knowledge dropper
Footballguy
I think the OP intended this thread as a vehicle to discuss what’s next for these once-proud media institutions that peddled a fake story daily for the past 2+ years. I don’t think his intent is to rehash the obvious?
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)
- Thread starter Smack Tripper
- Start date
sho nuff
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
BroadwayG
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
What fake story do you refer to? Were they not supposed to report on an investigation?
BTW...Im not talking about opinion shows presenting their opinions...if we were, they would all be screwed.
sho nuff
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
The whole thing was a hoax. Every piece of reporting on the Trump/Russia collusion narrative was predicated on a hoax. Pulitzer prizes were dished out to people for their Trump/Russia reporting, even though it was a made-up conspiracy theory, as it turned out. They may as well have won a Pulitzer for their Loch Ness monster reporting.
Facebook even suspended Jonathan Morgan for his work fabricating the Russian bot story in the Alabama elections. NYT's Scott Shane knew about this when he published his breathless story about the New Knowledge senate report. This new breed of reporter which echoes intelligence circles, and uses data firms selling attribution as a service to pose as neutral analysts, has been a pervasive development the past few years. It's a troubling development in journalism, and it's annoying that this still has to be explained to people.
At the very least, it's incredibly shoddy journalism. Tons of examples of false reporting have been posted over the years. That's why even NYT/WaPo/CNN are all talking about media reckonings right now.
Dickies
Footballguy
Here you are concerned about the media peddling fake news and you post this. This is not what Barr's summary said.
Dickies
Footballguy
Barr's summary concluded that Russia contacted the Trump campaign, and Barr's summary avoided a blanket "no collusion". Barr said it's clear that Russia ran a campaign to influence our election, but you apparently don't believe that portion of the report. How can you possibly say it's a hoax? It's a bad look picking and choosing what you do and don't believe.
GoBirds
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I've always believed Russia did interfere. I think they ran ads and tried to do things to pit us against one another, and it has worked quite well. I don't think their goal was to ultimately choose a winner and influence the election in that regard, but more the tone. Let's face it, they are a beneficiary when we are divided this starkly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickies
Footballguy
Agreed, except I'm not so sure what their goal was. Barr's summary makes it clear that Russia hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign, so it can easily be inferred that Russia sought a Trump presidency, but it also could have been simply to sow discord. We'll have to see the full Mueller report says.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Well a Trump presidency surely sows even more discord by his own temperament. (And that’s if you even discount possible business deals and eased sanctions)
jonessed
Footballguy
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
On the bolded, we disagree. These comments were made five years ago and I think there was probably 99 percent disgust with them but hardly any pitchforks launched. I think the moral majority was easier to motivate than getting the average person worked up over farcical nonsense, and I lump the Enquirer and Infowars alike in that categorization. And I want to make clear, I dont support or condone for one moment what Info Wars did with that.TobiasFunke said:
But the process is playing out, and they'll face action for slander or libel, and if they're guilty, I hope they wallop Jones for putting that out there. But this is a battle in a war for the future of our media and content and I think we should think beyond case by case and seriously examine precedent. The action against Jones was largely marshaled, proudly and admittedly, by Oliver Darcy, a CNN reporter, who at a minimum has a conflict in minimizing alternative media's placement and impact given the fact that infowars, I'm guess, had more social media impressions, than CNN (basing this very loosely over Anderson Cooper's facebook show drawing viewers in the 4 figures).
Legacy media has failed us repeatedly, there has been in fact fake news, and there is no censure by big tech. The check of the independent voice to raise stories is needed and necessary, and shouldn't get the paintbrush of "conspiracy theory" to put them in an information ghetto. It only stands to get worse as Trump's admin rolls back net neutrality and you have companies like Comcast/Xfinity, the largest internet provider in America, also owning NBC affiliated properties including NBC News, msNBC, CNBC and I believe Telemundo. You don't think there were be a push for vertical integration to push certain content to front of the line? As Google tries to wire America, we'll get to a similar place where gatekeepers own the infrastructure and the time to fight these fights is now, to lay the grid of where we go as a society, if that genie isn't already too far gone from the bottle.
When you give that inch and try to go case by case, you get people doing imporant work like Rania Khalek swept up in the tide, for violating terms of service that didn't exist
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Facebook-Suspends-Five-Russian-Backed-News-Media-Accounts-20190218-0018.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickies
Footballguy
You can accept everything Barr has said and still think ren is living in an alternate reality
James Daulton
Footballguy
Conspiracy theory? Wasn't there a republican led investigation?
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Interesting and applicable from USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/24/mueller-report-findings-collusion-news-media-donald-trump-column/3263167002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/24/mueller-report-findings-collusion-news-media-donald-trump-column/3263167002/
GoBirds
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
What a terrible article. But even funnier that reading it are the responses here. “Spot on!” Lol.
I think the media spent too much time on the Russian scandal, but since the advent of cable news my main criticism of it is that they spend 90% of their focus on a single story that captures the public imagination at the expense of all other stories. This has been going on for over 30 years, it’s a major flaw, but the coverage of Russia was consistent within that flaw.
Other than that I have no real criticisms of the media. They reacted properly to a story that got bigger and bigger and which the President himself refused to allow to quiet down. The article presents a false, revisionist history of what actually took place.
Absolutely disagree here. The story highlights the lost of credibility of the media, jd, and fbi by pushing a narrative based on a pile of garbage. The byproduct is people have lost trust making it harder to get the next message out. The worst part , few people have admitted they were wrong on the trump Russia collusion story which tells us they are blinded and closed off people entirely focused on the destruction of trump at all costs regardless of the truth or validity of their arguement. This group also has limited credibility.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Its an opinion piece by a pretty strange dude. And it starts out with a falsehood right off the bat. "After two years of hype, special counsel Robert Mueller has reported to Attorney General William Barr that there was no “collusion,” as Donald Trump would put it, between Trump or the Trump presidential campaign and the Russians regarding the 2016 election."
That isn't what even the Barr letter said (if you take out the word collusion its still false). It reported "“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Bolded a key difference that makes his statement (and some on this board who have done the same) inaccurate. Some here have gone further just saying no collusion with Russia (which would not be what the quoted sentence even says at all).
He talks about people hoping the President went to jail...and then his first three examples are people speculating that based on what we had seen (indictments of others...) that Trump being implicated was likely. Stating as much would not be fake news or wrong or a hoax. The fourth didn't even mention Trump. Just said people would go to jail.
He then goes on to claim it was always a hoax because of what he claimed was in a book (that isn't necessarily factual evidence as it is).
We then get this "As former Clinton pollster Mark Penn tweeted, we wasted two years, at least $30 million and a lot of institutional credibility at the FBI and Department of Justice over “a false story of Russia collusion based on oppo research that was always unsubstantiated and preposterous.”"
Its hard to take anyone seriously who makes the claim that $30 million was wasted given the fact that the investigation made money.
There is nothing good or spot on about this article...it rehashes several poor and illogical arguments by some on this board and makes them feel like they were right. But in the end, its poorly written and full of poor logic and falsehoods.
timschochet
Footballguy
In order to believe any of what you have written here, you have to begin with several assumptions about the mainstream media that has been spread over the years by conservative talk show hosts and made worse by President Trump. These assumptions are both false and misleading, and have done more damage to our national discourse than any other factor in recent years.
stlrams, in order for us to have a real discussion of this, you need to accept the following statement as accurate:
The mainstream media (CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, NBC News, etc.) does its sincere best to report the news objectively without deliberate political bias, and this is true regardless of the personal biases of individual reporters, and it is exclusive of opinion shows and opinion writers.
If you’re unwilling to agree with that basic premise, then we begin too far apart to discuss specifics; our disagreement begins right here.
sho nuff
Footballguy
News wise...I do believe it (even Fox). But I separate that from the clear opinion shows on each network.
I politely disagree with your premise but add the following. I believe numerous main stream media outlets are bias in their reporting. The worst offenders in no particular order imho are fox, Msbc , cnn, Washington post. In addition, polictical basis is rampant in other news media outlets whether it’s individual reporters or talk shows. I think the main news stations cbs, nbc and abc do a much better job at offering balance reporting. Not sure where this leaves us in this discussion. bottomline, a lot of political capital was lost in the investigation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Reynolds (aka Instapundit) was one of the blogging OGs. Back in the early aughts I used to read him and Andrew Sullivan. I disagreed with a lot of what both of them said, but they had interesting perspectives.
What was fascinating was what happened in the later years of the Bush Administration. Sullivan slowly turned on Bush and the conservative movement, over Iraq, torture, gay marriage, Katrina, etc. Reynolds doubled down. I stopped reading him for awhile, and when I came back I couldn't believe what a hack he had turned into. (Sullivan has since gone through a few other transformations and seems to be back in the unreadable zone, although to be fair he's at least not a hack.)
sho nuff
Footballguy
Where I would disagree and would love to see polling and how its changed...is that the political capital may only be lost with those where it wasn't there anyway?
Those who distrust the media after Barr...were the same ones who would have made this claim 4 months ago. They already buy into what Trump is selling about fake news and the media sucks and so on. I don't think the needle has moved much at all on the media.
I agree that some polling would help us better understand the question - Did the media, FBI, DJ lose some credibility in the reporting and investigation process?? Trump has his core supporters but I think/feel some non-hard core Trump supporters are tuning out the media now.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Yes. I read a headline and then look at the source before digging into the text. If it’s from the Washington Post or “failing” NYT, I shake my head and move on.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
You are in the group that already would do that. This investigation hasn’t changed that. That’s the point.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
I used to respect those publications prior to 2016. Now it’s obvious the role they played in this attempt to delegitimize the 2016 election results and that their actions were tantamount to a nonviolent coup to overthrow our benevolent President.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Lemme guess: we're still waiting on concrete examples of mistaken, uncorrected Trump/Russia reporting by the major networks and newspapers, but all the conservatives are just ignoring its absence so they can act hysterical?
(feel free to copy and paste to save yourself some time in the future. Eventually you may have to replace Trump/Russia with something else, but otherwise this post should be usable for the rest of our lives)
(feel free to copy and paste to save yourself some time in the future. Eventually you may have to replace Trump/Russia with something else, but otherwise this post should be usable for the rest of our lives)
sho nuff
Footballguy
And again you are an outlier there and part that has thought this obviously long before the Barr letter. We were talking about since the letter came out. It’s clear there are some like you who have bought into Trumps propaganda of everything negative is fake news. IMO that is still a large minority.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
The playbook of the right is to use fake news tactics to claim that everyone else is fake news.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Of course...its the narrative Trump has pushed since very early on.
Only I can be trusted...don't believe what you hear and see...only I can do this.
And then then it seems some of same people who show that stuff worked by parroting those things...are those who claim russian propaganda couldn't have actually done anything.
Dickies
Footballguy
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
The people who still trust MSM and vouch for it, are looking at it through the wrong lens. They don't see any lies being told and thus MSM remains trustworthy. It's the truths and facts MSM withholds and buries that is root of the problem. And painting an incomplete picture is just as bad as lying.
Skoo
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Holding off on the negative Beto stories until after the Senate race is a prime example.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Feel free to highlight those all you want. But I don't agree with your conclusions about the relative evil of these things.
Like for example I think it's absurd that CNN apparently spent hours yesterday on Jussie Smollett and five minutes on the Trump administration deciding to back a lawsuit to take down Obamacare after he and the GOP have spent years telling everyone they will protect preexisting conditions. But that's just CNN, not the entire mainstream media. And it doesn't make them untrustworthy, it just makes them a silly infotainment waste of time.
Similar threads
