nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

hatrickpatrick

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Funny how people on the left loved Wikileaks when they were dumping stuff which hurt Republicans.

I despise Republicans but this is one of the many, many things which had caused me to despise the current mainstream left as well. Sheer hypocrisy and "the ethics of your behaviour are determined not innately, but by who's side you're helping with that behaviour". Sickening to anyone who is actually a genuine idealist.

Samaris

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

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.

Congrats on leaping over the point and landing a record distance away, it was a noble run-up you took! And feel free to note that calling someone who disagrees with you a "sheep" merely because they disagree with you is ...a foolish argument and unlikely to convince anyone.

So, let's break that down a bit:
First bit about the Washington Examiner - my error, I misread the link.

The argument about Wikileaks being "typical garbage" - you missed my point. Which info was released? Was it specifically Dem-related, or did they just never manage to get anything on the Reps. Did they try, but the Reps as politicians are just too noble and honest to fall into their traps? That is what bias can lead to; selective fact reporting and that is something that just cannot be confirmed because there is no oversight. Also, I made clear I was dubious about Wikileaks originally too.

CNN claims otherwise? And then you try to link that to something so completely different that it is frankly dishonest. You may as well edit clips together to make someone appear to say "The" "Moon" "is made of" "green" "cheese". OMG THEY THINK THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE.

Jeez.

I SAID that CNN says that they do this as a matter of course with representatives of both parties and if I keep this as one run-on sentence with no full-stops there is just a possibility it may be quoted in full rather than taken stupidly out of context so let me add that if that is the case there is no consideration of "collusion" and in fact reasonable reasons to do it fairly with both sides *breath* AND that reporting deliberately to make it look like it is only one side is dishonest IF what CNN say is true *release breath*.

Both sides have an argument, it should be easily enough proven which is more accurate.

By the way, like the good little "sheep" I am, I have a list of right-wing sources with a proven record of veracity that I quite often check to widen my reading base and ensure I am getting more than one side of the story. Do you?

Hank Scorpio

Samaris wrote: »

Which info was released? Was it specifically Dem-related, or did they just never manage to get anything on the Reps. Did they try, but the Reps as politicians are just too noble and honest to fall into their traps?

They release what they receive. DNC Leaks aka guccifer 2.0 dumped emails and documents damaging to Republicans, something which Comey had no problem lying about in hearings ( narrative ) . Has a report ever come forward saying they dumped info to Wikileaks but they never released it?

I have a list of right-wing sources with a proven record of veracity that I quite often check to widen my reading base and ensure I am getting more than one side of the story. Do you?

Good. Are they reporting on anything besides Russia and done beating the drum for war yet?

hatrickpatrick

This is the issue - there is apparently no mainstream media which Americans can rely upon to give them an unbiased account of what's going on.

If you look around on YouTube, you can find full 8 hour video clips which show, from start to finish, the coverage of election night results. With very few exceptions, all of the anchors and pundits are not only pro-Clinton, but extremely smug about their presumed victory - and you can find, in the comments, gleeful Trump supporters timestamping the videos and saying "establishment meltdown begins at [link to time frame around half way through the video in question], enjoy your popcorn".

The point is, the media shouldn't be on anyone's side. In Ireland, we have the BAI which ensures that all viewpoints get equal airtime and has actually attacked DJs and anchors for appearing partisan (remember during the gay marriage debate they came down hard on I think a Today FM presenter for appearing biased while hosting a debate?) - now, many people attack this legally required impartiality, but I for one am very glad of it after seeing how the US media handled the election last year. They had a clear dog in the fight and they promoted her right through the primaries (dishonestly reporting Sanders having lost before all the votes were counted, including superdelegate votes in a manner never done before in any election to skew the vote counts) and then stumped for Clinton constantly and relentlessly, well beyond when she had realistically lost on election night and until it was actually mathematically impossible to cling to the idea that she could still win.

That is "fake news", no question about it. It's essentially not news at all, it's an opinion piece disguised as news coverage.

Carlos Orange

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

Is something that is staged real? Is everything that isn't real fake?

In practice arguably there is a graduated scale from real to fake.

Hank Scorpio

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That is "fake news", no question about it. It's essentially not news at all, it's an opinion piece disguised as news coverage.

Exactly, and it's designed to smear people. This is one of the better videos, god Oliver, Colbert and so on are such shills.

Samaris

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

They release what they receive. DNC Leaks aka guccifer 2.0 dumped emails and documents damaging to Republicans, something which Comey had no problem lying about in hearings ( narrative ) . Has a report ever come forward saying they dumped info to Wikileaks but they never released it?

Good. Are they reporting on anything besides Russia and done beating the drum for war yet?

They're not mad on Trump either, so not sure what that does for their veracity. :P

Hank Scorpio

Samaris wrote: »

They're not mad on Trump either, so not sure what that does for their veracity. :P

I've been out of nicotine for the past few hours, I've reread my last few replies which weren't constructive and a bit aggressive, I apologise for that. Gotta run and buy some e-juice or fags somewhere before my head melts.

hatrickpatrick

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Exactly, and it's designed to smear people. This is one of the better videos, god Oliver, Colbert and so on are such shills.

The amount of facepalm is just embarrassing, really.
This is a personal favourite of mine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtJvYdX4GKM

And remember, I am not a Trump supporter, as far as US politics goes I'm a Bernie bro through and through, but the one silver lining of his election was getting to watch all of these "experts" and establishment hacks have a collective meltdown.

Media hosts, anchors and moderators simply shouldn't be talking like this on the air. People who are brought on as spokespeople, members of the audience, panelists etc fair enough, but the news outlet itself should be impartial. The 2016 election essentially exposed how America does not have any mainstream and impartial sources, which in the context of functioning democracy is an absolute travesty.

arayess

Persephone kindness wrote: »

FOX vrs CNN.

I will go with CNN.

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

I don't prefer fox...if I'm going right wing I like Breitbart - they holdtheir opinons with no shame and lack the drama of fox.

but i'm not really that way inclined -i'm more centered (ron paul would be a favorite US political figure) but I do like reading different slants.

we can get along