Running Fake News Thread of Mockery

[GRHorn 105]

I put this in the media bias thread, but it’s probably a better example of fake news that has to be corrected.

On this forum the question has been put to me multiple times, “Give examples of the media being wrong?!?!”  So we can put them here.  Any “mainstream” media outlet. Here’s just one funny example from a couple days ago. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dnc-says-reported-hack-attempt-was-a-false-alarm-1535028628

Here’s the original in the NYT with the hilarious update header.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/technology/democratic-party-says-it-has-thwarted-attempted-hack-of-voter-database.html

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

What makes it funny? 

Seems pretty obvious someone was trying to covertly attack the system as a test and all the alarms went off, including to the media, which is good.

Not sure why this is the media’s fault for only reporting the story they were given from the DNC at the time.

When they discovered it was only a test, they correctly reported it as such.

But go ahead and HAHA FakeNews! Like a fucking douchebag.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

I’d like a real version of this thread. Not just incorrectly reported stuff, but things where you can infer some intentionally skewed reporting.  

the clearest example I see a lot of is in the headline writing.  Headlines are (most commonly) hyperbolic beyond the content of the article and the other are headlines that make logical or causal links that aren’t really that strongly supported by the article.  

[David Dennison 19536]

Just about everything leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

[GRHorn 105]

10 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I’d like a real version of this thread. Not just incorrectly reported stuff, but things where you can infer some intentionally skewed reporting.  

the clearest example I see a lot of is in the headline writing.  Headlines are (most commonly) hyperbolic beyond the content of the article and the other are headlines that make logical or causal links that aren’t really that strongly supported by the article.  

It can be anything people want, but i thought it was an area missing coverage. 

 

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Just about everything leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

Absolutely. I wasn’t thinking we’d look back but whatever y’all wanna do.

 

32 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What makes it funny? 

Seems pretty obvious someone was trying to covertly attack the system as a test and all the alarms went off, including to the media, which is good.

Not sure why this is the media’s fault for only reporting the story they were given from the DNC at the time.

When they discovered it was only a test, they correctly reported it as such.

But go ahead and HAHA FakeNews! Like a fucking douchebag.

 I think it’s pretty funny when major news media runs with a story that is completely debunked within 48 hours.  That update is classic imo. 

The bolded part is what’s interesting. A slip of the tongue. I’m guessing that’s a fairly common reason for the NYT to run with a story.  

[Skyline 325]

It shouldn't be their fault if that's what the DNC reports. Looks like they corrected as needed. 

On another note, I'm ok with the DNC overreacting considering what happened. 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

During the course of an ongoing story the news reported on the information that was provided to them at one point in time and then updated the story with information that was provided to them at a later point in time.  That's not fake news.  That's just news.  It's how it works, it's how it has always worked, and it is how all news outlets work.  Stop being a dummy, GR.  

[Hank Kingsley 21778]

OP fail. Good fucking grief. 

 

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Fake news means intentionally false reporting.    Incompetence and mistakes don't qualify.   A good sign that an incorrect report is the latter rather than the former is that it was timely corrected.   Try to be better, if not best. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[fuggled 576]

I’d like a real version of this thread. Not just incorrectly reported stuff, but things where you can infer some intentionally skewed reporting.  
the clearest example I see a lot of is in the headline writing.  Headlines are (most commonly) hyperbolic beyond the content of the article and the other are headlines that make logical or causal links that aren’t really that strongly supported by the article.  

Here's a good example: https://mashable.com/2018/08/25/kneeling-national-anthem-beto-orourke/#Lh3HSNGUvsqc

We can't know for sure if the bad headline was intentional or just lazy.

[GRHorn 105]

I know, they’re just reporting what anonymous sources tell them.  It’s just journalism.  Hey they corrected it.  It’s not fake news. 

Why does it seem to tilt so much in one direction?  Whoops

[Chuckie Finster 23058]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I know, they’re just reporting what anonymous sources tell them.  It’s just journalism.  Hey they corrected it.  It’s not fake news. 

Why does it seem to tilt so much in one direction?  Whoops

Hold up... are you trying to insinuate that this type of shit doesn't happen on the right?  There's a whole fucking network dedicated to passing along misinformation.

[David Dennison 19536]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I know, they’re just reporting what anonymous sources tell them.  It’s just journalism.  Hey they corrected it.  It’s not fake news. 

Why does it seem to tilt so much in one direction?  Whoops

It doesn't no matter how much you cry about it.

[Hank Kingsley 21778]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

I know, they’re just reporting what anonymous sources tell them.  It’s just journalism.  Hey they corrected it.  It’s not fake news. 

Right. 

Quote

Why does it seem to tilt so much in one direction?  Whoops

Because you're extremely biased, can't think critically, and continue to embarrass yourself on this thread. 

 

[Foosters 18279]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

Why does it seem to tilt so much in one direction?  Whoops

Is this satire?

[David Dennison 19536]

It's becoming more and more obvious that people on the right have no idea what journalists and reporters actually do.

[Chuckie Finster 23058]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I know, they’re just reporting what anonymous sources tell them.  It’s just journalism.  Hey they corrected it.  It’s not fake news. 

Why does it seem to tilt so much in one direction?  Whoops

Literally took 30 seconds to google, genius:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/02/28/tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-issue-corrections-on-cnn-smear/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/07/11/fox-friends-issues-correction-on-comey-report/

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/04/media/fox-news-msnbc-correction-error/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/15/551163406/fox-news-has-yet-to-explain-what-what-wrong-in-seth-rich-story

[GRHorn 105]

4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Hold up... are you trying to insinuate that this type of shit doesn't happen on the right?  There's a whole fucking network dedicated to passing along misinformation.

Hey it’s an open fake news thread.  You’re welcome to post anything as they come up.  

[Foosters 18279]

5 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Hold up... are you trying to insinuate that this type of shit doesn't happen on the right?  There's a whole fucking network dedicated to passing along misinformation.

He's not trying to insinuate anything. He's flat out stating that this only occurs with the liberal media.  He's either a liar, insane, or both and should be mocked.

[Chuckie Finster 23058]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

Hey it’s an open fake news thread.  You’re welcome to post anything as they come up.  

And that shit I posted is just the stuff they admit to.  Doesn't even touch the fact that their entire prime-time lineup is state-sponsored propaganda.  

[GRHorn 105]

3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Literally took 30 seconds to google, genius:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/02/28/tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-issue-corrections-on-cnn-smear/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/07/11/fox-friends-issues-correction-on-comey-report/

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/04/media/fox-news-msnbc-correction-error/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/15/551163406/fox-news-has-yet-to-explain-what-what-wrong-in-seth-rich-story

That’s good. We can all go back and do it. It’s the thread of mockery.

[shnsajax 3607]

Is this where we post Trump's tweets from now on?

[David Dennison 19536]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Literally took 30 seconds to google, genius:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/02/28/tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-issue-corrections-on-cnn-smear/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/07/11/fox-friends-issues-correction-on-comey-report/

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/04/media/fox-news-msnbc-correction-error/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/15/551163406/fox-news-has-yet-to-explain-what-what-wrong-in-seth-rich-story

Why does it seem to tilt so much in one direction?

[GRHorn 105]

19 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Hold up... are you trying to insinuate that this type of shit doesn't happen on the right?  There's a whole fucking network dedicated to passing along misinformation.

Personally I don’t hold Fox News up as a news organization.  I almost never watch it. It is one sided propaganda. Would you put CNN, Wash Post, NYT in that same boat? I’m looking at entities in MSM that people hold up as bastions of truth. Supposedly neutral. 

[Tom 2960]

15 minutes ago, Foosters said:

He's not trying to insinuate anything. He's flat out stating that this only occurs with the liberal media.  He's either a liar, insane, or both and should be mocked.

While I agree, you should just call it "media." Saying "liberal media" implies that any media that doesn't promote right wing conspiracy nonsense propaganda is "liberal."  It's not.  These people need to learn that reality has a liberal bias.

[VRHorn 732]

10 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Personally I don’t hold Fox News up as a news organization.  I almost never watch it. It is one sided propaganda. Would you put CNN, Wash Post, NYT in that same boat? I’m looking at entities in MSM that people hold up as bastions of truth. Supposedly neutral. 

That's just beautiful...it's quite possibly the perfect troll post.

[RomaVicta 30578]

8 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Personally I don’t hold Fox News up as a news organization.  I almost never watch it. It is one sided propaganda. Would you put CNN, Wash Post, NYT in that same boat? I’m looking at entities in MSM that people hold up as bastions of truth. Supposedly neutral. 

You don't support Trump. You don't watch FOX News and don't even consider it to be a news organization. Therefore, there is no way that you're carrying water for the Fake News campaign in hopes of discrediting outlets that report news regarding President Trump.

Peddle that stupid shit somewhere else.

[Skyline 325]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna904366?__twitter_impression=true

Heres an actual example: 

Quote

Far-right media misidentifies Jacksonville shooter as Trump-bashing Reddit user

 

The guy guy ended up doing a reddit AMA today and it’s pretty amusing. But this fake news was spread by gateway pundit, Cernovich, and even Donald Jr. 

 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Hold up... are you trying to insinuate that this type of shit doesn't happen on the right?  There's a whole fucking network dedicated to passing along misinformation.

both sides!

[Guest]

The funniest thing is that CNN admitted to being infotainment, yet people still think CNN is legit. CNN is the opposite side of the FOX News BS News coin.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/27/cnn-trump-russia-undercover-video-producer/

[GRHorn 105]

8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

You don't support Trump. You don't watch FOX News and don't even consider it to be a news organization. Therefore, there is no way that you're carrying water for the Fake News campaign in hopes of discrediting outlets that report news regarding President Trump.

Peddle that stupid shit somewhere else.

I’ve said before I voted for Trump. Never denied it. I don’t agree with everything he says and does, not even close. 

Only Fox News I ever watch willingly is rarely Gutfeld or Kennedy or Stossel in the past. Mostly I’m forced to see it in lounges at work. 

I started the thread because any time I’ve pointed out people’s distrust in the mainstream media on other threads, people act like it’s impossible that the media gets things wrong. 

6 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

The funniest thing is that CNN admitted to being infotainment, yet people still think CNN is legit. CNN is the opposite side of the FOX News BS News coin.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/27/cnn-trump-russia-undercover-video-producer/

They admit it on undercover video?  That counts?  Do you think Anderson portrays himself in same way as hosts on MSNBC?

[David Dennison 19536]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I’ve said before I voted for Trump. Never denied it. I don’t agree with everything he says and does, not even close. 

Only Fox News I ever watch willingly is rarely Gutfeld or Kennedy or Stossel in the past. Mostly I’m forced to see it in lounges at work. 

I started the thread because any time I’ve pointed out people’s distrust in the mainstream media on other threads, people act like it’s impossible that the media gets things wrong. 

They admit it on undercover video?  That counts?  Do you think Anderson portrays himself in same way as hosts on MSNBC?

If you distrust the mainstream media it means you're either:

a) incapable of critical thinking, or

b) too lazy to turn it off

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

53 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I know, they’re just reporting what anonymous sources tell them.  It’s just journalism.  Hey they corrected it.  It’s not fake news. 

Why does it seem to tilt so much in one direction?  Whoops

When a source is identified as anonymous in a story, what do you think that means?

[Chuckie Finster 23058]

13 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

The funniest thing is that CNN admitted to being infotainment, yet people still think CNN is legit. CNN is the opposite side of the FOX News BS News coin.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/27/cnn-trump-russia-undercover-video-producer/

When I want the inside scoop on CNN's Russia coverage, I definitely reach out to the (checks notes) supervising producer of CNN's health unit.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[Hank Kingsley 21778]

So GRHorn is a Trump voter that believes the pro-Trump news channel is propaganda, and starts a thread "mocking" the liberal media, which he holds to the standard of truth. 

This is the world we fucking live in. 

 

 

 

[RomaVicta 30578]

13 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I’ve said before I voted for Trump.

Apologies for getting that wrong.

[JBJ 3825]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If you distrust the mainstream media it means you're either:

a) incapable of critical thinking, or

b) too lazy to turn it off

Weird negatives in this post, but don't you mean the opposite?

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

When I want the inside scoop on CNN's Russia coverage, I definitely reach out to the (checks notes) supervising producer of CNN's health unit.

lol, okay. The smoking gun is not a dead body with fingerprints on it. I got it.

[Chuckie Finster 23058]

15 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

lol, okay. The smoking gun is not a dead body with fingerprints on it. I got it.

What's the smoking gun?  That talking about Trump is good for ratings?  That the media does not yet possess concrete proof of collusion?

Congrats Steve, you just figured out Blue's Clues.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

What's the smoking gun?  That talking about Trump is good for ratings?  That the media does not yet possess concrete proof of collusion?

Congrats Steve, you just figured out Blue's Clues.

The smoking gun of someone on the production & strategy team of a major news network admitting, unwittingly, that they are an infotainment and their programming is more about ratings (citation: video) than it is about any of the written and unwritten journalistic standards and values that predated the 24/7 news entertainment industry.

CNN is not real news. Whether you want to call it Fake News (I wouldn't disagree) or not (that's okay too), to pretend it is anything more than infotainment is behaving exactly like those who believe that Fox News is legitimate and not a pure play entertainment programming company.

So what is real news? Good question and it is probably anyone's guess, but personally I can say I trust NPR and TMZ (as utterly insane as that sounds), respectively. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Guest

[Homercles 10206]

I just read multiple sources and come to my own conclusions.

[kopp0e 1135]

not fake news, but I don't know how this isn't a "fake news" type story... Who thinks this will have a good outcome..?

 

[Foosters 18279]

39 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

not fake news, but I don't know how this isn't a "fake news" type story... Who thinks this will have a good outcome..?

 

Lots of people. Myself included. Have you read any of the arguments for the bill? If so, which ones do you disagree with? 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Foosters

[27-25 2085]

51 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

not fake news, but I don't know how this isn't a "fake news" type story... Who thinks this will have a good outcome..?

 

Doesn't apply to violent felonies, for what that's worth.

[kopp0e 1135]

42 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Lots of people. Myself included. Have you read any of the arguments for the bill? If so, which ones do you disagree with? 

If the release of individuals are up to the discretion of the institution, what determines "violent", is the only concern that I have, otherwise no problem...

[relapse98 634]

1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

If the release of individuals are up to the discretion of the institution, what determines "violent", is the only concern that I have, otherwise no problem...

Its defined in the bill and California law. Linkie

 

Quote

1320.20.

 (a) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial supervision will reasonably assure public safety if the court finds probable cause to believe either of the following:

(1) The current crime is a violent felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, or was a felony offense committed with violence against a person, threatened violence, or with a likelihood of serious bodily injury, or one in which the defendant was personally armed with or personally used a deadly weapon or firearm in the commission of the crime, or was one in which he or she personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the crime; or

(2) The defendant is assessed as “high risk” to the safety of the public or a victim and any of the following:

(A) The defendant was convicted of a serious felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 or a violent felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, within the past 5 years.

 

Quote

(c) For the purpose of this section, "violent felony" shall mean any of the following:

(1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter.

(2) Mayhem.

(3) Rape as defined in paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261 or paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 262.

(4) Sodomy as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286.

(5) Oral copulation as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 288a.

(6) Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 288.

(7) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life.

(8) Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and proved as provided for in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or 12022.9 on or after July 1, 1977, or as specified prior to July 1, 1977, in Sections 213, 264, and 461, or any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm which use has been charged and proved as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 12022.3, or Section 12022.5 or 12022.55.

(9) Any robbery.

(10) Arson, in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 451.

(11) Sexual penetration as defined in subdivision (a) or (j) of Section 289.

(12) Attempted murder.

(13) A violation of Section 12308, 12309, or 12310.

(14) Kidnapping.

(15) Assault with the intent to commit a specified felony, in violation of Section 220.

(16) Continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section 288.5.

(17) Carjacking, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 215.

(18) Rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration, in concert, in violation of Section 264.1.

(19) Extortion, as defined in Section 518, which would constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22 of the Penal Code.

(20) Threats to victims or witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1, which would constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22 of the Penal Code.

(21) Any burglary of the first degree, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 460, wherein it is charged and proved that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary.

(22) Any violation of Section 12022.53.

(23) A violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418. The Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes merit special consideration when imposing a sentence to display society's condemnation for these extraordinary crimes of violence against the person.

So, with the knowledge now of what is violent crime, can you explain why you think this is a fake news story, other than the fact that the AP didn't fully explain the bill in its tweet?

[Gil Bang 26235]

not fake news, but I don't know how this isn't a "fake news" type story... Who thinks this will have a good outcome..?
 

Me.

[kopp0e 1135]

13 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

Its defined in the bill and California law. Linkie

 

 

So, with the knowledge now of what is violent crime, can you explain why you think this is a fake news story, other than the fact that the AP didn't fully explain the bill in its tweet?

Thanks for the link..!

[kopp0e 1135]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Me.

Don't get me wrong, as I'm not against the measure, I just wanted clarification on what "violent" likely meant...

[GRHorn 105]

7 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

So GRHorn is a Trump voter that believes the pro-Trump news channel is propaganda, and starts a thread "mocking" the liberal media, which he holds to the standard of truth. 

This is the world we fucking live in. 

 

 

 

1) Not all Trump voters watch Fox News. 

2) So you call the mainstream media the “liberal media”?  I thought the NYT, WashPo etc were above partisan politics.