Social media users accuse CNN of ‘fake news’ over ‘staged’ London attack pro

hatrickpatrick · 05-06-2017 02:06PM

Fox vs CNN is a perfect example of what I've been saying though - on election night, Fox's coverage was far, far fairer than CNNs. Fox realistically put Clinton ahead at first and then pivoted to Trump as he started racking up the "blue firewall" states, but CNN and others desperately clutched at any straws they could to avoid discussing the growing probability that Clinton was going to lose, until LONG after the results started speaking for themselves. For the free press... That's a problem.

B_Wayne · 05-06-2017 02:22PM

Nobody has indicated how this is "fake news", CNN literally drew attention to an existing memorial. It also appeared on Fox News. So people are more annoyed that attention was drawn to it.

hatrickpatrick · 05-06-2017 03:03PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Nobody has indicated how this is "fake news", CNN literally drew attention to an existing memorial. It also appeared on Fox News. So people are more annoyed that attention was drawn to it.

They stage managed it. That's the issue. Presenting something which has been stage-managed as organic "found footage" if you will is deception, and if they'll bullsh!t their audience about that then why should we believe that they won't bullsh!t people about other things?

rossie1977 · 05-06-2017 03:19PM

I think personally it's hilarious that the right who have peddled fake stories and over the top conspiracy theories for 25 years on tv, radio and online turn around and accuse others of being 'fake'.

Trump who spent the last 15 years lying and is still lying today about crowd size, most electoral votes since Reagan etc has the audacity to point the finger at others.

Then again the right have complained about snowflakes and space space for 5 years and now Hannity, O'Reilly, Jones and Trump are crying that the left and media are out to get them. No politician in history has been treated worse than me claims Donald.

My heart bleeds it really does. You reap what you sow.

hatrickpatrick · 05-06-2017 03:25PM

rossie1977 wrote: »

I think personally it's hilarious that the right who have peddled fake stories and over the top conspiracy theories for 25 years on tv, radio and online turn around and accuse others of being 'fake'.

Trump who spent the last 15 years lying and is still lying today about crowd size, most electoral votes since Reagan etc has the audacity to point the finger at others.

Then again the right have complained about snowflakes and space space for 5 years and now Hannity, O'Reilly, Jones and Trump are crying that the left and media are out to get them. No politician in history has been treated worse than me claims Donald.

My heart bleeds it really does. You reap what you sow.

How do you feel about left wing folk who are as pissed off at the media's pro-establishment nonsense for derailing Bernie Sanders as the right is for trying to derail Donald Trump?

A biased media is good for nobody except those politicians willing to support the government-corporate axis.

FatherTed · 05-06-2017 05:50PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fox vs CNN is a perfect example of what I've been saying though - on election night, Fox's coverage was far, far fairer than CNNs. Fox realistically put Clinton ahead at first and then pivoted to Trump as he started racking up the "blue firewall" states, but CNN and others desperately clutched at any straws they could to avoid discussing the growing probability that Clinton was going to lose, until LONG after the results started speaking for themselves. For the free press... That's a problem.

Give me a break on Fox be "fairer". Their philosophy is to have most of their coverage scripted to be leaning to one side. This former Fox contributor compared it to as fake as Wrestling:

The Fox News opinion panel scam works like this. More often than not, in my panel segments I was the protagonist or ?designated hit man? aka the one called on by the host (as instructed by the producers in my ear or the ear of the host) to ?kill ?em.? You?d know I was the designated hit man when the panel show hosts tossed the final death blow 15?20 seconds to me when they say ?Toby you have the final word.? But before I delivered the final rhetorical death blow ?the producer of the segment had given me my script 24 hours BEFORE the show started . I knew 24?48 hours in ADVANCE of how the designated liberal was going to argue his/her point?and more important how I was going to win.

Bill O?Reilly was, reportedly, even more disingenuous because he told Smith what to say:

Bill O?Reilly was the only on-air talent that, when you were a guest expert on this show and on the Fox payroll, told you what he wanted you to say.

He would literally come into your earpiece before your ?hit? aka appearance on a Factor segment and say ?Smith?here?s how it goes down. You said last time oil prices were going higher?I said lower?well they are lower and I?m going to blame the oil companies. You bit is to support them, capiche??

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6/4/1668913/-Tobin-Smith-Fox-Paid-Contributor-Confirms-What-We-Always-Suspected-About-Fox

Of course CNN/MSNBC/etc do the same but can you admit that Fox does the same? Just better?

Samaris · 06-06-2017 06:08AM

If it helps at all, according to mediabiasfactcheck;

CNBC - Left-Center; High (veracity)
CNN - Left-Center; Mixed
ABC - Left-Center; High
MSNBC - Left+; Mixed
Fox: Right/+ ; Mixed

BBC: Least Biased/Left-Center; Very High (they do like BBC - bear in mind it's a US-centric view, so they may not have picked up on internal-bias issues such as, say, Tory vs Labour)
Sky News; Left-Center - ;High

I may be harping on the factchecker here; I don't know about anyone else but I've had some issues with who the hells reporting to trust. The undermining of the press has had that much effect. I don't think the media is as bad as they're made out to be - Trump after all has very good reasons to want the American voting public to distrust the media and other shadowy figures (god, it sounds like a conspiracy theory) have had good reasons to not have the anglophone world in general trust the news sources. Ireland's not really been affected, but how much of our news do we get from British and American sources?

The media has its issues and some of those issues have been forced on it - 24hr news cycle is one of them and the internet, the need to have a constant stream of news going onto the websites, and that journalists are forced to act as "media conduits" - being available to their base online, interacting with the base - rather than going out and being journalists. The cult of personality is mixed in with that. When who -presents- the news is considered to be a legitimately more important aspect than what the news is, there's a problem. It's lead to a slip into fluff stories that are quick and easy with no real downsides if they're wrong. Politics/world news, especially at the moment, are difficult, involve chasing and being stymied by the least transparent government (unless you include Trump's -astonishingly- transparent twitter account) in decades. And up to and during the election at least, it was treated more as entertainment. Infotainment has a lot to answer for.

The media channels adapted rather clumsily to the new methods and didn't quite fit in as serious news. I don't really blame them for that, and they got a hell of a wake-up call with the Trump administration.

The media channels also -do- hate Trump. Yeah, I'm perfectly willing to admit that. Thing is, Trump has been -threatening- the free media since the get-go. Why on earth does anyone expect journalists to admire or like a man that calls for "throwing open the libel laws [so that] when they write horrible, misleading stories about us, we can sue them and win lots of money" (and regardless of this not making any sense), talks to the FBI director about arresting journalists, blocks news organisations from White House briefings, encourages a climate of hostility and even violence at times against reporters (see Trump rallies and Gianforte's support from Republicans in power). The rights of free speech - and free journalism - are sacrosanct in the US. For the president to talk of (never mind repeatedly) amending the First Amendment to allow the people in power to sue journalists for writing about them - because that's what it amounts to, is horrifying to a free press. And rightfully so, it's one of the first big steps to dictatorship.

None of this makes the press perfect. But it's a hell of a safer bet to stand behind a free media than to stand behind its censorship and "get your information directly from the president" (Rep. Lamar Smith, Hse Science Chairman). We -know- he lies. We don't even need the press to tell us that, all you have to do is listen to him for ten minutes and then do a google search of his twitter account to find him saying the exact opposite!

The media needs reform, no doubt about it. But we'll all do better in the long run to focus on having a fair and -free- media in any country than to listen to people who want a free media gotten rid of and for people to just get their information directly from those in power. That should be a horrifying prospect to anyone who rather likes being free.

hatrickpatrick · 06-06-2017 01:16PM

FatherTed wrote: »

Give me a break on Fox be "fairer". Their philosophy is to have most of their coverage scripted to be leaning to one side. This former Fox contributor compared it to as fake as Wrestling:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6/4/1668913/-Tobin-Smith-Fox-Paid-Contributor-Confirms-What-We-Always-Suspected-About-Fox

Of course CNN/MSNBC/etc do the same but can you admit that Fox does the same? Just better?

Normally I would, I am merely pointing out that on election night, of all the mainstream media which covered the US election, Fox was the only one which accurately reported where the chips seemed to be falling early in the night. The others, CNN and MSNBC in particular, not only held out for hours before admitting that Trump was likely to win, had a fair clear partisan reaction.

Fox, every time I turned to it that night (I channel hopped every ten minutes or so out of interest) was simply reporting numbers and didn't seem to be remotely smug or upset at the results coming in. Most of the others were smug early in the night and devastated later on - again, this is not news, but opinion dressed up as news. Have a look at some of the videos which have been posted a page or two ago in this thread for examples.

Of course I generally despise Fox as much as anyone, which is precisely why I was so alarmed to find that Fox was the only source presenting an honest and accurate analysis of the results as they came in.

I would finally point out that during the primary, Fox was far, far more balanced covering Clinton v Sanders - and we now know that one of the leading members of the DNC who was also working for CNN was colluding with the Clinton campaign but not the Sanders campaign. For all the "nothing to see here" about the Wikileaks emails, you do know that Donna Brasille was fired from CNN for slipping Clinton's people the text of debate questions before the debates were held?

osarusan · 06-06-2017 01:21PM

Samaris wrote: »

If it helps at all, according to mediabiasfactcheck;

Who are they though? That's always my first question when some group releases a list of media organisations and their supposed biases.

Hank Scorpio · 11-06-2017 02:52AM

New footage emerges of the "protest".

DEFTLEFTHAND · 11-06-2017 05:11AM

People laugh at FOX, but CNN and MSNBC are the biggest propagators of 'Fake News' out there.

Donald Trump has been dragged through the mud and slandered by both stations.

B.A._Baracus · 11-06-2017 05:36AM

People can argue over the terminology used but it is a staged shot. So yes it is fake. It is set up.

Hank Scorpio · 11-06-2017 05:41AM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

People can argue over the terminology used but it is a staged shot. So yes it is fake. It is set up.

Yup if there was any doubt the second video confirms it.

Very fake news.

timthumbni · 11-06-2017 05:56AM

Nothing new here. In Northern Ireland it was not unusual for the tv crews to slip the Belfast street urchins a few bob to be firing stones/bottles etc during a broadcast.

I rarely watch the Brixton broadcasting corporation nowadays as it's so blatantly left wing/labour biased. And true to form of the left they enjoy extorting money from you in the form of the tv license....

B_Wayne · 11-06-2017 05:59AM

I'll just leave this snopes entry here which thoroughly debunks it. Police let them through the cordon for better positioning and that's about it.
http://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/

Hank Scorpio · 11-06-2017 06:25AM

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'll just leave this snopes entry here which thoroughly debunks it. Police let them through the cordon for better positioning and that's about it.
http://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/

Learn to see with your eyes. The whole fact-check genre is based on a deception. It's opinion journalism pretending to some sort of heightened objectivity.

CNN's statement per that "article" is false. The second video shows bags of flowers being handed out and also signs. It shows the "protesters" had no signs to begin with. The whole thing is staged.

"This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media. The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so."

So who to believe, some biased "fact-check" or people who captured actual footage. Tough question.

Richard Hillman · 11-06-2017 06:45AM

One thing is clear from that second video, that group arrived in that area knowing that they were going to have their pictures taken. That an arrangement had been made for a contrived shot.

It also looked like they didn't turn up together and were not exactly familiar with each other.

Hank Scorpio · 11-06-2017 07:05AM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It also looked like they didn't turn up together and were not exactly familiar with each other.

It's textbook propaganda. They rounded people up off the street, handed them signs and flowers, told them where to stand and what to do, and the media portrayed the whole thing as a protest against terror.

everlast75 · 11-06-2017 09:22AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

People laugh at FOX, but CNN and MSNBC are the biggest propagators of 'Fake News' out there.

Donald Trump has been dragged through the mud and slandered by both stations.

What have they said about him that wasn't true?

Hank Scorpio · 11-06-2017 09:31AM

everlast75 wrote: »

What have they said about him that wasn't true?

Tough one. Implying he's a Russian agent for 8 months might be a place to start.

Here's a lovely example at 36s. Msnbc - Putin told Trump to bomb Syria to cover for him.

everlast75 · 11-06-2017 09:46AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Tough one. Implying he's a Russian agent for 8 months might be a place to start.

Here's a lovely example at 36s. Msnbc - Putin told Trump to bomb Syria to cover for him.

I can't see your clip but I'll believe that it says that.

Trump is a reprehensible character and I can tell that by sitting down and watching unedited interviews. I don't need any media bias to tell me otherwise.

I find it hard to see how one can be slandered when the very legal definition speaks about one's standing in the eyes of right thinking individuals... to me he doesn't have any such standing with anyone apart from the 30 odd percent who believes any shít that comes out of his mouth.

I roll my eyes when i see the rubbish CNN and others on the left broadcast. They wpuld be better sticking to the facts and trying not to joke about Trump as it's not their job to take the pi** out of him. He's well capable of that himself.

However, it pales in my mind to the hyperbole that spews from Fox. Hannity, O'Reilly were far worse than anything on the other "news" channels. Ffs they were preaching for years that Obama was trying to become a monarch. Yeah, how did that work out?

Anyway... we can agree that the media over there Is pretty ****ed up. We are arguing over levels of bullshít, more than anything else.

Ps - the irony of Fox talking about conspiracy theories. Remember the trivial "Obama used onions to make himself cry" or the serious whole 8 years about his birth cert

Hank Scorpio · 11-06-2017 10:08AM

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump is a reprehensible character and I can tell that by sitting down and watching unedited interviews. I don't need any media bias to tell me otherwise.

That's fair enough. Let them try to take him down on policy or whatever it may be, I think it's horribly unfair for them to lie for months on end day in day out about him being a foreign agent when it turns out he wasn't even under investigation. I can't really defend some of the things he's said or done, but the media disgust me far more.

Carlos Orange · 11-06-2017 01:14PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'll just leave this snopes entry here which thoroughly debunks it.

To really debunk it they would have to have some footage of the "small march" this was supposedly related to. 5 people isn't a march.
The debunk mostly just seems to be someone saying this is about as fake as most "live news".

Celticfire · 11-06-2017 01:54PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'll just leave this snopes entry here which thoroughly debunks it. Police let them through the cordon for better positioning and that's about it.
http://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/

I think Snopes just got Snoped :pac:

rossie1977 · 11-06-2017 02:02PM

Why would they release that second video. It now looks like the person in that video set it up given her movements focusing on the 'protestors' make no sense.

hatrickpatrick · 11-06-2017 02:11PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'll just leave this snopes entry here which thoroughly debunks it. Police let them through the cordon for better positioning and that's about it.
http://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/

From that Snopes article:

That said, there is reason to fairly critique this as “editorializing” the shoot and not just reporting the news. And in a climate where CNN is feeling a lot of criticism — most of which is unfounded — from the conservative corners of the Internet, this footage won’t help their cause.

This is the crux of it - CNN has been targeted both by Sanders supporters and Trump supporters for its peoples' fairly obvious pro-Clinton bias right from the beginning of Primary Season. In that context, editorialising in this manner is moronically stupid.

Hank Scorpio · 11-06-2017 02:15PM

rossie1977 wrote: »

Why would they release that second video. It now looks like the person in that video set it up given her movements focusing on the 'protestors' make no sense.

Two different people. She seems genuine to me, turned down a bbc interview in the comments.