3 ms·

This line of thought is one of the more troubling (among many others) of the Trump "fake news" parroting nonsense we see lately. WaPo / NYT are pretty much sing

This line of thought is one of the more troubling (among many others) of the Trump "fake news" parroting nonsense we see lately. WaPo / NYT are pretty much single handedly bringing down Trump by constantly releasing info on how he is subverting democracy (thanks again to the NYT for the bombshell yesterday), but since he hates it he calls it "fake", and his supporters parrot this nonsense and it spreads. Just because they are reporting facts Trump doesn't like doesn't make them fake.

colordrops 9y ago
The situation with news is not so black and white.
- res0nat0r 9y ago
  Sure but in this instance, Trump screams "fake!!!111" when the NYT reports anything about him breaking or subverting the law, then turns around and calls Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush into the White House for interviews, and personally calls Robert Costa of WaPo on his phone when his healthcare bill is about to be pulled. I'm stating that his repeated use of fake on anything he doesn't like, to get his supporters to only get their source of truth from him is dangerous, and what wannabe dictators try to do.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    Sure, but we weren't talking about Trump or the term "fake news".
    - res0nat0r 9y ago
      OP pretty much is repeating the Trump talking point, that no matter how many Pulitzers the "mainstream" (aka: news that actually prints non flattering facts about Trump) they are all political hacks that can't be trusted, so yeah we are....
      - colordrops 9y ago
        Those are not Trump talking points. They've been said for decades by countless people, including Noam Chomksy. The OP mentioned both left and right wing papers. Would you think the sky was red because Trump said it was blue? Just because trump has hair on his head doesn't make hair wrong.
        res0nat0r 9y ago
        It seems you're not managing to even read or respond to any of the points of my posts above which is all about concerns that Trump keeps spouting "fake news" to try his hand at becoming a tin pot dictator. No matter, have a good one.
        colordrops 9y ago
        Sure, I'd prefer not to have discussions that go in circles. I didn't respond to your points because you changed the subject to Trump. We aren't talking about Trump or "fake news". You claimed the OP was using Trump talking points, which I disagree with. Why should I waste time arguing about Trump when you and I most likely agree on his idiocy?

colordrops 9y ago

The situation with news is not so black and white.

res0nat0r 9y ago
Sure but in this instance, Trump screams "fake!!!111" when the NYT reports anything about him breaking or subverting the law, then turns around and calls Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush into the White House for interviews, and personally calls Robert Costa of WaPo on his phone when his healthcare bill is about to be pulled. I'm stating that his repeated use of fake on anything he doesn't like, to get his supporters to only get their source of truth from him is dangerous, and what wannabe dictators try to do.
- colordrops 9y ago
  Sure, but we weren't talking about Trump or the term "fake news".
  - res0nat0r 9y ago
    OP pretty much is repeating the Trump talking point, that no matter how many Pulitzers the "mainstream" (aka: news that actually prints non flattering facts about Trump) they are all political hacks that can't be trusted, so yeah we are....
    - colordrops 9y ago
      Those are not Trump talking points. They've been said for decades by countless people, including Noam Chomksy. The OP mentioned both left and right wing papers. Would you think the sky was red because Trump said it was blue? Just because trump has hair on his head doesn't make hair wrong.
      - res0nat0r 9y ago
        It seems you're not managing to even read or respond to any of the points of my posts above which is all about concerns that Trump keeps spouting "fake news" to try his hand at becoming a tin pot dictator. No matter, have a good one.
        colordrops 9y ago
        Sure, I'd prefer not to have discussions that go in circles. I didn't respond to your points because you changed the subject to Trump. We aren't talking about Trump or "fake news". You claimed the OP was using Trump talking points, which I disagree with. Why should I waste time arguing about Trump when you and I most likely agree on his idiocy?