What NBC did was lazy, and purposefully misleading. But it was NOT objectively FALSE. They quoted correctly -- but they left out the remainder, which made it look different than the entire message that he communicated.
If they attributed words to him that he DID NOT ACTUALLY SAY, that would be what I consider to be true fake news -- things that are demonstrably false, or which are based on no evidence other than hearsay.
What NBC did is wrong as hell -- I've had it done to me. I once represented a client hated by the local newspaper. At a hearing on a pointless motion against my client, I began my argument with "I have no idea why I'm even here. This motion has no point, and the defendant has provided no reason that he should get the relief that he's asking for." The quote in the paper the next day? "Counsel for XYZ even admitted that 'I have no idea why I'm even here.'" We got a pretty good laugh about that, and it stayed up on the fridge in the office for a long time.
I absolutely think that journalism as a whole needs to be called out on that $#@!, repeatedly. But what I saw in the last couple of years was a totally different world. Stories stating as facts things that just didn't happen. Stories stating as fact something that some guy said, which was then published by another site, and another, so that the story became "multiple sites are reporting that X happened." No, they are all reporting that some guy said X happened. With literally ZERO evidence or factual basis to back it up.
The dividing line is this. If NBC tried to publish just that part of the quote at trial, I would be able to use "the rule of optional completeness" to require them to complete the quote. But what they published was NOT perjury or hearsay.
On the other hand, what these other sites are publishing is either perjury (flat-out false statements of fact), or hearsay (once 3 sites re-publish what some nutbar once said, that doesn't make it any more true). With many matters, there IS an objective truth out there. Saying things that are, you know, NOT true is like, bad.
How sad is it that we're even $#@!ing arguing about this $#@!.
Another angle on fake news is the fake interview. Megyn Kelly saying that she knows of interviews with Trump that had the questions pre-arranged in advance. It would seem that she is pointing directly at Hannity and potentially O'Reilly and Fox&Friends, as well as others at other networks. But the fact that she doesn't say Fox News' hosts are innocent, say a lot.
SAN FRANCISCO — Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, has cultivated relationships with China’s leaders, including President Xi Jinping. He has paid multiple visits to the country to meet its top internet executives. He has made an effort to learn Mandarin.
Inside Facebook, the work to enter China runs far deeper.
The social network has quietly developed software to suppress posts from appearing in people’s news feeds in specific geographic areas, according to three current and former Facebook employees, who asked for anonymity because the tool is confidential. The feature was created to help Facebook get into China, a market where the social network has been blocked, these people said. Mr. Zuckerberg has supported and defended the effort, the people added.
Facebook has restricted content in other countries before, such as Pakistan, Russia and Turkey, in keeping with the typical practice of American internet companies that generally comply with government requests to block certain content after it is posted. Facebook blocked roughly 55,000 pieces of content in about 20 countries between July 2015 and December 2015, for example. But the new feature takes that a step further by preventing content from appearing in feeds in China in the first place.
Facebook does not intend to suppress the posts itself. Instead, it would offer the software to enable a third party — in this case, most likely a partner Chinese company — to monitor popular stories and topics that bubble up as users share them across the social network, the people said. Facebook’s partner would then have full control to decide whether those posts should show up in users’ feeds.
Facebook and the battle against Freedom, I mean, Fake News, continues! Yay Facebook!
Interview with a fake news creator:
At any given time, Coler says, he has between 20 and 25 writers. And it was one of them who wrote the story in the Denver Guardian that an FBI agent who leaked Clinton emails was killed. Coler says that over 10 days the site got 1.6 million views. He says stories like this work because they fit into existing right-wing conspiracy theories.
"The people wanted to hear this," he says. "So all it took was to write that story. Everything about it was fictional: the town, the people, the sheriff, the FBI guy. And then ... our social media guys kind of go out and do a little dropping it throughout Trump groups and Trump forums and boy it spread like wildfire."
Fake news like what Dan Rather gave us? The left sure ate up the fake National Guard memos story.
By all means the $#@! coming out of CBS news should be suppressed.
Last edited by clear lake horn; 11-24-2016 at 05:53 PM.
Fake news ban --> Establish undemocratic precedent --> rollback of civil liberties --> authoritarian state
No fake news ban --> Ill-informed electorate --> Unrepresentative government --> rollback of civil liberties --> authoritarian state
Not for any fake news ban. But with FB leading the US as a news source, with 44%, Zukerberg's claims that they are not a news organization, and have no serious news obligations, are garbage. Embarassing. Shows his immaturity. I guess I don't like it.
Report: Russian propaganda efforts propelled fake election news
A sophisticated Russian propaganda effort helped fuel the spread of fake news during the election cycle, the Washington Post reported Thursday.
Two groups of independent researchers found that Russia employed thousands of botnets, human internet “trolls” and networks of Web sites and social media accounts to inject false content into online political talk and amplify posts from right-wing sites.
“They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests,” said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who co-authored a report about Russian propaganda. “This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media.”
A similar report from PropOrNot, provided to the Post, identifies more than 200 websites that routinely pushed Russian propaganda to at least 15 million Americans, and found that false stories pushed on Facebook were viewed more than 213 million times.
Some stories originated from RT and Sputnik, state-funded Russian information services that are more akin to traditional news sites but sometimes include false or misleading articles.
The coverage was overwhelmingly favorable to Donald Trump, and some of the most notable examples of fake news garnering major traffic online centered on Hillary Clinton’s health, protesters that were allegedly paid to interrupt Trump events, and fears about vote tampering.
So the Russians spiked her water bottle and she couldn't move without falling at the 9/11 ceremony? ^
$#@! the recounts. Electors just need to vote for Hillary because I don't know she's qualified or something or what I get the Electoral College REALLY wrong but LISTEN TO ME DAMMIT I'm a HARVARD PROFESSOR! Tears of salt. Very pretty.
The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.
By Lawrence Lessig November 24 at 7:25 PM
Lawrence Lessig is a professor at Harvard Law School and the author of “Republic, Lost: Version 2.0.” In 2015, he was a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions — most important, the electors themselves.
The framers believed, as Alexander Hamilton put it, that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president].” But no nation had ever tried that idea before. So the framers created a safety valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the people’s choice. Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” — and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel.
Many think we should abolish the electoral college. I’m not convinced that we should. Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of massive fraud pervades a close election? It is a useful thing to have a body confirm the results of a democratic election — so long as that body exercises its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.
So, do the electors in 2016 have such a reason?
Only twice in our past has the electoral college selected a president against the will of the people — once in the 19th century and once on the cusp of the 21st. (In 1824, it was Congress that decided the election for John Quincy Adams; likewise in 1876, it was Congress that gave disputed electoral college votes to Rutherford B. Hayes.)
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland but won in the electoral college, only because Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall turned New York away from the reformer Cleveland (by fewer than 15,000 votes). In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote by a tiny fraction — half a percent — and beat Al Gore in the electoral college by an equally small margin — less than 1 percent.
In both cases, the result violated what has become one of the most important principles governing our democracy — one person, one vote. In both cases, the votes of some weighed much more heavily than the votes of others. Today, the vote of a citizen in Wyoming is four times as powerful as the vote of a citizen in Michigan. The vote of a citizen in Vermont is three times as powerful as a vote in Missouri. This denies Americans the fundamental value of a representative democracy — equal citizenship. Yet nothing in our Constitution compels this result.
Instead, if the electoral college is to control who becomes our president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely. It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy.
In this election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.
Yet that is not the question the electors must weigh as they decide how to cast their ballots. Instead, the question they must ask themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the people’s choice.
There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. We are all citizens equally. Our votes should count equally. And since nothing in our Constitution compels a decision otherwise, the electors should respect the equal vote by the people by ratifying it on Dec. 19.
They didn’t in 1888 — when Tammany Hall ruled New York and segregation was the law of the land. And they didn’t in 2000 — when in the minds of most, the election was essentially a tie. Those are plainly precedents against Hillary Clinton.
But the question today is which precedent should govern today — Tammany Hall and Bush v. Gore, or one person, one vote?
The framers left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton’s favor.
I have never seen a larger display of butthurt in the history of the world.
"Fake News" is the new dog whistle coined by the Left to dismiss anything that disagrees with it. Moving forward, anything that disagrees with the Left will be "Fake News" from "alt-right" or "white nationalists." If you disagree, you'll be using "dog whistles" or "code words" for racism, sexism, anti-Islamia, homophobia, etc.
Last edited by Flaming Moderate; 11-26-2016 at 11:58 AM.
THE WASHINGTON POST ON THURSDAY NIGHT promoted the claims of a new, shadowy organization that smears dozens of U.S. news sites that are critical of U.S. foreign policy as being “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.” The article by reporter Craig Timberg – headlined “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say” – cites a report by a new, anonymous website calling itself “PropOrNot,” which claims that millions of Americans have been deceived this year in a massive Russian “misinformation campaign.”
The group’s list of Russian disinformation outlets includes WikiLeaks and the Drudge Report, as well as Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute.
This Post report was one of the most widely circulated political news articles on social media over the last 48 hours, with dozens, perhaps hundreds, of U.S. journalists and pundits with large platforms hailing it as an earth-shattering exposé. It was the most-read piece on the entire Post website after it was published on Friday.
Yet the article is rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations, and fundamentally shaped by shoddy, slothful journalistic tactics. It was not surprising to learn that, as BuzzFeed’s Sheera Frenkel noted, “a lot of reporters passed on this story.” Its huge flaws are self-evident. But the Post gleefully ran with it and then promoted it aggressively, led by its Executive Editor Marty Baron:
Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent researchers https://t.co/3ETVXWw16Q
— Marty Baron (@PostBaron) November 25, 2016
In casting the group behind this website as “experts,” the Post described PropOrNot simply as “a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.” Not one individual at the organization is named. The executive director is quoted, but only on the condition of anonymity, which the Post said it was providing the group “to avoid being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers.”
In other words, the individuals behind this newly created group are publicly branding journalists and news outlets as tools of Russian propaganda – even calling on the FBI to investigate them for espionage – while cowardly hiding their own identities. The group promoted by the Post thus embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy but without the courage to attach their names to their blacklist. Echoing the Wisconsin Senator, the group refers to its lengthy collection of sites spouting Russian propaganda as “The List.”
The credentials of this supposed group of experts are impossible to verify, as none is provided either by the Post or by the group itself. The Intercept contacted PropOrNot and asked numerous questions about about its team, but received only this reply: “We’re getting a lot of requests for comment and can get back to you today =) [smiley face emoticon].” The group added: “We’re over 30 people, organized into teams, and we cannot confirm or deny anyone’s involvement.”
Thus far, they have provided no additional information beyond that. As Fortune’s Matthew Ingram wrote in criticizing the Post article, PropOrNot’s Twitter account “has only existed since August of this year. And an article announcing the launch of the group on its website is dated last month.” WHOIS information for the domain name is not available, as the website uses private registration.
More troubling still, PropOrNot listed numerous organizations on its website as “allied” with it, yet many of these claimed “allies” told The Intercept, and complained on social media, they have nothing to do with the group and had never even heard of it before the Post published its story.
Last edited by Red Grenadine; 11-27-2016 at 08:45 AM.
Yeah, the left is having a collective temper tantrum, led by the press, and this "Fake News" meme is definitely part of it. Their agenda has over the last six years been thoroughly repudiated by the voters, from the POTUS all the way down the ballot to the proverbial dog-catcher position. They refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and attitudes in predictable and very typical leftist fashion. So here they are trying to blame their failures on lies about them or their candidates.
Virtually all of the mass media went all-in against Donald Trump and for Hillary Clinton, to a degree that was unprecedented, even for them. They put their thumb on the scales in massive fashion and now they want to blubber and cry about unfairness. Only the most die-hard loyalist lefties will be buying their rational for what is clearly a campaign to try to silence their political opponents.
Is this the business that Facebook and Twitter want to be in? Google has been doing this kind of screening and filtering for a long time, so the answer for them appears to be yes. But Facebook and Twitter provide a much more personal social network. This kind of partisan conduct is ultimately not good for their reputations or for their business.
Last edited by Spartacus; 11-27-2016 at 09:07 AM.
We have an abundance of fake titties everywhere, so what's the big deal about fake news on social media?
I would argue it can be fake news without being false. In fact, purposefully misleading IMO is more harmful than false, because "fact checking" -- especially if the checker has an agenda, can show the misleading information to be "true".
Fine I guess when clearly marked "opinion", or published on the editorial page. But MTP is one of the standard bearers for hard news, or should be.
When one of your witnesses is sworn in they promise to tell the "whole truth". Should we not expect the major networks, NYT, and WaPo to do the same in the news sections?
But if you can't see the difference in quoting something that was actually said or happened, even if not fully quoted so as to imply a different message, and just MAKING UP A FACT OR QUOTE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH, Jesus.
I've always had to read any report with an eye for true context and the whole statement. But now, we can't even do that. I can't "fact-check" a source that made up the fact because I won't find anything else out there about that situation. At all. Because it didn't happen. But then, I'm stuck trying to prove the negative. $#@!, i saw that very thing happen over and over again on my FB feed this election. Someone would post something that was false - it never happened. I would point that out, and be met with the retort of "can you prove it didn't happen?" $#@! no I can't - I can't prove the negative. So, step 1 - report completely fake fact. Step 2 - rebut all challenges with "you can't prove it didn't happen!"
Post-fact world. We live in it. And so many seem ok with that. I'm not ok with it, and never will be, and say $#@! all of you who are.
I think you're being melodramatic, but what is new? You really don't think you can fact check things?
Edit-- you really need new fb friends, or to disengage from fb completely, if you are letting it affect you to that degree
Last edited by sawbonz; 11-27-2016 at 03:41 PM.
You libtards are awesome
"Matthew McConaughey endorses Donald Trump!" posted by someone, passing along from a fake news site.
Response, after fact-checking -- "No he didn't. There's literally no source out there indicating that he did so."
Reply -- "Oh yeah? Can you prove he DIDN'T endorse Trump? How do you know?"
So, state false fact. When confronted with conclusion that no evidence supports your false fact, reply by saying there's no evidence proving the negative. Implying that false fact is essentially true.
That's how you turn a false fact into a true fact, in three easy rhetorical steps. Utterly illogical steps. Steps that completely disregard evidence-based reasoning. But that's where we are. Facts and reasoning have literally zero relevance to most people these days.
It's out there. And I sure as $#@! didn't base my vote on $#@! I saw on FB, but many millions of other folks did. If you don't think that what people get fed and choose to digest matters, then a thousand years worth of political propaganda, and the folks who went to great pains to promulgate it, disagree with you rather strongly. Results don't lie -- propaganda works. Lies work. Especially when they're lies people want to believe.
Is your assertion really that millions of voters made their decision to vote for trump because of false news on Facebook? Seriously?
These two phenomenon are linked and cannot reasonably be dealt with separately. In fact, they are all part of the same core problem. The campaign by the liberal media and the Democrat left to try to treat them as they are separate problems is a demonstration of just how far they are willing to go to try to control the "narrative" by trying to silence their opponents in certain venues.
Last edited by Spartacus; 11-27-2016 at 07:57 PM.
Article about Fox News, NY Post, Variety, some UK sites, etc. spreading a false story about CNN airing porn in Boston over the holiday, and it was all based on a single tweet with a fake screenshot.
An internet could have spent 30 seconds on twitter and seen that this was a fake story, but people at Fox News, the NY Post, Variety, etc. who ostensibly have some kind of degrees related to journalism/communications didn't bother to check, and instead ran with it.
No, despite what you read, CNN did not run porn for 30 minutes last night, as was reported by Fox News, the New York Post,Variety and other news organizations, several of which later corrected their stories.
User @solikearose tweeted that Anthony Bourdain's "Parts Unknown," travel show had been replaced, instead, by 30 minutes of porn, via the RCN Boston cable network. That tweet, bolstered by a statement from CNN that seemed to confirm the mishap, was the basis of stories from the U.K Independent and other outlets.
It makes me want to use one of my twitter accounts to spread fake stories like that, complete with fake screenshots, and reel in Fox News and the others.
It is quite appalling to me to see supposedly intelligent people dismissing the notion that Russia may have just played a huge part in electing our new president.
It is appalling to me to see supposedly intelligent people dismissing the fact that Hilary Clinton was the worst candidate in recent memory, and arguably of all time, and instead of figuring out how to keep such a candidate from winning the nomination again, want to blame her loss on a Russian conspiracy.
Football .. OC .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA .. Classics
Bada Bing .. Bernard .. Nerdz .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Bellmont