El Presidente Trump

What El Dudarino said - squashing fake news isn't an attack on journalism, it's an attempt to bloody well protect it.

Sure, it's harder to squash out bias, and then there's always going to be people who see something negative about someone they like and decide it's bias, because the word bias has nearly lost all meaning this year.

But you'd think we could all get together on the outright lies. What possible good does it do you to never be sure if any given thing you're reading is actually news or not? Sure, there's a user warning when it comes to information on the internet, but it'd be nice to clear out the spam.

Which is basically what it is.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If that's true, then I'd be opposed to inaccurate news by the name too. Are you actually opposed to fake news or not?

When 90% of the media is owned and bought by one side, just like we seen with the bias in this election it will never be fair. Differentiating between things like underhandedness and deception and fake news is a thin line. Both are obvious but only one side will give you an answer in a "fact checker", the same fact checkers which are owned by the same corporate media and are planning to be used in deciding which news is worthy and what isn't.

As for the absolute garbage sites, yes they shouldn't exist. But Drudge, Breitbart etc? When you go down that line it becomes awfully blurry.

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Yesss, it's amazing how easily people use that phrase "If they're not X, why should they be worried?"

-Were- they? There was that one incident with the head of the DNC which is about the only one you can really call up (that I can think of off the top of my head). If anything, the media got Trump where he is by giving him So. Much. Airtime. Which was mostly because he was funny and didn't seem like a danger.

Sure, if that's exactly how it went (although I am unsure one can call a slogan a lie if it's not claiming anything), MSN needs to cop the fcuk on too.

But you know what we're talking about. We're talking about the absolute unchecked nonsense roaming around on facebook and other social media sites. The news broadcasting programs have their own problems which will need to be dealt with (OH GOD CENSORSHIP!), but there's little enough point stymieing any attempt to clean it up by complaining that your particular bugbear (MSM) isn't being immediately destroyed.

I loathe breitbart and its bull****. But I'm not -talking- about breitbart and its bull****, because I can see two problems that need different solutions and that right now, we're not talking about breitbart (and its bull****).

It wasn't just one DNC person colluding. You are totally misinformed. It was their entire operation. Papers like the NYT and WaPo were sending the DNC articles which they edited then sent back for publication. They were asking for ideas to print about Bernie Sanders in others. They were writing entire question sets for Trump to get asked in live interviews. They were receiving debate questions in advance. They were holding private meetings with all the heads of the media coming up with strategies on how to get Hillary elected. They were paying for skewed polls which the MSM had no problem publishing.

Here's the list, and remember this is only up to the as far as the date Wikileaks released. The list in reality is probably far bigger as the election started heating up.

ABC – Cecilia Vega
ABC - David Muir
ABC – Diane Sawyer
ABC – George Stephanoplous
ABC – Jon Karl
ABC – Liz Kreutz
AP – Julie Pace
AP – Ken Thomas
AP – Lisa Lerer
AURN – April Ryan
Bloomberg – Jennifer Epstein
Bloomberg – John Heillman
Bloomberg/MSNBC – Jonathan Alter
Bloomberg – Mark Halperin
Buzzfeed – Ben Smith
Buzzfeed – Ruby Cramer
CBS – Gayle King
CBS – John Dickerson
CBS – Norah O'Donnell
CBS – Steve Chagaris
CBS – Vicki Gordon
CNBC – John Harwood
CNN – Brianna Keilar
CNN – Dan Merica
CNN – David Chailan
CNN – Erin Burnett
CNN – Gloria Borger
CNN – Jake Tapper
CNN – Jeff Zeleny
CNN - Jeff Zucker
CNN – John Berman
CNN – Kate Bouldan
CNN – Maria Cardona
CNN – Mark Preston
CNN – Sam Feist
Daily Beast – Jackie Kucinich
GPG – Mike Feldman
HuffPo – Amanda Terkel
HuffPo – Arianna Huffington
HuffPo – Sam Stein
HuffPo – Whitney Snyder
LAT – Evan Handler
LAT – Mike Memoli
McClatchy – Anita Kumar
MORE – Betsy Fisher Martin
MSNBC – Alex Seitz-Wald
MSNBC – Alex Wagner
MSNBC – Andrea Mitchell
MSNBC - Beth Fouhy
MSNBC – Ed Schultz
MSNBC – Joe Scarborough
MSNBC – Mika Brzezinski
MSNBC – Phil Griffin
MSNBC – Rachel Maddow
MSNBC – Rachel Racusen
MSNBC – Thomas Roberts
National Journal – Emily Schultheis
NBC – Chuck Todd
NBC – Mark Murray
NBC – Savannah Gutherie
New Yorker – David Remnick
New Yorker – Ryan Liza
NPR – Mike Oreskes
NPR – Tamara Keith
NY Post – Geofe Earl
NYT – Amy Chozik
NYT – Carolyn Ryan
NYT – Gail Collins
NYT – John Harwoodje
NYT – Jonathan Martin
NYT – Maggie Haberman
NYT – Pat Healey
PBS – Charlie Rose
People – Sandra Sobieraj Westfall
Politico – Annie Karni
Politico – Gabe Debenedetti
Politico – Glenn Thrush
Politico – Kenneth Vogel
Politico – Mike Allen
Reuters – Amanda Becker
Tina Brown – Tina Brown
The Hill – Amie Parnes
Univision – Maria-Elena Salinas
Vice – Alyssa Mastramonoco
Vox – Jon Allen
WaPo – Anne Gearan
WaPo – Greg Sargent
WSJ – Laura Meckler
WSJ – Peter Nicholas
WSJ – Colleen McCain Nelson
Yahoo – Matt Bai

You can do your own research and find the individual emails/documents/pdf's whatever else because I'm getting really tired for doing it for other people in this thread.

Fake news indeed.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So you are opposed to fake news, just not opposed to terrible news outlets?

Yes get rid of the real fake garbage sites, let people make up their mind on the others without being force fed.

When the people deciding what constitutes fake news or not already have an agenda, it will never be fair. It's not an independent institution doing it, it's IFCN, international fact checking network, which is openly funded by George Soros's open foundation, and the Omidyar Network, which is ran by liberal billionaire Pierre Omidyar.

All it will be imo is censorship and a sneaky underhanded way to push a liberal agenda and limit Conservative views. It has nothing to do with cleaning up the internet, it's censorship. Nobody can dispute Hillary lost the online battle and as for the failing MSM, nobody trusts them anymore. This is the first step to try and change that. They've already began buying big youtube accounts, like Corey Neistat.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's a terrible shame he's not a showman. He could have spun the things he did into huge success. For example he deported more people than bush which the would have negated some of the racist appeal to trumps message.

He never took personal credit for killing bin Laden. Trump would dine out on that for ever and people would love him for it

I read somewhere they started counting people they turned away at the border as deportations which they didn't do in previous administrations. That might be fake news though.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

Just to add, Clapper a week ago who's the big boss man in charge of all the Intel agencies, said the evidence supporting the claim Russia were feeding Wikileaks was not strong ( bs ). Maybe he's changed his stance since then, haven't kept up with it.

Around the 3 min mark

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It was targeted at one side only. If wikileaks was trying to impartially inform the public, it would have looked much different.

Either Trump is genuinely squeaky clean and has never been involved in corruption or wikileaks was trying to harm Hillary. Where's that skepticism you showed to the CIA a moment ago? Skepticism Xmas holidays?

They released files on Tillerson a couple of weeks back as soon as he got in. The RNC wasn't hacked.