Summations Only

Will be anxiously awaiting those examples.

About the Sweden remark by Trump.It isn't clear exactly what Trump was referring to, but it could have been lots of different reports on what is going on in Sweden. He said he got it from Fox News, and it's possible. He may have the date wrong. But there's SO much out there about the crime rate in Sweden going up because of the Muslim immigrants it could have come from anywhere.The focus on the specifics of Trump's misstatement or lack of clarity is of course a version in itself of fake news to distract from the important point, that Sweden is suffering a huge crime problem as a result of Muslim immigration, which Trump used as one example to explain why we need to be careful about taking in Muslim refugees.The problem turns out to be the stranglehold of political correctness on Europe and on Sweden. They cannot admit to the crime problem because that would be "racist." If it's racist we're talking about Muslim immigrants as the cause.Here's Fox News trying to straighten out the problem. Listen to the Tucker Carlson video to the right of the page. Two cops try to take back their statement that there is a crime wave but do mention not wanting to be considered racist, which gives it away, followed by an interview of Ami Horowitz who has reported on the increase of crime in Sweden.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not fake news. Was there an immigrants day protest? Yes. Were there both legal and illegal immigrants who took part in the protest? Yes. Is there a significant part of the native population who is against any immigration or who wants to expand the definition of illegal immigrant to include folks who can currently immigrate legally? Yes and that latter statement applies to both Trump and you with your Muslim spew.So not fake news. This appears instead to be reporting on a subject you wish was either ignored or covered negatively. Real news for people who don't keep their heads in the sand. The extent of this appears to be a single organizations Tweet followed by a cancellation of the tweet. How does that compare to five years of Trump lying about Obama's birth certificate with the press publishing all of it? Trump finally admitted that there was no substance to the whole charade during his current campaign.

quote:

---

During her confirmation hearing, education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos was asked whether schools should be able to have guns on their campuses. As NBC News reported, DeVos felt it was best left to locales and states to decide. She pointed out that one school in Wyoming had a fence around it to protect the students from wildlife. I would imagine, she said, that there’s probably a gun in the school to protect from potential grizzlies.
This was an utterly noncontroversial stance to take. DeVos was simply pointing out that different states and localities have different needs, and attempting to mandate a nationwide one-size-fits-all policy for every American school is imprudent.

---

Perhaps a little context is in order here. Yes DeVos was pressed to augment her answer that guns in schools was to be left up to the state. And rightly so. The questions were coming from the Senator from Connecticut who was rightly concerned about guns in schools. And Betsy's best answer was a flip remark about Grizzly bears? Not fake news.DeVos does advocate for choice in schools. What she does not advocate for is that charter schools have any government over sight. As a result, she has built systems of schools that are performing worse than the schools she wants. Now you may consider the fact that she wants to use vouchers to give the public choice a position in favor of public education, but when the system gives students the choice of failing schools then one might rightly consider her support counter the very idea of a public education.Not fake news.

quote:

---

following the Quebec City mosque massacre, the Daily Beast published a story that purported to identify the two shooters who had perpetrated the crime.

---

Uh, the most significant fake news about this massacre was right wing folks claiming that a Muslim man was responsible. I'm not going to excuse that.

quote:

---

n January 31, a Fox affiliate station out of Detroit reported that A local business owner who flew to Iraq to bring his mother back home to the US for medical treatment said she was blocked from returning home

---

Uh, Fox News? Yeah, they sometimes have fake news. Less often than InfoWars maybe, but fake news nonetheless. I won't defend them.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So is this thread about the Wikipedia definition of fake news or the Trump definition of fake news? Are you talking about Pissgate?And are we only to be bothered by a news story if the author says anything that is blatantly false or fake? What if a technically true statement is spun into a false narrative that the public passes on as fact?Is there any responsibility on the news agency to present their stories in a way that doesn't spark false narratives? Or is that totally cool as long as the explicit statements aren't technically blatantly false or fake?Sorry for the all-question response, but I'm not sure where I stand on this one yet.

Hi Faith,I appreciate the effort to try to post some evidence, but, well, I didn't see any example of "fake news" by the mainstream media in your post, the media that Trump has been castigating, the ones he mentioned in this tweet: And you can add the Washington Post to that list, Trump's omission of it was probably accidental."Fake news" from the mainstream media would be anything from one of these news outlets that is demonstrably false (to use Wikipedia's definition, a hoax, propaganda or disinformation) that they refuse to back away from and continue promoting. We don't mean actual reporting or wording that Trump doesn't like. We don't mean tweets. If you're truly being drowned in "fake news" every day then while reading or watching one of these mainstream media outlets just send us a post about it. Describe what was false and include a link to the article or the broadcast video.But as I said in my previous post, Trump (and you) are misusing the term "fake news." The mainstream media is not engaged in "fake news." They're just reporting facts that Trump wishes weren't true, like the news about the investigations into Russian connections. Whether Trump likes it or not, that these investigations are happening is a fact, and yet reporting about it is apparently what launched him on his cruise into nuttiness at last week's press conference.--Percy

quote:

---

So is this thread about the Wikipedia definition of fake news or the Trump definition of fake news?

---

The OP seems to prefer the Trump definition.

Oh stop it Faith. Accept that Trump cocked up - nothing happened in Sweden and the crime rate is low and falling. Sweden is both amused and angry about it, he just looks like a buffoon.He said something similar back in 2016, claiming that there were parts of London that are no-go areas. A total fabrication. It had us all trying to find them. You'd think we'd know wouldn't you?He's the laughing stock of Europe, he's trashing the reputation of your country.

You mean should we use the actual definition of "fake news" or the fake definition of "fake news?" I'm going to vote for the actual definition. I think Trump has set the standard for the threshold for what is false or fake, and that standard is the exact word you used: blatant. Trump claimed his inauguration drew the largest crowds in history, that his electoral college victory was the largest since Reagan, so that's the standard. Find examples of the mainstream media making similarly blatant false claims and then not backing away from them.--Percy

I see. I vote for discussing what people actually mean. I'll pass. I don't think that's what people who are bitching about fake news are talking about.I think you've got a strawman there.

It is of course very disappointing to find out that you and others don't want to know the truth, or think you do know it. Seems to me the examples I posted could be understood to fit the Wikipedia definition. What's a hoax but a false account of something passed off as true? Also propaganda and disinformation purporting to be real news. All those examples could be described in such terms. They are shown to be false, not true reports that just happen to be unfavorable to Trump at all, but false, or absolutely unevidenced which ought to disqualify them anyway; all of them disinformation, misleading, lies. Seems to me the examples given fit the definition well enough. I'd extend it to giving a false impression to mislead the reader.Way too much stuff at EvC follows a similar pattern: majoring on nitpicking definitional niceties to distract from the important point is a biggie just as it is with the MSM fake news propaganda machine.Why doesn't anyone want to know the truth? I can understand an aversion to accounts of sheer evil such as Pizzagate, I have that aversion too, but the specifics of the emails are truly odd enough to raise at least a question, yet that is denied too, using absurdly convoluted rationalizations. I wonder what it would take to open some eyes around here? Surely it can't be impossible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't remember who originated it but it is certainly appropriate - it may not be verbatim because I am going from memory here. Even if the media are lying - and there seems to be quite a bit of exaggeration and padding in the attempts to back up that claim - it is still the case that Trump and a good many of his supporters want the media and the Government to tell the same lies. And that would be worse than the present situation.

I vote for people actually saying what they mean. We're not in Humpty-Dumpty land. Pizzagate is an actual example of "fake news." That the Pope endorsed Donald Trump is another example of "fake news." That an FBI agent investigating Hillary Clinton was part of a murder-suicide is yet another example of "fake news." By labeling mainstream media reporting as comparable to such "fake news" Trump is doing the country a great disservice. The Fourth Estate is an essential part of a democracy. They're responsible for keeping the public informed about what is actually going on, and that is what the mainstream media is doing. Trump may not agree with what they say or how they say it, but he's already established his ignorance on a wide range of subjects. The truth is very unlikely to be what Trump declares it is. He's just doing what he's always done, which is to get his back up and double down on whatever peculiar impulsive claims he made. I don't think so. What's been done is noting that Trump is incorrectly labeling any reporting he doesn't like as "fake news." If Trump were a media outlet, and I guess his Twitter account could be counted as one, then he would be the one engaging in "fake news" big time.--Percy

Accepting for the moment some validity to that maxim, and I may decide it shouldn't be accepted, but for the moment: Trump may be the official President but he is certainly not the "government" -- that still belongs to Obama and the anti-Trump people, and THEY ALL DO agree with the media as has been the case for the last eight years and beyond that.

Are the Podesta emails "fake news" too?

That's just shitty and deceptive journalism.This election cycle there was an actual epidemic of fake news, mostly targeted against right wing people, with the appearance of attacking the left. People made lots of money writing obviously and ridiculously fake stories - certain conservatives particularly ate it up and became the primary audience. It's Onion level silliness, without the winky face.Fake news isn't real stuff that's exaggerated, or fabricated in details, or with deliberate lies or opinion masquerading as fact peppered in. It's completely fabricated nonsense.Here is some actual Fake News headlines:"Pope Francis forbids Catholics from voting for Hillary!""Bill Clinton's sex tape just leaked!"Hillary Clinton In 2013: ‘I Would Like To See People Like Donald Trump Run For Office; They’re Honest And Can’t Be Bought.’The idea was to create stories that would some plausible to people with low fact-checking skills so they would share them on social media, with click-bait headlines, as a means for people to make quick and easy money through ad-revenue.Some Macedonian teenagers were making thousands a week from the industry described as something of a 'gold rush'. The promise of easy money, escalated the issue - and the scandal became even greater when Facebook's algorithms picked up on the popularly shared newsy articles and started sharing them automatically to those that they thought would be interested, magnifying the effect.Those that took part in the gold rush said they ran some stories designed to attract the left wing loonies, but found they were shared less and made less money, so the primary focus was on headlines that appealed to the base instincts of the credulous portion of the right - particularly Trump supporters. Other nations were targeted too, in some part due to the American market for fake news was being saturated.Russian State sponsored media outlets started to get in on the industry, although IIRC their stories were a little less absurd than the Macedonian trolls, fuelling more concerns against the Trump-Russia issue.Trump was clearly unhappy about the emerging actual news stories that many of his supporters were gullible dupes and that he was being aided by Russian propaganda, and seemed to adopt the tactic of changing the discussion by accusing actual established media sources of being Fake News on the grounds he thought, or wanted others to think, the stories were false - hoping, quite rightly, those same gullible dupes would fall for it. And here we are. But that's just Business as Usual for media of all stripes - ie., that's just 'News', typically served with 'media spin'. Calling that 'Fake News' dilutes the term.