True news vs fake news

[Taomeow]

A New York Times journalist was granted an interview with Donald Trump, but the latter didn't want to do it at the office, he said he was planning on a walk in the West Village and would talk on the go.  The journalist agreed.  So they walk along the Hudson, the journalist asking questions, Trump answering, and suddenly a gust of wind tears the cap off the journalist's head and it flies straight into the river.  Trump, the show-off that he is, jumps over the rail, runs on water, picks up the cap, climbs back and hands it to the journalist.

 

The next day a huge headline in The New York Times reads,

"Donald Trump Can't Swim."

[dust]

I'm trying not to take this too seriously or read too much into it, but... drawing a parallel between Trump and Christ, no?

Even in a silly parable like this, portraying Trump as running/walking on water, hinting at a comparison with 'Our Lord & Saviour'?

 

Then again, Jesus thought a lot of himself, pretended to be able to do things that were not in his power, and many of his supporters are fanatical lunatics who will believe anything they read as long as it makes them happy, so... maybe the comparison is apt.

[Aetherous]

Regarding this onslaught of fake news about "fake news", I liked this real news article about it:

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda

[Brian]

About a month ago, The White House formed and put itself in charge of a taskforce (including DHS, CIA, NSA and "other elements of the Defense Department" to combat "cyber-meddling" -- including misinformation on social media platforms. We can all rest easy now.

[MooNiNite]

Democrats and the media are afraid of PizzaGate. Which is very very convincing. 

[MooNiNite]

Fake news is when the New York Times says Hillary has an 85% chance of winning the election

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

 

Or when the camera man wont turn the camera when thousands of people ask him to

 

[dawei]

Fake news is when the New York Times says Hillary has an 85% chance of winning the election

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

 

 

Isn't this kind of a gray area of fake news... as  it is more like bad polling techniques resulting in data that did not reflect the states.

[MooNiNite]

Isn't this kind of a gray area of fake news... as  it is more like bad polling techniques resulting in data that did not reflect the states.

Absolutely not that is not *bad polling techniques* that is the media being bought in a corporate america. It is fake biased news. You think the camera man wasn't trained how to turn the camera? Just like this dude accidentally dropped the feed? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWqa2EIBAxY

 

i can't open your eyes, you have to do it yourself

Edited December 6, 2016 by MooNiNite

[MooNiNite]

Isn't this kind of a gray area of fake news... as  it is more like bad polling techniques resulting in data that did not reflect the states.

 

You have to look at the whether or not the "bad polling techniques" are premeditated and deceptive.

 

Trump is the 45th president, what they haven't figured out what "bad polling techniques" are?

[MooNiNite]

The "Real News CNN" must have used "bad polling techniques" to accidentally give Hillary the debate questions in advance too. right?

[TheWhiteRabbit]

Isn't this kind of a gray area of fake news... as  it is more like bad polling techniques resulting in data that did not reflect the states.

 

It was more of a realization:

 

1.  People saw that Trump got more media coverage than anyone but did not understand why.

        i.  In fact more people argue over what techniques and more he was using and this scared them.

        ii.  In addition it caused divisions when they tried to counter his tactics SO.. that is why what happened next was not too amazing.

 

2.  People wanted "ThEIR" candidate to win SO.  They censored trump.  Who was in Louisiana handing out food during the flood? It was not Obama, nor Clinton.  Yes, it was Trump, and this was completely censored and people did not see this on television media.  Remember when he shook the hands of a black  bishop in Detroit and the bishop thanked him? No.  They actually over the air told the camera man to "pull the plug".

 

3.  In addition, no one who is doing a job willingly puts their jobs on the line for the sake of preference.  So money is involved.  News anchors definately do not assign preference over candidates so this is usually decided by management or who ever has money to spend.  This has been an increasing tend especially post 2008 with media.  So, I am not suprised.

 

4.  Have you ever had people speak "for you"?  It can be really annoying.  That is more or less what happened to America.  Americans were told to vote a specific way.  They were told that they already were going to vote a certain way.  What happens when you really annoy people like that and do not bother to tell people what the real results are?  Well, everyone stubborn is going to be upset.  So, sure there are many other factors but the stuff that was in plain sight that most people "caught" was what unsettled most people who voted.  I mean we could argue about other minor details till the cows come home (around 10pm btw) and still the most profane and memorable contraditions always stand out.

 

Sure it is'nt an end all be all post.  I suppose I should apologize in a way.  What I really meant to say was America felt like people were tryig to pull the wool over our eyes and America responded.   

[MooNiNite]

It isn't hard to realize that the media has literally been purchased. 

[dawei]

You guys are missing my point which is the challenge with data itself.

 

You can go to a mall and poll 100 folks and say that Hillary has an 80% chance of winning BASED ON THE POLL.

 

There is nothing fake about that nor the data points polled.

The problem is this poll is simply not indicative of a real outcome.

 

You could say they polled the wrong people, not enough people, etc.. but I would not call it fake news until it starts to get distorted... when an news outlet starts claiming that "polls show that Hillary has an 80% of winning" and there is no explanation of the data points.  And all the bias that follows.    But the source of this problem is how they polled.   It was done wrong.

 

This is why data is dangerous in the hands of some.  And why the saying: "There lies, damn lies, and statistics".

[Aetherous]

I suspect much of the polling was fake (don't have any evidence of this, just a gut feeling). If you tell the public there's absolutely no chance for the undesirable candidate to win, then they will lose hope and not vote for him...compared to if you say the race is tight, then they show up in droves to try to win.

[Brian]

It isn't hard to realize that the media has literally been purchased.

Bought but at a ridiculously low price because the industry is almost entirely in one camp (as opposed to assiduously striving to maintain objectivity).

[dawei]

Bought but at a ridiculously low price because the industry is almost entirely in one camp (as opposed to assiduously striving to maintain objectivity).

 

I think you mentioned somewhere something along the lines that this is not really something new as much as it is something that has come to fruition; that this was brewing for quite a while in history and the coffee pot has simply not signaled its time to drink...

 

That is where I'm coming from to a degree but likely with less historical understanding... but I would say that we're not seeing anything new among news and journalism; what we're seeing as new is calling out the news as BS.    Fake news has always existed, it is only now that the majority have woken up to it due to the bugle call of Trump railing against the news coupled with the election results.

 

I'm seeing folks from Chris Wallace to Anderson Cooper calling BS on their guests.  In another clip, I saw a Washington Post reporter get schooled on journalism and it still went completely over her head. It went something like this:

 

News Host: Some european leader made the comment that the problem in american journalism is they take words too literally.   You have to realize words carry lots of meaning and uses.

 

WP Reporter:  I hear words and read words and write words... I hang on words.  What can I do ?

 

Ah... the host just told you want to do... step back and understand the context and words and what is the objective point of view of what is going on here...

 

Let's take for example how the data goes biased:

 

A story breaks about Trump blasting Boeing's costs of the next Air Force One.   Then one outlet reports that the Chicago Tribune had just run a story of Boeing talking about the need for global free trade, as a slam on the US getting out of certain trade agreements.

 

Someone like Huff Post will write: "Trump castigates Boeing in revenge for their comments against Trump who is known to seek an 'eye for an eye' , and they then quote some 1980 video show Trump quotes...  In the process, the original story of the cost is lost to some vindictive reason.

 

Another more objective news will write that Trump pushed back on the costs and this comes on the heels of the Tribune article... but there is no proof the two are related.

 

Then CNN might quote this objective news but leave out the last part and only report:  Trump pushed back on the costs and this comes on the heels of the Tribune article.

 

Everyone is spinning it to a narrative they want.    So what has failed here?   And is anything really new going on ?

 

I do think there is very little that is new except we're seeing a culmination of bad journalism, bad journalism education, cultural/educational/technological influences on newer generations whereby there is an ingrained ignoring of objectivity.  

 

In a sense, the gift package of critical thinking was opened and what was inside the box was simply opinion and bias...

[dawei]

I suspect much of the polling was fake (don't have any evidence of this, just a gut feeling). If you tell the public there's absolutely no chance for the undesirable candidate to win, then they will lose hope and not vote for him...compared to if you say the race is tight, then they show up in droves to try to win.

 

To some degree, I would agree with such influences.  And there was huge bias and the silliness of the celebrities making outrage claims lends to the bias.  What has not really been talked about more is that the celebrity bluff (ie: "I'll leave the country if Trump wins) is  a powerful generator for fake news and exposes they will lie as much as politicians.   While some are saying the election outcome is a request for change away from politicians, it may equally be a request for celebrities to shut their mouth unless they will stand by their word and stay out of politics.

 

But I think certain issues are still overlooked when looking at polls as numbers are so damn hard to interpret.  Pollsters relied on the past and listened too literally to the numbers and didn't pay attention to other issues.   For example:   Trump's rallies far outnumbered Hillary's but that was ignored.   A few AI machines which have predicted almost every presidential outcome they have been used for said Trump would win.  This last item is very curious as in this day and age, everyone ignored our technological advancement that we're so proud of for the basic, unreliable opinion of the masses.

 

Now, here is another thing: The argument that Trump has divided the country is nonsense and a biased, fake news worthy topic that fails to admit that the popular vote essentially shows that Hillary would of had an equally divided country had she won.  It was divided before and after the election.   That is nothing new going on.   

 

What is news worthy, IMO, is that the elections show Trump flipped certain areas and that caught the attention of most every news outlet covering the election realized this.  What doesn't get enough news is that although we might of had 60% of eligible voters actually vote, that level has not been since 1960s... but we lag most developed countries; one stat I saw the US was 30th out of 35 in voter turnout.

 

So the biased and fake news not only changes votes but suppresses voting.    That is a divided country issue we are not hearing about.

[windwalker]

“According to the Weather Channel, the Breitbart column is “a prime example of cherry-picking,” in which a single item is taken out of context to build a misleading case. The article later attracted even more attention after the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology somewhat inexplicably shared it on Twitter.”

 

The problem with labeling something fake or not seems to me to resolve the reader of  any

critical thinking in questioning what he or she reads.   With the advent of multiple sources for news. One's own underlying biases can either be reinforced, questioned, or changed depending on one's own critical thinking skill set.

 

Which in today's modern schools seem to be discouraged in favor of whatever the popular narrative is.

 

The real danger as I see it, this paves the way for some type of self censorship by the fourth estate as it’s called promoting their own narrative based in biases which they they either are, or are not aware of…..

 

China, controls the content of political discourse on their web,,,which they consider very disruptive to their society at large.

 

The US seems to be finding a way to do the same “real” or “fake” news is just the beginning part of this.

Edited December 7, 2016 by windwalker

[Astral Monk]

The 'fake news' meme is yet another way to marginalise alternative and independent media sources.

 

However, 'news' itself has always been a product sold in our capitalist society. It was never about integrity or representing 'truth' or 'facts' but about selling papers, books, adverts, etc etc.

 

To hear 'real news' you need to listen to whistleblowers. Or just look out your window  and see whats happening in your city yourself.

 

8)

[MooNiNite]

Is this fake news? I seriously dont know. 

 

Pentagon paid PR firm $540mn to make fake terrorist videos

https://www.rt.com/usa/361385-pentagon-pr-firm-terrorist-videos/

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pentagon-fake-terrorist-videos/

 

snopes is garbage...

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/03/the-pentagon-spent-540-million-on-fake-terrorist-videos/

[windwalker]

[MooNiNite]

Anybody else find it curious that we're hearing about Russia's interference with our elections, only after Jill Stein's recount amounted to nothing?

[Aetherous]

Anybody else find it curious that we're hearing about Russia's interference with our elections, only after Jill Stein's recount amounted to nothing?

 

All that they (supposedly CIA personnel) have to say for this is that Russia hacked Democrat emails and sent them to WikiLeaks...that's all they've got. (Although, the truth is that Podesta's weren't hacked...he left his cell phone in a cab, and someone got access that way. Not a Russian source.) They are not saying that Russians hacked voting machines. They're saying that Russian government gave the order to leak the truth, which could have swayed the American opinion.

 

It was a messy election. Trump's campaign was also interfered with in a similar way...his private conversation of "locker room talk" was aired, just like the stuff in people's emails was aired. That leaks come from Russia or America...both are interference. And both are revelatory, and liberating.

 

FBI currently isn't so quick to jump to conclusions about Russia giving the order to hack emails and sway the election, as supposed-CIA is.

 

I am staring into my crystal ball and I see that the BS won't stop, even after Jan 20th.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Aetherous

[wilfred]

the fake news push has a lot to do with a certain conspiracy, if you catch my drift.

[dawei]

Visualizations Related to Poll: Credibility of Major News Sources

 

https://www.graphiq.com/vlp/4Tx0aYe6bWZ?data-script-version=true&data-sv=1.2.0&data-index=0&utm_source=viz&utm_medium=viz.referral&utm_campaign=viz.ref&utm_viz_id=4Tx0aYe6bWZ&utm_cat=Bar%2FLine%2FArea&utm_click_loc=footer&utm_pubreferrer=s.yimg.com%2Fos%2Fyc%2Fhtml%2Fembed-iframe-min.7f33a83d.html#0-Poll-Credibility-of-Major-News-Sources

 

I often like charts and data tables but usually suspicious when they are poll driven... but this seems interesting to share.