What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Post-Truth Nation (1 Viewer)

rockaction said:
Dan Rather has become the king of Facebook pushing the fake news thing. 

I can only laugh. These people -- they're not aware, are they?  

YOU GOT FIRED FOR FORGING SIGNATURES REGARDING THE PRESIDENT YOU DUMB MATILDA
Click to expand...
Not dumb at all. 

The key to the Dan Rather scandal isn't that it was done but that CBS was caught. Of course CBS and other trusted sources may do shady stuff from time to time (very rarely actually) but they always get caught, either in deliberate duplicity or honest error. They are held to a much higher standard, which is why they can generally be trusted. 

 
timschochet said:
Not dumb at all. 

The key to the Dan Rather scandal isn't that it was done but that CBS was caught. Of course CBS and other trusted sources may do shady stuff from time to time (very rarely actually) but they always get caught, either in deliberate duplicity or honest error. They are held to a much higher standard, which is why they can generally be trusted. 
Click to expand...
I just pounded my desk with both fists in slight anger. 

Slight anger, because this has to be a troll job.  

 
So tired of this "main stream media" bull ####.  

If a media outlet doesn't show an obvious lean to the right then it is automatically untrustworthy. Oh, ok.

 
rockaction said:
Where did #Pizzagate go? Dodds was doing yeoman's work in there.  

:lmao:
Click to expand...
I am guessing her realized it was exactly what all the anti fake news people were warning about and it didn't fit the narrative.  Plus I think it has a real impact on his business if he makes it know exactly how out there he is with some of his thoughts.

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
So tired of this "main stream media" bull ####.  

If a media outlet doesn't show an obvious lean to the right then it is automatically untrustworthy. Oh, ok.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is it at all.  The MSM long ago decided to favor one party over the other (this election was especially obvious and atrocious) and people just got sick of it.  What you're seeing is the pendulum finally swinging in the other direction and over compensating.  People just don't trust them anymore and you can't blame them.

It's going to take a while, IMO, for the MSM to get any of their credibility back but they can start by reporting the facts, not an agenda.  

 
toshiba said:
I am guessing her realized it was exactly what all the anti fake news people were warning about and it didn't fit the narrative.  Plus I think it has a real impact on his business if he makes it know exactly how out there he is with some of his thoughts.
Click to expand...
It's a shame because Quez in particular was really dropping knowledge in there.

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
Can you provide an example of the  MSM showing favoritism?
Click to expand...
  • Step One: Walk to the room where your TV is
  • Step Two: Find the remote that turns on the the TV and the cable or satellite box.
  • Step Three: Turn both on
  • Step Four: Navigate to Any news channel or channel that is showing news (consult the channel guide for your provider if you do not know the channels) besides Fox News
  • Step Five: Watch News
  • Step Six: Bias confirmed
  • Step Seven: Thank this guy via PM or in a public forum for showing you the light
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
  • Step One: Walk to the room where your TV is
  • Step Two: Find the remote that turns on the the TV and the cable or satellite box.
  • Step Three: Turn both on
  • Step Four: Navigate to Any news channel or channel that is showing news (consult the channel guide for your provider if you do not know the channels) besides Fox News
  • Step Five: Watch News
  • Step Six: Bias confirmed
  • Step Seven: Thank this guy via PM or in a public forum for showing you the light
Click to expand...
Whoa whoa whoa.  Slow down with all of this proof.  Way too many details to sift through.

 
MaxThreshold said:
What better example than turning on your TV?  @Max Power also gave you an example.
Click to expand...
I did not see max power's example.  Of course he didn't provide a link so...

My TV is on.  MSNBC is showing Dateline.  CNBC is showing American Greed.  CNN is showing The 80s. :shrug:

And I actually had to look up those channel numbers since I really don't watch news on tv aside from local stuff.

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
I did not see max power's example.  Of course he didn't provide a link so...

My TV is on.  MSNBC is showing Dateline.  CNBC is showing American Greed.  CNN is showing The 80s. :shrug:

And I actually had to look up those channel numbers since I really don't watch news on tv aside from local stuff.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.91c3a408c220

Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My issue is that we need to define "Russian Propaganda".  Russia hacking both the DNC and RNC but only releasing the DNC stuff is influencing an election (but Obama didn't care at the time) and to call DNC emails "Russian Propaganda" is an out right lie from MSM.

 
O2O, I dont blame you for your views, But dig into "fake news".  MSM wants to own the message and its obvious with the censorship on reddit, youtube, twitter and voat.

 
Max Power said:
O2O, I dont blame you for your views, But dig into "fake news".  MSM wants to own the message and its obvious with the censorship on reddit, youtube, twitter and voat.
Click to expand...
:shrug:  

Let's assume that the MSM is heavily slanted towards the left.  My point is that relying on outlets that slant heavily to the right is just as bad.  

If someone out there thinks that Breitbart or Fox is more "truthful" than the so-called MSM then they are no better than the lefties.

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
:shrug:  

Let's assume that the MSM is heavily slanted towards the left.  My point is that relying on outlets that slant heavily to the right is just as bad.  

If someone out there thinks that Breitbart or Fox is more "truthful" than the so-called MSM then they are no better than the lefties.
Click to expand...
Its more "Where" the news comes from.  MSM wanted Hillary.  They did everything they could to sell that.  It backfired and now they have a questionable appearance. MSM sounds like a college professor lately saying cite your source. Which works and doesnt.  The sources both sides provide are bogus in their own way.  Its anonymous most of the time and The MSM will both defend that and prosecute that depending on their needs.

MSM runs it out front and retracts it later, These other companies are faced with the burden of proof.  Its not slanted in the favor of independent journalism.

Censorship is about to change the way of the world.  Don't let a company says ISIS chat is free speech and then call pizzagate a hate filled danger.  look into it....

 
Max Power said:
Its more "Where" the news comes from.  MSM wanted Hillary.  They did everything they could to sell that.  It backfired and now they have a questionable appearance. MSM sounds like a college professor lately saying cite your source. Which works and doesnt.  The sources both sides provide are bogus in their own way.  Its anonymous most of the time and The MSM will both defend that and prosecute that depending on their needs.

MSM runs it out front and retracts it later, These other companies are faced with the burden of proof.  Its not slanted in the favor of independent journalism.

Censorship is about to change the way of the world.  Don't let a company says ISIS chat is free speech and then call pizzagate a hate filled danger.  look into it....
Click to expand...
Who did the conservative media want to win?

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
Who did the conservative media want to win?
Click to expand...
FoxNews Was pro Trump, but they were at least fair and balanced about it. 

I hated FoxNews during the Bush days.  But this time they were on point.

I don't know enough about Brietbart to comment, but they source their stuff.  It might be BS.

 
Reg Lllama of Brixton said:
Not to go all ad hominem but Swan is a Sandy Hook/Aurora tinfoilhat guy.
Click to expand...
It's quite interesting to me when Wikileaks says they have emails about Clinton but doesn't release them right away, some people in our country rush out to proclaim that Clinton committed this crime and that crime. These individuals profess that Wikileaks is great and exactly what the people need to keep the government, crooked people in check. 

Then, the same Wikileaks, along with the intelligent agencies come forward with claims of some kind of manipulation from Russia in our elections. They haven't released information cause, maybe, it has some security issues or something, but the same people previously loving Wikileaks now don't trust them AND don't trust our own intelligent agencies. Not sure if it's because the news is going against their group or what but it is amazing to say the least. 

Imagine the timetable being reversed. The stuff about Clinton coming out now after she wins the election. These groups would be calling for her to step down pronto and if she didn't they would investigate over and over prohibiting any progress as she'd be president. 

I cannot be the only one that sees this craziness, am I? Is this the state we are in now as a country? This #### needs to stop or something cause this is not a good direction for anyone. I'd hate to see the Republicans toe the party line for the next four years and never question what is happening. We are ####ed if that happens. 

 
Dedfin said:
Why do you let yourself believe in this crazy stuff?  You seem like a decent person, but cmon man.
Click to expand...
I work in a field where I know the information that hits the masses isn't 100% factual.  There are alot of half truths or supposed to be truths.  So I have a :tinfoilhat:

Scale it down to your level.  Have you been 100% honest with your subordinates?  even if it was a "white lie" at the time?

 
Mario Kart said:
It's quite interesting to me when Wikileaks says they have emails about Clinton but doesn't release them right away, some people in our country rush out to proclaim that Clinton committed this crime and that crime. These individuals profess that Wikileaks is great and exactly what the people need to keep the government, crooked people in check. 

Then, the same Wikileaks, along with the intelligent agencies come forward with claims of some kind of manipulation from Russia in our elections. They haven't released information cause, maybe, it has some security issues or something, but the same people previously loving Wikileaks now don't trust them AND don't trust our own intelligent agencies. Not sure if it's because the news is going against their group or what but it is amazing to say the least. 

Imagine the timetable being reversed. The stuff about Clinton coming out now after she wins the election. These groups would be calling for her to step down pronto and if she didn't they would investigate over and over prohibiting any progress as she'd be president. 

I cannot be the only one that sees this craziness, am I? Is this the state we are in now as a country? This #### needs to stop or something cause this is not a good direction for anyone. I'd hate to see the Republicans toe the party line for the next four years and never question what is happening. We are ####ed if that happens. 
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I fully understand your point but a simple principle is that disinformation does not create political conditions, it merely exploits what already exists.

That has more to do with the effect or goal of disinformation. - I think what you're talking about is akin to the likes of Hannity & Limbaugh railing for years on the arguable treason involved with Manning and Snowden and WL but now essentially being coopted by it to promote and defend it. This flips the other way when you think of all the liberals and progressives who defended WL in the past and yet now claim it's the devil incarnate. I can't help you there except to say that those people never believed in what they claimed to believe in in the first place.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm not sure I fully understand your point but a simple principle is that disinformation does not create political conditions, it merely exploits what already exists.

That has more to do with the effect or goal of disinformation. - I think what you're talking about is akin to the likes of Hannity & Limbaugh railing for years on the arguable treason involved with Manning and Snowden and WL but now essentially being coopted by it to promote and defend it. This flips the other way when you think of all the liberals and progressives who defended WL in the past and yet now claim it's the devil incarnate. I can't help you there except to say that those people never believed in what they claimed to believe in in the first place.
Click to expand...
I give you props ... It's a waste of time to try to get the Trumpettes to realize facts. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the term treason has lost its meaning with the US.  By definition it contains betraying one's country and overthrowing the government.  Love of our country and government aren't mutual atm.

 
Max Power said:
So I think where it gets interesting is if a US person releases US information that causes US problems. But I agree, those are VERY specific terms.

The media calls treason by its loose terms.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so it was interesting to note that the Rosenberg's, as an example, were not convicted of treason for spying for the Soviets, since we weren't technically at war with them.  They were guilty only of espionage.

Since we aren't legally at war with anyone right now, even someone like Snowden would probably only be tried for espionage and not treason.

Sorry for hijacking the thread with this..

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Read paragraphs 24-26.

4000 work related emails between Hillary & Redacted (likely Abedin), 27 email chains were Classified when sent, 6 Secret or higher, with probable cause to think there might be classified information on the Weiner laptop.
Click to expand...
Weiner might sink this ship

 
This would be better as OP @Johnnymac:

A Finder's Guide To Facts

December 11, 20168:25 AM ET

STEVE INSKEEP

Behind the fake news crisis lies what's perhaps a larger problem: Many Americans doubt what governments or authorities tell them, and also dismiss real news from traditional sources. But we've got tips to sharpen our skepticism.

Are we really in a post-truth era? Somebody on the Internet said so. Many people, actually.

The presidential campaign was filled with falsehoods. Our president-elect no longer poses as a truth-teller: Aides and supporters say we should not take him literally. That's good for him, since he endorsed a conspiracy theory that cast doubt on his own election. (Remember? He claimed without evidence that there were "millions" of illegal voters, who, if they did exist, might have swung the election to him.) Fake news stories about a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant prompted a real person to "investigate" with a rifle in early December.

But let's properly define the problem. History and experience tell me it's not a post-truth era: Facts have always been hard to separate from falsehoods, and political partisans have always made it harder. It's better to call this a post-trust era.

Business, government, churches and the media have fallen in public esteem. These institutions paid a price for an entire generation of wars, scandals, economic convulsions and cynical politics. We're left with fewer traditional guideposts for whom to believe. The spread of fake news from fraudulent sources is only a symptom: The larger problem is that many Americans doubt what governments or authorities tell them, and also dismiss real news from traditional sources.

Hazardous as the post-trust era may be, it shouldn't cause despair. It's all right for Americans to be skeptical of what they read and hear. How could I say otherwise? I'm a journalist. It's my job to question what I hear. While I shouldn't cynically dismiss everything people tell me, I should ask for evidence and avoid buying into bogus narratives. Being a skeptical reporter has made me a more skeptical news consumer.

What we all need, as citizens, is to develop more skill in applying our skepticism. We need to spot false narratives, and also turn aside those who would replace them with pure fiction. Either we get this right or we cease to be free citizens.

Students Have 'Dismaying' Inability To Tell Fake News From Real, Study Finds

Propagandists obviously have fun (and profit from) trying to con us, the public. Why not have fun smoking them out? You can apply this advice not only in hunting for totally fake stories, but also in testing out the stories on more or less fact-based websites or traditional TV and newspapers. (Even NPR.)

In general, traditional news organizations are more reliable because their business model is to paint the clearest picture of the world that they can manage. But in the post-trust era, we know that any news source can steer you wrong at times, and they're likely all jumbled together in your news feed anyway.

So here's a finder's guide for facts:

First, take a moment. If you have time to scroll Facebook or watch the news, you probably have a moment to decide if a news story seems credible. Ask some quick questions:

Is the story so outrageous you can't believe it? Maybe you shouldn't. Respect the voice inside you that says, "What?"

Is the story so outrageous you do believe it? That's also a warning sign. Many stories play on your existing beliefs. If the story perfectly confirms your worst suspicions, look for more information.

Does the headline match the article? Many compelling headlines don't.

Does the article match the news story it's lifted from? Many sites rewrite other news articles to fit the political slant of their presumed audience. Look for links to original sources and click through and see what the original says.

Are quotes in context? Look for the sentences before and after the quote that makes your blood boil. If the article fails to give them, that's a warning sign.

Is the story set in the future? It's hard to get firsthand reporting from there. Any story that tells you what will happen should be marked down 50 percent for this reason alone.

Does the story attack a generic enemy? Vague denunciations of "Washington" or "the media" or "Trump supporters" or "the left" should be marked down 99 percent. Good reporting doesn't make these kinds of generalizations and is specific about who is making a claim about what.

Are you asked to rely on one killer factoid? Not a good idea. If a hacked document "proves" an implausible conspiracy, look for the context that shows what the document really means. As for photos and video, use Ronald Reagan's old slogan: trust but verify. If there's any doubt about a "stunning" video, see if more traditional sources link to it. They love video clicks as much as anyone. If they refrain, there may be good reason.

Who is the news source, anyway? Traditional news brands may occasionally get it wrong — sometimes hugely wrong — but at least you know where to find them and hold them accountable. Less prominent news sites might carry compelling stories — but expect them to show you who they are and where they gathered information.

Does the news source appear to employ editors? Many news organizations produce stories that are checked before publication. Others don't. It's a big deal. Hiring an editorial staff shows the publication's respect for you, and matters more than "political bias." The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, for example, have different owners, audiences, stories, perspectives and obsessions. Both have made mistakes and omissions; but both send reporters out into the world and back them up with an editorial process that catches and corrects many errors. This means both can be informative, regardless of your politics or theirs.

Are you told, "Trust me"? Don't. It's the post-trust era! Expect everyone to show where their facts come from, link to underlying articles, and demonstrate that they've argued honestly. Here's a way they may bolster their credibility:

Did the writer engage with anyone who disagrees? Did they call a senator whose legislation bugs them? Did they try to grasp what the president-elect was doing, or merely repeat one of his more outrageous statements? If it's a broadcast interview, was the guest presented with genuine opposing views and challenged to answer? Those who wrestle with opposing arguments do you a service and often improve their own arguments.

These simple questions should take you a long way toward judging the value of a news story. While applying such questions to any given story, you can also take a few more general steps:

Broaden your palate. Make a point to check sites that do not agree with your politics. You may discover stories that are wrong — but you'll know what other people are consuming, which will sharpen your own thinking.

Be open to the idea that some falsehoods are sincerely held. In spite of all the warnings here, some inaccurate news stories grow out of haste or misinformation rather than pure cynicism. (But they're still false.)

If a news source consistently passes the tests in this guide, support it. Gathering reliable information isn't free. Helping to pay for it aligns the news source's interests with yours.

If this guide helps you to find some reliable information, that's great — but remember one more thing: Never stop looking. Learning the truth is not a goal, but a process. As a journalist, I can never express everything in the world in a single day's program. The saving grace is tomorrow's program, when we try to do a little more. It is the same for me as a news consumer: I will always be learning more.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terminalxylem
  • Locked
Doing your own research
17 18 19
Replies
925
Views
25K
djmich
djmich
Joe Bryant
  • Locked
Why I believe in America
Replies
37
Views
2K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Beware of Contempt
2 3
Replies
149
Views
5K
KCitons
KCitons

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top