news now.

red ears

CNN tired to link the barcelona attack to charlotsville. How can anyone take them seriously as a news network.

Water John

Well, they both happen to be extremist attacks. Seems an obvious connection.

diograis

red ears wrote: »

CNN tired to link the barcelona attack to charlotsville. How can anyone take them seriously as a news network.

Why shouldn't we?

They're doing an excellent job of exposing the bat**** crazy, hilarious and honestly downright embarrassing situation of American politics at the moment.

Why should we completely disregard them? Do you like Fox news by any chance?

diograis

BillyBobBS wrote: »

CNN now leading the news with a story about some clown Trump has fired instead of multiple Islamic terror attacks across Europe. Absolute gimps of the highest order.

It's pasted across their website, I literally just checked and there's 8 articles right there. This will affect US citizens far more. Try harder.

Zzzzz

red ears

diograis wrote: »

Why shouldn't we?

They're doing an excellent job of exposing the bat**** crazy, hilarious and honestly downright embarrassing situation of American politics at the moment.

Why should we completely disregard them? Do you like Fox news by any chance?

No i don't they are both biased in their own ways. I'd like an objective honest and neutral news station. Hens teeth these days though.

diograis

red ears wrote: »

No i don't they are both biased in their own ways. I'd like an objective honest and neutral news station. Hens teeth these days though.

CNN don't have their reporters literally sitting down for dinner with the president, or have hilarious reports about Birmingham being a no go zone for non Muslims or Glenn Beck hysterically writing on a blackboard that China will invade Australia.

False equivalency. And you know it.

red ears

diograis wrote: »

CNN don't have their reporters literally sitting down for dinner with the president, or have hilarious reports about Birmingham being a no go zone for non Muslims or Glenn Beck hysterically writing on a blackboard that China will invade Australia.

False equivalency. And you know it.

Fox are overt, their bulls**t is out there in plain sight. CNN are sly, the gullible think they are honest unbiased brokers.. I wouldn't trust either of them. Anyone who thinks CNN isn't heavily biased is a fool.

Kermit.de.frog

BillyBobBS wrote: »

CNN now leading the news with a story about some clown Trump has fired instead of multiple Islamic terror attacks across Europe. Absolute gimps of the highest order.

They are serving the native audience.

If a bomb goes off in the Philippines...how much time does RTE devote to it? None because frankly most people here would not care no matter the death toll because it is distant from us.

The US is vast and exists in it's own big bubble. Americans can have a great and varied quality of life without ever leaving their own country. The vast majority could not care less what happens in Europe or anywhere else rightly or wrongly.