How Badly Did The "Fake News" Blitz Backfire On The MSM?

[*Z*]

How many riots happened? How many people died on the "Hands up, Don't shoot" narrative that was preached by EVERY single MSM outlet in this country that started the BLM movement? When Obama said it was easier to get a gun than a book, didn't anyone call him out on that for weeks? Suddenly Brian Williams and Dan Rather are lecturing us on the integrity of journalism. The left has no moral high ground to stand on...NONE.

None of this really has anything to do with the real definition of "Fake news"

 

[Lanx]

That is not a poll.

derived from the current* Princeton Election Consortium model output. The model is primarily driven by state-level polling, factoring in both the spread between Clinton & Trump, as well as consistency across polls.

 

[TheStruggle]

None of this really has anything to do with the real definition of "Fake news"

Really?? So the only definition of fake news is Pizzagate because we say so?

 

[Lanx]

That is not a poll.

if you want just straight polling, no models to work from

 

[*Z*]

Really?? So the only definition of fake news is Pizzagate because we say so?

There's plenty of actual fake news. There were people making a killing in advertising money by writing fake news during the election. None of it was from the main stream though. It's all over social media. that's the real fake news.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I love this new narrative that all news is fake now.

Lmao. This is an instant classic

 

[San Toki]

Pretty bad. The left is all but irrelivent at this point. Democratic party needs some sort of centrist leadership to bring them back in line and taken seriously.

 

[luckyshot]

There's plenty of actual fake news. There were people making a killing in advertising money by writing fake news during the election. None of it was from the main stream though. It's all over social media. that's the real fake news.

Exactly. Fake news is meant to describe stories like

FBI AGENT SUSPECTED IN HILLARY EMAIL LEAKS FOUND DEAD IN APPARENT MURDER-SUICIDE, which was a story from the "Denver Guardian" (which doesn't exist, by the way) that got thousands and thousands of likes and reposts on Facebook.

Now these goofs are using the term to describe polls they don't like.

This is what actual fake news looks like:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/11/did-fake-news-on-facebook-send-trump-to-the-white-house/

 

[HereticBD]

Exactly. Fake news is meant to describe stories like

FBI AGENT SUSPECTED IN HILLARY EMAIL LEAKS FOUND DEAD IN APPARENT MURDER-SUICIDE, which was a story from the "Denver Guardian" (which doesn't exist, by the way) that got thousands and thousands of likes and reposts on Facebook.

Now these goofs are using the term to describe polls they don't like.

This is what actual fake news looks like:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/11/did-fake-news-on-facebook-send-trump-to-the-white-house/

So the entire false narrative of "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", isn't fake news? It's only fake news if it's outlandish conspiracy theories, published by sketchy websites? Somewhat believable, but proven false reporting in the MSM doesn't meet the requirements of "fake news"?

 

[nac386]

Lets hear what your top 5 historical backfires are.

1. Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor

2. Bill going after the most neaby intern
3. USA killing middle eastern dictators
4. Koch brothers donate $60 million to a study by a climate change denying scientist to disprove climate change, but the study proves climate change and the anti-climate change scientist becomes pro-climate change.
5. Howard Dean getting over-excited.

 

[luckyshot]

So the entire false narrative of "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", isn't fake news? It's only fake news if it's outlandish conspiracy theories, published by sketchy websites? Somewhat believable, but proven false reporting in the MSM doesn't meet the requirements of "fake news"?

There's a continuum.

There's shit that's just made up. Didn't happen and the author doesn't think it happened. Just made up to get clicks. That's FAKE news.

Then there are stories that are reported in good faith, but it turns out that they were inaccurate in one or more detail. This is WRONG news, but not FAKE.

Then there are stories with viewpoints and perspective that you don't agree with. That's just shit you don't AGREE with, but it's not automatically FAKE. (For me this would be people like Hannity and Rush.)

But to call ALL of the above fake news muddies the term beyond all usefulness. Which is exactly what I think Bannon and Trump are intending to do.

 

[High Altitude]

Msm lost all credibility. They use to have a ton of power over the people, but now they are just being laughed at by the people who don't believe a word of their biased "news" reporting.

 

[floivanus]

How many riots happened? How many people died on the "Hands up, Don't shoot" narrative that was preached by EVERY single MSM outlet in this country that started the BLM movement? When Obama said it was easier to get a gun than a book, didn't anyone call him out on that for weeks? Suddenly Brian Williams and Dan Rather are lecturing us on the integrity of journalism. The left has no moral high ground to stand on...NONE.

Dont forget that nearly every MSM outlet has made 'ghost guns' their new target this past couple weeks, while leaving out the hours of work to build and tune a gun, and neglecting to mention that the majority of criminals just buy stolen weapons with no serial numbers (ground off, welded over etc) for much cheaper than you can legally get one.

Or Obama saying that criminals from Chicago go to indiana and buy guns with the 'gunshow loophole' (something that was closed in 1999) when forgetting that something like 20% of guns used in Chicago crime were already confiscated by CPD. But hey 'fake news' is a new phenomenon and only applies to click bait and people in positions of power would never lie...

 

[floivanus]

There's a continuum.

There's shit that's just made up. Didn't happen and the author doesn't think it happened. Just made up to get clicks. That's FAKE news.

Then there are stories that are reported in good faith, but it turns out that they were inaccurate in one or more detail. This is WRONG news, but not FAKE.

Then there are stories with viewpoints and perspective that you don't agree with. That's just shit you don't AGREE with, but it's not automatically FAKE. (For me this would be people like Hannity and Rush.)

But to call ALL of the above fake news muddies the term beyond all usefulness. Which is exactly what I think Bannon and Trump are intending to do.

Correct, but when BLM has such a stranglehold on mainstream culture due to crappy reporting you have a problem, no hard hitting retractions no firing for bad reporting etc happened. Most people hold onto the 'fact' that trayvon martin was gunned down viscously by a white guy, not that he pushed down and was beating the head of a hispanic man against the sidewalk before being shot. Seems like 90% of the 'outrageous shootings of minorities' are plain old BAD reporting, and that is an issue that drastically needs addressed, they are paid to do their research and check their own facts

 

[TheComebackKid]

What is really sad is the fact that news can be so easily fabricated and spread to the masses. There is a narrative and an agenda, and it's not for the good of the people. News is no longer objective, and in some cases it's fake.

Learning the truth takes effort. No longer can we expect to just listen to 'credible' news outlets and just believe everything were told. People have to now figure out the truth for themselves.

I think its better this way.

 

[pinger]

People have been taking a "choose your own reality" approach to information for some time now.
Information politics in the information age was supposedly going to be about search engines like google and who controls common knowledge. What "everybody knows".
It turns out people mostly just go with their feelings and don't bother to fact check (if they even read past the headline) even when the information is readily available to them.
So when feelings of political alienation and disenfranchisement are high...

very clever.

 

[method115]

Learning the truth takes effort. No longer can we expect to just listen to 'credible' news outlets and just believe everything were told. People have to now figure out the truth for themselves.

I think its better this way.

I agree right now things are hard and confusing but this is all good. Makes people suspicious and less like to trust news sources and makes them more willing to research things themselves or risk looking like fucking idiots.

 

[luckyshot]

Correct, but when BLM has such a stranglehold on mainstream culture due to crappy reporting you have a problem, no hard hitting retractions no firing for bad reporting etc happened. Most people hold onto the 'fact' that trayvon martin was gunned down viscously by a white guy, not that he pushed down and was beating the head of a hispanic man against the sidewalk before being shot. Seems like 90% of the 'outrageous shootings of minorities' are plain old BAD reporting, and that is an issue that drastically needs addressed, they are paid to do their research and check their own facts

I get that idea. There is definitely a media bias.

Most media has a liberal bias. (NY Times, Washington Post)

But the conservative media's bias is usually more extreme. (Breitbart, talk radio)

Also, unfortunately, "narratives" develop. People want stories, not reports. This is all driven by ratings and who is consuming what... Fox News exists because it provides a product people want. Same goes for NPR and The New Yorker.

But to equate "biased" or "bad" with FAKE obfuscates an important real issue.

 

[HereticBD]

There's a continuum.

There's shit that's just made up. Didn't happen and the author doesn't think it happened. Just made up to get clicks. That's FAKE news.

Then there are stories that are reported in good faith, but it turns out that they were inaccurate in one or more detail. This is WRONG news, but not FAKE.

Then there are stories with viewpoints and perspective that you don't agree with. That's just shit you don't AGREE with, but it's not automatically FAKE. (For me this would be people like Hannity and Rush.)

But to call ALL of the above fake news muddies the term beyond all usefulness. Which is exactly what I think Bannon and Trump are intending to do.

In "good faith"?

Is it in good faith when the outlets reporting the bullshit never correct themselves, when the story turns against their narrative?

"Hands Up, Don't Shoot" is still believed today because of the reluctance of the media that pushed it to correct themselves, and report the truth. Sure, they did a ten minute piece of the official findings, and then did their best to never report on it again. This is why Hillary can get away with marching Micheal Brown's mother on stage at the DNC, and still parade her around like a mother of a son who was victimized by police brutality and racism.

It doesn't end there either. What about the "spike in hate crimes" around the nation, and citing incidents that have since been proven hoaxes? Any corrections on those stories by the MSM? Not a one. Be afraid America, the Trump Nazis are real.

It's all fake news, and separating the two is like separating "facts" from "alternative facts". I'd also argue that the MSM version of "fake news" is far more dangerous, than more obvious fake stories that are parody half the time.

 

[panamaican]

Yes, I'm rustled that our President is incompetent.

That was actually an insightful exchange.

Is the fear of being considered "rustled" so great that people just pretend that absurdity is acceptable?