FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS

colm_mcm · 27-07-2017 10:00AM

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 · 27-07-2017 10:02AM

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 · 27-07-2017 10:18AM

Donald Trump wrote: »

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

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

hytrogen · 27-07-2017 10:29AM

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 · 27-07-2017 10:34AM

Peace and democracy restored to Iraq

techdiver · 27-07-2017 10:50AM

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 · 27-07-2017 10:54AM

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 · 27-07-2017 12:24PM

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 · 27-07-2017 12:31PM

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

Stonerloner · 27-07-2017 12:33PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

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

It's all fake news.

Silver Lynel · 27-07-2017 12:39PM

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 · 27-07-2017 12:59PM

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 · 27-07-2017 04:01PM

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 · 27-07-2017 04:17PM

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 · 27-07-2017 07:34PM

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 · 27-07-2017 07:56PM

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 · 27-07-2017 07:58PM

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 · 27-07-2017 08:01PM

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 · 27-07-2017 08:15PM

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 · 27-07-2017 08:24PM

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.

Beechwoodspark · 27-07-2017 08:27PM

Donald trump

Donald bullsheeeeeeyyyyyyyyyttttttteeee

Gee what's that smell??

Silver Lynel · 27-07-2017 08:30PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

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.

Embarrassing.

WinnyThePoo · 27-07-2017 08:36PM

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Embarrassing.

Not at all. You seek your truth through ignorance. Head in the sand stuff.

Silver Lynel · 27-07-2017 08:44PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Not at all. You seek your truth through ignorance. Head in the sand stuff.

How?

I never followed the election that closely and I honestly believed that it was Clinton who started the whole "fake news" storm.

It seems like it was not Clinton and it seems like CNN may have caused the phrase to go mainstream.

However you say Trump was talking about "fake news" well before he was elected.

So I checked it out and now I am challenging your claim.

Maybe I am ignorant. Maybe I have my head in the sand.

So help me out here. Show me the evidence.

Surely its easier for you to just post your proof and send me away with the correct perspective that it is to argue back and forth?

You want to whine about fake news but you also dont want to enlighten people you see as ignorant. That makes no sense.

All you have to do is back up your claims.

Surely thats the only thing that can combat fake news, demanding proof and sources and explanations?

Isn't the root of the fake news problem the idea that people are just believing stuff without question?

Yet here we are responding to requests for proof with what is essentially "go away, you're just ignorant". Not helpful.

WinnyThePoo · 27-07-2017 08:52PM

Silver Lynel wrote: »

How?

I never followed the election that closely and I honestly believed that it was Clinton who started the whole "fake news" storm.

It seems like it was not Clinton and it seems like CNN may have caused the phrase to go mainstream.

However you say Trump was talking about "fake news" well before he was elected.

So I checked it out and now I am challenging your claim.

Maybe I am ignorant. Maybe I have my head in the sand.

So help me out here. Show me the evidence.

Surely its easier for you to just post your proof and send me away with the correct perspective that it is to argue back and forth?

You want to whine about fake news but you also dont want to enlighten people you see as ignorant. That makes no sense.

All you have to do is back up your claims.

Surely that's the only thing that can combat fake news, demanding proof and sources and explanations?

'I never followed the election that closely'

You can answer your own questions with your first sentence there.

For instance

'and I honestly believed that it was Clinton who started the whole "fake news" storm.'

You can answer that with your 'I never followed the election that closely'
Because you didn't.
or

'It seems like it was not Clinton and it seems like CNN may have caused the phrase to go mainstream.'

with again ' 'I never followed the election that closely'
Because you didn't .

Silver Lynel · 27-07-2017 09:01PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

'I never followed the election that closely'

You can answer your own questions with your first sentence there.

For instance

'and I honestly believed that it was Clinton who started the whole "fake news" storm.'

You can answer that with your 'I never followed the election that closely'
Because you didn't.
or

'It seems like it was not Clinton and it seems like CNN may have caused the phrase to go mainstream.'

with again ' 'I never followed the election that closely'
Because you didn't .

So how do you think fake news goes viral?

Is it because people who don't have a deep knowledge believe something that isn't true?

Would it be OK for me to just believe you and not question your "facts"?

If I shouldn't ask you for proof because its too inconvenient for you to provide it then why should anyone question Breitbart or RT?

If you can just say "you obviously didnt follow the election so why should I even deal with you" and that's all OK then its fine for people like Alex Jones or Trump to do the same.

Don't ask anyone for proof any more folks you are just ignorant and should remain that way.

WinnyThePoo · 27-07-2017 09:04PM

Silver Lynel wrote: »

So how do you think fake news goes viral?

Is it because people who don't have a deep knowledge believe something that isn't true?

Would it be OK for me to just believe you and not question your "facts"?

If I shouldn't ask you for proof because its too inconvenient for you to provide it then why should anyone question Breitbart or RT?

If you can just say "you obviously didnt follow the election so why should I even deal with you" and that's all OK then its fine for people like Alex Jones or Trump to do the same.

Don't ask anyone for proof any more folks you are just ignorant and should remain that way.

Oh! now your letting on what your agenda is.

Silver Lynel · 27-07-2017 09:07PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Oh! now your letting on what your agenda is.

OK. What's my agenda?

Synthol · 27-07-2017 09:30PM

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.

Using big words to sound smart, mods I give you permission to issue a warning to this person for trying to sound smart.

Silver Lynel · 27-07-2017 09:44PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Oh! now your letting on what your agenda is.

Wouldn't this also be a tactic of anyone spreading fake news?

Sure, don't listen to the doubters they just have "an agenda".

So you make a statement of "fact". Someone asks you to back that up with proof. You fail to do so but don't worry everyone the person asking for evidence just has an agenda. So its all good right?

It's pathetic.

You said Trump has been going on about "fake news" since well before he was elected.

OK. So prove it.

It shouldn't matter about agendas or who followed the election closely.

You are making a claim and so the burden of proof is on you. If you can't provide proof then why should anyone believe you?

You are asking to be believed without question? Or anyone who questions your information will be asked about their "agenda".

You are full of it. You can either show that Trump was on about "fake news" well before he was elected or you can't which is it?

Is it possible to be so entrenched in your beliefs that you just see everyone who questions you as not even worth your time?

Agendas don't change facts, right?

So just back up your claim. Simple.

FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS

Comments