6 ms·

Fact checking is far from a solved problem. The can of worms that Trump opened when he started the "fake news" conversation is still very much open.

by palsir 6y ago

newacct583 6y ago
Trump didn't start that "conversation". "Fake News" was a term originally intended to reflect the false "news-like" advertisements that were being purchased on social media (primarily Facebook, and primarily targetting conservative users). Trump appropriated it as a way to label unflattering news coverage from mainstream sources.
- pyronik19 6y ago
  Hardly just unflattering, MSM pushed the "Russia" narrative for 3 years and there was literally nothing there. Hard to call that anything other than fake news. In fact its looking more and more like the actions from the Obama admin were likely highly corrupt and there will likely people going to jail. Just recently the media has been reporting that Trump called the virus a "hoax", which was a complete lie.
  - llcoolv 6y ago
    Yet another post, that is 100% factually correct and still gets downvoted into oblivion by the leftist bots. LOL.
  - mytherin 6y ago
    I'm curious what you mean by "literally nothing there", considering dozens of people have been charged and found guilty/jailed with crimes relating to the investigation, many of which were part of the Trump administration or working closely together with them [1]. Paul Manafort, the chairman of Donald Trumps' 2016 campaign is currently serving a 7.5 year prison sentence relating to this investigation. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2018/dec/05/robert-mueller-who-charged-list-trump-russia-inquiry-latest-indictments-flynn-manafort-cohen-what-happens-next https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2018/dec/...
    - llcoolv 6y ago
      > Paul Manafort, the chairman of Donald Trumps' 2016 campaign is currently serving a 7.5 year prison sentence relating to this investigation. "He was convicted on five counts of tax fraud, one of the four counts of failing to disclose his foreign bank accounts, and two counts of bank fraud." So, he was convicted of tax fraud and bureaucratic discrepencies. While factually related to the investigation, none of these charges has nothing to do with what the investigation was about.
      - newacct583 6y ago
        I don't know the source you're quoting, but it's pure spin. The tax fraud and reporting violation were in direct service to the need to hide his foreign payments from Russian interests. You're also forgetting his guilty pleas for failing to register as a foreign agent (Russia again) and witness tampering (which is criminal obstruction of justice!). This is all directly related to his work for Russia and Russian interests, in exactly the same way that Al Capone's famous tax evasion conviction was the result of his operation of a criminal organization.
        llcoolv 6y ago
        Apologies, the source is wikipedia's page on Paul Manafort[1]. Also the article says he was involved with Yanukovich, not with Putin, but still in the worst case this is in the equivalent to the Biden-Poroshenko tape[2]. Tax fraud rendering you guilty of all the bad things you were ever accused of is not really sound logic. Also, I am not really defending Manaford - tbh after reading more on him, this whole Ukrainian foray seems to be one of his lesser offenses. But for example in the case of Flynn/Trump where prosecutors were taped discussing how they need to "find him guilty of anything or provoke him to cross the law", there is no doubt of bias. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lA3oOo1oZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lA3oOo1oZc
        newacct583 6y ago
        > Tax fraud rendering you guilty of all the bad things you were ever accused of is not really sound logic. The contention above was that there was "literally nothing to" Russian interference in the 2016 election. Manafort's convictions for activities related to his attempts to hide his Russian influence is clear evidence to the contrary. I don't see anyone saying this makes Manafort guilty of "all the bad things he was ever accused of". But it makes him guilty of hiding Russian influence in the 2016 election, which was the point to be demonstrated.
  - mhucka 6y ago
    Here are some facts about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election: 1. A total of 34 individuals and 3 companies were indicted by Mueller's investigators. A total of 8 have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including 5 Trump associates and campaign officials. Here's a Wall Street Journal article about the convictions: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-indictments-whos-who-1531511838 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-indictments-whos-who-15... Also, here's a long Wikipedia article about the whole investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_... 2. When the Mueller report was about to be released, Attorney General Barr wrote a memo to Congress that purported to summarize the principal conclusions. Trump and Republican supporters seized on this to claim Trump was exonerated. In fact, Mueller explicitly stated that he did not exonerate Trump. Further, in a subsequent letter of his own, Mueller stated that Barr's memo "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the investigation. (Washington Post article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/2019/04/30/d3c8fdb6-6b7b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/muell...) 3. A bipartisan report from the US Senate affirms the findings by US Intelligence agencies about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Here's a Wall Street Journal article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-report-affirms-u-s-intelligence-findings-on-2016-russian-interference-11587483408 https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-report-affirms-u-s-intel... There are many more findings, but I tried to be concise in response to the specific claim that there is "nothing there". When the investigation began and Mueller was appointed, Republicans praised him. (C.f. Fox News article: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/robert-mueller-appointment-to-lead-russia-probe-wins-bipartisan-praise https://www.foxnews.com/politics/robert-mueller-appointment-...). Now they claim the investigation was either unlawful, or that FBI investigators were criminals, or similar. One does not need to take my or anyone else's word for what Mueller's team reported. You can get the redacted report from the government or even Amazon, and read it for yourself. You can also get the Senate committee's report from the government and read it for yourself. It is clear to me (and should be clear to anyone who has read the report or followed the story) that it is a flat-out lie to say there is "nothing there", and that Trump supporters have shifted from welcoming a fair investigation into Russian interference to attacking the investigators. And that's where we are now.
  - hraedon 6y ago
    Mueller went out of his way to say that his investigation did not exonerate Trump, and realistically the only reason more people did not go to jail (and a lot of people went to jail, including one of Trump's campaign managers) is because key players were successful in obstructing justice. Like, you can be skeptical of the idea that the Russian interference was decisive in the election without dismissing the very real lawbreaking that happened.
    - coffexx 6y ago
      > Mueller went out of his way to say that his investigation did not exonerate Trump I think it was inappropriate for him to stress this, and that it undermined his legitimacy and the legitimacy of the investigation. It isn't the job of an investigator to "exonerate" people that havn't been charged or prosecuted for a crime. As far as I can tell all these comments did was validate his supporters beliefs that the investigation was a politically motivated attack, and simultaneously served as a psychological "out" for his detractors that were convinced he was in cahoots with Putin to undermine the country. Widening the divide between 2 sets of people that really ought to reconcile. Disclaimer: I am not american, so this is an outsiders perspective.
      - hraedon 6y ago
        What alternative did he have? The president's hand-picked AG had released an extremely misleading "summary" of Mueller's findings, which the president was using to claim total exoneration. Trump's supporters would have taken any action beyond cowed silence as evidence of a "politically motivated attack," because that's been the president's messaging. The investigation itself was characterized as "politically motivated messaging," despite having been started under Trump by Trump appointees. Mueller isn't responsible for "widening the divide," and there was nothing he could do to heal it while living up to his mandate. The president, or at least the president's team, did a lot of illegal things during the election. You don't meaningfully hold them to account or heal "the divide" by falsely exonerating the president.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  I'd say Trump appropriated it to point out how untrustworthy the "real" news is. And he was and is right about that in general, even if he's often wrong.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Hmm, Trump's use seems to entirely have been to label things that are true that he wants [his supporters] to deny are true? Someone levels a factual criticism against him, they get thrown out and he says it's "fake news". Worse, for me in the UK, his success got adopted by UK Tories, now we also have a people in positions of power who just dodge hard questions and where possible exclude press as punishment. People in power who lie and aren't held to account. It's diabolical -- but by subverting the rule of law they're able to continue.

Fact checking is far from a solved problem. The can of worms that Trump opened when he started the "fake news" conversation is still very much open.

by palsir 6y ago

Fact checking is far from a solved problem. The can of worms that Trump opened when he started the "fake news" conversation is still very much open.

newacct583 6y ago

Trump didn't start that "conversation". "Fake News" was a term originally intended to reflect the false "news-like" advertisements that were being purchased on social media (primarily Facebook, and primarily targetting conservative users). Trump appropriated it as a way to label unflattering news coverage from mainstream sources.

pyronik19 6y ago
Hardly just unflattering, MSM pushed the "Russia" narrative for 3 years and there was literally nothing there. Hard to call that anything other than fake news. In fact its looking more and more like the actions from the Obama admin were likely highly corrupt and there will likely people going to jail. Just recently the media has been reporting that Trump called the virus a "hoax", which was a complete lie.
- llcoolv 6y ago
  Yet another post, that is 100% factually correct and still gets downvoted into oblivion by the leftist bots. LOL.
- mytherin 6y ago
  I'm curious what you mean by "literally nothing there", considering dozens of people have been charged and found guilty/jailed with crimes relating to the investigation, many of which were part of the Trump administration or working closely together with them [1]. Paul Manafort, the chairman of Donald Trumps' 2016 campaign is currently serving a 7.5 year prison sentence relating to this investigation. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2018/dec/05/robert-mueller-who-charged-list-trump-russia-inquiry-latest-indictments-flynn-manafort-cohen-what-happens-next https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2018/dec/...
  - llcoolv 6y ago
    > Paul Manafort, the chairman of Donald Trumps' 2016 campaign is currently serving a 7.5 year prison sentence relating to this investigation. "He was convicted on five counts of tax fraud, one of the four counts of failing to disclose his foreign bank accounts, and two counts of bank fraud." So, he was convicted of tax fraud and bureaucratic discrepencies. While factually related to the investigation, none of these charges has nothing to do with what the investigation was about.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      I don't know the source you're quoting, but it's pure spin. The tax fraud and reporting violation were in direct service to the need to hide his foreign payments from Russian interests. You're also forgetting his guilty pleas for failing to register as a foreign agent (Russia again) and witness tampering (which is criminal obstruction of justice!). This is all directly related to his work for Russia and Russian interests, in exactly the same way that Al Capone's famous tax evasion conviction was the result of his operation of a criminal organization.
      - llcoolv 6y ago
        Apologies, the source is wikipedia's page on Paul Manafort[1]. Also the article says he was involved with Yanukovich, not with Putin, but still in the worst case this is in the equivalent to the Biden-Poroshenko tape[2]. Tax fraud rendering you guilty of all the bad things you were ever accused of is not really sound logic. Also, I am not really defending Manaford - tbh after reading more on him, this whole Ukrainian foray seems to be one of his lesser offenses. But for example in the case of Flynn/Trump where prosecutors were taped discussing how they need to "find him guilty of anything or provoke him to cross the law", there is no doubt of bias. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lA3oOo1oZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lA3oOo1oZc
        newacct583 6y ago
        > Tax fraud rendering you guilty of all the bad things you were ever accused of is not really sound logic. The contention above was that there was "literally nothing to" Russian interference in the 2016 election. Manafort's convictions for activities related to his attempts to hide his Russian influence is clear evidence to the contrary. I don't see anyone saying this makes Manafort guilty of "all the bad things he was ever accused of". But it makes him guilty of hiding Russian influence in the 2016 election, which was the point to be demonstrated.
- mhucka 6y ago
  Here are some facts about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election: 1. A total of 34 individuals and 3 companies were indicted by Mueller's investigators. A total of 8 have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including 5 Trump associates and campaign officials. Here's a Wall Street Journal article about the convictions: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-indictments-whos-who-1531511838 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-indictments-whos-who-15... Also, here's a long Wikipedia article about the whole investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_... 2. When the Mueller report was about to be released, Attorney General Barr wrote a memo to Congress that purported to summarize the principal conclusions. Trump and Republican supporters seized on this to claim Trump was exonerated. In fact, Mueller explicitly stated that he did not exonerate Trump. Further, in a subsequent letter of his own, Mueller stated that Barr's memo "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the investigation. (Washington Post article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/2019/04/30/d3c8fdb6-6b7b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/muell...) 3. A bipartisan report from the US Senate affirms the findings by US Intelligence agencies about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Here's a Wall Street Journal article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-report-affirms-u-s-intelligence-findings-on-2016-russian-interference-11587483408 https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-report-affirms-u-s-intel... There are many more findings, but I tried to be concise in response to the specific claim that there is "nothing there". When the investigation began and Mueller was appointed, Republicans praised him. (C.f. Fox News article: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/robert-mueller-appointment-to-lead-russia-probe-wins-bipartisan-praise https://www.foxnews.com/politics/robert-mueller-appointment-...). Now they claim the investigation was either unlawful, or that FBI investigators were criminals, or similar. One does not need to take my or anyone else's word for what Mueller's team reported. You can get the redacted report from the government or even Amazon, and read it for yourself. You can also get the Senate committee's report from the government and read it for yourself. It is clear to me (and should be clear to anyone who has read the report or followed the story) that it is a flat-out lie to say there is "nothing there", and that Trump supporters have shifted from welcoming a fair investigation into Russian interference to attacking the investigators. And that's where we are now.
- hraedon 6y ago
  Mueller went out of his way to say that his investigation did not exonerate Trump, and realistically the only reason more people did not go to jail (and a lot of people went to jail, including one of Trump's campaign managers) is because key players were successful in obstructing justice. Like, you can be skeptical of the idea that the Russian interference was decisive in the election without dismissing the very real lawbreaking that happened.
  - coffexx 6y ago
    > Mueller went out of his way to say that his investigation did not exonerate Trump I think it was inappropriate for him to stress this, and that it undermined his legitimacy and the legitimacy of the investigation. It isn't the job of an investigator to "exonerate" people that havn't been charged or prosecuted for a crime. As far as I can tell all these comments did was validate his supporters beliefs that the investigation was a politically motivated attack, and simultaneously served as a psychological "out" for his detractors that were convinced he was in cahoots with Putin to undermine the country. Widening the divide between 2 sets of people that really ought to reconcile. Disclaimer: I am not american, so this is an outsiders perspective.
    - hraedon 6y ago
      What alternative did he have? The president's hand-picked AG had released an extremely misleading "summary" of Mueller's findings, which the president was using to claim total exoneration. Trump's supporters would have taken any action beyond cowed silence as evidence of a "politically motivated attack," because that's been the president's messaging. The investigation itself was characterized as "politically motivated messaging," despite having been started under Trump by Trump appointees. Mueller isn't responsible for "widening the divide," and there was nothing he could do to heal it while living up to his mandate. The president, or at least the president's team, did a lot of illegal things during the election. You don't meaningfully hold them to account or heal "the divide" by falsely exonerating the president.
jtbayly 6y ago
I'd say Trump appropriated it to point out how untrustworthy the "real" news is. And he was and is right about that in general, even if he's often wrong.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Hmm, Trump's use seems to entirely have been to label things that are true that he wants [his supporters] to deny are true? Someone levels a factual criticism against him, they get thrown out and he says it's "fake news". Worse, for me in the UK, his success got adopted by UK Tories, now we also have a people in positions of power who just dodge hard questions and where possible exclude press as punishment. People in power who lie and aren't held to account. It's diabolical -- but by subverting the rule of law they're able to continue.