Journal RailGunner's Journal: "Don't be rude. YOU ARE FAKE NEWS" 22
I honestly don't think I'll get tired of watching President Trump smack the MSM over the next 8 years.
And "fake news" has been a huge problem ever since the days of Dan Rather's "fake, but accurate" George W. Bush AWOL fake memo.
... and considering now you've got Buzzfeed and CNN getting trolled by 4chan about a fake story involving Trump hiring prostitutes to urinate on a bed in Russia -- something so obviously fake it's laughable, and yet -- I know lefties who believe it happened -- which is kind of the point. Tell the lie often enough and it'll stick a little. The MSM is no londer interested in facts, only to do whatever they can to further the leftist narrative. Right, Ezra and the JournoListers? Leni Reifenstahl approves of your tactics.
But Trump verbally smacking Acosta and CNN?
I enjoyed that. It's about time someone rubbed their noses in it. Go Donald!
And "fake news" has been a huge problem ever since the days of Dan Rather's "fake, but accurate" George W. Bush AWOL fake memo.
But Trump verbally smacking Acosta and CNN?
I enjoyed that. It's about time someone rubbed their noses in it. Go Donald!
Don't know much history, do you? (Score:1)
'Fake News' has been a huge problem since long before the Gulf of Tonkin thing. Then there was Hearst and Pulitzer... You go with what sells, babe. It's all about ratings. And besides most of your 'Fake News' comes from the government. The papers just repeat it, with some embellishment of course.
But hey, it's all good. We know where you're comin' from... Gotta run with what's all trendy an' shit...
It's the media's fault (Score:2)
The media regularly gives us stories without evidence, without substantiation, and asks us to believe those stories. Then -- I'm shocked! -- people end up believing stories without evidence or substantiation.
Only when we stop paying attention to source-less claims will we solve the problem of "fake news."
Re: (Score:1)
Now look at how the media is largely ignoring the fact that the Ft. Lauderdale airport shooter converted t
Re: (Score:1)
'Fake news' and the official narrative are frequently synonymous. Why is it the media's fault if people decide to believe them?
Re: (Score:2)
'Fake news' and the official narrative are frequently synonymous. Why is it the media's fault if people decide to believe them?
Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.
Re: (Score:1)
The media has 'trained' us? Is it really so hard to turn your back? Or we all really just Pavlov's dog? What was the reward that made the 'media' so compelling? Where is all this *personal responsibility* that you speak of?
Re: (Score:2)
The media has 'trained' us?
Yes.
Is it really so hard to turn your back?
Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.
Where is all this *personal responsibility* that you speak of?
Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us ... obviously.
Re: (Score:1)
If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody. In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work of making excuses for Hillary's loss. We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special. People on both sides go along because of simple confirmation bias and the herding instinct. The problem is personal. In theory humans can make the choice.
Re: (Score:2)
If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.
I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.
In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work ...
Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.
We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.
You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.
In theory humans can make the choice.
Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their
Re: (Score:1)
You said it's the media's fault. You said they have trained us. That does not make sense.
Re: (Score:1)
I forgot to ask. Since their bad behavior is so highly rewarded, in fact demanded of them, what is it exactly are you blaming them for again? And how do you recommend changing it, without telling them who can print what?
Whoah there (Score:2)
I fail to see how "Trump hires prostitutes to piss on a bed the Obamas slept in as an act of revenge" is seemingly well out of character for him. Got some inside info, do ya?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you think it is in his character, unless there's SOME evidence it happened, then it's irresponsible to treat it as though it's possibly true.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about railgunner's assertion that it's "obvious".
I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.
Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?
I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we cou
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.
I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Of course not, you don't read the NYT.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.
I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.
I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Of course not, you don't read the NYT.
So you have no examples, then. Good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until you provide evidence, I won't believe it exists.
(See how this works?)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I said catch you later. I'm not back in the office until Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despi
Re: (Score:2)
Now, in the interest of avoiding your pedantic tendencies as much as possible, I feel we'll have to define "broadly reported unsourced attacks" before I get started.
For example, I doubt you'd approve of me using a site like Newsmax.com, despite its age and traffic. Which is fine, as they don't actually produce much content anyw