3 ms·

It's not true that the people you mention in the first paragraph were punished after a single instance of fake news. The truth is that networks like NBC are as

by Svexark 10y ago

It's not true that the people you mention in the first paragraph were punished after a single instance of fake news. The truth is that networks like NBC are as loose with the truth as Breitbart and have been for decades. Millenials won't remember what it was like flipping through the nightly news shows before the internet and seeing the same false stories reported on different networks with the same phrases and clips of the same "experts". The only difference now is that they have competition. Other organizations can call them out on their lies when they become too outrageous. But the news media has always been hyperpartisan and full of lies. Edit: Yeah. Just downvote, cowards.

iamdave 10y ago
Instead of calling downvoters cowards can you point to something that substantiates your argument? I was able to swiftly look for and find the exact story re: Rather and Olbermann mentioned in the parent comment. What do you offer here to counter this that doesn't rely on me blindly taking your word for it?
danielvf 10y ago
I belive the fundamental difference is that in the old system, someone could be incredibly selective in which facts they used, and slant those facts as much as they wanted, but the sacred line than could not be crossed was making up facts. However, in this new thing, reputation free news, right and left, the baseline of facts is gone.
- sremani 10y ago
  Fact is there are no good old days, in the gatekeeper era only a select few got to BS, now that BS vending is widespread. The Networks act certain way because remember they use the "airwaves" permitted to them by the public for common good. That is it. As some one said, If Trump were to walk on Water, NYT would report, Trump cannot swim. We already know no positive headline would come out of NYT for a Republican president, so is it really "highly" credible? If we think these are the worst of the times, then we really do not have depth about what happened in the past. The Press wants good old days, where they were demi-gods with access to contacts and info, and in this information age that bar has been lowered and Facebook is eating their "attention" lunch. If looked objectively NYT is just being a whinny grumpy old man.
  - dandersh 10y ago
    Or the NYT would parrot his war machine propaganda (Judith Miller and Iraq war) and bury his illegal dragnet surveillance (NSA warrantless wiretapping). The NYT (and MSM in general) do not have a liberal bias but an establishment bias...unless of course we're supposed to seriously believe that they buried Bernie and elevated Hillary because "he wasn't as liberal as Hillary"...
    - sremani 10y ago
      If the Past 8 years are any evidence, I would disagree with your analysis of "establishment" bias. Even with Snowden revelations its every body but Obama that was guilty. edit: I m being specific to NYT.
      - dandersh 10y ago
        You can "disagree" with it all you want, but you just cited an example in support of it...Obama and the NSA (the establishment) wasn't the bad guy, Snowden (i.e. Emmanual Goldstein) was.
sparkzilla 10y ago
There are many examples of the mainstream media manipulating the news to suit their preferred narrative. I have written about this a bit, using the example of how the New York Times, and their associated fact checkers, pushed the false narrative that Trump mocked a reporter's disability. [1] There are hundreds of other examples, but you have to make the effort to get out of your bubble to see them. As for the topic: Traditional media is losing its distribution to social networks, so it's fighting back with what it sees as its market advantage: The Truth. However, the new distribution methods allow users to find the truth in a different way from before. Instead of Dan Rather telling you the one true news, people collect their news from multiple sources and make their minds up. As with distribution, the mainstream media is set to lose this next part of the battle. [1] http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/ http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/
- Pxtl 10y ago
  That is not fake news. Trump made a pallsy gesture when mocking a disabled reporter who actually crooks his arms like that. It's not the media's fault he's the kind of bloated jackass who makes pallsy gestures when mocking everybody. They saw something that walked and talked like a duck and called it a duck. You supported a bloviating toddler for president, don't call it "fake news" when somebody notices. That's not even what fake news even means. "Fake news" is yet another example of the right perverting a word to mock others for their own weaknesses. Fake news isn't slightly distorting the facts or lying by omission, it's making things up from whole cloth. Obama birth certificate nonsense is "fake news". Pizzagate is fake news. Trump making pallsy gestures when mocking a disabled reporter is literally what happened. The only thing is some missing nuance that he does that to everybody because he's a dick.
  - fatbird 10y ago
    Ironically, when discussing the NYT and fake news, one might make a strong case with Judith Miller's reporting on Iraq, or Wen Ho Lee. There's lots of scandals where major outlets have pursued obviously agenda driven stories to the point of journalistic malpractice. But what Sparkzilla sees as fake news is the most literal reporting on the most straightforward example on which there's almost no disagreement by anyone else.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by Svexark 10y ago

iamdave 10y ago

Instead of calling downvoters cowards can you point to something that substantiates your argument? I was able to swiftly look for and find the exact story re: Rather and Olbermann mentioned in the parent comment. What do you offer here to counter this that doesn't rely on me blindly taking your word for it?

danielvf 10y ago

I belive the fundamental difference is that in the old system, someone could be incredibly selective in which facts they used, and slant those facts as much as they wanted, but the sacred line than could not be crossed was making up facts. However, in this new thing, reputation free news, right and left, the baseline of facts is gone.

sremani 10y ago
Fact is there are no good old days, in the gatekeeper era only a select few got to BS, now that BS vending is widespread. The Networks act certain way because remember they use the "airwaves" permitted to them by the public for common good. That is it. As some one said, If Trump were to walk on Water, NYT would report, Trump cannot swim. We already know no positive headline would come out of NYT for a Republican president, so is it really "highly" credible? If we think these are the worst of the times, then we really do not have depth about what happened in the past. The Press wants good old days, where they were demi-gods with access to contacts and info, and in this information age that bar has been lowered and Facebook is eating their "attention" lunch. If looked objectively NYT is just being a whinny grumpy old man.
- dandersh 10y ago
  Or the NYT would parrot his war machine propaganda (Judith Miller and Iraq war) and bury his illegal dragnet surveillance (NSA warrantless wiretapping). The NYT (and MSM in general) do not have a liberal bias but an establishment bias...unless of course we're supposed to seriously believe that they buried Bernie and elevated Hillary because "he wasn't as liberal as Hillary"...
  - sremani 10y ago
    If the Past 8 years are any evidence, I would disagree with your analysis of "establishment" bias. Even with Snowden revelations its every body but Obama that was guilty. edit: I m being specific to NYT.
    - dandersh 10y ago
      You can "disagree" with it all you want, but you just cited an example in support of it...Obama and the NSA (the establishment) wasn't the bad guy, Snowden (i.e. Emmanual Goldstein) was.

sparkzilla 10y ago

There are many examples of the mainstream media manipulating the news to suit their preferred narrative. I have written about this a bit, using the example of how the New York Times, and their associated fact checkers, pushed the false narrative that Trump mocked a reporter's disability. [1] There are hundreds of other examples, but you have to make the effort to get out of your bubble to see them. As for the topic: Traditional media is losing its distribution to social networks, so it's fighting back with what it sees as its market advantage: The Truth. However, the new distribution methods allow users to find the truth in a different way from before. Instead of Dan Rather telling you the one true news, people collect their news from multiple sources and make their minds up. As with distribution, the mainstream media is set to lose this next part of the battle. [1] http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/ http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/

Pxtl 10y ago
That is not fake news. Trump made a pallsy gesture when mocking a disabled reporter who actually crooks his arms like that. It's not the media's fault he's the kind of bloated jackass who makes pallsy gestures when mocking everybody. They saw something that walked and talked like a duck and called it a duck. You supported a bloviating toddler for president, don't call it "fake news" when somebody notices. That's not even what fake news even means. "Fake news" is yet another example of the right perverting a word to mock others for their own weaknesses. Fake news isn't slightly distorting the facts or lying by omission, it's making things up from whole cloth. Obama birth certificate nonsense is "fake news". Pizzagate is fake news. Trump making pallsy gestures when mocking a disabled reporter is literally what happened. The only thing is some missing nuance that he does that to everybody because he's a dick.
- fatbird 10y ago
  Ironically, when discussing the NYT and fake news, one might make a strong case with Judith Miller's reporting on Iraq, or Wen Ho Lee. There's lots of scandals where major outlets have pursued obviously agenda driven stories to the point of journalistic malpractice. But what Sparkzilla sees as fake news is the most literal reporting on the most straightforward example on which there's almost no disagreement by anyone else.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]