Jump to content

Fake news...a warning.


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

That wasn't Fox News.  Stop being so lazy Lo.  You'll get a ton of articles if you google it.  I would've thought your own eyes would have shown you over the years, like it has everyone else on here.  I even mocked Trump for having thin-skin.  

Are you willing to say in front of all of us on here Obama doesn't?  I didn't think so.  

Wtf does this have to do with NPR?

 

you made the assetion, back it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, lostone said:

If I ask for evidence milking (I would assume that means a lot), I assume you are going to link the foxnews article which has it at 25% instead of the 3% reported back in 2012.

How large is the federal subsidy to public broadcasting?

It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutory formula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent.

https://www.propublica.org/article/big-bird-debate-how-much-does-federal-funding-matter-to-public-broadcasting

 

Although their charter requires strict non-partisan programing, the public broadcasters are accused of leaning left. An NPR article described the 2016 election results as “nostalgia for a whiter America.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I didn't pay as much attention to ABF last election.

 

When do we normally move from everyone playing "gotcha *****" and onto actual discussion on policies and so forth. A few weeks after the inauguration? I mean I know there's always quite a bit of "gotcha *****" going on but watching the same 5 or 6 of you doing it is getting really old.

 

This forum is such **** right now. I really look forward to when there's at least 8 people playing gotcha *****.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

How large is the federal subsidy to public broadcasting?

It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutory formula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent.

https://www.propublica.org/article/big-bird-debate-how-much-does-federal-funding-matter-to-public-broadcasting

 

Although their charter requires strict non-partisan programing, the public broadcasters are accused of leaning left. An NPR article described the 2016 election results as “nostalgia for a whiter America.”

I knew you'd go for that article.  It supports things like NPR and PBS.  It does not give that much to NPR though.  They point it out like that to make it seem like NPR and PBS get 445M when they really don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2017 at 11:06 AM, silentbob1272 said:

:lol: You must be kidding?

How about the devil herself

Hillary Clinton used her first public speech since her election loss to blame the “epidemic” rise of fake news for her defeat.

“The epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year — it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,” Clinton said earlier this month in a speech on Capital Hill.

Clinton said “lives are at risk” because of fake news, calling it “a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly.”

 

How about Captain Fake News himself?

 

You want more? Cause I have lots more.

Uh...saying that fake news has consequences isn't saying that it's the reason she lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2017 at 9:59 PM, Jpowers said:

So I didn't pay as much attention to ABF last election.

 

When do we normally move from everyone playing "gotcha *****" and onto actual discussion on policies and so forth. A few weeks after the inauguration? I mean I know there's always quite a bit of "gotcha *****" going on but watching the same 5 or 6 of you doing it is getting really old.

 

This forum is such **** right now. I really look forward to when there's at least 8 people playing gotcha *****.

If President Obama's election is any indication, there will be about 2 years of this nonsense, followed by about a year of quiet, and then it ramps up again ahead of the re-election campaign.

Good luck.  It was every bit as bad the last time around, only the roles were basically reversed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN reporting that they knew about this information for months and refused to report on it because the allegations were unsubstantiated and they couldn't confirm them.  CNN's Jake Tapper called Buzzfeed's article "irresponsible" and said it was wrong to make this public.  CNN said that either they or someone else (I forget) investigated the claim that Michael Cohen traveled to Russia and found that it was a different person from a different country but with the same name.  So CNN is reporting that at least one part of the memo is false.  

Is this fake news?

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

CNN reporting that they knew about this information for months and refused to report on it because the allegations were unsubstantiated and they couldn't confirm them.  CNN's Jake Tapper called Buzzfeed's article "irresponsible" and said it was wrong to make this public.  CNN said that either they or someone else (I forget) investigated the claim that Michael Cohen traveled to Russia and found that it was a different person from a different country but with the same name.  So CNN is reporting that at least one part of the memo is false.  

Is this fake news?

If its unsubstantiated allegation coming from an unverified and anonymous source, yes, or else there is no such thing as real news vs. fake news.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

What part is "fake", specifically?

Well, my interest here lies primarily in the more salacious aspects of this story (which, if I'm Trump and this turns out to be nothing, I'm suing Buzzfeed), but my problem with CNN "reporting" a potential scandal that's at this point based on nothing more than rumor and allegation seems much different from how they'd approach similar revelations about former presidents made by fringe "news" outlets.

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

Well, my interest here lies primarily in the more salacious aspects of this story (which, if I'm Trump and this turns out to be nothing, I'm suing Buzzfeed), but my problem with CNN "reporting" a potential scandal that's at this point based on nothing more than rumor and allegation seems much different from how they'd approach similar revelations about former presidents made by fringe "news" outlets.

Birtherism?  They covered that quite a lot.  Ironically, the "fringe" source for that is the president election.

And CNN has made clear that the salacious aspects are unconfirmed and unsubstantiated.  They only reported after the Buzzfeed article and the response by Trump himself.  When the president elect responds to a scandal, that's news.  They almost have to cover it, especially considering that it was raised in a commitee hearing by Democrats and that it would certainly come up in the confirmation hearings.  

The allegations might be false.  But that doesn't make the story "fake".  The memo appears to be real and the FBI appears to have sought search warrants and investigated it.  So there is a real story here, even if the allegations underlying the story (which again, CNN isn't talking about on air that I've seen) are not true.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I recall the birther stuff being pretty outrightly rejected by the major outlets, rightly so.

CNN broke the story before BuzzFeed published the allegation.  Of course the agencies meeting with Obama and Trump is worthy of reporting but at this point the contents of the memo are unverified and looking increasingly suspect, yet this will occupy the news cycle for the next week just as potential Russian interference, also as yet unproven, has for previous weeks.  I'm not saying its unimportant - quite the contrary actually - and trust me the irony of it being Trump is not lost on me.  I just want to see evidence before hearing Don Lemon talking about pee parties with hookers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DawgBone said:

I could be wrong, but I recall the birther stuff being pretty outrightly rejected by the major outlets, rightly so.

CNN broke the story before BuzzFeed published the allegation.  Of course the agencies meeting with Obama and Trump is worthy of reporting but at this point the contents of the memo are unverified and looking increasingly suspect, yet this will occupy the news cycle for the next week just as potential Russian interference, also as yet unproven, has for previous weeks.  I'm not saying its unimportant - quite the contrary actually - and trust me the irony of it being Trump is not lost on me.  I just want to see evidence before hearing Don Lemon talking about pee parties with hookers. 

Can you find the CNN article that was published before the BuzzFeed one?  

And yeah, the birtherism stuff was outright rejected because it was f'ing crazy and obviously false.  The allegations in the memo have not been proven false (nor true, we should all remember), so their reporting should be different.  It's like the Comey letter...they didn't reject the notion of something damaging outright because they didn't have evidence or facts to confirm or reject it.  

Edit: Also, again, CNN isn't talking about the specific allegations in the memo because they are unsubstantiated.  So they seem to be acting very responsibly given the circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of the sequence of events is that Tapper broke the story of the agencies meeting with Obama and Trump on air, at which time he reported the existence of the memo.  Shortly after, BuzzFeed published the contents of the memo.  Later, when I was watching, Lemon and his panel were discussing the "salacious" portions of the memo.  Unfortunately that is the part of this story thats going to get the most clicks.  I'm interested in learning if Russia did in fact manipulate our election and if they do in fact have compromising intel on Trump.  I'd just like to see evidence of either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DawgBone said:

My understanding of the sequence of events is that Tapper broke the story of the agencies meeting with Obama and Trump on air, at which time he reported the existence of the memo.  Shortly after, BuzzFeed published the contents of the memo.  Later, when I was watching, Lemon and his panel were discussing the "salacious" portions of the memo.  Unfortunately that is the part of this story thats going to get the most clicks.  I'm interested in learning if Russia did in fact manipulate our election and if they do in fact have compromising intel on Trump.  I'd just like to see evidence of either. 

The original article was published at 4:20PM yesterday.  I was talking to a friend of mine on the phone around 5PM when he told me about this.  I didn't see the memo being discussed at all last night, but I stopped watching around 8:30-9PM.  In fact, when talking about this on these boards, I noted that none of the credible news outlets had reported on it.  

Thanks for letting me know about Lemon discussing the details.  I hadn't seen that and I do think it's a fair criticism against them.  I'd prefer them not discussing those details on air until there is some facts to substantiate it.  I'd also note that I haven't seen them discuss it when I've been watching, so it's not like they're soaking their coverage with those details.

I'd like to see the evidence support Russian's involvement as well.  But you recognize that much of that is classified and not available to the public.  There is no evidence that Russia influenced the outcome, but all of the evidence released so far points to Russia directing hacking, fake news, and similar activities to attempt to do that.  As far as compromising info on Trump, yeah...that's one that needs to get answered ASAP and at this time we don't have enough evidence to say whether they do or not.

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...