Fake news

Is this what Trump talks about, but doesn't realize Fox is fake as well. That's how I take fake news to mean, hidden agenda reporting, or lack of reporting, or censored reporting. By censored, by example, if a company owned by the media parent caused stomach cancer, they would just say it has been accused of causing stomach ailments and illnesses. By agendas, they report against a congressman that doesn't support their proposed bills. By lack of reporting, they don't talk about a billion dollar giveaway they're getting in Congress, and talk about Kim Kardashian "in the news today".

When Trump is talking about fake news he's talking about all the news he personally doesn't like.

Quote: gamerfreak

When Trump is talking about fake news he's talking about all the news he personally doesn't like.

You're right. The news is fake even if Trump is wrong or right for the wrong reason. One problem with the news, they don't report the rules they use to report the news, they must have them written somewhere.

Rule 21, dont blame high gas on lack of refineries, the people will want more refineries. Blame world demand now.

Rule 33, stop saying mass shooters were quiet, kept to themselves.

Rule 45, black guy commits a stereotypical crime, don't show his picture.

Rule 46, white guy commits stereotypical crime, show his picture.

Rule 7, if a major brand is part of a story, but not important, use a generic synonym or something similar instead.

Rule 137, if something is brought up that should not be brought up, pretend it didn't happen, move on.

Rule 138, if a major story won't go away, wait for something else, then all outlets preach the new story at the same time, forget about the embarrassing story that can open a can of worms.

Here's a fascinating article about how the orange man-baby that the GOP has let rule their party gets his news:

How Trump gets his fake news

Quote:

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus issued a stern warning at a recent senior staff meeting: Quit trying to secretly slip stuff to President Trump.

Just days earlier, K.T. McFarland, the deputy national security adviser, had given Trump a printout of two Time magazine covers. One, supposedly from the 1970s, warned of a coming ice age; the other, from 2008, about surviving global warming, according to four White House officials familiar with the matter.

Trump quickly got lathered up about the media’s hypocrisy. But there was a problem. The 1970s cover was fake, part of an Internet hoax that’s circulated for years. Staff chased down the truth and intervened before Trump tweeted or talked publicly about it.

When Jimmy Kimmel first came on late night, he was given a lengthy censorship list of all things he was not allowed to say or do. He read some on the air, I distinctly remember him saying he could not use the phrase "as American as apple pie", I believe because ABC believed it discriminated based on country of origin. He made jokes about it, was shocked, but be assured it was real and lengthy.

I think part of the problem is people confusing, or networks obfuscating, the difference between news and political commentary.

Fox/CNN for example... the main anchors pretty much always stick to verifiably factual statements. But after they report a fact, they invariably turn to a panel of "political correspondents" who comment on the story. And commentary is inherently bias, in fact, bias is the entire purpose of commentary. Yet people on either side will take what these correspondsnts say as gospel, when its literally all opinion.

Same thing with internet "reporting" like Breitbart, that site is 100% commentary, yet people call it news and share it on Facebook and treat is as if it's news.

At some point news stopped becoming news, and became current event driven entertainment. Journalists stopped becoming journalists and started becoming entertainers.

Can you imagine if Walter Cronkite had ever reported Political news, and then proceeded to tell you how he personally felt about it?

Quote: gamerfreak

I think part of the problem is people confusing, or networks obfuscating, the difference between news and political commentary.

Fox/CNN for example... the main anchors pretty much always stick to verifiable factual statements. But after they report a fact, they invariably turn to a panel of "political correspondents" who comment on the story. And commentary is inherently bias, in fact, bias is the entire purpose of commentary. Yet people on either side will take what these correspondents say as gospel, when its literally all opinion.

Same thing with internet "reporting" like Breitbart, that site is 100% commentary, yet people call it news and share it on Facebook and treat is as if it's news.

At some point news stopped becoming news, and became current event driven entertainment. Journalists stopped becoming journalists and started becoming entertainers.

Can you imagine if Walter Cronkite had ever reported Political news, and then proceeded to tell you how he personally felt about it?

Nope, sure can't. Cronkite only gave his opinion one time in all the years he was on the air and was begged not to. That was regarding Vietnam. You are dead right on all your points. I trust no media and make it a rule to always look up opposing viewpoints if I ever see something that interests me. I actually would prefer to hear directly from a source and then I'll make up my own mind (don't need the NY Times or Fox to tell me how to think). And I suspect more and more people are of that opinion. The news media is one of the least trusted of all professions.

Uncle Walt gave some thought to running for VP on John Anderson's Independent bid for President in 1980.
He decided against it for personal reasons.

Quote: billryan

Uncle Walt gave some thought to running for VP on John Anderson's Independent bid for President in 1980.
He decided against it for personal reasons.

Great tidbit. We loved John Anderson in our house. My mom was his campaign chair for Iowa before he lost the nomination to Reagan.

There was a movie called Broadcast News in the 80's that discussed extensively the change from straight news to entertainment, the ethics, and the repercussions. It's amazing how prescient they were, and it's more pertinent now than when it was made. Worth watching, with a great cast,.if you haven't seen it. (I'm guessing you, billryan, have, but a lot of the guys on here will have been too young at the time. )

I worked for Anderson in the primaries, traveling to Connecticut several weekends and then was co- chair in Nassau County of the effort to get him on the ballot in NY as an Independent. Unfortunately, once the Fall came along , I was too busy with school to do much.
I did organize a fundraiser for him showing a filming of Bedtime for Bonzo. It was pretty lightly attended and barely covered the expenses of renting the film and projector, but it was fun.

Another Cronkite tidbit.
About three years ago, I was approached to buy a large comic collection. I passed on it but brokered the sale to another, much larger dealer.
The seller turned out to be Walter Cronkite the Third. Had I known that, I might have done it differently. I'd have loved to have spent time with him.