Jump to content

Fake news...a warning.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

56 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Also, all of FFS69's posts come from the same biased source:

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

Posting the same misleading and biased accusations repeatedly might fool some people into thinking he's posting overwhelming proof.  But it's not...it's just mindlessly regurgitating the same misleading and biased accusations from a single source.  

Wikileaks isn't biased. Sorry, play a different card. They exposed crap on Republicans years ago. You are literally a blind sheep. Dumb and uninformed just like Hillary likes them. Yea, that's in her emails too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I already addressed that one.  It's not what the very biased article you posted says.  Great example of using a very biased site that makes claims that aren't supported by the evidence they provide.

Read the full back story about it.  

Are the emails forgeries?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

Wikileaks isn't biased. Sorry, play a different card. They exposed crap on Republicans years ago. You are literally a blind sheep. Dumb and uninformed just like Hillary likes them. Yea, that's in her emails too.

 

There are so many BS Gifs that I want to post  ....... but I wont  because of the COC

 

 

But that is BS

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, falconsd56 said:

Forgeries??  Probably not.

But there is no public source to compare them too so there is no way to know if anything was edited or not... that is why people who take them as gospel  should slow their role with them.

That's the same argument the right used when Obama produced a copy of his Birth Certificate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JDaveG said:

Are the emails forgeries?

No, they're not.  The emails don't show what the biased article claims.

The problem is that you are relying on an overtly partisan opinion piece as evidence for a factual claim.  That's kind of the problem.  I posted a detailed analysis of media coverage over the past year regarding the election that was based on objective methodology and was critical of the media coverage based on that analysis.  Others (not you) posted dozens of right-wing opinion columns claiming bias that isn't based on any methodology other than rank partisan speculation.  

A biased partisan opinion piece is not evidence of media bias, especially when it is based on weak factual evidence.  Nobody has time to explain why all of the partisan crap out there is wrong in its claims.  So either we have to spend hours of our time debunking every single post or we allow the sheer volume of partisan crap to represent the truth.  In other words, somebody who lazily copies/pastes dozens of articles from biased sites making false claims gets to create a false impression about an issue because nobody has the time to debunk every single thing that every single person could possibly copy and paste.  

So credibility becomes a very good way to sift through the mountains of partisan crap and a very good way to judge whether the dozens of posts by a small number of people is credible.  Somebody like Worzone posts a dozen videos from YouTube and rightwing partisan opinion columns claiming CNN "fake news".  I look into a couple of them, demonstrate that the claims are false, and move on.  Worzone has lost credibility because he was lazy and just posted whatever popped up first on his Google search for "evil CNN fake news" without bothering to check the credibility of the claims himself.  Next time he posts something, I reject it until HE or somebody else can provide information from a credible source.  The burden is on HIM and the others to prove their claims.  And dozens of articles from partisan opinion columns or, worse, some random people on Youtube making claims, isn't proof.

When people allow themselves to be persuaded by sheer volume instead of the credibility of the sources, they fall victim to the falsehoods that are spread by these non-credible sources.  When they ignore the credibility of the sources, they are going to make false claims themselves, form false impressions about things that are not real, and spread that false information widely.  That creates a very serious problem with the mass public being persuaded and influenced by claims that are either fabrications (as some of Worzone videos were) or sweeping accusations based on extremely weak evidence that often doesn't support those sweeping accusations (as others of Worzone videos and the opinion column you posted did).  

So either we take the credibility of sources seriously or we all play the volume game and just blindly copy/paste the largest number of partisan crap we can find in the shortest amount of time.  And in the latter scenario, nobody cares whether what they're posting is factually true.  It just becomes a bunch of political monkeys throwing figurative s*** at each other.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JDaveG said:

Are the emails forgeries?

Wait, which part of the Intercept article are you referring to?  The accusation about the WashPost's reporting of PropOrNot, which is what I said I had already debunked or the accusation on reporting about whether the emails from Podesta are "forged"?

I didn't go deep enough into the article to have seen the "forgery" part.  I looked at their false claim about the PropOrNot story and responded to that without wasting my time going further into the column.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, regarding the Malcolm Nance comments about the emails being manipulated by Russia, here is how credible news agencies reported on his claims:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-russia-hillary-clinton-campaign-democrats-229707

“We have no way of knowing whether this is real or not unless Hillary Clinton goes through everything they’ve said and comes out and says it cross-correlates and this is true,” said Malcolm Nance, a former U.S. intelligence analyst who has spoken frequently in defense of the Democratic nominee and has made the case that the WikiLeaks releases contain manipulated information.

^^^Now, one could argue that Politico gave too much prominence to Nance's view in the story, but they acknowledged him as a partisan source that is favorable to Hillary Clinton and only after quoting several independent forensics experts who said there was no evidence of manipulation.  But notice how much more cautious the Politico article is compared to the overtly partisan media outlets like MSNBC.  A credible news outlet does this - they acknowledge potential (or actual) biases from their sources and weigh the claims from those sources against more independent ones.  And even the Nance comments that were included in the article were more measured than his original Tweet, which is here:

  If you look at the comments, his efforts to defend this claim were laughably bad.  He told one person to essentially "go look it up for yourself...I don't do your homework for you".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Wait, which part of the Intercept article are you referring to?  The accusation about the WashPost's reporting of PropOrNot, which is what I said I had already debunked or the accusation on reporting about whether the emails from Podesta are "forged"?

I didn't go deep enough into the article to have seen the "forgery" part.  I looked at their false claim about the PropOrNot story and responded to that without wasting my time going further into the column.

It was just a couple of paragraphs in.  They started with the WaPo PropOrNot debacle, but the bulk of the article -- and I mean the main point of the article -- is that:

"The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC’s intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I documented on October 11, he tweeted what he — for some bizarre reason — labeled an “Official Warning.” It decreed: “#PodestaEmailsare already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropagandanot even professionally done.” That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like Reid and Frum (“expert to take seriously”)."

The article makes the well stated point that this defense -- that the e-mails were forgeries -- was nothing more than a Clinton talking point, and yet mainstream media outlets ran with it as if it was true.  Worse, the rumor that they had been doctored was started by a Clinton supporter who manufactured fake news in order to fool Clinton critics, and ended up having it go viral (with the active help and support of mainstream media outlets) and fooling Clinton supporters.  It wasn't just MSNBC either.  ABC fell for it.  David Frum, who writes for the Atlantic and contributes to CNN, fell for it.

Read the entire article.  You can't determine it's "biased" and "overly partisan" from the first 2 paragraphs.  And even if you decide that to be the case, which you might, that doesn't mean it isn't true.  This is a fantastic example of fake news being actively spread by the mainstream media in such a way as to help Clinton.  It is directly relevant to the thread topic, though it may not square with the points you wish to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Also, regarding the Malcolm Nance comments about the emails being manipulated by Russia, here is how credible news agencies reported on his claims:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-russia-hillary-clinton-campaign-democrats-229707

“We have no way of knowing whether this is real or not unless Hillary Clinton goes through everything they’ve said and comes out and says it cross-correlates and this is true,” said Malcolm Nance, a former U.S. intelligence analyst who has spoken frequently in defense of the Democratic nominee and has made the case that the WikiLeaks releases contain manipulated information.

^^^Now, one could argue that Politico gave too much prominence to Nance's view in the story, but they acknowledged him as a partisan source that is favorable to Hillary Clinton and only after quoting several independent forensics experts who said there was no evidence of manipulation.  But notice how much more cautious the Politico article is compared to the overtly partisan media outlets like MSNBC.  A credible news outlet does this - they acknowledge potential (or actual) biases from their sources and weigh the claims from those sources against more independent ones.  And even the Nance comments that were included in the article were more measured than his original Tweet, which is here:

  If you look at the comments, his efforts to defend this claim were laughably bad.  He told one person to essentially "go look it up for yourself...I don't do your homework for you".  

No, that's not how "credible news agencies" reported on his claims.  It's how Politico reported on his claims.  Nance is the "Intelligence Analyst" for MSNBC.  He IS a "credible news agency."  ABC and MSNBC and David Frum and others (again, it was re-tweeted something like 4000 times) took the Clinton talking point and ran with it, and if fake news helped with that, well, all's the better.  

That's how "credible news agencies" reported on his claims.  At least some of them.

Let's just be honest about what's going on.  Fake news is a problem, yes.  But it is a bipartisan problem, and the "credible news agencies" have as much a problem with it as anyone, because they don't do their fact checking either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

It was just a couple of paragraphs in.  They started with the WaPo PropOrNot debacle, but the bulk of the article -- and I mean the main point of the article -- is that:

"The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC’s intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I documented on October 11, he tweeted what he — for some bizarre reason — labeled an “Official Warning.” It decreed: “#PodestaEmailsare already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropagandanot even professionally done.” That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like Reid and Frum (“expert to take seriously”)."

The article makes the well stated point that this defense -- that the e-mails were forgeries -- was nothing more than a Clinton talking point, and yet mainstream media outlets ran with it as if it was true.  Worse, the rumor that they had been doctored was started by a Clinton supporter who manufactured fake news in order to fool Clinton critics, and ended up having it go viral (with the active help and support of mainstream media outlets) and fooling Clinton supporters.

Read the entire article.  You can't determine it's "biased" and "overly partisan" from the first 2 paragraphs.  And even if you decide that to be the case, which you might, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

I'll respond to the rest, but to the bolded part, I absolutely can determine it from the first two paragraphs.  Here are those first two paragraphs:

THE PHRASE “FAKE NEWS” has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as “terrorism” and “hate speech”; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

One of the most egregious examples was the recent Washington Post article hyping a new anonymous group and its disgusting blacklist of supposedly pro-Russia news outlets — a shameful article mindlessly spread by countless journalists who love to decry Fake News, despite the Post article itself being centrally based on Fake News. (The Post this week finally added a lame editor’s note acknowledging these critiques; the Post editors absurdly claimed that they did not mean to “vouch for the validity” of the blacklist even though the article’s key claims were based on doing exactly that).

"An instrument of propaganda and censorship"..."disgusting blacklist of supposedly pro-Russia news outlets"..."a shameful article mindlessly spread by countless journalists who love to decry Fake News"..."a lame editor's note".

That is not how a credible news agency writes about a story.  Those are words used by biased partisan outlets that represent opinions - poorly developed ones at that - and not journalism.  So yeah, the first two paragraphs were dead giveaways that this was a biased, partisan outlet that was promoting opinion, not reporting based on journalistic standards.

I've read through the rest of the article and tracked down the sources/tweets directly. Not surprisingly, the Intercept article has a lot of hyperventilating and overblown claims based on pretty weak evidence.

It DOES show a Clinton loyalist - Malcolm Nance - making a tweet that is pure speculation and propaganda.  I'd even say his claim was false because it doesn't provide any evidence supporting it, and there's no evidence from other sources doing that.  I also saw that David Frum retweeted his post.  The claims about Kurt Eichenwald are far more complex than the article appears.  He wrote a Newsweek story that was linked to his tweet that the Intercept linked to.  You can read his story here:

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

That link also has a clip of him on CNN explaining this...which is unrelated to Nance's tweet.  Apparently Wikileaks and others were attributing things to Podesta that Eichenwald had written in a Newsweek article.  Podesta, in other words, sent Blumenthal an email with Eichenwald's article attached and people were attributing to Blumenthal or Podesta the words of Eichenwald.  At this point, the whole thing is so convoluted that I can't really understand what the accusation is against Eichenwald.

Then The Intercept posts retweets from a bunch of people I don't even recognize and certainly aren't "mainstream media" personalities.  I didn't see ANY references to Nance's tweet by CNN, WashPost, NYTimes, Politico, etc.   I saw a bunch of random people, David Frum, and one MSNBC commentator (Joy Reid) retweeting Nance's comments with varying degrees of certainty.  Some of those retweets cast it as the possibility of manipulated emails and others just repeated Nance's (false) claims.  

But the splashy headline and sweeping claims of the article give the (false) impression that the mainstream media ran with this story.  In fact, most of the credible media outlets (see the Politico article I posted before) were far more cautious and sourced the claims to Clinton's surrogates and/or explained that Nance and others were pro-Clinton supporters.  

So, in summary, I just spent about 20 minutes of my time sifting through the claims and verifying the links from The Intercept.  I found that they don't support the sweeping accusations about "fake news" being spread by "the mainstream media" whatsoever.  The only person of the lot that could be considered mainstream media is Joy Reid and, while I don't watch MSNBC, it seems like she's a commentator instead of a reporter.  And MSNBC is absolutely biased so I'm sure they posted a bunch of crap about Nance's false claims and gave prominence to the Clinton talking points about the emails being forged.  But that is nowhere near the same as the article claims about it being "mindlessly spread by COUNTLESS journalists".  TWO people who MIGHT be classified as "journalists" picked up the Nance tweet...David Frum who is pro-Clinton and Joy Reid who is also pro-Clinton and an MSNBC commentator/correspondent.  

But I could have predicted this would be the outcome by reading the first two paragraphs, which I immediately recognized were making false claims or, at least, sweeping claims that weren't supported by the evidence they were presented.  That's why I am immediately skeptical of anything that comes from The Intercept...it's a partisan, biased source that spreads opinion columns from a partisan perspective.  It might be fine for getting a conservative perspective on things, but it's not a credible media outlet that reports on the news based on common journalistic standards.  And it's broad, sweeping claims are not backed up by facts and evidence.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

No, that's not how "credible news agencies" reported on his claims.  It's how Politico reported on his claims.  Nance is the "Intelligence Analyst" for MSNBC.  He IS a "credible news agency."  ABC and MSNBC and David Frum and others (again, it was re-tweeted something like 4000 times) took the Clinton talking point and ran with it, and if fake news helped with that, well, all's the better.  

That's how "credible news agencies" reported on his claims.  At least some of them.

Let's just be honest about what's going on.  Fake news is a problem, yes.  But it is a bipartisan problem, and the "credible news agencies" have as much a problem with it as anyone, because they don't do their fact checking either.

Here again, you fell for the hyperbolic claims in the article.  I watched the ABC interview with Joel Beneson.  He was presented as a Chief Strategist, Hillary for America.  They interviewed him as a Clinton supporter and partisan commentator.  They were not presenting his views as facts, but as reaction from the Clinton campaign.  So to say that ABC spread this is just false.

I only saw one person from MSNBC that picked up the Nance tweets.  I'm not sure if she brought it onto MSNBC, but we can all agree that MSNBC is a very partisan, biased outlet as well.  

And David Frum is also a commentator who writes opinion columns.  He is not presented as a journalist who is reporting on the news.  So you've got some opinion columnists and one "correspondent/commentator" on a very biased cable news outlet that ran with this.  You have ABC interviewing a Clinton campaign official and presenting him as a partisan source that is giving Clinton's reaction.  

That's not "countless journalists" or somehow widespread reporting on the false accusations from Nance by credible news sites.  The Intercept article was biased and partisan, so it presented wild claims that are not substantiated by the links they provide as evidence.  And again, I recognized within two paragraphs what they were and dismissed it.  After looking into the claims more thoroughly, that dismissal seems very warranted.  From now on, I'm going to dismiss things coming from The Intercept as biased and partisan because of how deceptive they were with this particular article (and a few others that I've seen in the past).  

Put simply, fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  The Intercept fooled people with this article.  I hope people won't fall for their partisan hackery in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So wait -- Nance isn't "mainstream?"  Even though he's the Intelligence Analyst for MSNBC?

Okay.

Also, "commentator rather than reporter" doesn't fly when we're talking about making **** up.  It isn't a matter of opinion that the claim that e-mails were fabricated was a combination of Clinton talking points and Chacon making **** up.  That's a fact.  Yet Nance took it and ran with it.  That's "fake news" if ever there was "fake news," only this time it has the thin veneer of respectability because it comes from news organizations that you believe are "credible."  Except their credibility, which is the point many of us have been making to you all along, is in the crapper because of stuff exactly like this.

You can't whitewash this, especially by pretending that Joy Reid is the only "mainstream" member of a group that includes the "intelligence analyst" for the very network Reid works for.  I'll say again -- David Frum writes for the Atlantic.  ABC news is implicated.  Newsweek is implicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Billy Ocean said:

lmao at Trout calling Greenwald "overly partisan" and The Intercept a "conservative" site. 

 

THE PHRASE “FAKE NEWS” has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as “terrorism” and “hate speech”; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

One of the most egregious examples was the recent Washington Post article hyping a new anonymous group and its disgusting blacklist of supposedly pro-Russia news outlets — a shameful article mindlessly spread by countless journalists who love to decry Fake News, despite the Post article itself being centrally based on Fake News. (The Post this week finally added a lame editor’s note acknowledging these critiques; the Post editors absurdly claimed that they did not mean to “vouch for the validity” of the blacklist even though the article’s key claims were based on doing exactly that).

^^^That is an opinion column.  It uses language that is biased and even hyperbolic.  It is not a credible news source for the claims being made.  It is also biased in a Republican direction.  Laughably so.  So yes, it is an overtly partisan and biased article.  The other articles that I've seen people post on the boards from The Intercept (mainly by Glenn Greenwald) were equally partisan and biased.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Here again, you fell for the hyperbolic claims in the article.  I watched the ABC interview with Joel Beneson.  He was presented as a Chief Strategist, Hillary for America.  They interviewed him as a Clinton supporter and partisan commentator.  They were not presenting his views as facts, but as reaction from the Clinton campaign.  So to say that ABC spread this is just false.

I only saw one person from MSNBC that picked up the Nance tweets.  I'm not sure if she brought it onto MSNBC, but we can all agree that MSNBC is a very partisan, biased outlet as well.  

And David Frum is also a commentator who writes opinion columns.  He is not presented as a journalist who is reporting on the news.  So you've got some opinion columnists and one "correspondent/commentator" on a very biased cable news outlet that ran with this.  You have ABC interviewing a Clinton campaign official and presenting him as a partisan source that is giving Clinton's reaction.  

That's not "countless journalists" or somehow widespread reporting on the false accusations from Nance by credible news sites.  The Intercept article was biased and partisan, so it presented wild claims that are not substantiated by the links they provide as evidence.  And again, I recognized within two paragraphs what they were and dismissed it.  After looking into the claims more thoroughly, that dismissal seems very warranted.  From now on, I'm going to dismiss things coming from The Intercept as biased and partisan because of how deceptive they were with this particular article (and a few others that I've seen in the past).  

Put simply, fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  The Intercept fooled people with this article.  I hope people won't fall for their partisan hackery in the future.

Well, it looks like you were the one fooled.  Let's be serious.

Greenwald used to write for Salon, and most of his work is decrying the surveillance state in the U.S.  Give me a break.

Again, the whole "commentator versus journalist" thing doesn't fly when we're talking about literally passing off fake information as true.  Commentators aren't paid to peddle lies.  And that's exactly why your "credible" news organizations are fast losing credibility.  Cling to them if it makes you feel better, but sitting on your high horse pretending the rest of us are falling for "partisan hackery" by taking seriously the claims of a former Salon writer who decries the surveillance state is pretty comical, honestly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...