Been reading Snopes for many years, as have millions of others so "one of the few" above should be changed to one of the few million. I guess you don't know all of the forum rules here but one of them happens to be banning for posting "fake news". That rule has been in effect here for many years, here is something from Feb 15,2009. Not sure what else has to be posted for you to stop with your, "Fake News has only been around since last year".
I guess I don't hang around Internet forums enough. Nobody I know in person, liberal or conservative, had ever heard of fake news before this election. But you seem to be coming around to the idea that fake news is intentionally false and deceiving; I can't imagine the mods would ban a poster for posting something reported by a mainstream news source, even if it was wrong.
What I like is when the NY Post reports a fake news story about CNN airing porn for 30 minutes and then CNN apologizes for it. I guess that then makes it real.
Just stop, no one is "coming around", sometimes fake news is intentionally false and misleading, that doesn't mean it is the definition of fake news. Sometimes reporters just don't fact check and report fake news without it being meant to mislead. Now what is it when a sports reporter writes something that is untrue? Would that be fake reporting? fake typing? fake tweeting? I know it couldn't be fake news since you wrote that in March and you never heard of fake news before the election.
Hardly. Every single news outlet reports its own version of "news" and adds "analysis" in tandem. That ain't punditry. Polling might be the most conspicuous example. Every news outlet commissions national polls and then reports on them as hard news. As in: "CBS Poll: Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump by 14 Points Nationally," published three weeks before the election. And then there's perhaps the most egregious example of "fake news" of all time. It wasn't Breitbart and it wasn't any rightwing blog. It was none other than Dan Rather - the dude who replaced Walter Friggin Cronkite - on the eve of the 2004 election, running a 60 Minutes story about GWB based on documents that were proved fabricated almost within minutes. The Hollywood left even tried to rehabilitate the disgraced lunatic Rather by making it all into a movie with the sickeningly ironic title, "Truth". And the dick-sniffers of the Hollywood press made sure it got a healthy stack of glowing reviews. It bombed, of course. Shows pretty well, though, how desperate the snotty news media is. Not to mention how the public isn't stupid enough to buy what they were selling. These days, the biggest "fake news" story of all is the story about "fake news" itself. As if there were any professional, unbiased, factually-motivated news reporters or media left. We don't trust them. They know it. This is their hissy fit. All just noise.
Maybe they need another term for it than fake news...idk... but I think you are very naive to think a lot of the nonsense we've seen passed around the internet in recent years, especially this election cycle, isn't a problem and isn't influential. Individuals are becoming more and more incapable of challenging thought. It's all about confirmation bias. You want to believe something so you try to find backing on the internet, that allows any idiot to write something up to fall in line with your beliefs. And its only going to get worse as young people are completely clueless with this stuff. very sad prospects for our future. But its our fault too as older adults as we've allowed discourse to die in this country. -- NPR traced a popular story from the election season "FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide." from the 'Denver Guardian'... back to its creator. It was complete BS, dude was just writing it up from his basement and not even really trying that hard to disguise it as real stuff, in fact he was playing around with it being fake. But it didn't matter as it was shared and spread everywhere by everyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton. Now not only was she the spawn of Satan but she bumps off FBI agents who tried to point it out.... We used to laugh at these idiots at the bar, now they are the people we share news with. the dude who wrote the story didn't even have a political agenda, just an economic one and he made big bucks for his BS. That's the scary part. Insert someone with a political agenda to expand on this stuff and the whole fucking system could collapse. happy 2017
I think the difference is, and I alluded to it a little bit in my previous post, is that CBS and Rather were publicly shamed for that stuff, the American people appalled, many staff members from CBS were fired and Rather's contract was not renewed. It essentially ended his career. These days a guy doing the same thing as Rather is now being put into the incoming President's cabinet as his chief strategist and senior counselor. And people want to say this stuff isn't an issue?
This is what a temper tantrum looks like. US sends special forces to RUSSIAN BORDER as NATO is poised to strike back against Vladimir Putin’s ‘aggression’ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/25310...rike-back-against-vladimir-putins-aggression/
It's a fair point. But then, in the clearest sign that the news media is untrustworthy, it took a multi-million dollar investigation by a blue-ribbon panel led by a former Attorney General to tell the true story on Rathergate. It wasn't CBS News, the New York Times, or any other news agency doing the investigation into the truth on that. A lesser point, but the real obstacle on that may have been that the vast majority of people who run and report the news desperately wanted the Rathergate story to be true. I won't defend a guy like Steve Bannon, but for every Steve Bannon, there's a David Brock running a site like "Media Matters," doing the exact same thing on the other side. Worst still, count the number of former employees of the last four presidents who leave government service and join the ranks of the news media. Or, those in government who have immediately family members running the news. How can we trust any of them for the full and fair news? And that's my point. Nothing that gets reported is worthy of blind trust and, so, having any of them tell me what's real and what's fake is just so much garbage. There's a little of the Rather-thing in this, though. I never heard that story and never heard of the "Denver Guardian." I see now that it lives only on Facebook, and I suspect people who see stories like that in their Facebook feed are seeing them for a reason: because it plays right into their political leanings. A story like that isn't convincing anyone who isn't already fixed in their position. As you said - it was spread everywhere by everyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton, but I doubt its reach bent anyone who was otherwise undecided. At best, it would lead someone to look further and probably ask the question, "Why am I not reading this anywhere else?" Dan Rather, on the other hand, is "mainstream media." That's the true Trojan Horse. No truer words. At its best, forums like this actually do a real good service.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on fake news because this conversation keeps going in circles. The Cosentino thing was pretty funny in that the report wasn't from Cosentino, it was from a fake account. So that was fake news, but I didn't use the term "fake news" to describe it because back then, it wasn't a thing. I just thought of it as some idiot on Twitter, nothing deserving of its own definition.
The polls weren't lies in and of themselves, they really did have Hillary up. There were problems with the methodology, plus the fact that the last Comey reports came out when the polling mostly stopped. But it wasn't like the media was cooking the polls to show Hillary was winning; if anything doing that would make it harder for her to win since her supporters would be less likely to show up. No media source is completely objective, they all have their own biases. But IMO there's a difference between a mainstream source that gets most of the facts right, injects a little bias, and reports the occasional whopper and an alternative source that literally makes everything up.
It was obvious they wanted a reason to go to war in iraq but what is to gain here from what many are assuming is an obvious lying to Russia by the US? It's going to be interesting to see what happens tomorrow in Trump Tower when the intelligence agencies present their final gatherings of Russia's involvement. Will Trump continue to suck Putin's dick or will he side with our intelligence agencies? To be continued..
Well you can say we agree to disagree but I still say if your claim to have never heard the term "Fake News" before this last election cycle you were living in a cave. Just on this site alone I know the term was used as far back as 2008, that is as far as I can get into the archived stuff. I guess TGG is just so ahead of the times. When "Fake News" is added to Webster I think Petro should get an acknowledgement. Another example of the term "Fake News" being used. The 2009 book, "Orson Welles and the Unfinished RKO Projects: A Postmodern Perspective" uses the term numerous times in discussing Welles "War of the Worlds", The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. It was a thing prior to this election no matter how many times you claim it wasn't.
People who post on Internet forums aren't representative of most people. Neither are people who read a book that's the 4 millionth most read book on Amazon.
Showing a false double digit lead would more likely diminish turnout on the trailers side, thinking no hope than on the person who is winning big.
You're probably right for a double digit lead, but the poll that showed that was an exception. Most polls had Hillary up by a couple/few points.
People who post on internet forums cover a wide swath of the populace. This site alone has men and women from the early teen years to the 80's from numerous countries throughout the world, numerous careers and college majors. The book is just another example showing the term "fake news" has been around and used long, long before this last election. So lets see, I showed examples of the term "fake News" being used by pcworld.com in 2010, buzzfeed.com in 2014, snopes.com in 2010 referencing "fake news" from 1998. I showed that this site has used the term "fake news" since at least 2008. A book written in 2009 used the term "fake news" numerous times. So in the face of all that you still stick with "the term fake news was created specifically in the past year to address" I'm done and no it's not in an agree to disagree sense. Anyone that will still not admit the term "fake news" was around long before this election cycle, in the face of numerous items evidencing otherwise, I almost have to think you are trolling.
First of all, this site is not representative of the general population. For starters, if it was, about half the posters would be women, which isn't the case. Also, I wasn't talking about demographics, I was saying that people who post on the Internet are more likely than most people to be familiar with a term that pertains to the Internet. You're straw manning me with your examples of fake news. I didn't say no one in history had ever said the words "fake news" before 2016, I said it wasn't a thing worthy of getting its own definition. Anyway, this is a silly diversion; the whole thing started when RuJFan asked me if I thought a false report from CNN was fake news. I said no, which should have been the end of it, but it wasn't. So this is my last post on the subject, have the last word if you want.
