Show of HandsShow of Hands

omniku February 12th, 2019 1:40am

People say major news outlets are β€œfake news”. I hear it from the right about the New York Times & from the left about Fox News. Fake news = intentional lies. Can anyone post an example of when a major news org INTENTIONALLY fabricated a major story?

8 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

mark4
02/16/19 6:28 am

"Lying by omission - the deliberate exclusion of information from the news piece which is critical to properly understanding the situation."

If you don't see that on CNN just for example, on a daily basis then you are truly showing your own bias.

And please respond to John below.

Reply
Krystina Let Freedom Reign
02/13/19 12:10 am

I think the terminology “fake news” is misleading. I believe what people are referring to when they use the phrase are not necessarily outright lies, but unverified claims, reporting without evidence, loads of assumption based reporting, extreme bias reporting to the point of misrepresentation, and, just in general, lots of jumping the gun and/or placing blame where they shouldn’t.

These things may not be outright lies, but they are extremely divisive and damaging to our nation nonetheless.

Reply
Ebola007 Florida
02/13/19 4:42 am

Exactly.

Ebola007 Florida
02/13/19 5:36 am

See my comments below. With Shazam and omniko.

Krystina Let Freedom Reign
02/13/19 12:39 pm

Shazam and I have each other on ignore, so it’s a bit disjointed to me. But, overall, it does seem that we were making very similar points.

Ebola007 Florida
02/13/19 12:46 pm

He puts a lot of people on ignore who dare to challenge his views.

Krystina Let Freedom Reign
02/13/19 12:53 pm

I was the one who put him on ignore first. It’s rare thing for people of SOH to actually piss me off too, but he managed it. I think I’ve put only 3 people on ignore in all the years I’ve been here and he’s one of them, so make what you will of that.

Ebola007 Florida
02/13/19 1:00 pm

He can be an arrogant son of a gun and rarely admits when he’s wrong.

Krystina Let Freedom Reign
02/13/19 1:15 pm

True, and I have this propensity for eliminating toxic people from my life. I don’t need to listen to ad hominem attacks simply because I don’t agree with someone’s political dogma.

Ebola007 Florida
02/12/19 8:22 pm

Excuse me for laughing at the ignorance and arrogance shown by you and Shazam. It’s just so hilarious that you didn’t even check your original Wikipedia source and I had to do it for you. My first definition was from the Urban Dictionary btw.
I’m not sure why you both chose to embarrass yourselves over this. All I said was that I didn’t accept your definition so I wouldn’t be commenting. Then you guys arrogantly pounced it to insist that yours was the only. Anyone with a grade school education knows that many words and phrases can have multiple meanings.
I don’t blame you for trying to tailor your definition to push your agenda but don’t expect others to fall for your trap.
Next time you two download the same question from Facebook you might want to consider that others are not as ignorant as you might hope and be prepared to debate honestly on the merits of your statement. In the meantime I’m happy to have contributed to your education.

πŸ’‘
....

Reply
JamesAndersonMD La Jolla, CA
02/12/19 6:15 pm

A lot of police shootings are handled improperly by the media, and seem to drive a narrative of division prior to facts.

Reply
ozzy
02/12/19 12:42 pm

Russia collusion
Tax returns will show us
Trump is lazy
Trump is a racist
Separation of children at border
Romney doesn’t pay taxes
Binder full of women
And non-stories (buries news):
Hillary emails
Hillary Russia collusion
Benghazi
Uranium one/Russia

Reply
omniku dot com
02/12/19 3:55 pm

None of these qualify. Many sound like op-Ed’s not hard news. Please post a link or stop lying.

See the bottom of the comments for parameters. Mistakes don’t count, must be deliberate lying.

.

ozzy
02/12/19 5:09 pm

Wow

omniku dot com
02/12/19 5:28 pm

There isn’t a news organization in history that hasn’t made a mistake and issued a correction. If that’s the standard, there is no such thing as real news.

So are you saying there’s no such thing as real news?

.

leilu SoCal
02/12/19 7:26 am

Did we already forget the smear and lies about the Covington Catholic boys? Every news outlet that carried the story lied and dis not adequately do their job in journalism by seeking the truth first.

Reply
omniku dot com
02/12/19 3:56 pm

Mistakes or bias don’t count. I’m looking for an example of an outright lie.

leilu SoCal
02/13/19 12:18 am

Bias doesn't count?!!

omniku dot com
02/17/19 8:01 am

Bias isn’t fake news. All news is has some bias so if bias counted there would be no such thing as real news.

β™Ύ

localjudicial
02/12/19 12:25 am

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/20/us/covington-kentucky-student-statement/index.html

The kid had to go onto the news to correct what the media put out there. Media needs to stay out of kids 18 and under for their protection. No kid should have their lifes messed up by the media before it even begins

Reply
omniku dot com
02/12/19 3:56 pm

Mistakes or bias don’t count. I’m looking for an example of an outright lie.

localjudicial
02/12/19 4:11 pm

There shouldn't be mistakes to begin with on a story like this. This wasn't a live story the actions had already taken place. The media should have done their research before putting this up. So tell me again why this doesn't count in your opinion?

geoag02 Dallas, TX
02/12/19 12:22 am

I don’t think any media outlets on either side deliberately lie. We have laws against that. It is called libel and you can sue them for it. However both sides do engage in selective reporting not only of entire stories but also in what details about those stories they cover. They also make mistakes and cover things without properly checking their accuracy first.

Reply
omniku dot com
02/12/19 3:57 pm

Exactly. That’s why they don’t qualify as fake news. Info Wars publishes fake news which is why they’re facing lawsuits. NYT, Fox, etc do not.

.

Think Lovin Life
02/11/19 9:41 pm

Leftist news outlets like CNN continuously repeat the lies that MrT is a racist and that he colluded with Russia while completely ignoring the actual collusion between Mrs Clinton and the Russians in their feeble attempt to steal the election.

Reply
omniku dot com
02/12/19 2:20 pm

Please post a specific example of a hard news story where they did this. Kindly see my disclaimer at the bottom of these comments for the parameters.

.

lj74
02/11/19 9:39 pm

The accusation on the Covington Kids is a recent example

Reply
suppressedID IMEACH BIDEN
02/12/19 12:24 pm

Premature reporting is not fabrication.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 3:53 pm

Exactly. Looking for outright, intentional lies.

“Fake news - Definition - News reports that are intentionally false or misleading”

www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/political-scandal-words/fake-news

.

susanr Colorado
02/11/19 8:31 pm

I can’t think of any offhand. Although, I believe there were some pretty awful actually fake stories from some sleazy non-factual “news” sources that were *repeated* by more mainstream sites, during the last presidential election. That is, they linked to them or wrote about them without checking the validity of the story. And they weren’t too hard to spot as bogus, at least unless you *wanted* to believe that crap.

I share your opinion of the definition of “fake” news. It’s not just something you don’t want to hear, or an understandable mistake, or even an incorrect factoid in the early stages of a breaking story (although I wish they’d check better). It’s a made-up story like Pizzagate or the thousands of pre-voted-for-Clinton ballots, usually found on sleazy websites.

.

John1 Florida
02/11/19 8:11 pm

I think the daily attacks on Trump and Trump supporters from people on CNN and MSNBC like Don Lemon, Cuomo, Anderson Cooper, Al Jackson, Chris Matthews, etc. as being bigoted racists, misogynists and white supremacist Nazis is proof of the fake news.

Reply
suppressedID IMEACH BIDEN
02/12/19 12:27 pm

Political opinion is NOT news, nor is it fabrication.

Fox built itself into a juggernaut walking this line.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 2:19 pm

Exactly. What a specific example of an outright lie?

John1 Florida
02/12/19 7:18 pm

They are anchors on a major news channel, right? They spread their bullish!t propaganda that Trump and all of his followers are “Nazis.” Fake news. One specific instance of fake news that really stuck out to me was on January 10, 2017, when CNN reported on the existence of classified documents that said Russia had compromising personal and financial information about Donald Trump. CNN did not publish the dossier, or any specific details of the dossier. The information was not confirmed, nor was it based in any sort of reality; it was all designed for shock and all for ignorant viewers and it probably worked on a lot of idiots. Terrible reporting. Fake news.

John1 Florida
02/12/19 7:25 pm

Some examples I could find include:

•CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in process.”

•CNN Falsely claimed Sherelle Smith was ‘Calling For Peace’

•CNN Says It’s Illegal To Look At Wikileaks

•CNN Says Rape Is Pre-Existing Condition Under ACHA

•CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under investigation.

•CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding.

Ebola007 Florida
02/11/19 7:38 pm

Interesting question which was posted exactly as written a few weeks ago by @Shazam . I think a couple of people came up with examples. I don’t agree with your definition of fake news so I’m not going to answer.

Reply
Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/12/19 12:04 am

EB - yep. This it almost verbatim! If u rent right, the closest anyone came as a fake story posted on the website version of the National Review. I believe if I remember right, it was an editorial. While fake, I'm still torn on this one. The NR is a strong source generally, but I've had the feeling they've loosened the standards on their e version to meet the churn demand.


⚑

omniku dot com
02/12/19 2:19 pm

I missed that poll. Coincidence.

It’s not MY definition it’s THE definition...

“Fake news or junk news or pseudo-news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.” ~ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news

If only for your own sake, please stop denying reality. At the very least it’s not healthy for your psyche and at the very worst it can get you involuntarily committed. πŸ˜‰

.

Ebola007 Florida
02/12/19 2:55 pm

My definition would be news that isn’t true. If it’s not true then it’s fake. If the news was rushed and required a retraction or apology that news would be fake. See the point?

Ebola007 Florida
02/12/19 3:01 pm

Fake news

Fake news is a piece of news which has been distributed by a news organisation which contains some form of dishonesty, typically to promote a political agenda. Fake news can be broken down into a number of categories, which are:

Outright lie - The news piece contains a claim which is objectively false.

Lying by omission - the deliberate exclusion of information from the news piece which is critical to properly understanding the situation.

Lying by structure - the deliberate positioning of critical information at the end of a news report, resulting in many people not actually hearing the full story.

Cont.

.,,

Ebola007 Florida
02/12/19 3:05 pm

Selective outrage - deliberately reporting on a event which supports a particular political narrative, while ignoring similar events which would go against the desired narrative.

Emotive appeal - structuring a news piece in such a way as to attempt to emotionally manipulate the audience instead of focusing on the facts of the situation.

Hidden retraction - a news organisation will make a claim which is false, and then correct their original statement in such a way that fewer people will see the correction than saw the original news piece.

"This news channel is fake news, they are always lying and being dishonest!"

@omiko Perhaps YOU should face the reality that your pet definition is not the only definition! I’m happy to help you with understanding reality but you have to listen, something you’re not good at.

πŸ’‘
....

omniku dot com
02/12/19 3:52 pm

Your definition is wrong. That’s the problem. I assume you can’t link to the source of that definition because you’re sitting on it. 😜

Who is more authoritative about the definition of words?... anonymous SOH user Ebola or Merriam-Webster?

“Fake news - Definition - News reports that are intentionally false or misleading”

www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/political-scandal-words/fake-news

.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/12/19 3:55 pm

OMNI - clearly Mirriam and Webster were liberal socialists!

Ebola007 Florida
02/12/19 4:48 pm

“Claire Wardle of First Draft News identifies seven types of fake news:[24]

satire or parody ("no intention to cause harm but has potential to fool")
false connection ("when headlines, visuals or captions don't support the content")
misleading content ("misleading use of information to frame an issue or an individual")
false context ("when genuine content is shared with false contextual information")
impostor content ("when genuine sources are impersonated" with false, made-up sources)
manipulated content ("when genuine information or imagery is manipulated to deceive", as with a "doctored" photo)
fabricated content ("new content is 100% false, designed to deceive and do harm")”

Here’s a definition from your own reference!!
πŸ˜‚πŸ€£πŸ˜‚πŸ€£πŸ˜‚πŸ€£πŸ˜‚πŸ€£!

Now who’s not facing reality. πŸ˜‚πŸ€£πŸ˜‚πŸ€£πŸ˜‚?
ROFLMAO!

πŸ’‘
....

Ebola007 Florida
02/12/19 4:50 pm

You’re just too easy!!
Next time check your own source before accusing others of making stuff up. Lol πŸ˜‚

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/12/19 5:05 pm

OMNI - but sure bout you, but my opinion is everything outlined by FirstDraft aligns exactly with the MW definition you provided. They do not however align with any but the very first of "definitions" given by EB. For a doctor.... He really doesn't seem to read much!


EB - thanks for leaving the wiki source number. Made it super easy to read the original document!



⚑

omniku dot com
02/12/19 5:06 pm

That’s Claire Ward’s definition. I don’t know who that is. I’m very familiar with Webster’s dictionary and they wrote...

“Fake news - Definition - News reports that are intentionally false or misleading”

But ok, I’ll humor you. Let’s use the Ebola definition from above. Your definition could apply to literally every single news organization around the world and throughout history. There is no news organization that has never practiced “lying by omission” (because no one can cover everything), “lying by structure” (essentially, bias), or “hidden retraction” (a matter of perspective... any retraction could be quantified as “hidden” and all legitimate news outlets make multiple retractions/corrections).

Therefore, you are effectively saying there’s no such thing as real news because by your pet definition ALL news qualifies. Isn’t that the same thing in the end? It’s just as destructive because you’re still calling real news “fake news”?

.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/12/19 5:07 pm

I just realized that it IS possible I was being insensitive. It could be that EB had an reading it comprehension disability. If that is the case, I apologize.

Ebola007 Florida
02/12/19 8:23 pm

Excuse me for laughing at the ignorance and arrogance shown by you and Shazam. It’s just so hilarious that you didn’t even check your original Wikipedia source and I had to do it for you. My first definition was from the Urban Dictionary btw.
I’m not sure why you both chose to embarrass yourselves over this. All I said was that I didn’t accept your definition so I wouldn’t be commenting. Then you guys arrogantly pounced it to insist that yours was the only. Anyone with a grade school education knows that many words and phrases can have multiple meanings.
I don’t blame you for trying to tailor your definition to push your agenda but don’t expect others to fall for your trap.
Next time you two download the same question from Facebook you might want to consider that others are not as ignorant as you might hope and be prepared to debate honestly on the merits of your statement. In the meantime I’m happy to have contributed to your education.

πŸ’‘
....

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/12/19 9:12 pm

EB - blah blah blah & I write my Qs. In those instances when I do pull something from FB, I ALWAYS call that out. It's not my definition you dolt it's MWs. You provided a refined version that says the same thing. And there's no agenda Skippy. Or at least none by those who question the trumpeting "FAKE NEWS!" for anything critical of your Alpha Bull.

Go write yourself a script for Adderall Skippy. You're slipping.


⚑

Ebola007 Florida
02/12/19 10:49 pm

Lol πŸ˜‚ @Shazam . Good one! Keep talking! Anyhow I appreciate contributing to your education. At least now you know that different definitions exist for the same phrase. Why don’t you make a poll on how you and omniko came up with exactly the same question verbatim without having a common source? I’m looking forward to schooling you further. Good evening until your next lesson lol πŸ˜‚.

....

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/12/19 10:54 pm

EB - you really do have a reading disability don't you? They're similar. Not verbatim.

Ebola007 Florida
02/13/19 5:34 am

Whatever.

Don’t claim you don’t have an agenda when your every reply to me either questions my intelligence or accuses me of an agenda. Projection much?
Your agenda was to prove that fake news doesn’t exist through the use of a restrictive definition.
I’ve proven your agenda wrong with, not one but two, references. I even found omniko ‘s “fake news” of omission in his own reference
I’m through with this thread and enabling your mental masturbation.
Just admit you’re wrong like a man or continue to be a pussy. It makes no difference to me. I would hope that next time you would come better prepared to discuss the facts of the subject instead of relying on ad hominem attacks.

Good Day!

πŸ’‘
....

omniku dot com
02/14/19 11:10 am

Ebola, I’m really not trying to be arrogant. I’m genuinely trying to understand your perspective.

By your definition, ALL news is fake. Do you believe there’s such a thing as real news?

.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/14/19 4:34 pm

EB - thanks Rockstar. You just helped.

Are you having difficulty comprehending what people write?
YOU SAID THE EXACT SAME THING VERBATIM!!!
no we didn't. That's incorrect.
AGENDA! AGENDA! AGENDA! FAKE NEWS!FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!YOU'RE MAKING PERSONAL ATTACK!!! STOP!!!! YOU'RE A XXXXX!!!

I have no need for an agenda. I only need to simply give you enough time and rope, and you'll all make my arguements for me. 😎


⚑

Ebola007 Florida
02/14/19 4:43 pm

Lol πŸ˜‚. Sorry I triggered you but you’re just too easy. All I have to do is present the facts and you’re like a spinning top.

I knew you wouldn’t admit you’re wrong like a man. It’s my fault for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll try not to make that mistake again. πŸ˜‚πŸ€£πŸ˜‚πŸ€£

πŸ’‘
....

omniku dot com
02/14/19 8:19 pm

Well will you at least answer my question then? Are you saying you don’t think there’s such a thing as real news? It’s definitely a position you could hold. I know a couple of other SOH users who have said as much.

.

Ebola007 Florida
02/15/19 5:49 am

@omniko
My comment above was meant for Shazam.

Do I feel that all news is fake news? Of course not. I’m just pointing out that you don’t own the definition. Certainly I could carve out or find such a restrictive definition so as to push an agenda as you did but that’s not what most people mean when they use the term.

OTOH why would an assertion that all news is fake news be any more outrageous than your assertion that no news is fake news? Both are patently absurd.

πŸ’‘
....

omniku dot com
02/15/19 5:27 pm

Except by your definition, every single news organization and history qualifies. So by your standard all news is fake news, even if you claim it isn’t. What’s one example of a news organization that consider to be legitimate?

I never said no news is fake news. For example, Info Wars is definitely fake news. MSNBC and Fox are both BIASED news that mix news and opinion in potentially dangerous ways (since a lot of viewers can’t tell one from the other), but they aren’t “fake news”. They don’t fabricate stories out of whole cloth the way Info Wars does.

It’s this distinction that’s the whole point of my poll. Even if you hate The Guardian’s bias, you can’t put it in the same league as Info Wars. It’s not only disingenuous and incorrect, it’s dangerous!

.

omniku dot com
02/15/19 5:28 pm

When you set the bar for fake news so low that every news organization can be considered fake news, you are damaging the entire institution of journalism. I’m not sure if you’ve heard the term “fourth estate” or if you’ve read the bill of rights, but it’s been pretty well established that the free press is VITAL to freedom and self rule. Without it we will lose our way of life.

That’s why I’m going to humbly ask you to reconsider your definition of “fake news” and go with the actual definition... intentionally false reporting. It’s extremely destructive to our society to brand legitimate all news as fake news!

β™Ύ

omniku dot com
02/15/19 5:28 pm

* TYPO: Except by your definition, every single news organization IN history qualifies...

.

Ebola007 Florida
02/15/19 6:24 pm

I am going by an actual definition and I stand by my statement.

The fact is that many news sources have exhibited fake news.

Ebola007 Florida
02/16/19 6:52 am

Besides, I thought you were a fan of reality.

omniku dot com
02/17/19 8:06 am

I am a big fan of reality which is why am so appalled that you’re claiming all news is fake.

It’s just sad that you believe that there is no truth to any journalism. I also think it’s dangerous for our society for people to believe this. It means you can reject anything you don’t experience with your own eyes and ears. Because our society requires a certain level of extension of trust, this tears at the fabric of our society.

β™Ύ

omniku dot com
02/17/19 8:27 am

I just thought of an analogy that will help explain my point. I’ll apply your logic to your profession...

Because there are some doctors who engage in malpractice, the entire field of medicine is corrupt. All doctors including you are quacks.

You are using the exception as the rule. You are taking a small minority of human error or bad acting (which exists in all human institutions) and extrapolating it out to the entire institution. It’s like people who use a minority of corrupt cops to say the entire police force is corrupt. It’s just wrong.

.

Ebola007 Florida
02/17/19 12:01 pm

I’m working today so it’ll take a while for me to get back to you but I will.

Looks like @Shazam put me on ignore as all of his comments have disappeared. He doesn’t like being shown where he’s wrong and tends to use ad hominem attacks rather than true debate so no loss there. Sometimes the ones you think are the strongest are the biggest snowflakes ❄️. Lol πŸ˜‚

πŸ’‘
....

Ebola007 Florida
02/17/19 12:25 pm

“I am a big fan of reality which is why am so appalled that you’re claiming all news is fake.”

Show me where I claimed that. I’ve never said any such thing.

Your analogy about doctors is flawed in that no one would say that all doctors are quacks and even if you had a valid point wouldn’t you be doing the same thing in reverse by saying that there isn’t any fake news?

I also disagree that I’m using the exception to prove the rule because I believe that fake news is quite common in the sense that most people use it.

πŸ’‘
....

omniku dot com
02/17/19 4:47 pm

Oh well, his loss.

I’m not saying there isn’t any fake news. I even gave Info Wars as an example of fake news. My concern is calling real news “fake news” when it isn’t.

You said all news is fake because of your definition. In your first post in this thread you said...

“My definition would be news that isn’t true. If it’s not true then it’s fake. If the news was rushed and required a retraction or apology that news would be fake.”

Every news organization has at one point or another published/broadcast and in accurate story and had to issue a retraction/correction. Therefore you’re saying every news organization qualifies as fake news, no?

.

Ebola007 Florida
02/17/19 5:52 pm

No. I’m saying that many news organizations have been guilty at times of publishing fake news.

That’s a far cry from claiming that “all news is fake”. Surely you can see that.

omniku dot com
02/19/19 11:50 am

I wouldn’t even go that far. I would say all news organizations have made mistakes, like every human institution.

Once you start claiming a news organization has published fake news you’re casting doubt over ALL of the news that entire organization publishes. So you’re effectively saying they’re fake news. It’s caustic to the institution of journalism as a whole.

.

Ebola007 Florida
02/19/19 4:39 pm

It should be caustic. The truth hurts.

omniku dot com
02/19/19 5:06 pm

So you’re agreeing that what you’re doing is destructive to our society? Why do you do it then?

Ebola007 Florida
02/19/19 5:11 pm

Quit putting words in my mouth. I’m doing nothing that is destructive to our society. If anything the truth will make our society stronger.

omniku dot com
02/19/19 5:25 pm

I said it’s caustic to the institution of journalism as a whole and that the free press is VITAL to our way of life. I even capitalized vital for emphasis.

You agreed with me that it’s caustic to journalism and therefore our way of life. Or did I misunderstand what you meant when you agreed it’s caustic?

.

Ebola007 Florida
02/19/19 5:41 pm

Our way of life has a better chance of surviving when we face reality and correct the flaws in our reporting of the news. We’re worse off when we ignore those flaws and pretend that no news is fake news.

omniku dot com
02/19/19 5:48 pm

But you admit what you’re doing is caustic to the institution of journalism.

omniku dot com
02/19/19 5:56 pm

I’m not ignoring the flaws. I’ve been very clear... I want as accurate reporting as possible, but I recognize 100% accuracy is impossible. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

The danger is calling it all “fake news” which puts New York Times and Info Wars in the same category. Has NYT ever made a mistake? Yes, but even so they are the most accurate news sources in the business (as a percentage of total stories published, they issue the least retractions and corrections of any news organization).

Info Wars straight up makes shit up. It’s not even journalism!

.

omniku dot com
02/19/19 5:58 pm

Here’s the difference.. NYT accidentally misreported who paid for Nikki Haley’s drapes and when they discovered the mistake they immediately issued a correction. Info Wars made up a story out of whole cloth about the Sandy Hook shooting being a false flag that lead to death threats against Sandy Hook parents. Info Wars has refused to retract the story and has faced libel suits as a result.

When you call both “fake news” you make them equivalent. That’s what is so caustic to the institution of journalism. It’s like saying you are equal to Dr. Nick Riviera. It debases your skill and expertise.

I apologize for misunderstanding your position. Let me try to make this very simple... Do you consider New York Times to be equivalent to Info Wars in terms of being “fake news”?

.

tractorman Oklahoma
02/11/19 7:33 pm

Fox NOnews posted the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Big time lie!

Reply
Ebola007 Florida
02/11/19 7:38 pm

Fake news!πŸ˜‚

susanr Colorado
02/11/19 8:20 pm

Except it wasn’t a lie - although I guess that’s a matter of opinion. Did they lie or make a mistake? They quickly removed it, and I think they explained and apologized. In my book, that’s a mistake.

(And I think we *all* ought to be understanding, if not forgiving, of mistakes, instead of calling them lies without any good reason. I’m thinking of the really negative things people on SOH said about some other news outlet that put a “R” instead of a “D” after someone legislator’s name recently.)

.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 2:15 pm

Exactly, Susanr. That was a mistake. Please see my disclaimer at the bottom of the comments. Mistakes don’t count as fake news.

This is my larger point… A lot of what’s being classified as “fake news” are honest mistakes that get corrected/retracted. I’m looking for outright lies.

.

GeezerGolf Show us your papers
02/11/19 7:18 pm

Just recently the MSM perpetrated a malicious false narrative about a group of Catholic School students who were waiting for a bus. You may have heard about it.

50 individuals and media organizations are hearing about it from the slandered parties attorneys.

It’s one thing for the MSM to relentlessly attack Trump, a public figure, but these were ordinary citizens, minors, who were the organized target for their vicious false narratives.

Reply
pcisbs1 Baltimore to Central PA
02/11/19 8:02 pm

-Let’s not forget Hands up Don’t shoot
-Nikki Halley’s Drapes
-NBC sat on information that contradicted Kavanaugh allegations
-CNN posted VA Governor was a Republican
-CNN’s Trump Tower story obliterated by Democrat Lanny Davis
-Covington Catholic Hoax
-Time Magazine cover of fake Honduran child
-Spreading Conspiracy about Melania’s Post Surgery
-Kavanaugh clerk flashed white power symbol

Need I go on....?

omniku dot com
02/12/19 6:09 am

Geezer - To be honest, I didn’t follow that story very closely because I was working 100+ hours per week when it was a big deal. However, my understanding is that was a complex situation that’s open to different interpretations depending on your perspective. Different outlets with different biases reported on it differently which is kind of par for the course. That’s not the same as making up a completely false story.

Examples of fake news stories would be “Sandy Hook was a false flag” or “North Dakota gives green light to shoot Standing Rock protestors”. I’m looking for an example of outright lying.

.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 6:20 am

Thanks, Pc. Those are a lot of examples that I’ll have to look into them, but at least a couple these are not fake news right off the bat. For example...

“Kavanaugh clerk flashed white power symbol”

This was a rumor started on Twitter. News outlets reported on the Twitter reaction (we can probably agree reactions on Twitter are blown out of proportion and not worthy of reporting, but that’s another story). However, I can’t find a major news source that reported that the clerk definitely flashed a white power symbol. Can you?

I have a feeling when I go through your other examples they will be similar things. Not outright lying, but examples of bias, mistakes, etc. Although there are issues with that, it’s NOT the same as intentional lying. This is my whole point... you are being lead to believe the news is outright lying to you when it’s not. It’s almost like there are people who want an uninformed public. πŸ€”

.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 6:27 am

“Dont forget one of the very first, when the reporter claim MLKs bust was removed from the oval office.”

Not even close to an example of fake news. Please read my disclaimer at the bottom of the comments.

This wasn’t even published by Time. One of their reporters tweeted it from his PERSONAL Twitter account. Within an hour he had corrected it via Twitter. There wasn’t a story to retract because Time never even published a story!

The only fake news here is that this was ever fake news… It was never even news! It was an individual’s Twitter account and even he corrected his mistake. This is a laughable example!

www.snopes.com/fact-check/mlk-bust-oval-office/

Keep trying though! πŸ˜€

.

GeezerGolf Show us your papers
02/12/19 6:58 am

KW: Amen...the distinction between reporters’ official outlet & their “Private” is specious in this media age! In fact arguing for the distinction is arguing for the plausible deniability to put all manner of outrageous content out to achieve their goal of destroying this Presidency.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 5:08 pm

“damage was done.”

In your opinion, sure. But it wasn’t fake news.

.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 5:10 pm

Geez... apply your logic to another institution. Let’s say, law enforcement. There have been cases of individual law enforcement officers engaging in corruption. Do you therefore believe the police as a whole are corrupt?

.

GeezerGolf Show us your papers
02/12/19 5:16 pm

It’s a bad comparison.

If the corruption and outrageous behavior was nonstop 24/7 for 2 & 1/2 years in almost all jurisdictions around the country, then I would have to conclude it was systemic.

That’s not what we see.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 5:23 pm

-NBC sat on information that contradicted Kavanaugh allegations

This is the closest example I’ve seen so far. All of the others examples are mistakes (corrections were issued) or unverified.

It’s debatable if it’s an outright lie, but it’s definitely extreme bias, omission, and unethical. The thing is, in their original story they did specify...

“NBC News was unable to independently corroborate Swetnick's claims and has not spoken with anyone who says they saw Swetnick at parties with Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has said he does not know Swetnick and has called her claims a farce.”

So it’s not as if they reported Swetnick‘s claim as definitely true, they specified it was not corroborated.

.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 5:25 pm

“If the corruption and outrageous behavior was nonstop 24/7 for 2 & 1/2 years in almost all jurisdictions around the country”

Do you see that as the case with journalism? If so, why can’t you give me a definitive example of a time when a major news organization has intentionally published/broadcast a major story that’s an outright lie?

.

GeezerGolf Show us your papers
02/12/19 6:18 pm

Pscibs above has already done so.

Add to that, the finding of two studies that conclude 97% of MSM coverage of Trump & his admin has been negative indicates your comparison does not apply. There is a uniform, & persistent pattern of both lies of commission, AND, almost as importantly to the creation of a false narrative, OMMISSION.

GeezerGolf Show us your papers
02/12/19 6:31 pm

For journalism, not covering stories that might make your political enemy look good is akin to a prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence, which by the way, Muellers crew has done in past cases, which later led to reversals. But, as with the fake narratives about Trump, the damage was done, lives were ruined.

LibArtie SW Connecticut
02/11/19 7:02 pm

Fox morning and evening programming is laden with propaganda.

Reply
omniku dot com
02/12/19 5:59 am

That’s because those are technically opinion shows. Fox is very crafty… They sneak a little bits of news into what’s effectively an editorial channel. So you have actual news (like Shep Smith or Chris Wallace) mixed in with the editorialists who IMHO are full of it (Hannity, Ingraham, etc). Fox pays their real news anchors considerably more than competing networks, which explains why they do it.

It’s how you get Fox News anchors disputing their networks central message during their broadcasts...

“The president again calling the Russia investigation a 'Democratic hoax'," Smith said. "It is not. Fox News has been reporting and will continue to report that two people have pleaded guilty." ~ thehill.com/homenews/media/368374-foxs-shep-smith-fact-checks-trump-on-air-after-russia-comments

.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 6:00 am

If you ever listen to Fox News radio you’ll occasionally hear callers complaining that Fox should “ fire that liberal Shep Smith!”. He’s not a liberal! He’s just reporting accurately!

By serving up a dose of actual reporting, Fox gets to call itself “news”. And their viewers just write the news part off as liberals employed by the network to make it “fair and balanced”. Brilliant! Devious, maybe... but brilliant!

.

omniku dot com
02/11/19 6:40 pm

πŸ’ 

People say major news outlets are “fake news”. I hear it from the right about the New York Times & from the left about Fox News. Fake news = intentional lies. Can anyone post an example of when a major news org INTENTIONALLY fabricated a major story?

I can / I cannot

.

omniku dot com
02/11/19 6:59 pm

Disclaimer (due to character limit): that means not a mistake, not a correction, not a retraction, not an editorial, not bias, not omission of coverage, not a rogue reporter who was fired once it was uncovered, etc (all of which happens at every single news organization since journalism is not an exact science).

I am looking for outright lying by a major news organization who published, broadcasted, or distributed an intentionally fabricated story without retraction or correction.

.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 2:21 pm

For whatever record SOH constitutes this is not MY definition this is THE definition...

“Fake news or junk news or pseudo-news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.” ~ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news

.

Ebola007 Florida
02/12/19 3:09 pm

See my comment above. Just because this is your pet definition doesn’t mean it’s the only one.

omniku dot com
02/12/19 3:43 pm

It’s true I have a fondness for reality. I’m sorry you can’t accept reality. I truly am.

Ebola007 Florida
02/13/19 7:33 am

Your powers of projection amuse me.