What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Fake News - What Is It? (3 Viewers)

Fake News - What Is It?

  • Actual fabricated stories definitively stating things that are factually untrue

    Votes: 35 58.3%
  • Not sure, but lean more toward actual fabricated stories definitively stating things that are factua

    Votes: 8 13.3%
  • On the fence

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not sure, but lean more toward spun news. Meaning it's not factually untrue, but it's spun in a way

    Votes: 8 13.3%
  • Spun news. Meaning it's not factually untrue, but it's spun in a way where the whole story isn't tol

    Votes: 9 15.0%

  • Total voters
    60
Fabricated news.  Not people getting something wrong because their sources got things wrong.  But actually making something up.

The numerous stories on Seth Rich ...where they just completely fabricated things is a great example.

Most op-eds are still labeled opinion or editorial.  Perhaps posting those on message boards and social media as if they were news is also "fake news".
Maybe the journalist should try not using the mail man as a source next time.

 
>>New York Times columnist Charles Blow’s column of Dec. 2, 2018, was silly even by his standards. “Members of Trump’s team were extremely interested in and eager to accept any assistance that the Russians could provide,” wrote Blow. “That is clear.”<<

Hm, perhaps you caught the President’s most recent statement on this.
I did a fun little exercise in the Russia thread where I took his first link here and went through it "incident" by "incident".  Figured the NYP was the best shot at any sort of legit journalism of the examples presented.  I think there were two items they listed that cases could be made for....the rest?  no.

And "being wrong" <> "fake news", especially when it's an opinion or the error is retracted and/or corrected.

ETA:  This one:   https://nypost.com/2019/04/19/top-10-things-the-media-got-wrong-about-collusion-and-obstruction/  I know you'll find it hard to believe, but not a single reply to that post :lol:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hear you. But per the poll above, most people don't agree. They see fake news as truly fabricated fiction site try to pass off as real. And of course, it's on a scale. Exaggerating the wind is wrong and annoying, but most people aren't calling that completely made up and fake. 

And to be clear, I'm not sure if there's a right or wrong answer. I was just trying to get a consensus on what people thought. 
I share your opinion that spinning news can be far more dangerous than outright made up news. If something is entirely fictional, it can easily be caught and pointed out by other news sources. Spinning news is stating some facts and excluding other facts to shape a narrative. That's more dangerous because anything based in some fact is going to be more deeply believed by the consumer. But make no mistake, a report that reports some facts that lead to a logical conclusion opposite the one likely reached if all facts were presented is absolutely "fake news".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you consider the Comet Pizza phenomenon spin? Consider that it did include numerous facts in its narrative.
This is what I understand of that story, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory  That's a very different thing from highlighting the parts of a story you want to present.

I'd call spin picking the parts to highlight. The coverage of the Trump interview is a perfect example. Daily Beast had 5 takeaways all negative for Trump. Fox's big takeaway was Trump said he was clear. Both networks are factual in their coverage of the interview. They just put the spin on it to appeal to their audience. 

 
I hear you. But per the poll above, most people don't agree. They see fake news as truly fabricated fiction site try to pass off as real. And of course, it's on a scale. Exaggerating the wind is wrong and annoying, but most people aren't calling that completely made up and fake. 

And to be clear, I'm not sure if there's a right or wrong answer. I was just trying to get a consensus on what people thought. 
There is a right answer.  It means a fabricated story, often spread on the internet.  The Cambridge dictionary agrees. So does Mirriam-Webster, which explains its decision not to provide a definition for the phrase like this:

The reason fake news is unlikely to be entered in our dictionary anytime soon is that it is a self-explanatory compound noun — a combination of two distinct words, both well known, which when used in combination yield an easily understood meaning. Fake news is, quite simply, news (“material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast”) that is fake (“false, counterfeit”).
People can use words and phrases colloquially to mean different things. But that doesn't change the phrase's actual meaning, and saying otherwise is really really bad and harmful.

Consider for example the phrase "backup quarterback." We all know what its normal, universally agreed-upon definition is. But some people use it colloquially to mean "a quarterback who isn't good enough to be a quality NFL/FBS starter," which is also fine if the context is clear. But if one of your analysts started referring to Dak Prescott as a "backup quarterback" because that person thinks he sucks, and their writing didn't make that context clear, I assume you'd want them to clarify it and probably use another phrase.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is what I understand of that story, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory  That's a very different thing from highlighting the parts of a story you want to present.

I'd call spin picking the parts to highlight. The coverage of the Trump interview is a perfect example. Daily Beast had 5 takeaways all negative for Trump. Fox's big takeaway was Trump said he was clear. Both networks are factual in their coverage of the interview. They just put the spin on it to appeal to their audience. 
I think then we're talking about a spectrum, and what point on the spectrum you place the label "fake news." I'm less interested in fixing where the label applies than I am in hoping that we can somehow get more journalism to operate closer to the factual based reporting end of the spectrum. The age old issue is still choosing between selling more or providing the most factual/unbiased reporting possible. And ultimately, we readers/viewers are the ones making that determination.

 
Hm, perhaps you caught all the other things they got wrong.
I was just trying to pick one. I think we both know working through every exemplar would be a lot of trouble and unproductive.

One other main point we can see from that example is that that piece by Charles Blow was clearly marked Opinion. In fact (NYPost provided a link) it says "Opinion" in large bold letters right at the top above the title.

I don't know if you want to go through the others, but I'm glad to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there were two items they listed that cases could be made for....the rest?  no.
I thought the example about CNN speculating that Comey would say he never told Trump he was not under personal investigation was a possible yes. But then, again, these stories are complicated - so CNN had a source in the WH or Congress who claimed they knew what Comey would say.

This is the Mueller report.

The first phase covered the period from the President’s first interactions with Comey through the President’s firing of Comey. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry.
I guess it's not surprising to me if someone being told 'Trump is under investigation' was translated as 'Trump was never told he was not under investigation'.

NYPost doesn't provide any links for this one either.

 
Even if CNN got the story on the Comey testimony wrong - it's still real "news" in real time.

People on Capitol Hill believed Comey would testify as to A, not B. That's still news, they still believed that, and it's still relevant in the context of what ended up happening.

 
Note that's a satirical site, but what happens is that article can be screen shotted and shared online/social media.
Yes. I’ve seen that happen with older folks sharing an onion article. 

The trouble is as you said, with the share. Where you’re not able to see below the article the disclaimer:

NPC

The creator of NPC Daily. The mastermind behind the entire NPC Daily movement. Yes, this entire website is satire and not meant to be taken seriously. It's for fun. Chill. See "about" page for more details. Now that we got that taken care of, repeat after me: "Orange man the absolute worst."

 
Letting the president off the hook by letting him lie during an interview and then not challenging or fact checking is also fake news.

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1140418254743228417
I think I spotted a problem in this thread:

Daniel Dale‏Verified account @ddale8 Jun 16

More

For the 11th time, Trump said he got 52% of the women's vote in 2016. It was 52% of the *white* women's vote, according to exit polls; 41% of all women.

In Trump's world, only white women count, so he was telling the truth there.

 
It wasn’t always explicitly false information being reported.  Sometimes it was subtle spin, deliberate omission of countervailing facts, burying the lede 40 paragraphs down.  But the “bombshell” reporting that led millions to believe the President was an agent of Russia/Putin is easily the most preeminent example of fake news in the past decade.  

They had a narrative, and they milked it for tons of cash.  And it was peddled by the “prestige” news agencies  that crow the loudest about “fake news”.  

 
Bucky got it right pretty much right away. 


Actually that wasn't what I was looking for at all. I was hoping to hear what you guys think. He did the standard derailment let's take a shot at someone else. 

It's supposed to be fabricated news, but the current POTUS has extended the definition to anything that he disagrees with.
Fortunately, we had real discussion after. I thought the poll results were interesting and the talk of fake news vs spun news interesting. 

 
Yeah, it's all my fault. It's not like you can just look at the POTUS tweet history and just see when he started using the term to disregard negative stories.

http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive
It's all about where we want the discussion to go. If we want to turn it to another Trump is awful, thread, your post was perfect. If you want to turn it into a discussion about what people think about the top, your post was 100% derailment. :shrug:  

Fortunately, it got back on track. Although this likely will take it totally off the tracks. Which is fine. A couple of pages of real discussion is all one can hope for. All good. 

 
Actually that wasn't what I was looking for at all. I was hoping to hear what you guys think. He did the standard derailment let's take a shot at someone else. 

Fortunately, we had real discussion after. I thought the poll results were interesting and the talk of fake news vs spun news interesting. 
Standard derailment? I’m being serious here in saying that he accurately describes the phrase’s current connotation. 

 
It's all about where we want the discussion to go. If we want to turn it to another Trump is awful, thread, your post was perfect. If you want to turn it into a discussion about what people think about the top, your post was 100% derailment. :shrug:  

Fortunately, it got back on track. Although this likely will take it totally off the tracks. Which is fine. A couple of pages of real discussion is all one can hope for. All good. 
But the term fake news (these days) is very Trump driven.  It is part of the real discussion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/

We can agree to disagree. It doesn't change the fact that "fake news" was an actual thing happening well before Trump started using the term to gaslight our news media. 

Enjoy your thread.
Exactly right.  The entire notion that the meaning of the phrase is somehow debatable is 100% attributable to Trump. It's absurd to imagine having this conversation and ignoring the entire reason it even is a conversation.

 
Standard derailment? I’m being serious here in saying that he accurately describes the phrase’s current connotation. 
Not for most people. And that's why I asked the question. The majority of people see fake news as completely fabricated fiction. Not just news you disagree with. At least the folks here that voted. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's sort of what I was getting at here.

I call that "spinning" news. Not "fake" news. My understanding of "fake news" is that it's people actually fabricating pure fiction as news that they fully know is pure fiction. 
That’s a good definition imo.   

Being wrong doesn’t mean it is fake.  There needs to be an element of dishonesty.   

 
I think most here see it that way.  Away from here?  I disagree.  There is a large element that sees any spin or even opinion interjected as making it all fake.  
That would be interesting to see how the population feels. Real fabricated fiction passed off as news is of course awful / wrong / terrible. I think everyone agrees there.

I do think there's a lot of people though feeling negativity toward spun news too. Whether it's the rise of cable news and more biased takes or just the internet in general, I'm not sure what's driving it. 

 
I think I spotted a problem in this thread:

Daniel Dale‏Verified account @ddale8 Jun 16

More

For the 11th time, Trump said he got 52% of the women's vote in 2016. It was 52% of the *white* women's vote, according to exit polls; 41% of all women.

In Trump's world, only white women count, so he was telling the truth there.
therein lies the problem with applying the “fake news” label to trump.  Is it really “fake” if he believes his lies?  Which I think he does. 

 
Not for most people. And that's why I asked the question. The majority of people see fake news as completely fabricated fiction. Not just news you disagree with. At least the folks here that voted. 
Not for most folks? I guess I'm jealous of your social circles. I'm looking out my office window right now at a truck with a window sticker that reads "FNN" in the CNN localel underscored by "fake news network."  I'm willing to bet that if I drove around town a bit today I'd see similar bumper stickers or window stickers.  I have had several conversations with people who use the phrase "fake news" in the context of referring to media that is critical of the current administration. 

Objectively, the term "fake news" should mean exactly how you describe (as complete, deliberate fabrication outside of intentional satire) and I suppose that any reasonably learned person should still consider its definition to be such.  But, what I think is the more poignant inquiry (and certainly not a derailment by any stretch), is whether the phrase's current connotation means something different. I think that answer is that, yes - it does - and I'd reference the significant number of "likes" that Bucky's post got as evidence of such.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not for most folks? I guess I'm jealous of your social circles. I'm looking out my office window right now at a truck with a window sticker that reads "FNN" in the CNN local underscored by "fake news media."  I'm willing to bet that if I drove around town a bit today I'd see similar bumper stickers or window stickers.  I have had several conversations with people who use the phrase "fake news" in the context of referring to media that is critical of the current administration. 

Objectively, the term "fake news" should mean exactly how you describe (as complete, deliberate fabrication outside of intentional satire) and I suppose that any reasonably learned person should still consider its definition to be such.  But, what I think is the more poignant inquiry (and certainly not a derailment by any stretch), is whether the phrase's current connotation means something different. I think that answer is that, yes - it does - and I'd reference the significant number of "likes" that Bucky's post got as evidence of such.
When I said "most folks", I was referring to the poll results here. 

I do have good social circles though... ;)

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Standard derailment? I’m being serious here in saying that he accurately describes the phrase’s current connotation. 
Not for most people. And that's why I asked the question. The majority of people see fake news as completely fabricated fiction. Not just news you disagree with. At least the folks here that voted. 
Joe, you may be correct that the majority of people see "fake news" as completely fabricated fiction.

But that is because the President Of The United States has waged a ceaseless war on the mainstream media, describing their everyday activities as "fake news" -- often simply because he disagrees with what is being factually reported. Trump is singlehandedly responsible for changing the usage (if not the definition) of the term.

If you doubt that, then just look at this Pew Research poll from last year. 58% of Republicans think that journalists create fake news, and they're also 3 times more likely to believe that journalists who "insert their own views" into a story is part of the problem.

As one Harvard Law professor (who wrote a book about fake news) summed up, Republicans take the idea of made-up news to 'mean news that is critical of Trump' instead of totally false stories.

 
It's all about where we want the discussion to go. If we want to turn it to another Trump is awful, thread, your post was perfect. If you want to turn it into a discussion about what people think about the top, your post was 100% derailment. :shrug:  

Fortunately, it got back on track. Although this likely will take it totally off the tracks. Which is fine. A couple of pages of real discussion is all one can hope for. All good. 
Joe, 

@[scooter] just made a very good point about this.  I'll offer a similar view in different phrasing and see if it helps out.  

You wanted to know what people think "fake news" is.  When Bucky responded, he did so twofold: he provided a definition, and then he provided his perception of current context.  That current context included a reference to our POTUS.  What you saw as targeting and derailment was actually a great encapsulation of what he (and many others) think about when they hear the term "fake news." My belief - and my perspective - is that the term has a literal meaning and a contextual/emotional meaning for people.  Obviously in the last 5 or so years there has been a greater focus on fake news. 

First it was because oddball conspiracy theories were given greater rise and "airtime" due to the accessibility of social media.  Then real media often needs to report on these fake developments for one reason or another which again raises their visibility.  Unfortunately, the mere mention of these fake news stories by real news people can give the aura of some real credibility to them. 

Secondly it was because of the incessant repeating of the phrase "fake news" by then-candidate and now-President Trump.  He did what he often does (and does well) by co-opting a real term with a real meaning and twists it to his own use by imbuing it with meaning it didn't have before (and likely shouldn't have).

People respond viscerally to this.  Some respond by agreeing with it and repeating the claims ad nauseum and then by reusing the factually incorrect term. Their echoing and repetition amplify the effort from the original messenger (in this case, POTUS). Others respond by being repulsed by the way a term originally used for truth-seeking has been essentially turned into just the opposite; it becomes a term that is applied in a fake way to real things - the converse of its goal. In both cases, the new contextual/emotional meaning of the word is specifically drawn from the source of this new usage/meaning - and that is Trump.

Personally, when I hear "fake news" these days I basically prepare to cringe. While quickly assessing the context and the speaker, I prepare (more often than not) to hear either a bad joke about something they don't want to hear being labeled as such or to hear a bad defense of some current news bit that the speaker doesn't know much more about than the headlines. Occasionally, people will actually explain why the thing they are talking about is factually fake (be it twisted lies, or made of whole cloth). Those times are nice, but infrequent.  I wish we could get back to the real literal meaning of it - but too many people are happy to repeat some awful catch phrase that makes them feel like they get some momentary victory.

I don't think Bucky was trying to derail or unjustly attack.  He was very succinctly explaining a pretty valid (IMO) perspective on the term "fake news" - which is exactly what you had asked him to do.

PS. The new landing page when you try to go to footballguys.com that isn't the original page with the banner of menu options at the top is really annoying.  Just thought I should leave that here.

 
Joe, 

@[scooter] just made a very good point about this.  I'll offer a similar view in different phrasing and see if it helps out.  

You wanted to know what people think "fake news" is.  When Bucky responded, he did so twofold: he provided a definition, and then he provided his perception of current context.  That current context included a reference to our POTUS.  What you saw as targeting and derailment was actually a great encapsulation of what he (and many others) think about when they hear the term "fake news." My belief - and my perspective - is that the term has a literal meaning and a contextual/emotional meaning for people.  Obviously in the last 5 or so years there has been a greater focus on fake news. 

First it was because oddball conspiracy theories were given greater rise and "airtime" due to the accessibility of social media.  Then real media often needs to report on these fake developments for one reason or another which again raises their visibility.  Unfortunately, the mere mention of these fake news stories by real news people can give the aura of some real credibility to them. 

Secondly it was because of the incessant repeating of the phrase "fake news" by then-candidate and now-President Trump.  He did what he often does (and does well) by co-opting a real term with a real meaning and twists it to his own use by imbuing it with meaning it didn't have before (and likely shouldn't have).

People respond viscerally to this.  Some respond by agreeing with it and repeating the claims ad nauseum and then by reusing the factually incorrect term. Their echoing and repetition amplify the effort from the original messenger (in this case, POTUS). Others respond by being repulsed by the way a term originally used for truth-seeking has been essentially turned into just the opposite; it becomes a term that is applied in a fake way to real things - the converse of its goal. In both cases, the new contextual/emotional meaning of the word is specifically drawn from the source of this new usage/meaning - and that is Trump.

Personally, when I hear "fake news" these days I basically prepare to cringe. While quickly assessing the context and the speaker, I prepare (more often than not) to hear either a bad joke about something they don't want to hear being labeled as such or to hear a bad defense of some current news bit that the speaker doesn't know much more about than the headlines. Occasionally, people will actually explain why the thing they are talking about is factually fake (be it twisted lies, or made of whole cloth). Those times are nice, but infrequent.  I wish we could get back to the real literal meaning of it - but too many people are happy to repeat some awful catch phrase that makes them feel like they get some momentary victory.

I don't think Bucky was trying to derail or unjustly attack.  He was very succinctly explaining a pretty valid (IMO) perspective on the term "fake news" - which is exactly what you had asked him to do.

PS. The new landing page when you try to go to footballguys.com that isn't the original page with the banner of menu options at the top is really annoying.  Just thought I should leave that here.
Thanks. We can just disagree there. All good. 

For the landing page, you should only see the new page if you're not registered as at least a Free Subscriber. Please shoot me an email at bryant@footballguys with the title "landing page" and let me know exactly what you're seeing and what you have registered for. Thanks. 

 
Joe, you may be correct that the majority of people see "fake news" as completely fabricated fiction.

But that is because the President Of The United States has waged a ceaseless war on the mainstream media, describing their everyday activities as "fake news" -- often simply because he disagrees with what is being factually reported. Trump is singlehandedly responsible for changing the usage (if not the definition) of the term.

If you doubt that, then just look at this Pew Research poll from last year. 58% of Republicans think that journalists create fake news, and they're also 3 times more likely to believe that journalists who "insert their own views" into a story is part of the problem.

As one Harvard Law professor (who wrote a book about fake news) summed up, Republicans take the idea of made-up news to 'mean news that is critical of Trump' instead of totally false stories.
Thanks @[scooter]  I don't think I'm "correct" at all. I was just referencing the poll results from here.

I actually don't know what people think. Which is exactly why I asked the question here. I know people think I have some 3d chess thing going on. The reality is most all of the polls I ask or questions I ask here are for one reason - I want to find out what you guys think. It's why I get frustrated when I ask what you guys think and the posts turn to "It's Hillary's fault" or "It's Trump's fault". I'm way more interested in what you guys think than turning the thread into a ____________ is terrible thread. 

 
The reality is most all of the polls I ask or questions I ask here are for one reason - I want to find out what you guys think.
OK, but you said Bucky derailed the thread when he told you what he thought. That's why many of us are confused.

 
OK, but you said Bucky derailed the thread when he told you what he thought. That's why many of us are confused.
Absolutely his turning the "what do you guys think?" question into turning it into what Trump thinks is derailing. It's a common thing on boards. Fortunately, enough people had an interest in talking about what they think. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Absolutely his turning the "what do you guys think?" question into turning it into what Trump thinks as derailing. Fortunately, enough people had an interest in talking about what they think. 
So you don't believe it's possible that - for some people - the term "fake news" has become inextricably linked with Trump?  Put differently, if you asked people to DEFINE fake news (what I think you meant) you'll get a different answer then if you ask what people THINK ABOUT when they hear fake news. Those are different questions with (potentially) different answers. I was honestly a little surprised that you dismissed Bucky's POV so offhandedly as having ill intent.

 
Thanks. We can just disagree there. All good. 
I think PolishHammer kind of hit the nail there. The problem is that fake news had a concrete meaning and it was rebranded by Trump with a specific, malicious purpose, and it goes hand in hand with his arguments for limiting free speech and in attacking journalists as the enemy of the people. I don't think you or anyone can avoid that crux if the discussion is had in a real fashion.

It's too bad we're there, we probably agree there.

I was listening to Limbaugh a short while ago. He regularly tells his listeners to not believe what they see or hear in the news. This am he directed people to ZeroHedge and a handle called 'Tyler Durden' for news on some given subject. It's an anonymous handle and it regularly spouts fantasies about Deep State conspiracies. The handle of course openly evokes the fictional destructive anarchist in Fight Club. This is not good stuff, Joe, it's antidemocratic and very troubling.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, but you said Bucky derailed the thread when he told you what he thought. That's why many of us are confused.
Absolutely his turning the "what do you guys think?" question into turning it into what Trump thinks is derailing. It's a common thing on boards. Fortunately, enough people had an interest in talking about what they think. 
Joe, I think it's safe to say that most of us agree with Bucky's assessment -- and I'd include many Trump supporters on the list, too. They know that Trump says "Fake News!" to describe things that upset him or that he disagrees with. (Two recent examples: lying about Meghan Markle, and calling a Fox News poll "fake news". I think even some of Trump's most ardent supporters would admit that Trump called Markle "nasty".)

 
So you don't believe it's possible that - for some people - the term "fake news" has become inextricably linked with Trump?  Put differently, if you asked people to DEFINE fake news (what I think you meant) you'll get a different answer then if you ask what people THINK ABOUT when they hear fake news. Those are different questions with (potentially) different answers. I was honestly a little surprised that you dismissed Bucky's POV so offhandedly as having ill intent.
Of course anything is possible for people. 

Did you email me what you're seeing on the landing page? Please title it "landing page" as I need to see what you're seeing there. Thanks. 

 
There was a time when Trump only used the phrase "fake news" to describe things that couldn't be disproved – for example, a story sourced from anonymous leakers.

Over time, he steadily began to be more loose with the phrase, as @scooter has shown.

Because of that, Trump has gradually conditioned his supporters to believe that "fake news" is code for "anything that makes Trump look bad."

:sorryifthatderailsthethread:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
Absolutely his turning the "what do you guys think?" question into turning it into what Trump thinks is derailing. It's a common thing on boards. Fortunately, enough people had an interest in talking about what they think. 
I didn't interpret what he said to be at all consistent with the sentiment of your statement.

Honestly, when I hear the phrase "fake news media" Trump and his staunch supporters really are the first thing I think about. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer said:
There was a time when Trump only used the phrase "fake news" to describe things that couldn't be disproved – for example, a story sourced from anonymous leakers.

Over time, he steadily began to be more loose with the phrase, as @scooter has shown.

Because of that, Trump has gradually conditioned his supporters to believe that "fake news" is code for "anything that makes Trump look bad."

:sorryifthatderailsthethread:
Yeah, I really don't think how one can have a serious, productive, and even academic discussion about the concept of "fake news" without at least acknowledge Trump and his impact. 

 
Joe Summer said:
There was a time when Trump only used the phrase "fake news" to describe things that couldn't be disproved – for example, a story sourced from anonymous leakers.

Over time, he steadily began to be more loose with the phrase, as @scooter has shown.

Because of that, Trump has gradually conditioned his supporters to believe that "fake news" is code for "anything that makes Trump look bad."

:sorryifthatderailsthethread:
The us of Anonymous sources was a great target for the Trump gang. Since his base didn't generally possess a good understanding of how news gathering worked, they could just make the claim that it was all "made up." (One of) Trump's innate genius is accurately gauging the level of professional knowledge among those most likely to be swayed by him.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top