4 ms·

You're believing your echo chamber hype. The only people who believed it was people who already wanted to believe it. Because we heard 4 years of Russian coll

You're believing your echo chamber hype. The only people who believed it was people who already wanted to believe it. Because we heard 4 years of Russian collusion lies repeated almost daily. No matter how many times they were proven to be lies and the people who were predisposed to believing those lies believe them even more and the people who were not were not swayed by the lie. The issue with Dominion Fox News is exactly the same. The lies spread by Fox News were only believed by the people who already wanted to believe it.

scarface74 4y ago
They weren’t lies: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/548794-there-was-trump-russia-collusion-and-trump-pardoned-the-colluder/ https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/548794-there-was-tru... And no one calls “The Hill” “liberal media”
- elmerfud 4y ago
  An opinion piece does not good journalism make. That would be like a someone citing Sean Hannity show as a source.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Are the supporting facts wrong?
    - elmerfud 4y ago
      If you're correctly using the word facts, then they cannot be wrong. Such is the nature of a fact. If you're saying that the opinions pieces conclusion is stating a fact that there was a Russian collusion with the Trump campaign based upon the various investigative reports then I would submit that you have not read the supporting information. Indeed of Russia has interfered in a great many elections in an attempt to influence their outcome. This was true and 2016 as it's been true for as long as Russia has been a thing and before that the USSR. This is only news to someone who is willfully ignorant of international politics and I also ask you what do you think the CIA does on a day-to-day basis? The reports have continually found that there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Reading from the reports you can see they considered a troubling amount of connection between the two but that is the benefit of 5+ years of investigation a hindsight. The reports do not anywhere point out collusion which is an active working together of both parties. It only points out that there was external influence. People who don't like Trump attempted to invent collusion where it didn't exist. This is no different than people who did not like Hillary Clinton who wanted to invent reasons to lock her up over an email server. Both sides showed an extreme ignorance where the facts are involved. Hence why Hillary was not charged with that crime and Trump was never charged with collusion.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        > Reading from the reports you can see they considered a troubling amount of connection between the two but that is the benefit of 5+ years of investigation a hindsight How is this not “collusion”? I didn’t follow the whole thing closely at all. This isn’t meant to be a political argument. I don’t trust either party.
        elmerfud 4y ago
        Collusion; Specifically, in law, a secret understanding between two or more persons to act or proceed as if adversely or at. variance with, or in apparent defiance of, one another's rights, in order to prejudice a third person or to obtain a remedy which could not as well be obtained by open concurrence. None of the reports found there to be actual collusion which means that both parties in this case would be Russia and the Trump campaign as a whole, or at least those directing the Trump campaign including Trump himself, would have had to be working together with them to change the election. This is what the reports could not find. They could find that Russia did exert influence into the election and against the Trump campaign and certain individuals but that does not collusion make. Even if you take the point that there was two bad actors in the Trump campaign actively colluding with Russia That does not mean the Trump campaign as a whole was in collusion with Russia. Again the report supports this position that there was no collusion from the campaign. There was influence and manipulation but I ask you what does the CIA do on a day-to-day basis if not the same thing. I would submit if you spent 5 years investigating any presidential campaign of the last 50 years you would find similar evidence of manipulation from the USSR or Russia because it is how the game is played. Just as the United States actively influences elections around the world to ensure outcomes are in line with what we want to see.
rchaud 4y ago
> The lies spread by Fox News were only believed by the people who already wanted to believe it. If that's the case, why are they forking out $700m, the largest non-class action settlement in history?
- elmerfud 4y ago
  Because defamation is still a crime and is still actionable regardless of if anyone is actually influenced by it. All you need to show to prove defamation is that the people or entity saying it knew it was false information and it was their intent to deceive people with it. It does not require any success. I suggest you look up the history around Hustler magazine and Jerry Falwell. This is an example where no reasonable person would believe the things hustler said about Jerry Falwell therefore there was no libel or defamation against him. Because the point isn't if someone is actually influenced it's if a reasonable person could be influenced. In the case of Fox News it is my opinion that nobody was actually influenced but as a news reporting agency spreading known false information a reasonable person could be influenced by it. My opinion that no one actually was influenced by it is because the polarization of our media is at such an extreme that only people tune in to the media they want that supports their confirmation bias.
ROTMetro 4y ago
This isn't true. I was in prison at the time and trusted that Fox wasn't totally lying and believed the election was stolen. There were almost huge riots between political persuasions and the BOP locked down all facilities (which were already under COVID lockdown, so double double lockdown). If it is all you are exposed to it very dangerously shapes what you believe independent of the narrative you want to hear. You assume they can't just blatantly lie.
- elmerfud 4y ago
  Your statement in itself is a bit contradictory. You say that if it's all that you're exposed to it shapes what you believe but on the other hand you say that there was riots between a different political persuasions. If Fox News was pushed upon the prison population with no other alternate choice for the people to get news then according to your own statement it would have shaped the narrative of all peoples in the prison thus not leading to riots. If Fox News was again the only option but some people believed and other people did not believe then it supports my position that those who were predisposed to believing the outrageousness of this claim chose to believe it while others chose not to. Also keep in mind that while this is a particularly large and settlement because it is against a company other media outlets as of late have also settled for definition suits against individuals. All mainstream media seems to be intentionally polarizing and using lies to do it. Often times they back down quick enough from their lies to not get a lawsuit but it's the initial lie that they know that they told is the one that spread the farthest.

scarface74 4y ago

They weren’t lies: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/548794-there-was-trump-russia-collusion-and-trump-pardoned-the-colluder/ https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/548794-there-was-tru... And no one calls “The Hill” “liberal media”

elmerfud 4y ago
An opinion piece does not good journalism make. That would be like a someone citing Sean Hannity show as a source.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Are the supporting facts wrong?
  - elmerfud 4y ago
    If you're correctly using the word facts, then they cannot be wrong. Such is the nature of a fact. If you're saying that the opinions pieces conclusion is stating a fact that there was a Russian collusion with the Trump campaign based upon the various investigative reports then I would submit that you have not read the supporting information. Indeed of Russia has interfered in a great many elections in an attempt to influence their outcome. This was true and 2016 as it's been true for as long as Russia has been a thing and before that the USSR. This is only news to someone who is willfully ignorant of international politics and I also ask you what do you think the CIA does on a day-to-day basis? The reports have continually found that there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Reading from the reports you can see they considered a troubling amount of connection between the two but that is the benefit of 5+ years of investigation a hindsight. The reports do not anywhere point out collusion which is an active working together of both parties. It only points out that there was external influence. People who don't like Trump attempted to invent collusion where it didn't exist. This is no different than people who did not like Hillary Clinton who wanted to invent reasons to lock her up over an email server. Both sides showed an extreme ignorance where the facts are involved. Hence why Hillary was not charged with that crime and Trump was never charged with collusion.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      > Reading from the reports you can see they considered a troubling amount of connection between the two but that is the benefit of 5+ years of investigation a hindsight How is this not “collusion”? I didn’t follow the whole thing closely at all. This isn’t meant to be a political argument. I don’t trust either party.
      - elmerfud 4y ago
        Collusion; Specifically, in law, a secret understanding between two or more persons to act or proceed as if adversely or at. variance with, or in apparent defiance of, one another's rights, in order to prejudice a third person or to obtain a remedy which could not as well be obtained by open concurrence. None of the reports found there to be actual collusion which means that both parties in this case would be Russia and the Trump campaign as a whole, or at least those directing the Trump campaign including Trump himself, would have had to be working together with them to change the election. This is what the reports could not find. They could find that Russia did exert influence into the election and against the Trump campaign and certain individuals but that does not collusion make. Even if you take the point that there was two bad actors in the Trump campaign actively colluding with Russia That does not mean the Trump campaign as a whole was in collusion with Russia. Again the report supports this position that there was no collusion from the campaign. There was influence and manipulation but I ask you what does the CIA do on a day-to-day basis if not the same thing. I would submit if you spent 5 years investigating any presidential campaign of the last 50 years you would find similar evidence of manipulation from the USSR or Russia because it is how the game is played. Just as the United States actively influences elections around the world to ensure outcomes are in line with what we want to see.

rchaud 4y ago

> The lies spread by Fox News were only believed by the people who already wanted to believe it. If that's the case, why are they forking out $700m, the largest non-class action settlement in history?

elmerfud 4y ago
Because defamation is still a crime and is still actionable regardless of if anyone is actually influenced by it. All you need to show to prove defamation is that the people or entity saying it knew it was false information and it was their intent to deceive people with it. It does not require any success. I suggest you look up the history around Hustler magazine and Jerry Falwell. This is an example where no reasonable person would believe the things hustler said about Jerry Falwell therefore there was no libel or defamation against him. Because the point isn't if someone is actually influenced it's if a reasonable person could be influenced. In the case of Fox News it is my opinion that nobody was actually influenced but as a news reporting agency spreading known false information a reasonable person could be influenced by it. My opinion that no one actually was influenced by it is because the polarization of our media is at such an extreme that only people tune in to the media they want that supports their confirmation bias.

ROTMetro 4y ago

This isn't true. I was in prison at the time and trusted that Fox wasn't totally lying and believed the election was stolen. There were almost huge riots between political persuasions and the BOP locked down all facilities (which were already under COVID lockdown, so double double lockdown). If it is all you are exposed to it very dangerously shapes what you believe independent of the narrative you want to hear. You assume they can't just blatantly lie.

elmerfud 4y ago
Your statement in itself is a bit contradictory. You say that if it's all that you're exposed to it shapes what you believe but on the other hand you say that there was riots between a different political persuasions. If Fox News was pushed upon the prison population with no other alternate choice for the people to get news then according to your own statement it would have shaped the narrative of all peoples in the prison thus not leading to riots. If Fox News was again the only option but some people believed and other people did not believe then it supports my position that those who were predisposed to believing the outrageousness of this claim chose to believe it while others chose not to. Also keep in mind that while this is a particularly large and settlement because it is against a company other media outlets as of late have also settled for definition suits against individuals. All mainstream media seems to be intentionally polarizing and using lies to do it. Often times they back down quick enough from their lies to not get a lawsuit but it's the initial lie that they know that they told is the one that spread the farthest.