4 ms·

This became painfully clear to me particularly during the 2016 primaries. I watched as news organizations I formerly respected--CNN, NYT, NPR, WaPo--shamelessly

by wycy 9y ago

This became painfully clear to me particularly during the 2016 primaries. I watched as news organizations I formerly respected--CNN, NYT, NPR, WaPo--shamelessly twisted facts and spun deliberatly misleading narratives, even on their front pages. CNN now acts indignant when Trump calls them fake news, but because of what they did, they've made him not entirely wrong, and I'm annoyed that they gave him that ammunition. I think the best way to combat fake news is to have trusted, respected news organizations. But now both the right and the left no longer fully trust these organizations, so people have started looking elsewhere. IMO, the only way to fix it is for these organizations to start reporting honestly to try to regain our trust---so I think fake news is going to continue to be a problem. Disclaimer: I know that CNN/NYT/NPR/WaPo propaganda is nothing compared to Fox News/conservative media. But it was misleading enough to shatter the trust of many people, including me.

jacquesm 9y ago
> shamelessly twisted facts and spun deliberatly misleading narratives, even on their front pages. Examples?
s2g 9y ago
> But it was misleading enough to shatter the trust of many people, including me. Which story was so fake that you can't trust them anymore? Honestly, I think people like you are a big part of the problem. OH you know that places like Breitbart are worse, but you just can't bring yourself to trust the Washington post. Do you not see how much that sort of attitude contributes to the much bigger problem?
- wycy 9y ago
  I mean there were constant examples throughout 2016, but here was a fun one to rewatch: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/17/cenk_ugyur_cnn_never_showed_you_what_really_happened_at_nevada_dem_convention.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/17/cenk_ugyu... In the wake of Wikileaks revealing that what CNN called a baseless conspiracy theory was actually true, this was a fun trip down memory lane.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    CNN gets stuff wrong from time to time, sometimes badly wrong. But I would stop at seeing this as a structural problem, they're not lying wholesale, all the time like Fox does and even though I'm fairly sure they have a bias - just like almost every other news organization - unless you are hyper partisan yourself it likely won't influence you. The Sanders/Clinton controversy may be a huge issue to you but what the likes of Breitbart, Fox and so on are doing is on an entirely different scale. All this besides the fact that Clinton stood a much better chance against Trump than Bernie Sanders ever did. She even won the popular vote.
    - wycy 9y ago
      > All this besides the fact that Clinton stood a much better chance against Trump than Bernie Sanders ever did. She even won the popular vote. I mean, every poll at the time suggested otherwise: https://imgur.com/a/K9Rzr https://imgur.com/a/K9Rzr Additionally, Sanders is a guy who did very well with exactly the demographic that HRC lost. But I digress-- I agree that Breitbart and Fox are far worse than the rest of corporate media, and I still watch CNN/MSNBC every weekday. But I go into it with a much higher level of skepticism and the knowledge that I need to seek other sources of information if I want to know what's going on beside the corporate-friendly narrative.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        That's Quinnipac which is about as biased towards the GOP as they can get away with. The game ahead of a general election is to try to sow as much division in the camp of your opponent and to get them to elect the weakest candidate that increases your own chances during the real thing. The main takeaway for me is that elections are more often than not choosing the 'least bad' candidate rather than the best candidate. I personally don't think Clinton should have run at all, but I think the same about Sanders and Trump. All of them have substantial baggage and in some cases serious doubt about their qualifications and mental stability. If those three people were the best that could be found in a country of 300+ million people then that's indicative of a much larger problem. I do think that neither Sanders nor Clinton would have fucked up to the extent that Donald Trump is currently doing. If this really will go on for almost three more years you'll be able to say you were there when America lost its place. And no doubt CNN will cover it.

by wycy 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago

> shamelessly twisted facts and spun deliberatly misleading narratives, even on their front pages. Examples?

s2g 9y ago

> But it was misleading enough to shatter the trust of many people, including me. Which story was so fake that you can't trust them anymore? Honestly, I think people like you are a big part of the problem. OH you know that places like Breitbart are worse, but you just can't bring yourself to trust the Washington post. Do you not see how much that sort of attitude contributes to the much bigger problem?

wycy 9y ago
I mean there were constant examples throughout 2016, but here was a fun one to rewatch: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/17/cenk_ugyur_cnn_never_showed_you_what_really_happened_at_nevada_dem_convention.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/17/cenk_ugyu... In the wake of Wikileaks revealing that what CNN called a baseless conspiracy theory was actually true, this was a fun trip down memory lane.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  CNN gets stuff wrong from time to time, sometimes badly wrong. But I would stop at seeing this as a structural problem, they're not lying wholesale, all the time like Fox does and even though I'm fairly sure they have a bias - just like almost every other news organization - unless you are hyper partisan yourself it likely won't influence you. The Sanders/Clinton controversy may be a huge issue to you but what the likes of Breitbart, Fox and so on are doing is on an entirely different scale. All this besides the fact that Clinton stood a much better chance against Trump than Bernie Sanders ever did. She even won the popular vote.
  - wycy 9y ago
    > All this besides the fact that Clinton stood a much better chance against Trump than Bernie Sanders ever did. She even won the popular vote. I mean, every poll at the time suggested otherwise: https://imgur.com/a/K9Rzr https://imgur.com/a/K9Rzr Additionally, Sanders is a guy who did very well with exactly the demographic that HRC lost. But I digress-- I agree that Breitbart and Fox are far worse than the rest of corporate media, and I still watch CNN/MSNBC every weekday. But I go into it with a much higher level of skepticism and the knowledge that I need to seek other sources of information if I want to know what's going on beside the corporate-friendly narrative.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      That's Quinnipac which is about as biased towards the GOP as they can get away with. The game ahead of a general election is to try to sow as much division in the camp of your opponent and to get them to elect the weakest candidate that increases your own chances during the real thing. The main takeaway for me is that elections are more often than not choosing the 'least bad' candidate rather than the best candidate. I personally don't think Clinton should have run at all, but I think the same about Sanders and Trump. All of them have substantial baggage and in some cases serious doubt about their qualifications and mental stability. If those three people were the best that could be found in a country of 300+ million people then that's indicative of a much larger problem. I do think that neither Sanders nor Clinton would have fucked up to the extent that Donald Trump is currently doing. If this really will go on for almost three more years you'll be able to say you were there when America lost its place. And no doubt CNN will cover it.