8 ms·

The whole FUD campaign regarding "Fake News" is comically hypocritical in my opinion. Glenn Greenwald has an excellent article calling them out for it: https:/

The whole FUD campaign regarding "Fake News" is comically hypocritical in my opinion. Glenn Greenwald has an excellent article calling them out for it: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactur... Edit: Ironically, that post was doing great until it got flagged. Edit 2: It has been unflagged Edit 3: Flagged again.

sydd 10y ago
Great article. Although I wonder why it fails to criticize Trump's side...
- xkcd-sucks 10y ago
  Probably because the people that read the intercept already think poorly of trump, and the article had a word limit
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  You could also say the opposite about every Washington Post article released since the election.
- andrepd 10y ago
  I can't fathom why an article calling the fake news phenomenon an FUD campaign would fail to critizice Trump's side... Seriously though, the article is comically bad. It oozes bile and anger and it's so comically and blatantly one-sided it's almost funny in a so-bad-that-it's-good way.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
leephillips 10y ago
Greenwald's "excellent" piece is itself fake news. It deliberately misrepresents the reporting done by Kurt Eichenwald about the leaked emails. We know it's deliberate because he's distorted the story the same way in the past and it's been pointed out to him. Eichenwald did not claim that the leaked information was false, but showed, to a high degree of certainty, that Trump campaign staffers were working with Russian disinformation operatives. It was an amazing story.
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  "showed, to a high degree of certainty, that Trump campaign staffers were working with Russian disinformation operatives." Can you show me what warrants a high degree of certainty for that claim? Because as far as I know there is no evidence for this beyond the tenuous circumstantial nature of Clinton's dirty laundry helping Trump, and a Trump presidency is less likely to start a war with Russia.
  - leephillips 10y ago
    I was talking about Eichenwald's reporting that is pointed to by Greenwald. You're quoting my reference and commenting on it without having read it.
  - RCortex 10y ago
    Not the piece above, but here it is. This article has a lot of links/sources on how Trump's campaign statements and Russian propaganda are almost word-for-word identical, and in general complementary. This is from back in August. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/understanding-the-role-of-russian-propaganda-in-the-us-election http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/underst...
- hrxn 10y ago
  All news is fake news, we get it..
- tshaddox 10y ago
  When you have a "nuh uh, YOU'RE the one that's fake" situation between two apparently reputable news sources, on a topic with which you have no personal experience or expertise, how are you supposed to figure out which ones are fake? The instances of so-called "fake news" that I have seen are quite easy for me to "verify" as fake with relative confidence: it's generally an explicitly partisan source with a shady-looking website making an outlandish claim that is not corroborated by any traditional news outlet. The situation you've just described sounds much more difficult for me to verify.
  - 10y ago
whybroke 10y ago
An exact opposite equally excellent article from the same publication calling out the FUD we know as 'Fake News' And this one avoids words like 'shameful' and 'disgusting' https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette...

sydd 10y ago

Great article. Although I wonder why it fails to criticize Trump's side...

xkcd-sucks 10y ago
Probably because the people that read the intercept already think poorly of trump, and the article had a word limit
gnarbarian 10y ago
You could also say the opposite about every Washington Post article released since the election.
andrepd 10y ago
I can't fathom why an article calling the fake news phenomenon an FUD campaign would fail to critizice Trump's side... Seriously though, the article is comically bad. It oozes bile and anger and it's so comically and blatantly one-sided it's almost funny in a so-bad-that-it's-good way.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

leephillips 10y ago

Greenwald's "excellent" piece is itself fake news. It deliberately misrepresents the reporting done by Kurt Eichenwald about the leaked emails. We know it's deliberate because he's distorted the story the same way in the past and it's been pointed out to him. Eichenwald did not claim that the leaked information was false, but showed, to a high degree of certainty, that Trump campaign staffers were working with Russian disinformation operatives. It was an amazing story.

gnarbarian 10y ago
"showed, to a high degree of certainty, that Trump campaign staffers were working with Russian disinformation operatives." Can you show me what warrants a high degree of certainty for that claim? Because as far as I know there is no evidence for this beyond the tenuous circumstantial nature of Clinton's dirty laundry helping Trump, and a Trump presidency is less likely to start a war with Russia.
- leephillips 10y ago
  I was talking about Eichenwald's reporting that is pointed to by Greenwald. You're quoting my reference and commenting on it without having read it.
- RCortex 10y ago
  Not the piece above, but here it is. This article has a lot of links/sources on how Trump's campaign statements and Russian propaganda are almost word-for-word identical, and in general complementary. This is from back in August. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/understanding-the-role-of-russian-propaganda-in-the-us-election http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/underst...
hrxn 10y ago
All news is fake news, we get it..
tshaddox 10y ago
When you have a "nuh uh, YOU'RE the one that's fake" situation between two apparently reputable news sources, on a topic with which you have no personal experience or expertise, how are you supposed to figure out which ones are fake? The instances of so-called "fake news" that I have seen are quite easy for me to "verify" as fake with relative confidence: it's generally an explicitly partisan source with a shady-looking website making an outlandish claim that is not corroborated by any traditional news outlet. The situation you've just described sounds much more difficult for me to verify.
- 10y ago

whybroke 10y ago

An exact opposite equally excellent article from the same publication calling out the FUD we know as 'Fake News' And this one avoids words like 'shameful' and 'disgusting' https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette...