Running Fake News Thread of Mockery

[GRHorn 105]

6 hours 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.

Blue’s Clues is possibly the lamest kid’s show ever created. Glad to see someone else had to sit through that in the past too. 

 

7 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Apologies for getting that wrong.

Eh, I’ve made worse decisions before. 

 

7 hours ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

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

I guess you didn’t read the article. That’s ok. Maybe you can circle back around to it. 

 

7 hours 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

I’m a little confused by this comment, but I would say anyone that blindly trusts the mainstream media is more likely incapable of critical thinking. 

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

Trump voters, like you, call it the liberal media.  Do you not remember posting "Why does it seem to tilt so much in one direction?  Whoops" earlier in this thread?

 

[Buzzrock 15136]

Why do 24 hour news channels run four stories per day?

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

13 hours ago, GRHorn said:

I guess you didn’t read the article. That’s ok. Maybe you can circle back around to it. 

Pretty terrible attempt at a dodge here.  I know what the story says and I know what they mean by anonymous source.  My question is, do you?  Because your posting history indicates you are too dumb to understand what it means.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

13 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

Why do 24 hour news channels run four stories per day?

A few reasons but they all boil down to $$$ and consumer laziness.  

20 years ago, Headline News was one of my favorite channels.  In 30 minutes I would get the television equivalent of a national newspaper like USA Today. I’d get national, global, sports, entertainment, and weather news in a tight little package.  What the fuck happened to that?!?

Well Fox News came along and completely changed the business model of information delivery via the television. They opted for more infotainment with a “conservative spin” the other major networks followed suit because it was more profitable.

You see a similar phenomenon with other channels.  MTV stopped showing music videos. TLC stopped airing educational programming.  The History Channel went with Ice Road Truckers, Ancient Aliens, and Swamp people.

Many of these changes were really consumer driven coupled with corporatist greed.  

In short, we allowed the stupid to get ahold of the most influential platforms in society and the people making the decisions were more than happy to give it to them for a few extra dollars.

And now we’re facing the consequences.

[Incredulity 11876]

58 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A few reasons but they all boil down to $$$ and consumer laziness.  

20 years ago, Headline News was one of my favorite channels.  In 30 minutes I would get the television equivalent of a national newspaper like USA Today. I’d get national, global, sports, entertainment, and weather news in a tight little package.  What the fuck happened to that?!?

Well Fox News came along and completely changed the business model of information delivery via the television. They opted for more infotainment with a “conservative spin” the other major networks followed suit because it was more profitable.

You see a similar phenomenon with other channels.  MTV stopped showing music videos. TLC stopped airing educational programming.  The History Channel went with Ice Road Truckers, Ancient Aliens, and Swamp people.

Many of these changes were really consumer driven coupled with corporatist greed.  

In short, we allowed the stupid to get ahold of the most influential platforms in society and the people making the decisions were more than happy to give it to them for a few extra dollars.

And now we’re facing the consequences.

You should start your own media empire.

It certainly appears you have the time.

[GRHorn 105]

3 hours ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Pretty terrible attempt at a dodge here.  I know what the story says and I know what they mean by anonymous source.  My question is, do you?  Because your posting history indicates you are too dumb to understand what it means.  

An anonymous source is anonymous. One key thing CNN did though is they claimed they spoke to Lanny Davis and he declined comment. That’s just not true.

He was the impetus for the story that was treated as a BFD and it was bullshit.  

 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

An anonymous source is anonymous. One key thing CNN did though is they claimed they spoke to Lanny Davis and he declined comment. That’s just not true.

He was the impetus for the story that was treated as a BFD and it was bullshit.  

 

"An anonymous source is anonymous."  That's some high quality analysis.  

[GRHorn 105]

This one is just funny.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-nikki-haley-curtains-story-correction-2018-9

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/us/politics/state-department-curtains.html

Editors’ Note: September 14, 2018 

An earlier version of this article and headline created an unfair impression about who was responsible for the purchase in question. While Nikki R. Haley is the current ambassador to the United Nations, the decision on leasing the ambassador’s residence and purchasing the curtains was made during the Obama administration, according to current and former officials. The article should not have focused on Ms. Haley, nor should a picture of her have been used. The article and headline have now been edited to reflect those concerns, and the picture has been removed