FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS

A Battered Mars Bar

Celebrity billionaire president of the free world Mr Donald Trump has opened a lot of people's eyes to fake news.

Taking any tabloid headline or probable fake news that you can remember, provide your own brief synopsis of what probably really happened. I'll start.

Dolores McNamara, was a euro millions winner of 115 million. The media were quick to paint her in a bad light because she was from Limerick. Shortly after winning a news story ran telling how her son drove his brand new pickup truck onto a kids playing field ruining it after being angry about something.

What probably happened..... Euro millions winner Dolores McNamara's son buys set of goal posts for local playing field. Parks brand new pickup truck on field for 10 minutes to unload and install brand new goal post's. Kids are delighted. Tyres probably compressed he grass leaving a print for 20 mins to which some gormless journo thought they had the scoop of the decade.


What's the best you got AH?

Ipso

Newly elected President claims he had a bigger crowd than the prior president at their inaugurations.
Same pathological liar seems to think he has credibility in lecturing people on accurate news.

The_Valeyard

April Fools days stuff is a good laugh.


Also the George Bush 'weapons of mass destruction in Iraq' was definitely fake news. Not that newspaper's or media seemed to mind in 2003. War sells.

tomwaterford

Ireland felt sorry for the opposition so lose the soccer match deliberately

Special Circumstances

Ann_Landers

I'm very sick of the term 'fake news'. Like excrement to a blanket is how people have assimilated the term into their lexicon.

darkdubh

A Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Celebrity billionaire president of the free world Mr Donald Trump has opened a lot of people's eyes to fake news.

Taking any tabloid headline or probable fake news that you can remember, provide your own brief synopsis of what probably really happened. I'll start.

Dolores McNamara, was a euro millions winner of 115 million. The media were quick to paint her in a bad light because she was from Limerick. Shortly after winning a news story ran telling how her son drove his brand new pickup truck onto a kids playing field ruining it after being angry about something.

What probably happened..... Euro millions winner Dolores McNamara's son buys set of goal posts for local playing field. Parks brand new pickup truck on field for 10 minutes to unload and install brand new goal post's. Kids are delighted. Tyres probably compressed he grass leaving a print for 20 mins to which some gormless journo thought they had the scoop of the decade.


What's the best you got AH?

Hi Dolores / Dolores son.

Infini

Its funny how The_Dump will call everything he doesnt like "Fake News" but yet has a tendancy to believe everything off "Fox News" the home of american BULLSHYTE News. C_C

Ralf and Florian

A Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Celebrity billionaire president of the free world Mr Donald Trump has opened a lot of people's eyes to fake news.

Taking any tabloid headline or probable fake news that you can remember, provide your own brief synopsis of what probably really happened. I'll start.

Dolores McNamara, was a euro millions winner of 115 million. The media were quick to paint her in a bad light because she was from Limerick. Shortly after winning a news story ran telling how her son drove his brand new pickup truck onto a kids playing field ruining it after being angry about something.

What probably happened..... Euro millions winner Dolores McNamara's son buys set of goal posts for local playing field. Parks brand new pickup truck on field for 10 minutes to unload and install brand new goal post's. Kids are delighted. Tyres probably compressed he grass leaving a print for 20 mins to which some gormless journo thought they had the scoop of the decade.


What's the best you got AH?

Is there some reason why you're digging up a long forgotten incident from ten years ago as an example of fake news? Maybe the below report on it is complete fiction but there seems to have been numerous witnesses to back up the consensus that he was acting like a complete tool.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/euromillions-winners-son-stages-pitch-invasion-in-pickup-truck-26331519.html

hatrickpatrick

Ann_Landers wrote: »

I'm very sick of the term 'fake news'. Like excrement to a blanket is how people have assimilated the term into their lexicon.

Just like the Russia narrative, it was Clinton, Podesta and the Democratic establishment who came up with it in order to discredit Bernie Sanders supporters. They opened Pandora's Box and can hardly take the moral high ground now that their opponents are co-opting the same appalling tactics.

The media is also doing itself no favours by having been so blatantly and openly partisan since late 2015.

Dohnjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The media is also doing itself no favours by having been so blatantly and openly partisan since late 2015.

The media, you mean like thousands of outlets, suddenly and universally became some sort of hivemind?

Do go on..

Atlantic Dawn

RTE dedicate a US news story to the Six One news every single day in the first 10-15 minutes of the show since Trump took over, wtf difference does it make to us what happens with jaysus Obamacare, jaysus Russian, jaysus Trump Resorts, jaysus Trumps Twitter account etc etc etc etc. It has to be costing RTE about 20% plus of the news budget.

hatrickpatrick

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The media, you mean like thousands of outlets, suddenly and universally became some sort of hivemind?

Do go on..

The mainstream media in the United States - the big TV coprorations (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc) as well as the big newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, etc) were all very clearly biased in their election coverage and made that incredible obvious. If you watch CNN's election night footage (the full 8 hours of which is on YouTube) it's plainly obvious that all of the anchors and reports are hoping Clinton will win and are so dumbfounded and blindsided by Trump's victory that they forget to put on an impartial facade.

The widespread reporting of superdelegates as one and the same with pledged delegates, which appeared to give Clinton an insurmountable lead over Sanders before the primaries even began, was highly unusual and not how the primary reporting is usually done.

This article outlines how the NYT specifically changed their policy in 2016 as compared with 2008, regarding superdelegates:

http://fair.org/home/nyt-used-to-report-delegate-count-as-if-it-was-voters-who-mattered/

CNN was blatantly breaking for Clinton right from the start - they routinely covered her entire victory speeches at primaries she won, but also routinely cut away from Sanders speeches when he won. There were dozens of similar subtle (or not, depending on your viewpoint) examples of bias during the race. I didn't follow the Republican race as closely, but I heard from multiple sources that Fox News displayed a similar bias in its reporting of the Republican primary, which appeared to many Trump supporters as an attempt to minimise his ongoing climb to eventual victory.

In Ireland, we have laws about fair coverage, impartial hosts and equal air time. America has absolutely nothing of that nature and the result is a highly partisan media - dangerously partisan, I would say.

Samaris

A lot of the issue with "the media" is that news has become "media" to be consumed. With the internet, media has to be 24/7 and be able to attract readers from around the world, not just local interest. With the push for constantly filling up the airwaves (so to speak) as well as the push for journalists to be "media personalities", it is absolutely unsurprising that what suffered was quality of reporting. Journalists just don't get nearly so much opportunity to go and dig at a story until it's uncovered (although a thought for those poor guys that were steadily digging away at Trump Jnr's lies and then he just comes out and says it on twitter!).

Overall, some organisations have risen to the challenge as the role of journalism suddenly became important again. The Atlantic, WaPo and NYP* have all been doing good work under difficult circumstances. It is difficult to keep peoples attention on one story when the idiot-in-chief creates more scandals just by getting up in the morning (or more accurately, getting up and then tweeting absolute nonsense). Everything moves very fast. There is little transparancy from the White House (and when they are transparant, it's a bit "good gods, are you actually just admitting that straight out?" - Trump calmly saying that he fired Comey because of the Russia thing was a doozy. As was the Trumpling's email exchange. It is alarming that none of them seem to get why it's a bad thing) and a culture of complete contempt towards the media - not because of their actual faults, but rather because Trump sees their reporting on what he's up to as "disloyalty" to be punished.

And all three do tend to print retractions or updates correcting earlier information if details are proven incorrect.

There is still plenty of "fake news" out there - and also plenty of fools who will use "fake news" to mean "any news I don't like the sound of", but yes, a bit of analysis and fact-checking will throw up some decent news outlets.


*Yes, they all have a left-wing bias, which should be born in mind, but they do tend to be factual in reporting. Also, note where something is an opinion piece rather than a straight report.

Donald Trump

CNN = "fake news" bitches. They can suck my hairy orange balls.

All the negative press about me is fake. All the good stuff is true. Simple really

Buer

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

RTE dedicate a US news story to the Six One news every single day in the first 10-15 minutes of the show since Trump took over, wtf difference does it make to us what happens with jaysus Obamacare, jaysus Russian, jaysus Trump Resorts, jaysus Trumps Twitter account etc etc etc etc. It has to be costing RTE about 20% plus of the news budget.

It has a very significant impact on the rest of the world, including Ireland.

Aside from the fact that most of us would have some family living in the U.S., if something like the health repeal is rejected it has a knock on effect. When the proposed healthcare act was rejected recently, the markets reacted to it. The interpretation is that the administration is unable to push through their reforms which includes their financial proposals. Within a day or two, the dollar hit a two year low against the Euro which potentially has economic ramifications for Ireland (assisted by Mario Draghi's comments on bonds).

So, whilst it is also about the entertainment factor regarding the soap opera that is the current American politics, it does go beyond that and is worth covering (perhaps not to the extend that it is, though).

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The media, you mean like thousands of outlets, suddenly and universally became some sort of hivemind?

Do go on..

There may well be thousands of outlets, but there's only a handful of owners behind 95%, pulling the strings for all of them. And it's not a "sudden" development either.

topper75

The great Castleconnell soccer club conspiracy? Including opposition players?

Bolsheviks, jews, and freemasons combined wouldn't have pulled that off.

Not so fake I would say.

Teddington Cuddlesworth

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

[/B]

Is there some reason why you're digging up a long forgotten incident from ten years ago as an example of fake news? Maybe the below report on it is complete fiction but there seems to have been numerous witnesses to back up the consensus that he was acting like a complete tool.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/euromillions-winners-son-stages-pitch-invasion-in-pickup-truck-26331519.html

I'm inclined to believe the report when they quotes from the suspect in question saying things like

"Jealousy must be an awful thing. They must be jealous of me over building a big house when they're at home starving," he said.

Dohnjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The mainstream media in the United States - the big TV coprorations (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc) as well as the big newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, etc) were all very clearly biased in their election coverage

They seem biased against Kim Jong Un also

Why is that? it's almost as if he generates a lot of negative news and views

If one candidate is bigoted, sexist, racist and makes constant inflammatory comments - this will be reported in the news

There will be those that interpret this as being biased

Oh I have no illusions about bias in the US media, but let's cut the bull**** here - one candidate was far more extreme and controversial than the other - by a magnitude I haven't seen matched in my lifetime.

smurgen

He's not wrong. For example the exaggeration and inaccuracy of the irish independent is now embarassing. Facebook pages such as Joe.ie regularly lie. I also do not trust alot of social media because of the amount of comercially biased content and the laws surrounding sponsored content needs to be enforced big time.

hatrickpatrick

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They seem biased against Kim Jong Un also

Why is that? it's almost as if he generates a lot of negative news and views

If one candidate is bigoted, sexist, racist and makes constant inflammatory comments - this will be reported in the news

There will be those that interpret this as being biased

Oh I have no illusions about bias in the US media, but let's cut the bull**** here - one candidate was far more extreme and controversial than the other - by a magnitude I haven't seen matched in my lifetime.

You do realise that it is possible to report on such incidents while remaining entirely neutral in your own tone, language, and commentary on it?

I don't believe that the BAI would have allowed Brian Dobson or Sharon Ni Bheolain to behave in the manner that CNN anchors behaved on election night or throughout the primary season.

hatrickpatrick

smurgen wrote: »

He's not wrong. For example the exaggeration and inaccuracy of the irish independent is now embarassing.

Absolutely - if the Indo was subject to the same impartiality rules as the broadcast media (radio and television) I would be happy to bet that at least a third of their content would disappear overnight.

Richard Hillman

The football transfer window is full of fake news. In fact most football news is fake news.

Dohnjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You do realise that it is possible to report on such incidents while remaining entirely neutral in your own tone, language, and commentary on it?

Apart from editorials and opinion pieces I don't notice any major overt bias against Trump in news reports.

I am pretty sure many journalists, reporting staff and editors, especially outside the US, dislike the new president (polls were showing approx 8% support for him in Europe)

They generally have to act impartial. Like I said, it's similar to Jong Un, or the Venezuelan PM, or Erdogan, or Putin - leaders who take a lot of widely deemed unpopular or negative actions (outside of their support base) tend to receive a lot of press coverage. Naturally the coverage will seem negative .. that's because the news itself is negative.

rossie1977

Cnn/fox/msnbc were biased against one candidate all right but it wasn't trump http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/26/msnbc-cnn-fox-news-ignore-hillary-clinton-speech-show-trumps-empty-podium.html

A Battered Mars Bar

Meeja. It'd pronounced meeja. Meeeeeeja.

colm_mcm

A Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Dolores McNamara, was a euro millions winner of 115 million. The media were quick to paint her in a bad light because she was from Limerick. Shortly after winning a news story ran telling how her son drove his brand new pickup truck onto a kids playing field ruining it after being angry about something.

What probably happened..... Euro millions winner Dolores McNamara's son buys set of goal posts for local playing field. Parks brand new pickup truck on field for 10 minutes to unload and install brand new goal post's. Kids are delighted. Tyres probably compressed he grass leaving a print for 20 mins to which some gormless journo thought they had the scoop of the decade.

There were kids playing football on it at the time apparently. Maybe they made up the story about him beating up a 70 year old who died from his injuries too?

A Battered Mars Bar

colm_mcm wrote: »

There were kids playing football on it at the time apparently. Maybe they made up the story about him beating up a 70 year old who died from his injuries too?

Of course they were it's a football field?

JupiterKid

It seems to me that this so-called "fake news" shenanigans is an invention by Trump and his disgusting administration to lash out at the reporting of their antics that they don't want the public to hear about.

What did a highly cynical news mogul once say about the hoi polloi? Treat 'em like mushrooms - keep em in the dark and feed em sh*t.

darkdubh

The term fake news had been around for a few years before Trump, who barely understands it's true meaning , appropriated it. To me it describes something that's very prevalent on social media especially Facebook. People sharing "news stories" from self proclaimed media organisations that are just opinion pieces for the alt right, the lunatic fringe of the left, conspiracy theory peddlers, anti vax activists,pizzagate etc etc. Also a huge source of fake news scare stories is Russia Today. A quick look on Snopes can usually confirm or discount this kind of thing.

colm_mcm

A Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Of course they were it's a football field?

So what are you on about with him donating goalposts? There were plenty witnesses. Ironic in a thread about fake news that you would invent an alternative story. Not ironic in a clever way though, more in an Alanis Morrissette way.

Elmer Blooker

darkdubh wrote: »

The term fake news had been around for a few years before Trump, who barely understands it's true meaning , appropriated it. To me it describes something that's very prevalent on social media especially Facebook. People sharing "news stories" from self proclaimed media organisations that are just opinion pieces for the alt right, the lunatic fringe of the left, conspiracy theory peddlers, anti vax activists,pizzagate etc etc. Also a huge source of fake news scare stories is Russia Today. A quick look on Snopes can usually confirm or discount this kind of thing.

Big statement. Give us a few examples.

Special Circumstances

Donald Trump wrote: »

CNN = "fake news" bitches. They can suck my hairy orange balls.

:eek: Emperor! They are not worthy! :eek:

hytrogen

darkdubh wrote:

The term fake news had been around for a few years before Trump, who barely understands it's true meaning , appropriated it. To me it describes something that's very prevalent on social media especially Facebook. People sharing "news stories" from self proclaimed media organisations that are just opinion pieces for the alt right, the lunatic fringe of the left, conspiracy theory peddlers, anti vax activists,pizzagate etc etc. Also a huge source of fake news scare stories is Russia Today. A quick look on Snopes can usually confirm or discount this kind of thing.

Pizzagate what a typical waste of a glorious term that could have been used better in a news article when Pizzahut forget to make pizzas during a lunch buffet with a load of heffers left standing at the troughs..

Inviere

Peace and democracy restored to Iraq

techdiver

Ann_Landers wrote: »

I'm very sick of the term 'fake news'. Like excrement to a blanket is how people have assimilated the term into their lexicon.

I feel exactly the same way. Every time someone uses it I lose a little bit of respect for them.

I always read it using some dimwitted southern american accent for some reason. It what I equate the users of the term to.

Special Circumstances

Damn those southern dimwits and their unfounded doubts regarding tony blair and the WMDs! And this idea that diesel is not low emissions? What a pack of dimwits, who would even countenance calling "clean diesel" fake news?

Silver Lynel

JupiterKid wrote: »

It seems to me that this so-called "fake news" shenanigans is an invention by Trump and his disgusting administration to lash out at the reporting of their antics that they don't want the public to hear about.

So you actually believe that Trump invented the "fake news" thing?

November 2016 - The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook-fake-news-election-conspiracy-theories

November 2016 - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/debunk-fake-news-election-day.html

November 2016 - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.16613802e66b

All renowned "Pro Trump" organisations, right?


What about this one?

]December 2016 - Hillary Clinton warns of 'fake news epidemic'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38258967


As far as I can tell Trumps "you are fake news" moment with CNN happened on 11 January 2017?

Here is CNN in November 2016 - http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/30/media/facebook-fake-news-plague/index.html

CNN again (Nov 2016) - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/20/opinions/fake-news-stories-thrive-donath/index.html

CNN once again (Nov 2016) - http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/19/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fake-news-election/index.html


Tell me again how Trump and his administration invented the so called "fake news" shenanigans?

Maybe you've bought into some fake news yourself?

WinnyThePoo

Trump calls anything negative about himself fake news well before he was elected.

Stonerloner

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Trump calls anything negative about himself fake news well before he was elected.

It's all fake news.

Silver Lynel

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Trump calls anything negative about himself fake news well before he was elected.

The first example I could find was 10 December 2016 on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/807588632877998081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Few.com%2Ftv%2F2017%2F06%2F27%2Fdonald-trump-fake-news-twitter%2F

This is about a month after he was elected.

Surely claims without evidence or any kind of supporting details would have to be classed as some kind of fake information?

I'm not saying you are wrong just that if you are right then maybe you should "show your working"?

WinnyThePoo

Silver Lynel wrote: »

The first example I could find was 10 December 2016 on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/807588632877998081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Few.com%2Ftv%2F2017%2F06%2F27%2Fdonald-trump-fake-news-twitter%2F

This is about a month after he was elected.

Surely claims without evidence or any kind of supporting details would have to be classed as some kind of fake information?

I'm not saying you are wrong just that if you are right then maybe you should "show your working"?

'show your working?'

Did you follow the election?

darkdubh

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Big statement. Give us a few examples.

Despite overwhelming evidence that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russian backed rebels with a missile launcher supplied by Russia RT peddle the official Russian government line that the Ukranian's were responsible.

They regularly post pro Assad propaganda on the war on Syria with whom Russia is allied. They give a mouthpiece to pro Assad conspiracy theorists like Vanessa Beeley who claims that the volunteer civil defence group the White Helmets are a terrorist organisation.

They give regular airtime to conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, Tony Gosling, Ken O Keefe. No airtime is given to Russian dissidents or anything critical of Putin.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Here's a fine example.

The popular narrative conveniently leaves out so many details go with the racist narrative. There's a being asian and there's being c*nt. She was arguably both. Not defending the Air B&B host. Her response was terrible. But the story is inaccurate at best.

Silver Lynel

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

'show your working?'

Did you follow the election?

OK. Here's the thing.

Fake news is likely spread by people who don't bother looking into things before they share, or people who just don't care, or people who know its fake but want to push an agenda.

So you said "Trump calls anything negative about himself fake news well before he was elected". 2 people thanked the post so thats at least 2 people who think "yeah that poster is right".

How right are you though? How correct is your statement?

The earliest example I could find was December 2016, which is after Trump was elected. Not before.

You've either spread BS, and at least 2 other people have bought into it, or you are spot on and could easily demonstrate that.

So which is it?

It makes no difference if I watched the election since I am sure one of the issues with the spread of fake news is that people with no knowledge just blindly believe the statements of people who appear knowledgeable.

I could just believe you and go around saying that Trump was calling negative stories "fake news" since WELL before he was elected but would I be right to do that?

This is why it makes sense to ask people to back up their claims. If they cannot then why should anyone consider them a credible source of information.

You can either back up your statement or you can't. Which is it?

hatrickpatrick

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Apart from editorials and opinion pieces I don't notice any major overt bias against Trump in news reports.

Have you watched any of the election night coverage?

hatrickpatrick

JupiterKid wrote: »

It seems to me that this so-called "fake news" shenanigans is an invention by Trump and his disgusting administration to lash out at the reporting of their antics that they don't want the public to hear about.

What did a highly cynical news mogul once say about the hoi polloi? Treat 'em like mushrooms - keep em in the dark and feed em sh*t.

Again, Trump did not invent the concept of "fake news". It was coined by the establishment dems to discredit leaks from sources like Wikileaks which were used by both Trump supporters and Sanders supporters against Clinton. Trump merely decided to use their own bullsh!t against them, but he didn't open this particular Pandora's Box.

WinnyThePoo

Silver Lynel wrote: »

OK. Here's the thing.

Fake news is likely spread by people who don't bother looking into things before they share, or people who just don't care, or people who know its fake but want to push an agenda.

So you said "Trump calls anything negative about himself fake news well before he was elected". 2 people thanked the post so thats at least 2 people who think "yeah that poster is right".

How right are you though? How correct is your statement?

The earliest example I could find was December 2016, which is after Trump was elected. Not before.

You've either spread BS, and at least 2 other people have bought into it, or you are spot on and could easily demonstrate that.

So which is it?

It makes no difference if I watched the election since I am sure one of the issues with the spread of fake news is that people with no knowledge just blindly believe the statements of people who appear knowledgeable.

I could just believe you and go around saying that Trump was calling negative stories "fake news" since WELL before he was elected but would I be right to do that?

This is why it makes sense to ask people to back up their claims. If they cannot then why should anyone consider them a credible source of information.

You can either back up your statement or you can't. Which is it?

You have no grounding in reality. I followed the election.

Silver Lynel

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You have no grounding in reality. I followed the election.

Yeah? Well I didn't follow the election.

So, given my lack of knowledge, I am probably a prime target for people spreading fake news. If the source seems knowledgeable could believe them without question and unwittingly spread their BS.

You said "Trump calls anything negative about himself fake news well before he was elected".

Prove it.

How can you seriously claim to be against fake news or have a problem with it when you might actually be spreading falsehoods yourself?

Or don't you care so long as you spread the right kind of misinformation.

Now, you may well be 100% correct and Trump was claiming "fake news" since "well before he was elected". That's fine.

The thing is that I don't know and the earliest example I could find was from December 2016. After he was elected.

So show me that you are right or just admit that you can't back up your statement.

Maybe people should consider whether or not a source has provided proof when they are considering fake news.

I'd certainly be suspicious of anyone who responds to a request for proof with some lame attempt at deflection.

Just share your evidence. Its that simple.

WinnyThePoo

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Yeah? Well I didn't follow the election.

So, given my lack of knowledge, I am probably a prime target for people spreading fake news. If the source seems knowledgeable could believe them without question and unwittingly spread their BS.

You said "Trump calls anything negative about himself fake news well before he was elected".

Prove it.

How can you seriously claim to be against fake news or have a problem with it when you might actually be spreading falsehoods yourself?

Or don't you care so long as you spread the right kind of misinformation.

Now, you may well be 100% correct and Trump was claiming "fake news" since "well before he was elected". That's fine.

The thing is that I don't know and the earliest example I could find was from December 2016. After he was elected.

So show me that you are right or just admit that you can't back up your statement.

Maybe people should consider whether or not a source has provided proof when they are considering fake news.

I'd certainly be suspicious of anyone who responds to a request for proof with some lame attempt at deflection.

Just share your evidence. Its that simple.

I'm not playing this game. I followed trump and the election. If you had your head in the sand. That's your own fault.