Slashdot Mirror
President Obama On Fake News Problem: 'We Won't Know What To Fight For' (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader shares a TechCrunch article: President Barack Obama spoke in Berlin Thursday during a visit to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and during his remarks he addressed concerns about fake news circulating via social platforms like Facebook. On the subject of fake news, Obama noted that the ease with which we can make false information seem like genuine facts on platforms including "a Facebook page" means there's a great risk for audiences. Here's is what he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation, and it's packaged very well, and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television, where some overzealousness on the part of a U.S. official is equated with constant and severe repression elsewhere, if everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect. We won't know what to fight for. And we can lose so much of what we've gained in terms of the kind of democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we've come to take for granted.
You should only be reading *our* fake news.
love is just extroverted narcissism
The mainstream media is at least as bad as the supposed "fake" news sources. All of a stripe - liars to the core. Believe none of it.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
How the biggest peddler's of fake news are also the biggest complainers of it.
I guess it's easier to believe that people bought the clickbaity fake news about lizard people than to admit that you lost the election because people are sick of being lied to, when they can prove from DKIM authenticated emails that you're lying to them, both about the email and about it being modified.
Propaganda is most effective when it's least expected. Citizens of the USSR knew the government was lying to them regularly, and developed a healthy skepticism of its statements. I think many Americans believe their free-speech society is propaganda-free, and as such, have a poor "immune response." Maybe a pervasive fake news problem will hone the citizens' bullshit detectors. Here's hoping.
How's that "you can keep your doctor", and "you can keep your health plan" thing working out?
I knew this guy was full of shit all along, but once he signed a bill extending the PATRIOT act, the rest of you clowns should have figured it out.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Getting accurate news requires funding.
Every source of funding has a bias.
Sounds like someone is testing memes to use in "improving" the First Amendment.
Personally, I like that one the way it is, so I'll have to give him a "fail" on his first attempt to spin things as "if only we didn't have that nasty Freedom of the Press..."
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
For some years now, the media has lacked the revenues to afford investigative journalism. Instead, they have pursued propaganda. Now they are outraged that they have competition.
Alternative Right.
Also, I feel like the last rations were smaller than before, but I can't be sure.
Well, we gained those no thanks to you, Mr. Obama. In fact, you spent most of your administration attacking and slowly degrading our democratic freedoms, market economy, and prosperity. Naturally, you progress to attacking the First Amendment.
This is the same as it's always been with the mainstream press. The only difference between the New York Times and Facebook is that the barriers to entry have been lowered, and now everybody can play.
You want to preserve democratic freedoms by censoring fake news? Wouldn't that be like... taking away the most important democratic freedom of them all, free speech?
Because sooner or later, the entity tasked with determining what's fake and what's not could fall into people currently not on your side.
Solution to fake news is to have people ignore obviously stupid shit. The more intelligent ones already do so. If stupid people wanna keep reading stupid shit, well then by golly that's the god-given right.
It all depends on how you read news. If you let it give you opinions, probably not so good, if you read it as satire, or as a devils advocate sort of way, you can get more than what is there.
All overt and covert operations, I and CI use chaff. :-)
The fact that it's done by names that people used to trust is irrelevant. Or did you miss Jayson Blair? Perhaps the scandals are coming too fast and furious for you to keep up, but they've lost all credibility whatsoever. Their obvious political bias all in one direction does nothing to help them, of course.
Goebbels' propaganda machine was ultimately disbelieved by the German people based on the postwar US Strategic Bombing Survey's result. The majority of Germans had realized the war was lost shortly after Stalingrad, even though bombing and privation had not started to bite. People see right through the lying. A similar result here - people just don't believe the shit and aren't going to start believing it again without a wholesale teardown of the whole edifice and rebuilding, with a focus on ethics.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
In post election polls 78 percent of people said the media was biased.
Even if you don't trust that source (and seeing as how you believe some fantasy about people trusting the media I'm pretty sure you think Breitbart is the devil) there are many other polls that say similar things.
Never have people been more sure the media is lying to them; the fact is we all know the news today is propaganda. Why else do you think trump won when the media was posting false stories about him daily?
Not to mention they continue to do so; but once you've cried wolf a thousand times the times after become rather droll and inconsequential. Which is a shame because, over time there will be wolves...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This new narrative is doing nothing more than trying to lay the groundwork for later action. You see, if information can be labeled "fake" - using whatever standard they plan to use - then the next logical step is to put legal limits on the "fake" information.
Ultimate, AM talk radio will be the in the gunsights. The left is PISSED that their usual main stream media tricks and gotchas didn't work this time so instead of changing their message, they want to change the rules of the "news" game.
P.S. It won't work. They blew their wad on Trump and now nobody believes what they say anymore.
The argument falls of deaf ears since many people have convinced themselves (or been convinced by entertainers) that main stream news is fake anyways. It creates informational relativism where each person is entitled to their own special little bubble of squishy truths or perceived truths, so long as it supports their perception of the world around them. Frankly, it will make it impossible to work together as One Nation since to the eyes of some a politician can do no wrong, and to the eyes of others the politician is boiling babies and eating their skin. Heck, even armed with facts we can't agree on whether it is a good thing or not. Wikileaks embarrassed the Bush administration and was well received by the left. Wikileaks humiliated the DNC and was well received on the left. Both of these actions had one thing in common: they were bad for the nation as a whole. And with the new Trump administration, most on the left are folding their arms and saying "good, keep doing that and see how bad you will FAIL." The right did likewise with Obama. A failure of our president is a partial failure of our nation. We've lost national identity to partisan identity. And this informational relativism will only ensure we cannot bridge the divide.
For your RIGHT
To PARTAY!
A brother like that don't know that?
Maybe those dumbshits shouldn't be getting their news from Facebook, or any for-profit outfit for that matter.
This dancing around a Ministry of Truth is extremely uncomfortable.
Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition!
I mean, it's really odd. Everybody who's so fucking concerned about fake news now didn't seem to be too upset when Dan Rather was pushing fake news.
Kind of like everybody who's so bothered by Trump being a pervert didn't seem to mind when Bill Clinton was being a pervert.
Weird, like there's a double standard or something.
Do you have ESP?
I still don't know which is worse; 1000 little lies or a big lie.
I guess the big lie is easier to falsify?
Russia spends over $1B annually on disinformation, and that's just the money we know about.
Facebook and Twitter build them the perfect playpen.
Well, I hope so to but currently the "wisdom of the masses" is generally trusted among internet cranks, Facebook moms and social crusaders over rationality.
I mean, "this image of a tweet went viral - it HAS to be true!" is startling to me because of how such diverse groups all seem to be manipulated by this sort of pre-packaged confirmation bias (I don't know if that's the right term).
Even after junk like Kony 2012 people still don't stop themselves and think first, particularly if it fits their own personal outlook and in the case of most cranks/crusaders if it comes from a "non-authoritarian" source.
I'm not saying I'm superior either, god knows I've been fooled by seemingly legitimate "news" the difference is like you say, I've grown skeptical of things I hear... from all sources.
Like you say, let's hope
crazy dynamite monkey
Why else do you think trump won when the media was posting false stories about him daily?
I'm curious about these "false stories" about Trump. I've heard him call the media crooked and horrible, but this is the first mention of a specific complaint that I've seen. Which of the stories published by mainstream media about Trump were complete fabrications (or just false)? I thought most of them were video clips of him saying and doing outrageous things.
Well, we'll see how Trump does getting rid of the lobbyists in Washington. He is trying - at least in the Whitehouse.
But let's look at the propaganda from the Republican side. For 8 years they have been blaming Obama and the EPA for the war on coal. But the TRUTH is that Natural Gas has been so cheap - MUCH cheaper than coal - that power plants have been converting even when they didn't have to under regulations.
BUT Mitch McConnell and other Republicans lied and blamed Obama and the EPA for the "war on coal" when they had nothing to do with coals demise.
Free markets - baby!
But the Republican base LOVED hearing that the black guy in the WHITEhouse was all at fault for their woes.
And what's going to change for those poor poor coal miners in the next 4 years? NOTHING!
Oh, guess what's going to happen if Trump starts fucking with trade agreements!
I have positioned my investments, I have a popcorn and I'm going to enjoy the trainwreck of the Trump Presidency and I'll be here to post "I TOLD you so."
Oh, the H1-b program being ended by Trump? Ahahahahahahahaha, yeah....
Even when innuendo is correctly recognized as fake or unsubstantiated, if it supports innuendo that the reader suspects might be true, then the reader will place greater importance on it even if not fully recognizing it as being true or substantiated.
It's become so blatantly obvious the government and their mainstream media puppetforce are little more than propaganda factories, so people are looking for alternatives. In any event, I certainly don't want the governemnt deciding for me what information sources are "approved" or "fake." There is a load of BS out there wherever you turn, but the absolute LAST source for determining credibility should be the government.
we rubes are finally catching on or, they just don't like competition.
So if we start banning 'fake news' and start restricting what information can and can't be seen what would make us different than any other repressive regime that blocks out certain web sites. Like say China for example. Are we going to need to start using Tor in America just to access views that are different than the ones approved by those in power? How long until we start shutting down news papers and burning books that have differing opinions than the party line. If you agree with censoring 'fake' news then you have to start to ask yourself what do you represent. There used to be a saying "I disagree with what you say. but I would fight to the death to defend your right to do so." Now it's "I disagree with what you say, and you will die for doing so".
We won't know what to fight for.
Fight for the USS Maine! Fight for the causes approved by our responsible, professional journalists, and avenge those brave, American sailors slaughtered by Spanish treachery!
Nothing is ever new. What happens today has already happened before and will happen again.
it's called The Baloney Detection Kit.
So subscribe to both a very liberal and a very conservative newspaper that are well known that actually still do news - I know - that's getting tougher and tougher as more and more go to just running feeds. Pick up a local paper subscription as well if you don't live in a major city. Hard to pick good examples but maybe the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times/Washington Post. Read all three thoroughly. If the facts of a story are similar in each, then there is a greater chance (not in any way approaching 100%) that what you are reading is truth. If they are diametrically opposed, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Pick a few more diametrically opposed pairs for variety (Christian Science Monitor vs. Freethinker). Extend as needed.
It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than just relying on a single source for news.
There is the illusion of many news sources, but that is not the case and hasn't been the case for years. There are a few news monopolies, and everyone pulls from them. If there was a densely populated set of alternatives not only would folks not believe their own misinformation, like that Hillary would win, but also the false would be washed away.
-engr.student
Trump won the election? Thanks, Obama. (Sarcastic or not? Let your confirmation bias decide)
Over here, anyone publishing anything is required to run a retraction at the same size in the same font on the same page for the same amount of time (and so on, you get the idea) as the original story if said story turns out to be fake.
That sure shut up a lot of tabloids that loved to invent shit. Enforce this on blogs and you'll see that bullshit stop pretty fucking quickly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Here's my favorite source of fake news.
...just educate our citizenry better so they're not so entirely fucking GULLIBLE?
And perhaps be a little more skeptical of news generally? I don't care WHAT source, it all comes from a place of bias, and should be read in that context.
No, not all bias is identical; the slavering bias of MSNBC or the worst Fox programs is NOT the same as the subtle pervasive bias of the NYT. But they all have it, it's endemic to being human.
-Styopa
Seems like the Democrats and media are doing all they can to set up a meme about fake news being everywhere just as an escape route, right before Trump gets in office and follows through on his promise of draining the swamp.
It's fucking hilarious how quickly this 'fake news' thing exploded.
Almost like everyone was an expert on the topic the instant it happened...
Lefties are so ass-pained it is hilarious.
You lost, grow the fuck up.
Wrong "in part" is completely wrong when it's all that's played. Same crap happening today after the loss a week ago. Most of us figured out that the media in the democratic party pocket won't change because they lost. Slander and lies are all they know and all they do. Sticking labels on people worked to a point, but now they just hate both the DNC and Media even more.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Hey, folks. There's a couple places I could probably post this, but figured this was as good a place as any. ;) With fake news being a big problem, I wrote a quick open-source browser extension to highlight articles from comedy or low-quality news sources. Tried not to be biased, but I'm sure there's some present.
Anyway, you can check it out on the Chrome web store: https://chrome.google.com/webs...
Or hit up the GitHub repo: https://github.com/Fortyseven/...
BytesTemplar.com
Do you people think that Obama get the news, becomes individually concerned, writes his OWN speech and then presents it as his OWN opinion. Do you think he does anything day-to-day that isn't scripted down to the last minute detail?
Hell do you really, REALLY believe the POTUS is the "most powerful man in the world" and he takes orders from no one?
Pure fantasy.
these remarks by obama send a chill down my spine...
when the masters of lie and deception give you a speech about truth.
After you have convinced yourself that your news is non-fake, because it is says what you want to hear, do not believe that those who disagree with you are going to be as motivated to listen. If someone has truth that you do not, does it make their news fake, or does it make you ignorant?
Limiting the vehicle of propaganda to speak only what you want to hear is not how bridges are built. It is how censorship is built.
-engr.student
Free Speech, always always fight for free speech.
ALL limitations on free speech are a path that eventually leads to subjugation....
Professor Melissa Zimdars' list of "fake news" sites, which is now making the rounds as some sort of authoritative resource, even making its way into browser extensions to "protect" users from fake news sites.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...
http://nymag.com/selectall/201...
http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/...
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11...
There is a danger that all the sites providing this news are, in fact, fake news sites themselves...
Just think what CBS' Dan Rather did with the Bush reports years ago. They made them up out of thin air.
Yes, Dan Rather of 60 Minutes did report a story based on documents that were turned out to be fake. And, guess what? A day and a half later, The Washington Post, The New York Times. USA Today and the Associated Press all ran stories disputing the documents. If you're tallking about the mainstream media running fake stories-- how about the mainstream media reporting that fake news was fake. 60 Minutes eventually ran a public retraction of the story, and subsequently fired the people responsible.
This is the mainstream media doing self-correction. That was back in those halcyon days of yesterday when integrity in journalism was actually an ideal that the media tried for, before all the internet media started going with the plan "who cares it it's true? If it gets clicks, run with it!"
Do the fake news sites ever run retractions? Has Breitbart ever retracted anything they've said?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Truth is in the neo.Stalinist thought-crime drooling eye. Gotta hatpin snowflake? hehehe ... Love to punch-it-out ... eh pad'res ?
Like the You Tube Video that caused Benghazi ? THAT was fake news.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Sources who have asked to remain anonymous say that...
This station has been told that...
A few lead-ins like this would certainly allow a "news" organization to be entirely truthful while at the same time presenting completely fictitious stories.
Or some good old fashioned apophasis? I don't for one second think its true that Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of aborted babies.
OTOH, even the National Enquirer from time to time actually scooped other news organizations with real news, so blanket bans seem misguided too.
I also recall back when Fox News was all the rage, that the left was unable to distinguish between the segments that were clearly talk-shows (i.e., opinion as entertainment) like Hannity and O'Reilly and the straight news segments. Perhaps not too surprising, since they also thought CNN programs like Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan were straight fact-based programs and not opinion-as-entertainment.
This has always been Obama's problem. He wants groups of Americans to "fight" other groups of Americans. That's why his Presidency is a failure: Americans fought back. If he had tried to be President of us all, he might have been able to lead and accomplish something instead of just wasting 8 years going nowhere.
Fake news? I call that shit CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, MSNBC, etc. Look up who owns the media outlets and you'll find that like hollywood and the finance sector, it's all pretty much owned by jews. Jews are the most foul and vile creatures on this planet. Their greed and lust for power is insatiable and as Voltaire once stated that "I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race."
All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)
Moderator note: your personal disagreement with the following analysis does not make it less relevant or true. Please keep your post election rage/safe space down-mod votes to yourself.
The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left. They started teaching journalists in school that their goal shouldn't be to "get the scoop" or "get to the truth" or "accurately report the facts." They started teaching them that their goal should be to "change the world." Once that happened, objective journalism died a quick death but the American people have been slow to catch on, but they have caught on, and only 6% of the population now believes that the MSM gives the news without bias/selective filtering/manipulation etc. In the 90s, Rush Limbaugh and later Fox news began providing a counter point to this pervasive bias, and in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts. (If you are a Fox news hater, realize that doesn't change why Fox has been so successful or what their formula is or why they are the most trusted news network in the US.) Fox is also one of the best researched, best sourced news outlets on the planet. The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets (not necessarily what guests say though, who by definition are supporting a POV but whom are usually challenged by the host/other guest when they are wrong on the facts)
While the MSM usually does not outright fabricate a lie, what they do is source lies from Media Matters/HuffPo/other alt left sources. They take half truths, clips out of context etc that fit their narrative, irregardless of the complete facts. Occasionally they get caught and a producer somewhere gets fired. The level of dishonesty has created an atmosphere where fake news sites have more credibility than the MSM, which is a credibility problem for the MSM, not a commentary on the gullibility of news consumers. The fake news sites have still lied less than the MSM, which has a history of lying going back decades. Why the younger generation is using social media as its news source shows just how hard the MSM has fallen and how low their credibility is. The solution is for Fox news to improve and extend it's online presence so that all those who see the MSM for the shills they are can have a reliable, accurate online news outlet.
The more mature and wiser conservative crowd moved to Fox news or main stream talk radio news sources 20 years ago, and those left consuming MSM pap have been so brainwashed that even the mention, let alone watching Fox news is like salt on a slug. I challenge anyone reading this to take the Fox news challenge. Tune into their primetime lineup for a week before you call them the great satan. Un-brainwashing may be a little unpleasant at first, but it is a liberating experience on the whole.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.poynter.org/2014/th...
http://www.newsweek.com/faults...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Fake news has always circulated, but before the only entities capable of spreading fake/manipulated news en masse were those in power... Regular people could only spread things on a very small scale so it didn't really have any effect.
People just need to learn to be cynical, and to do proper research before blindly believing what they read...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
jk
Truth is the best possible propaganda when you control who sees which parts of the truth, and where and how people see them.
For instance, it is not a lie to say that, recently and publicly, Trump is on record as having mercilessly and brutally beaten an elderly woman whom he has known for years. See what I did there?
And the MSM isn't even that subtle.
Having some trouble taking seriously many of these complaints about 'fake news' from people whose primary news outlet is The Daily Show.
... than the comments on this story for an example of the problem.
and nothing he says matters
I think many Americans have become very distrusting of the mainstream news.
Why? Because, mainstream news has become entertainment, and entertainment has become the news.
We cannot have competing points of views or news that doesn't talk about the Kardashians.
Silly people, you can't handle alternative news, we have to filter it for you for your own good.
Bake in logic and argumentative science courses into K-5 curriculum. Any later is too late.
So, am I less informed or more misinformed than the average person?
Perhaps if he started with himself & his Executive orders than the rest of us might follow suit...seriously, an Executive Order exists promoting the incorrect use of the 'Median Salary' pay 'gap' between Men & Women & that's used to promote more government enforcement of regulations & spending of money in an entirely sexist manner!
So, Obama can take his 'fake news' complaints & shove them where they belong...
> For example, he wrote a story that someone who was protesting a Donald Trump rally in Arizona was paid $3500 to protest. He thought that was satire.
Not sure which person they're talking about, but Zulema Rodriguez was paid over $30k all told, or $27.5k if you don't count travel expenses, etc. She's on this video starting at about 10:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... as the person blocking the road and lying to the cops about it.
You can verify what she was paid by looking here: https://beta.fec.gov/data/disb...
As for how I know she was paid to be at the protest, etc., there's a full explanation here: https://slashdot.org/firehose....
To be fair, she claimed on video to have been at multiple protests. Anyhow, the broader point--that people should fact check things--is a good one. CNN and others have straight-up lied to us in recent memory. I can (and have) provided sources and video for that previously in my Slashdot comments.
"A few lead-ins like this would certainly allow a "news" organization to be entirely truthful while at the same time presenting completely fictitious stories."
OMG, cue the instances of Trump during the campaign getting away with "many people are saying". That shit was hilarious up until the point he became president elect.
The mainstream media is at least as bad as the supposed "fake" news sources.
This analysis by BuzzFeed pretty much proves the exact opposite.
They took ~1000 POSTS from 3 specific large hyperpartisan right-wing Facebook pages (Eagle Rising, Freedom Daily, Right Wing News), 3 specific hyperpartisan large left-wing Facebook pages (Addicting Info, Occupy Democrats, The Other 98%) and 3 specific large mainstream media Facebook pages (ABC News Politics, CNN Politics, Politico).
Rigth-wing pages made 666 posts combined, out of which 82 (12.3%) were "mostly false" while another 169 (25.4%) were "a mixture of true and false" - while another 14.4% were "no factual content" posts. I.e. "Like if you...", "We rule they suck" and similar partisan memes.
Left-wing pages made 471 posts combined, during that same period, 22 (4.6%) being "mostly false", 68 (14%) "mixed" and 24.6% of "no factual content" memes.
With individual pages posting between 12.3% and 23.6% false and mixed stories on the left - and between 29.4% and 46.4% on the right.
I.e. While one in eight to one in four stories on 3 hyperleft pages can be bogus - on 3 hyperright pages it's between one in three and up to one half that are bullshit.
Mainstream media was 0.0% "mostly false" and 0.4-1.0% "somewhat false".
In other words, even disregarding "fake for profit" sites, while "somewhat false" news IS a possibility for mainstream media - fake news ranges from being symptomatic to an absolutely necessity for fake news sites.
When only about 40% of posts are actually true and actually news... that's not a question of being a credible news source or not.
That's being a gossip site.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)
You, you didn't fix that for me. The parties created the pay-for-play system, and the media companies are all too happy to play along. They love those sweet debate dollars. And Fox News is not immune, they are also part of this system. This system was created by the 2 major parties, the networks just went along with it.
The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left.
Yes, reality has a liberal bias and all that.
in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts.
This is misleading though, it is not balanced. It still serves their own bias. When they have a discussion about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and they have one guy who agrees, and one who disagrees, that is not balanced. It would be much more accurate if they have that discussion and they have the guy who disagrees and 49 scientists who agree, that would more closely resemble the state of the debate. When they claim that it's a split issue they're not doing a service to anyone, and they're showing their own bias. That's the fallacy of their model, presenting issues like that in a 50/50 light when they are not.
why they are the most trusted news network in the US
It's not such a ringing endorsement to say that Fox is the network that is the most trusted by people who will believe anything that fits their bias. The reason their ratings are so much higher than other stations is because they are the only one who has a strongly conservative bias, so if that fits your view and that's the particular echo chamber you want to watch, you only have 1 option. If you prefer a different bias there are several other options which split the vote.
Keep in mind that this entire story is how the election discourse was affected by conservatives or right-wingers believing fake news. They're the ones who were roped into believing this stuff. I'm not saying they're the only ones with that problem though, maybe over the next 4 years it will be more profitable to create fake stories to anger liberals and then you'll see it go the other way, but for now the story is right-wingers believing anything they read without question. So, yeah, Fox may be the most trusted network but consider the critical thinking skills of their audience.
The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets
Do you have any source for that claim, considering the whole thing how we're talking about fact checking and accurate reporting? Or did you just say that because it feels right? Here's a summary from 2014 giving the least false rating to CNN, over half of Fox's claims were false. Here it is from 2015, with the same results. Here are the current ratings for Fox and CNN. If you have other sources which support your claim, feel free to show them. In the past I've consistently seen NPR as the most factual (not included in the above, which is for cable news). BBC and WSJ are also well-trusted. As for Rush Limbaugh, he's trust just slightly more than Buzzfeed.
If you want to cite some other study or numbers which show that Fox is more accurate, feel free. If yo
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It seems to me this is a very honest comment from Obama, surprisingly unvetted for a US president. Why? Simply because he does a piss-poor job of calling anyone to action here. This is a lamentation, and it seems Obama genuinely has no idea how to deal with the problem he's describing. I feel I should note, in this context, that my username is derived from a Sam&Max quote, and does not reflect my political views. I sympathize with Obama's frustration, but am worried that he and his cohort (much like me) seem unable to do anything about it other than complain.
Right. Because Obama was going to destroy the country, declare himself king, and enslave us all to his Kenyan Muslim rule.
Sorry. The shit that Fox News watchers believe is just a little less crazy and stupid than the alt right. Breitbart et al. just say out in the open what Fox News would only insinuate.
~X~
you are in posession of good. after you killed 50 million russians and chinese.
how do we know YOU did not play the Agent Provocateurs in order to justify a facebook based censorship offense ???
you are in cahoots with war profiteers and internationalist corporations. those who fire americans and germans to replace them with cheap indians.
"We Won't Know What To Fight For"
What about just fighting to raise a family and put money on the table while pursuing a good career? It's not as glamorous as a march on Washington but that's a pretty good place to focus one's energy and time.
If you're a community organizer or social justice warrior, or otherwise spend your time trying to make things work your way (whether to give meaning to your life or because you really care about it)...you should never have a problem finding a fight.
Your pile of words would be charming if journalists didn't steadfastly defend the status quo. If their mantra was "Change the world", they have been doing the COMPLETE opposite by any objective analysis of news media. It's not surprising that you then go on and shill for Fox News, the one news source that is irrevocably wrong the vast majority of the time, again by objective measures. You should try not living in an echo chamber, your friends and family who still tolerate you will appreciate it.
He knows very well he's told what to fight for. He certainly can't think for himself. He has to have a handler at all times.
With mainstream journalism demonstrably unable to accurately report any story that is not Hollywood or Sports and get things right for more than one paragraph; how to you tell a fake story from clueless reporting with only a passing nod to facts?
NRRPT/RCT
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The only people who should be allowed to create fake news are those in .......government. The government has been doing this routinely since the mid-'60s.
Nice straw man from someone who apparently never watches Fox news. The only crazy stupid here is you if that is what you believe the right believes or Fox news reports.
You need to get out of your echo chamber and actually watch Fox news for a few weeks or talk to someone who holds different world views than yours. Geez.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
"the parties created the pay-for-play system and the networks went along with it"
My point exactly, they are the lap dogs, not the watch dogs. If the networks didn't go along with it, it wouldn't happen. No one can blame the parties for wanting the most favorable coverage they can get, thats politics, but the networks have a responsibility to give us ALL the facts on BOTH candidates.
"reality has a liberal bias etc."
Oh really, and that's how every Obama liberal fantasy policy came up shit, real unemployment is at ~13% (the labor participation rate is down big time, and not just because of baby boomers retiring; age 20-24 participation is down 7% from 1994, 25 to 54 is down 3%) the economy is crap with just barely positive growth (compare it to Bush 43, Clinton or Regan after their respective recessions), Obamacare is doubling our monthly insurance premiums and doubling everyone's copays, ISIS is on the rise and committing genocide and millions of refugees are fleeing the middle east, we have had the slowest recovery from a recession since the great depression, record numbers of people on food stamps and welfare, the middle east is on fire and Europe is being invaded? You have to be a mental defective to stand here and tell me that reality has a liberal bias, based on the implementation of these liberal progressive ideas and how well they have worked out.
Don't blame it on Bush, Obama has had 7 years, 2 with both houses and Bush inherited a recession too (dot com bubble) followed by a massive terrorist attack, but managed to help the economy recover and chug along for 5 years afterwards. Tell me again how reality has a liberal bias, or pull your head out of the echo chamber and look at the facts.
"When they have a discussion about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and they have one guy who agrees, and one who disagrees, that is not balanced."
You seem confused about how balanced debate works. If anthropogenic global warming is a fact, the guy who is for global warming should be easily able to get up there and rattle off facts and quotes by experts and take apart the guy who is against global warming. The reality is that there are a lot of problems both historical and currently for global warming; with the models vs. reality, the methods and integrity of the global temperatures database, and the science is far from settled, no matter how many times liberals stomp their feet and yell that everyone who is smart (aka everyone who agrees with me) believes in it.
What you advocate is neither fair nor balanced nor the proper format for a debate. 49pro and 1 against global warming might give you a liberal orgasm, but it would neither inform the viewer on both sides of the issue, nor be fair to the opposing position. In debate, majority does not make your argument more or less valid, the facts and well reasoned positions do, regardless of how many hold any one position. Just because a position is not popular does not make it wrong, and just because a position is popular, it doesn't make it right. By your logic, we should still believe the earth is flat, because that was at one time the most popular position and the round earth theorists were the minority, so their views should be marginalized and drowned out by the majority.
Fox is the most trusted network in the country, regardless of the insults that you spray at them and their viewership (here is a clue, you are neither smarter nor more clever than their viewership; the O'reilly factor has more college grads tuning in than MSNBC or CNN). You are free to go dig up the study naming Fox most trusted and poke holes in it, or maybe just watch Fox for a while. I suspect that liberals are afraid to watch because after the first hour or two, your anger will fade and the truth laid out there will start to seep in and your liberal convictions on which you base your entire life will start to erode, leaving you with no foundation (don't worry though, that is how you become a conservative/true libertari
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
the networks have a responsibility to give us ALL the facts on BOTH candidates.
That's where I disagree, and that statement is a good illustration of the way the system is set up to work, and how it actually works. I think that networks should show people more than just 2 candidates. I think that any candidate who has the ability to win (i.e. is on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral vote) should be included in televised debates. But, the 2 major parties don't want that to happen, so they make agreements with the networks to say that if the network shows any debate featuring any candidate from any party other than the 2 major parties, then that network will not receive any presidential debates. I think that's bullshit, and that's the system I'm talking about. That's the system that was created and is perpetuated by the parties to favor themselves, to make sure that one of them will always be in power. It used to be different, but the parties formed the Commission On Presidential Debates to perpetuate this fraud that we only have 2 choices. And every single network plays along so that they can sponsor, moderate, or air presidential debates. Presidential debates should be publicly funded and any network that wants to show them should be allowed. They should belong to us all, but instead we get this bullshit political theater created by the parties and pushed by the networks. The Commission On Presidential Debates needs to end, and political parties should be banned from organizing presidential debates. We can do that by ourselves, we don't need their collusion in order to get debates. And people should be presented other candidates so that everyone knows that they have a choice other than Dumb or Dumber. If Johnson or Stein would have been included in the debates then they would have gotten a lot more votes, and we probably would have had higher turnout also.
You have to be a mental defective to stand here and tell me that reality has a liberal bias, based on the implementation of these liberal progressive ideas and how well they have worked out.
All of the problems you mentioned sit squarely on the shoulders of liberals, huh? It was Obama's fault for that recession, wasn't it? He caused those problems, right? Also, Obama founded ISIS, right? How did ISIS form again? It was because of some war, I can't remember which though. Maybe you can tell me who led the country into that war. I suppose the answer is endless war until we kill everyone that needs killing though, right? Maybe that will stop the "invasion" of Europe, which is also totally a thing and definitely not made up by conservatives to scare people.
Don't blame it on Bush
Nice debate tactic. "Don't blame the problem".
Obama has had 7 years, 2 with both houses
Let's go to Mitch McConnell for some quotes about how much they wanted to work with Obama, shall we? The Congress over the last 8 years has been shit, they have accomplished nothing. They have been historically bad. Every single one of them should be kicked out.
You seem confused about how balanced debate works.
Thanks, but I'm not. If 95% of people agree on a particular issue, then it would make sense for a debate to feature 19 people in favor versus 1 opposed. Let's take another example. If Fox shows a debate with 1 guy who believes that the Earth is round, and 1 who believes that it is flat, then that makes it look like a 50/50 issue, right? But it's not. If Fox shows a debate with 1 guy who thinks that the Earth goes around the sun, and 1 guy who thinks that the sun goes around the Earth, then that makes it look like a 50/50 issue, but it's not. The same thing applies to climate change. It's disingenuous to put 2 people up there and let them argue and then say "well, the science obviously isn't settled, so we'll leave it up to you, dear viewer." That's the bias of Fo
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black