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.

Should CNN, msNBC, WaPo and The NY Times be deplatformed for peddling conspiracy theories? (1 Viewer)

Smack Tripper

Footballguy
Given that this was the standard applied by Big Tech to Info Wars, and there has been a new widespread initiative to label and remove conspiracy content from sites like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, what standard should be applied?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Smack Tripper

Footballguy
Hm, no, can't think of any off hand.
I will say, the tenor and tone went, for me, from likely  hyperbole to cuckoo town yesterday.  I saw an msnbc pundit saying that just because Mueller didn’t find any Russian collision doesn’t mean it didn’t happen it just means that Trump did a good job hiding it.  

I mean, that’s some batty stuff to be putting out there

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
If any news organization knowingly promotes false stories, and continues to do so without issuing a retraction, they should be sued out of existence.

But neither CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, or the NY Times has done that.

If you think that they did, then perhaps you would be more comfortable in Joe's thread about the Christian "massacre".

 

SaintsInDome2006

Footballguy
I will say, the tenor and tone went, for me, from likely  hyperbole to cuckoo town yesterday.  I saw an msnbc pundit saying that just because Mueller didn’t find any Russian collision doesn’t mean it didn’t happen it just means that Trump did a good job hiding it.  

I mean, that’s some batty stuff to be putting out there
Ok, well you'd agree MSM and the investigation uncovered a lucrative $300 million hotel deal using sanctioned banks, a former GRU officer as a negotiator, and Putin's personal involvement, well into 2016, right? You know that because of these same sources.

 - That's just an example. Punditry/editorialization vs news/journalism is a longtime struggle. You're never going to get pundits with foolish opinions off the air. That's free speech. InfoWars making up - out of whole cloth - that parents of murdered children had invented it for wealth and political reasons is beyond all that.

 

timschochet

Footballguy
Any news outlet that deliberately and knowingly pushes false conspiracy theories should be condemned. 

But I don’t think you’re providing any good examples. 

 

Smack Tripper

Footballguy
If any news organization knowingly promotes false stories, and continues to do so without issuing a retraction, they should be sued out of existence.

But neither CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, or the NY Times has done that.

If you think that they did, then perhaps you would be more comfortable in Joe's thread about the Christian "massacre".
Well it’s two different issues with regard to info wars, the laws you’re speaking of veer toward libel and slander and I would agree that info wars in a great likelihood violated those laws.

There are laws to mitigate that, and there is no liability assumed by big tech for allowing them on their platform based on the language of the 96 Telecomm act insulating them.  

Outside of that is a new stated inative against conspiracy content

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
If any news organization knowingly promotes false stories, and continues to do so without issuing a retraction, they should be sued out of existence.

But neither CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, or the NY Times has done that.

If you think that they did, then perhaps you would be more comfortable in Joe's thread about the Christian "massacre".
Well it’s two different issues with regard to info wars, the laws you’re speaking of veer toward libel and slander and I would agree that info wars in a great likelihood violated those laws.

There are laws to mitigate that, and there is no liability assumed by big tech for allowing them on their platform based on the language of the 96 Telecomm act insulating them.  

Outside of that is a new stated inative against conspiracy content
Based on your previous post, you seem to think that a network should be shut down based solely on an opinion presented by one of its guests, even when the network specifically states that the opinions of its guests do not represent the opinion of the network and are not to be taken as literal fact. Is that correct?

 

Smack Tripper

Footballguy
Based on your previous post, you seem to think that a network should be shut down based solely on an opinion presented by one of its guests, even when the network specifically states that the opinions of its guests do not represent the opinion of the network and are not to be taken as literal fact. Is that correct?
No, I don't think they should be deplatformed, but I think it illustrates the slippery slope of doing that to independent media and creating this sort of a standard.   

Where and when does this disclaimer air?   And in the case of msNBC for instance, do Hayes, Maddow, Reid and O'Donnell represent the views of the network?   Does Don Lemon represent that of CNN?

 

stlrams

Footballguy
I heard some statistics today reagarding various networks specifically regarding Russia collusion story.  I may have numbers slightly off but msnbc had almost 5000 stories in last 22 months, cnn 4000 etc.  point being that news networks have been pushing this story nonstop but will they take no responsibility for misrepresentation. No they will continue to ask for more information.  CNBC tonight said that mueller report just touch the surface and another investigation needed... non stop probing.  The most probing investigation ever in the history of us but we need more..

 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
If we make this a general thread about conspiracy-theorizing, I thought this article was interesting:

And this is where conspiracy beliefs start to get tangled up with truth. Because history does contain real examples of conspiracy. Pizzagate was a dangerous lie that led an armed man to walk into a family restaurant, convinced he was there to rescue children from pedophilic members of the Democratic Party. But that incident also exists in the same universe as the Tuskegee experiments, redlining, and the Iran-Contra Affair. “I have this conspiracy that Western governments are involved in an international spying ring,” Wood said. “Before about 2014 that would have made you a conspiracy theorist. Now we know it’s true.”

Summoning — and demonizing — the belief in conspiracies can also have political consequences. “During the Bush Administration, the left was going ####### bonkers … about 9/11 and Halliburton and Cheney and Blackwater and all this stuff,” Uscinski said. “As soon as Obama won they didn’t give a #### about any of that stuff anymore. They did not care. It was politically and socially inert.” In turn, conspiracy theories about Obama flourished on the right. Uscinski said he is frustrated by this tendency for partisans to build up massive conspiracy infrastructures when they are out of power, only to develop a sudden amnesia and deep concern about the conspiracy mongering behavior of the other side once power is restored. It’s a cycle, he said that threatened to make social science a tool of partisan slapfights more than a standard of truth. And in a 2017 paper, he argued that conspiracy beliefs could even be useful parts of the democratic process, calling them “tools for dissent used by the weak to balance against power.”

 

Opie

Footballguy
Maybe just stop watching and listening to them in order to get the facts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dickies

Footballguy
I heard some statistics today reagarding various networks specifically regarding Russia collusion story.  I may have numbers slightly off but msnbc had almost 5000 stories in last 22 months, cnn 4000 etc.  point being that news networks have been pushing this story nonstop but will they take no responsibility for misrepresentation. No they will continue to ask for more information.  CNBC tonight said that mueller report just touch the surface and another investigation needed... non stop probing.  The most probing investigation ever in the history of us but we need more..
Isn’t this exactly what news organizations should be doing?

 

Ilov80s

Footballguy
I juts was hoping this would convince my wife to stop watching msnbc but no luck. She’s still watching every night. I don’t know how she can’t see it’s no different than watching Fox News- which she hates. 

 

Da Guru

Fair & Balanced
This is what is so troubling about cable news.  There was a panel on CNN right after the Mueller findings that there was no collusion and they all looked like they lost their best friend. Visibly upset that Trump was cleared.  Maddow looked like she just came from a funeral with her body language and demeanor.

I understand people have their own bias, but when you are on a network at least try to fake it. Fox is the same way as they everyone was giddy with huge smiles like they just won the Superbowl. 

The cable news networks act like this is some sort of game and we the viewing public are caught in the middle of it.

 

Ilov80s

Footballguy
No they should be reporting factual information.  The above proves trumps fake news narrative.  Congrats..
Probably should be some people who lose their jobs but they were also likely egged into by management because it drew ratings. I think the biggest exposure that hopefully everyone can see is that people should not be watching the 3 or 4 main cable news networks. They have done an awful job the last decade or so. 

 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
Could someone give me some examples of some things these organizations reported that weren't factual?  Not just "they said there was collusion and Mueller didn't find collusion!" or "they spent 2600 hours talking about Trump and Russia!" I'm talking about actual stories, with links to articles or videos or something, that were not accurate.

Not saying they don't exist- I hate all cable news so I honestly have no idea what happens on the air at CNN and MSNBC.  But I'm just not familiar with this sort of thinking, and if someone is calling for a step as radical as deplatforming I assume they've made some egregious mistakes in their reporting. I'd like to educate myself on the issue.

TIA

 

zftcg

Footballguy
Could someone give me some examples of some things these organizations reported that weren't factual?  Not just "they said there was collusion and Mueller didn't find collusion!" or "they spent 2600 hours talking about Trump and Russia!" I'm talking about actual stories, with links to articles or videos or something, that were not accurate.

Not saying they don't exist- I hate all cable news so I honestly have no idea what happens on the air at CNN and MSNBC.  But I'm just not familiar with this sort of thinking, and if someone is calling for a step as radical as deplatforming I assume they've made some egregious mistakes in their reporting. I'd like to educate myself on the issue.

TIA
A dude on MSNBC said something Smacktripper disagreed with. Shouldn't that be all the evidence we need to equate all of the cable networks with Alex Jones? 

 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
I heard some statistics today reagarding various networks specifically regarding Russia collusion story.  I may have numbers slightly off but msnbc had almost 5000 stories in last 22 months, cnn 4000 etc.  point being that news networks have been pushing this story nonstop but will they take no responsibility for misrepresentation. No they will continue to ask for more information.  CNBC tonight said that mueller report just touch the surface and another investigation needed... non stop probing.  The most probing investigation ever in the history of us but we need more..
Couple questions here:

1.  Does this count all Trump-Russia stories? Like for example Helsinki- the president of the United States capitulating to Vladamir Putin over the conclusions of his own intelligence agencies is very much newsworthy regardless of any collusion issues.  That would have been the defining foreign policy/national security moment of any normal presidency, and if anything I think it was severely underreported. Or the revelations about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting- that was the President of the United States getting caught in a lie about his campaign's contacts with a foreign adversary and then lying again about the nature of the meetings. That is also newsworthy regardless of collusion. Or the lies about the Trump Tower Moscow project- a President lying about his business relationships throughout the course of a campaign and presidency is also newsworthy regardless of collusion.  Or the president firing his FBI director- a very unorthodox and newsworthy move regardless of context- and then going on TV and saying he did it because of Russia. Or the Oval Office meeting where the president shared high level national security secrets with the Russian ambassador.  And so on and so on and so on.

How exactly did whoever compile these statistics decide what was only about election-related collusion and what was about related but different and obviously newsworthy stories?

2. Anyone do a similar count for Fox News on Clinton's emails? Benghazi?  Uranium One?

3. Why do you describe it as "the most probing investigation ever in the history of us"?  It was less than two years and the investigators never even talked to the president. I'm sure they did a great job, but I'm just curious why you described it that way.

 

tonydead

Footballguy
Remember when MTV showed music videos?  This is just another evolution in cable tv. Most people with intelligence realize its no longer music videos and either stop watching or enjoy it for the entertainment that it is. 

 

stlrams

Footballguy
Couple questions here:

1.  Does this count all Trump-Russia stories? Like for example Helsinki- the president of the United States capitulating to Vladamir Putin over the conclusions of his own intelligence agencies is very much newsworthy regardless of any collusion issues.  That would have been the defining foreign policy/national security moment of any normal presidency, and if anything I think it was severely underreported. Or the revelations about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting- that was the President of the United States getting caught in a lie about his campaign's contacts with a foreign adversary and then lying again about the nature of the meetings. That is also newsworthy regardless of collusion. Or the lies about the Trump Tower Moscow project- a President lying about his business relationships throughout the course of a campaign and presidency is also newsworthy regardless of collusion.  Or the president firing his FBI director- a very unorthodox and newsworthy move regardless of context- and then going on TV and saying he did it because of Russia. Or the Oval Office meeting where the president shared high level national security secrets with the Russian ambassador.  And so on and so on and so on.

How exactly did whoever compile these statistics decide what was only about election-related collusion and what was about related but different and obviously newsworthy stories?

2. Anyone do a similar count for Fox News on Clinton's emails? Benghazi?  Uranium One?

3. Why do you describe it as "the most probing investigation ever in the history of us"?  It was less than two years and the investigators never even talked to the president. I'm sure they did a great job, but I'm just curious why you described it that way.
1) Educated guess is someone googled Trump Russia collusion stories by networrk

2) I'm guessing it was done and just as ridiculous.  Do you agree??

3) Cost, number of interviews, subpoenas make this the most extensive investigation

 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
1) Educated guess is someone googled Trump Russia collusion stories by networrk

2) I'm guessing it was done and just as ridiculous.  Do you agree??

3) Cost, number of interviews, subpoenas make this the most extensive investigation
1. So you posted some statistics and expressed outrage about them and you can't even tell me where they came from or what they actually mean?

2. I have no idea, I'd have to see the numbers. I'm weird like that, I guess.

3.  That, uh, doesn't sound too scientific. And the investigation was so cheap that the federal government actually might make money on it, so there goes the cost argument. Do you have any data to support the rest of your arguments?

 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
Michael Avenatti appeared over a hundred times on CNN and MSNBC over a three month period.   
Sean Hannity,Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham have had daily shows on Fox News for years.

I'll ask again: Could someone give me some examples of some things these organizations reported that weren't factual? Considering that this thread suggested the radical step of "deplatforming" cable news networks I assumed there would be dozens of these and that everyone would have them at the ready. Is that not the case?

 

tonydead

Footballguy
Sean Hannity,Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham have had daily shows on Fox News for years.

I'll ask again: Could someone give me some examples of some things these organizations reported that weren't factual? Considering that this thread suggested the radical step of "deplatforming" cable news networks I assumed there would be dozens of these and that everyone would have them at the ready. Is that not the case?
Pointing out other horrible examples doesn't somehow magically prove your point.  If my example doesn't paint the picture for you nothing will.  

Over 100 times, more than once per day, basically on the payroll.   :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

stlrams

Footballguy
1. So you posted some statistics and expressed outrage about them and you can't even tell me where they came from or what they actually mean?

2. I have no idea, I'd have to see the numbers. I'm weird like that, I guess.

3.  That, uh, doesn't sound too scientific. And the investigation was so cheap that the federal government actually might make money on it, so there goes the cost argument. Do you have any data to support the rest of your arguments?
1) It means the talking heads pushed a false narrative for 22 months without any proof...

3) Its still the most expensive on record.  Number of interviews, subpoenas

 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Sean Hannity,Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham have had daily shows on Fox News for years.

I'll ask again: Could someone give me some examples of some things these organizations reported that weren't factual? Considering that this thread suggested the radical step of "deplatforming" cable news networks I assumed there would be dozens of these and that everyone would have them at the ready. Is that not the case?
This thread seems right.

 

BobbyLayne

Footballguy
3) Cost, number of interviews, subpoenas make this the most extensive investigation
Seems unlikely to be true. The Mueller probe is likely to have cost an estimated $32-35M over two years. Fiske/Starr/Ray ran up a $60M tab - not adjusted for 19-25 years of inflation - over the course of 6 years.

 

zftcg

Footballguy
Seems unlikely to be true. The Mueller probe is likely to have cost an estimated $32-35M over two years. Fiske/Starr/Ray ran up a $60M tab - not adjusted for 19-25 years of inflation - over the course of 6 years.
And that's not even counting that the fines on Manafort could end up more than offsetting the total cost of the investigation (note that link is from last September; not sure how Manafort's subsequent shenanigans affected those numbers).

 

Dickies

Footballguy
No they should be reporting factual information.  The above proves trumps fake news narrative.  Congrats..
They are. You said it yourself that they are constantly probing for more information. This is what news organizations should do. The President was being investigated and the people closest to him were going to jail, but you for some reason expect the media to not seek information, ask questions about it, or report on it. 

WTF do you guys want them to report on? A few weeks ago someone was upset that there were 8 articles about Boeing 737s crashing on CNN’s site. 

Fox News spent the last two years running with Murller being a Deep State operative and while I haven’t paid attention to them since the report dropped, I suspect that narrative is a distant memory

 

Rove!

Footballguy
And that's not even counting that the fines on Manafort could end up more than offsetting the total cost of the investigation (note that link is from last September; not sure how Manafort's subsequent shenanigans affected those numbers).
The Manfort info could have and probably should have been litigated years ago independent of Mueller

We have yet to see if Page, Stone etc sue the DOJ for misconduct which could add significantly to the tab

 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
Pointing out other horrible examples doesn't somehow magically prove your point.  If my example doesn't paint the picture for you nothing will.  

Over 100 times, more than once per day, basically on the payroll.   :lmao:
I'm confused.  Can give me some examples of things these organizations reported that weren't factual and weren't swiftly corrected? Seemed like a pretty straightforward question. Repeatedly referencing a dooshbag that apparently neither of us like doesn't answer it.

 

stlrams

Footballguy
They are. You said it yourself that they are constantly probing for more information. This is what news organizations should do. The President was being investigated and the people closest to him were going to jail, but you for some reason expect the media to not seek information, ask questions about it, or report on it. 

WTF do you guys want them to report on? A few weeks ago someone was upset that there were 8 articles about Boeing 737s crashing on CNN’s site. 

Fox News spent the last two years running with Murller being a Deep State operative and while I haven’t paid attention to them since the report dropped, I suspect that narrative is a distant memory
Did Trump collude with Russia on the 2016 election - No.  Yet certain news outlets ran stories to the contrary for almost the last 2 years. 

 

zftcg

Footballguy
Did Trump collude with Russia on the 2016 election - No.  Yet certain news outlets ran stories to the contrary for almost the last 2 years. 
We don't know that. We know (assuming Barr's summary is accurate) that Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy that he believed was worth charging. "Collusion" is not a legal term (well, it is, but in a totally different context). We do know there was some interaction between members of the Trump campaign and Russians, but we won't know the full story unless we read Mueller's actual report.

 

Dickies

Footballguy
Did Trump collude with Russia on the 2016 election - No.  Yet certain news outlets ran stories to the contrary for almost the last 2 years. 
It’s hard to say. Barr’s summary was so tightly worded that I don’t think it’s 100% ruled out. Will need to read the actual report. I’m having a hard time figuring out how Manafort passing polling data to the Russians isn’t colluding with them. Maybe the recipients weren’t deemed to be close enough to the Kremlin, or it wasn’t “interference”

 

zftcg

Footballguy
The Manfort info could have and probably should have been litigated years ago independent of Mueller
The real scandal of the past couple years was the realization of how much white-collar crime goes unprosecuted. Not just Manafort but all the Cohen stuff. It shouldn't take a special counsel to bring those crimes to the attention of prosecutors.

 

BroadwayG

Footballguy
Its in Barr's letter which was linked in this forum already.
No, some of the conspiracy stories all the news outlets ran for 2 years.

I've read Barr's letter, and fully understand there is no criminal conspiracy between Trump's campaign and the Russian election interference. I am questioning your assertion that "certain news outlets ran stories to the contrary for almost the last 2 years" by requesting some of them so I can read them as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top