Jump to content

Fake news...a warning.


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, silentbob1272 said:

links to any of that from Drudge or even the Breitbart type sites.

 

Who is it again that is falling for the fake news?

Yes...I've mentioned two of them.  Shirley Sherrod and the ACORN tapes, which we know were so heavily edited that they gave hte opposite impression of things that were said.

Here are some more:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/10/exposed-fbi-director-james-comeys-clinton-foundation-connection/

^^^Claims that Comey is "deeply entrenched in the big money cronyism".  Their evidence?  That Comey was once vice president of Lockheed Martin.  And Lockheed once donated to the Clinton Foundation.  Ergo, Comey cannot be trusted and is covering for Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/13/roger-stone-its-time-america-got-some-answers-about-huma-abedin/

^^^One of many, many times that Breitbart has falsely claimed that Huma Abedin was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood

Here's a MotherJones article that includes audio tape of Breitbart News radio interview with Roger Stone and Steve Bannon making this very claim:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-breitbart-huma-abedin-roger-stone-donald-trump

Then there are some pretty outrageous headlines like these:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/15/bill-kristol-republican-spoiler-renegade-jew/

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/01/not-sexism-women-just-suck-interviews/

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/15/roger-stone-huma-abedin-most-likely-saudi-spy/

^^^This last one is the most egregious: "Roger Stone: Huma Abedin ‘Most Likely a Saudi Spy’ with ‘Deep, Inarguable Connections’ to ‘Global Terrorist Entity’

That's just what I could find in the past few minutes.  Are you really going to argue that Breitbart is a credible news site?

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

Top Posters In This Topic

21 hours ago, silentbob1272 said:

links to any of that from Drudge or even the Breitbart type sites.

 

Who is it again that is falling for the fake news?

Also, regarding Drudge, he had his front page filled with conspiracy theory nonsense about Bill Clinton's supposed half-son who was African American...for days.  Drudge is one of the worst at intermingling fake news and conspiracy theories with links to credible news articles (but often with misleading headlines).

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, lostone said:

I still have no idea who I should watch.  What pieces of news stories do I need to put together?  What puzzle must I unearth to get the appropriate news?  Help me!

I'll help them out...if it's negative towards Republicans, it's fake news from lib'rul media; if it's negative towards Democrats, it's the gospel and to be believed without question.

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

Yes...I've mentioned two of them.  Shirley Sherrod and the ACORN tapes, which we know were so heavily edited that they gave hte opposite impression of things that were said.

Here are some more:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/10/exposed-fbi-director-james-comeys-clinton-foundation-connection/

^^^Claims that Comey is "deeply entrenched in the big money cronyism".  Their evidence?  That Comey was once vice president of Lockheed Martin.  And Lockheed once donated to the Clinton Foundation.  Ergo, Comey cannot be trusted and is covering for Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/13/roger-stone-its-time-america-got-some-answers-about-huma-abedin/

^^^One of many, many times that Breitbart has falsely claimed that Huma Abedin was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood

Here's a MotherJones article that includes audio tape of Breitbart News radio interview with Roger Stone and Steve Bannon making this very claim:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-breitbart-huma-abedin-roger-stone-donald-trump

Then there are some pretty outrageous headlines like these:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/15/bill-kristol-republican-spoiler-renegade-jew/

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/01/not-sexism-women-just-suck-interviews/

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/15/roger-stone-huma-abedin-most-likely-saudi-spy/

^^^This last one is the most egregious: "Roger Stone: Huma Abedin ‘Most Likely a Saudi Spy’ with ‘Deep, Inarguable Connections’ to ‘Global Terrorist Entity’

That's just what I could find in the past few minutes.  Are you really going to argue that Breitbart is a credible news site?

Drudge?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2016 at 8:17 PM, silentbob1272 said:

Trump is gonna have to really pick up the pace in order to win over "the blacks"

Stupid as **** though. 

What do you think of the comment at the 2:55 mark? Certainly not buying it on a large scale, but is there any truth to this?

 

 

On 10/17/2016 at 8:52 PM, WhenFalconsWin said:

This is why we can't have nice things.  sb, what language was this?  

 

On 10/18/2016 at 2:14 AM, mfaulk57158 said:

 

I think by now people see how gullible and racist clowns like you can be.  Enjoy TrumpTV.................MAGA  

 

http://internethollywood.com/joey-salads-twinztv-exposed-black-people-racist-social-experiment-staged-with-same-actor/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 10/18/2016 at 7:25 AM, silentbob1272 said:

:lol: Lead story on the Drudge Report. So how does posting that make one racist exactly? 

This is the problem with that word caused by clowns such as yourself, it has been so overused so often that what was once a terrible, stigmatic label has devolved into almost as big a joke as those (again such as yourself) who are far too stupid to know when and how it is applicable are.

The video is gone but basically Bobby fell for a fake video on Drudge and then got pissy about it.  Though I must add he did admit it.

Edited by mfaulk57158
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2016 at 8:17 PM, silentbob1272 said:

Trump is gonna have to really pick up the pace in order to win over "the blacks"

Stupid as **** though. 

What do you think of the comment at the 2:55 mark? Certainly not buying it on a large scale, but is there any truth to this?

 

 

On 10/17/2016 at 8:52 PM, WhenFalconsWin said:

This is why we can't have nice things.  sb, what language was this?  

 

On 10/17/2016 at 9:15 PM, kicker said:

Neanderthals.  

 

On 10/18/2016 at 2:14 AM, mfaulk57158 said:

 

I think by now people see how gullible and racist clowns like you can be.  Enjoy TrumpTV.................MAGA  

 

http://internethollywood.com/joey-salads-twinztv-exposed-black-people-racist-social-experiment-staged-with-same-actor/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 10/18/2016 at 7:25 AM, silentbob1272 said:

:lol: Lead story on the Drudge Report. So how does posting that make one racist exactly? 

This is the problem with that word caused by clowns such as yourself, it has been so overused so often that what was once a terrible, stigmatic label has devolved into almost as big a joke as those (again such as yourself) who are far too stupid to know when and how it is applicable are.

 

On 10/19/2016 at 7:59 AM, silentbob1272 said:

I didn't know he had made false videos before, you're still a jackass in how you addressed it, but when you're right, you're right. I was duped.. Sorry to everyone for posting this. Here is absolute proof positive of your point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDtjVkAZky4

 

11 minutes ago, mfaulk57158 said:

Drudge?

 

 

Video is gone but it's a great example how Drudge create's false narratives for people to drown themselves in.

Edited by mfaulk57158
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, that video was on Drudge and was false, so again valid point. 

Does that mean that Drudge was duped, or does that designate the site to the level of "fake news"?

Should I start posting examples of NBC editing tapes to fit their narrative? At what point does deceit push an outlet from reputable to "fake news"?

CNN

http://bluelivesmatter.blue/cnn-edited-video-charlotte/

and again in Milwaukee

NBC example

NBC issues apology for edited Zimmerman 911 call

MSNBC

 

Katie Couric

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/26/katie-couric-decried-edited-planned-parenthood-footage-then-doctored-a-gun-owner-interview/

 

I'm sure I could go back and forth with any or all of you arguing about who is less trustworthy and why. I'm also sure we could both find more examples of each engaging in tactics we find deceitful, but as of now, I won't.

I'm just asking how much deception is allowed before an outlet or personality is deemed unacceptable?

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

Yea, that video was on Drudge and was false, so again valid point. 

Does that mean that Drudge was duped, or does that designate the site to the level of "fake news"?

Should I start posting examples of NBC editing tapes to fit their narrative? At what point does deceit push an outlet from reputable to "fake news"?

CNN

http://bluelivesmatter.blue/cnn-edited-video-charlotte/

and again in Milwaukee

NBC example

NBC issues apology for edited Zimmerman 911 call

MSNBC

 

Katie Couric

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/26/katie-couric-decried-edited-planned-parenthood-footage-then-doctored-a-gun-owner-interview/

 

I'm sure I could go back and forth with any or all of you arguing about who is less trustworthy and why. I'm also sure we could both find more examples of each engaging in tactics we find deceitful, but as of now, I won't.

I'm just asking how much deception is allowed before an outlet or personality is deemed unacceptable?

Sad thing is they're all unacceptable.  Unless they change their ways I really do not trust any of them.  The great thing was the Wikileaks exposed one side to be extremely untrustworthy, also, colluding with the DNC.  That is the double whammy...:lol:

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

Yea, that video was on Drudge and was false, so again valid point. 

Does that mean that Drudge was duped, or does that designate the site to the level of "fake news"?

Should I start posting examples of NBC editing tapes to fit their narrative? At what point does deceit push an outlet from reputable to "fake news"?

CNN

http://bluelivesmatter.blue/cnn-edited-video-charlotte/

and again in Milwaukee

NBC example

NBC issues apology for edited Zimmerman 911 call

MSNBC

 

Katie Couric

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/26/katie-couric-decried-edited-planned-parenthood-footage-then-doctored-a-gun-owner-interview/

 

I'm sure I could go back and forth with any or all of you arguing about who is less trustworthy and why. I'm also sure we could both find more examples of each engaging in tactics we find deceitful, but as of now, I won't.

I'm just asking how much deception is allowed before an outlet or personality is deemed unacceptable?

Do you really not see the problem with responding to documented instances of the sources you rely upon engaging in completely deceptive editing or outright making stuff up with videos from extremely biased sources making claims (most of which aren't actually substantiated) about credible media sources editing stuff?

Seriously, this kind of stuff is out of hand.  I could go through and explain why the claims made by those sources aren't credible.  But then you and others would drop 10-12 more websites from extremely biased sources making similar claims, also without merit.  

Imagine if you posted something from the Wall Street Journal criticizing the forged DUI documents (or whatever they were) that were on NBC, I believe.  And I responded with four TalkingPointsMemo articles and five DailyKos articles making extreme, biased, and merit less accusations about right-wing media.  It's silly.  You cannot honestly believe you are making a strong counter to documented instances of Breitbart and Drudge peddling conspiracy theories by dropping a couple of largely meritless accusations from extremely biased sources.

Basically, you're saying, "I don't care if Breitbart lied about all these things, here are four Breitbart articles about how the media lies all the time and two articles from biased right-wing sources about how the media is biased!!  Take that, biased media!"

God...I'm really trying to articulate how f***ed up this is in simple terms.  You're basically saying, "these biased sources that have a history of lying are accusing the media of bias, so I don't believe anything in the media and only believe my biased sources that have a history of lying!"

Seriously, it's f***ed up in ways that are hard to explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not going to agree and I think we are both remaining cordial through sheer force of will. With that in mind, I honestly don't see how you think any of the examples I posted are the fault of Breitbart.

The difference, as I see it, is that I do acknowledge, and even to a point agree with what you say about sites like Breitbart and to a lesser degree, Drudge Report, but this is your counter when presented with examples of deceit by the sites you deem as real news outlets, you appear wholly unwilling to acknowledge their role in the instances of deceit (not bias, deceit) cited.

Breitbart did not make CNN edit out that woman's call to burn "their **** down in the suburbs, not here" and then present that as "a call for peace". They did that all on their own. 

In my opinion, a powerful argument has even been made that the whole Sherrod debacle was not falsely edited by Breibart.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/02/dissecting-shirley-sherrods-complaint-against-andrew-breitbart/

Now, this argument is made by another right wing site, so it has been your habit to outright dismiss it, but as has been argued before, the "trusted" media will not scrutinize themselves. It is left to these people to do so.

It was mischaracterized, which is shameful, but no false edits were made as was reported by CNN, NYT's, etc and repeated here. Yet somehow this is more ****ing to you than how NBC altered Zimmerman's 911 call to make it sound racist on it's face.

I'm not blind, and arguably not dumb. I see the shortcomings of the Breitbarts of the world, but I also see the shortcomings of the CNNs as well.

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

We're not going to agree and I think we are both remaining cordial through sheer force of will. With that in mind, I honestly don't see how you think any of the examples I posted are the fault of Breitbart.

The difference, as I see it, is that I do acknowledge, and even to a point agree with what you say about sites like Breitbart and to a lesser degree, Drudge Report, but this is your counter when presented with examples of deceit by the sites you deem as real news outlets, you appear wholly unwilling to acknowledge their role in the instances of deceit (not bias, deceit) cited.

Breitbart did not make CNN edit out that woman's call to burn "their **** down in the suburbs, not here" and then present that as "a call for peace". They did that all on their own. 

In my opinion, a powerful argument has even been made that the whole Sherrod debacle was not falsely edited by Breibart.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/02/dissecting-shirley-sherrods-complaint-against-andrew-breitbart/

Now, this argument is made by another right wing site, so it has been your habit to outright dismiss it, but as has been argued before, the "trusted" media will not scrutinize themselves. It is left to these people to do so.

It was mischaracterized, which is shameful, but no false edits were made as was reported by CNN, NYT's, etc and repeated here. Yet somehow this is more ****ing to you than how NBC altered Zimmerman's 911 call to make it sound racist on it's face.

I'm not blind, and arguably not dumb. I see the shortcomings of the Breitbarts of the world, but I also see the shortcomings of the CNNs as well.

First of all, news media cannot include every second of video or audio clip, especially when they present a 1-3 minute segment on a story.  We're not talking about taking clips to support a narrative about a story, which is what the news does all the time.  There's nothing insidious or deceitful about that.  The edits that I'm talking about - Shirley Sherrod in particular - were intentionally edited to give the opposite impression of what actually happened.  In Sherrod's case, she was talking about how she changed her views and helped people regardless of color.  The Breitbart headline accused her of racism, the opposite of what the full unedited video showed.  Those things are very, very different.

Second, there are going to be mistakes in the editing process with any large news group.  The question is what happens in response to those mistakes.  NBC apologized for the Zimmerman video, and they should have.  When these things happen, most of the news organizations will publicly correct them most of the time.  

Third, Ed Schultz is an opinion guy, not part of the news team.  That is very different.  Do you have any idea how many deceitful and false things get said on these opinion shows?  The list from Hannity, O'Reilly, Schultz, and others is myriad.  I wish there were a lot fewer of these opinion shows on air, but they're not the same as the news.  Just because Hannity does some stupid edit to a video doesn't mean that you cannot trust anything from FoxNews.com.  

Finally, regarding the "burn it down" tape, that on its face seems like the worst of the examples.  The question is whether her "take that s*** to the suburbs" was typical of her comments or if they were an aside in a larger point about peace and not destroying their own neighborhoods.  Ironically, while you're accusing CNN of deceptively editing that video, the "unedited video" wasn't complete.  It didn't include her "don't bring the violence and ignorance here" part that was quoted by CNN.  So we STILL don't have the full context of her comments.  What you're basically saying is, "CNN edited the video and here is another edited video to prove they were deceitful."  

This kind of stuff is pretty common on the sites that you cite.  They make big splashy headlines with dramatic claims that aren't supported by the actual evidence they provide.  Then you can post their splashy headlines with a video as evidence of media bias even though their claims are just as, if not more, biased than what they are accusing the media of doing.  And whenever somebody like me highlights the problems with the claims from these biased websites, somebody else drops 4-5 more supposed examples with links to equally biased websites whose bold claims are supported by weak evidence.  And it's impossible to fact check all of the bulls*** these websites produce, so at some point people take the volume of bulls*** spouted by these sites as proof that what they're saying is true.  It's becomes this viscious circle where the full context and facts of a story get drowned in so much right-wing bulls*** that the truth gets buried.  

Look at the Wikileaks releases of emails.  Each time we were promised huge evidence of some kind of supposed corruption, and each time we found out there was surprisingly little there and no evidence of criminality.  But each week, the promise was made and the emails leaked and after a few days we realize it's nothing...and by then it was the next week with another promise made and more emails and after a few days still nothing...and by then it was the next week...

You're letting the people at these sites bury the truth in a mound of bulls***, innuendo, and outright lies.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2016 at 7:18 PM, Leon Troutsky said:

First of all, news media cannot include every second of video or audio clip, especially when they present a 1-3 minute segment on a story.  We're not talking about taking clips to support a narrative about a story, which is what the news does all the time.  There's nothing insidious or deceitful about that.  The edits that I'm talking about - Shirley Sherrod in particular - were intentionally edited to give the opposite impression of what actually happened.  In Sherrod's case, she was talking about how she changed her views and helped people regardless of color.  The Breitbart headline accused her of racism, the opposite of what the full unedited video showed.  Those things are very, very different.

Second, there are going to be mistakes in the editing process with any large news group.  The question is what happens in response to those mistakes.  NBC apologized for the Zimmerman video, and they should have.  When these things happen, most of the news organizations will publicly correct them most of the time.  

Third, Ed Schultz is an opinion guy, not part of the news team.  That is very different.  Do you have any idea how many deceitful and false things get said on these opinion shows?  The list from Hannity, O'Reilly, Schultz, and others is myriad.  I wish there were a lot fewer of these opinion shows on air, but they're not the same as the news.  Just because Hannity does some stupid edit to a video doesn't mean that you cannot trust anything from FoxNews.com.  

Finally, regarding the "burn it down" tape, that on its face seems like the worst of the examples.  The question is whether her "take that s*** to the suburbs" was typical of her comments or if they were an aside in a larger point about peace and not destroying their own neighborhoods.  Ironically, while you're accusing CNN of deceptively editing that video, the "unedited video" wasn't complete.  It didn't include her "don't bring the violence and ignorance here" part that was quoted by CNN.  So we STILL don't have the full context of her comments.  What you're basically saying is, "CNN edited the video and here is another edited video to prove they were deceitful."  

This kind of stuff is pretty common on the sites that you cite.  They make big splashy headlines with dramatic claims that aren't supported by the actual evidence they provide.  Then you can post their splashy headlines with a video as evidence of media bias even though their claims are just as, if not more, biased than what they are accusing the media of doing.  And whenever somebody like me highlights the problems with the claims from these biased websites, somebody else drops 4-5 more supposed examples with links to equally biased websites whose bold claims are supported by weak evidence.  And it's impossible to fact check all of the bulls*** these websites produce, so at some point people take the volume of bulls*** spouted by these sites as proof that what they're saying is true.  It's becomes this viscious circle where the full context and facts of a story get drowned in so much right-wing bulls*** that the truth gets buried.  

Look at the Wikileaks releases of emails.  Each time we were promised huge evidence of some kind of supposed corruption, and each time we found out there was surprisingly little there and no evidence of criminality.  But each week, the promise was made and the emails leaked and after a few days we realize it's nothing...and by then it was the next week with another promise made and more emails and after a few days still nothing...and by then it was the next week...

You're letting the people at these sites bury the truth in a mound of bulls***, innuendo, and outright lies.  

 

How friggen blind are you?

 

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

 

 

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

"Your response to my right-wing biased website that has published outright falsehoods is a fact-checker?  Bwahahahahahaha!!!  Stupid libs and their facts and checking of facts."

Moron.

Why are you personally attacking FF? You can suggest he is wrong, but stop it with the personal insults..Just disagree and say why.

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...