Your examples are of false news stories. As I've said before, the term fake news was created specifically in the past year to address intentionally fake Internet news created to mislead viewers. If you want to change the definition to something else, that's your right, but you'd be better off getting your own term.
Actually, here is retraction from Washington Post: Russian government hackers do not appear to have targeted Vermont utility, say people close to investigation https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.70db9069e724 So I take it the original posting, and the subsequent defence of the original posting, and 48 hours news cycle covering the original posting, and the anonymous sources.... all of that were just honest mistakes. BTW, the head of Wikileaks said that their source of the DNC emails were NOT the russians. Should I hold my breath waiting for Obama to return those Russians he deported?
Obama wouldn't have done what he did without solid evidence. Don't expect any 'oops, my bad' any time soon. Sent from my BLU LIFE ONE X using Tapatalk
It's like you're reading my mind. I'm forwarding my resume to Trump Tower. If the only thing Donald Trump does in the next four years is stomp on that horrible, horrible convention of ghouls, I'll die happy.
Uh, my examples of "false news stories" actually matches exactly your made of definition of "fake news". Was the report of life on the moon in 1835 just an incorrect report? You are the only one making up their own definitions here but nice try trying to flip that around on me.
I have a slightly different spin on this "fake news" nonsense: Today's news media has its panties all in a bunch about how a declining minority of Americans trust them to give the full and fair news. It's only natural that they now want to re-establish themselves as Keepers of the Truth. But there is a huge disconnect that they just don't get. After all, they're the ones who told everyone that Trump would never win and COULD never win. The biggest news story of the last year, happened right in the plain light of day and they missed it by a mile. These people need some way to explain why their little club of partisan C-students got it so wrong. So, now, they're the ones who get to say what's real and what's fake. Here's a wild thought: start regaining trust from the American people and they won't go looking for their news elsewhere.
Let me ask you this. Have you ever heard the word fake news before last year? No, because it was created to address a specific phenomenon in 2016, Internet sites existing for the sole purpose of spreading fake, misleading stories. The examples you're giving, and the original question about CNN releasing one wrong story, are not related to fake news. Again, if you want to broaden the definition to any false news story, you should come up with a different word to avoid confusion.
The people who said Trump would lose were pundits, paid to give opinions. It's like saying the Jets can't win the SB and then they do. That's different from saying the Jets fired Bowles when they didn't.
he wouldn't have done that without solid evidence. Didn't the FBI, CIA and others help reach that conclusion. Are they wrong too?
What if every single post in this thread was a blatant lie? Including this one? Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk
DHS and the FBI said so but it seems many question what they are calling proof. But as others have said, it just pulled back the curtain on what the DNC was trying to pull. I.E. the coronation of Hillary before the primaries were even over. But security experts say that the document provides little in the way of forensic "proof" to confirm the government's attribution. Private security firms — like CrowdStrike, who investigated the DNC breach — went much further, they say. "The DHS statement is a restatement of already known public information, a series of technical indicators that are intended for use by cybersecurity professionals in finding and remediating APT28 malware on private sector networks, and some generic advice for companies as to how to improve their network security," said Matt Tait, founder of the U.K.-based security consultancy Capital Alpha Security. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking
https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/malia-obama-is-not-pregnant#.ja9K7nv0xr 2014 People Are Falling For A Fake News Story Suggesting Malia Obama Is Pregnant Oh my, did I just see the term "fake news" from 2014? http://www.pcworld.com/article/193113/Top_10_April_Fools_Day_Fake_News_Items_for_2010.html Top 10 April Fools' Day Fake News Items for 2010 It couldn't be, that was 2010 Here is something from Snopes, the date is 2010 but it references fake news stories in an email back to 1998 http://www.snopes.com/humor/lists/fakenews.asp Do I really need to go on? The answer is yes, I heard of "fake news" long before last year. The only reason it is being currently beaten into our heads is so the Dems. can use it as their excuse for losing to Trump instead of realizing that political parties have been getting more and more out of touch from the actual voter. And just stop with the acting like you have all the answers because it has been shown time and time again just in this thread that you are just wrong. Fake news has been around for many years and your definition is just that, your definition, nothing more.
And W would not have gone to War with Iraq if he didn't have solid evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction from the same intelligence community.
Searching for a couple instances where "fake news" was used in previous years after I prompted you to do it isn't the same thing as hearing about it. Maybe you're one of the few who has, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But the good news is the examples you cited in this post all meet the definition of fake news. They're all Internet sites (even the one from back in 1998) that published false stories on purpose intended to mislead (though of course the April Fools ones were jokes).
