It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Fake News is Not a Problem

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Did he, or did he not, say "Fake news threatens democracy?"
edit on 22-11-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Among other things, yes, one could walk away with that impression.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Did, or did not, those words come out of his mouth?



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Misinformation and propaganda feeding hungry bias, giving sanctuary to extreme absolutism, people reacting in frustration, refusing to participate in democratic functions........Yes. One could, while intellectually engaged and applying critical thinking, surmise that that is what he was saying, in part.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

We already know the answer to that one. No, Obama did not say "Fake news threatens democracy."

In other words, that headline is not true, but false.

Is it honest? No, it was dishonest. It was conjured after the fact by a man who took disparate phrases from different arguments, even re-arranging the order in which they were stated, to misrepresent the President's statements.

This is a highly circulated paper, it has a long reach. The blatant doublespeak in considering this real news is dangerous.

Sure. Rail against breitbart, true pundit, and super mega true news from Macedonia. But it's a laugh to not hold the same standards for anyone else.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




In other words, that headline is not true, but false.


In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the author, whose take away from Obama's speech was that "fake news" is detrimental to democracy. I can see his and Obama's point. I don't know why you can't, but you can't. I accept your limitations, but I do not accept your absolutism and unwillingness to "compromise", in allowing other's their viewpoints too.

Like I said, you are welcome to your opinion. You are not welcome to your own facts.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
This thread has shown an excellent example of futility.


What that futility is, remains for the reader to discern.

My 2 scents.....rotten cabbage and burnt hair.

Fake news is NOT A PROBLEM.... determining how news is fake is A HUGE PROBLEM.
edit on R362016-11-23T03:36:33-06:00k3611Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Until we all accept that all news sites and outlets give 'fake' news from time to time, it is impossible to move on to a decent discussion on filtering out fake news and properly cross referencing to build the most accurate picture possible.

There are some sites that push 'fake' news more than others, like CNN, but even they occasionally tell the truth, so they can't be completely discounted.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Until we all accept that all news sites and outlets give 'fake' news from time to time, it is impossible to move on to a decent discussion on filtering out fake news and properly cross referencing to build the most accurate picture possible.


It's especially impossible because "fake news" has just become a cheap catch phrase of dismissal, when the information being presented doesn't jibe with the readers' bias.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth



Until we all accept that all news sites and outlets give 'fake' news from time to time, it is impossible to move on to a decent discussion on filtering out fake news and properly cross referencing to build the most accurate picture possible.


It's especially impossible because "fake news" has just become a cheap catch phrase of dismissal, when the information being presented doesn't jibe with the readers' bias.


I agree with you on that.
The division is so great that for the first time in a long time society is tearing down the middle into two specific groups and as it happens the fabric of society, including information, is being torn down the middle too. We're almost at the stage of a family drawing a white line through the middle of the house and never crossing.
Not everything on either side is bad or fake or wrong.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




In other words, that headline is not true, but false.


In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the author, whose take away from Obama's speech was that "fake news" is detrimental to democracy. I can see his and Obama's point. I don't know why you can't, but you can't. I accept your limitations, but I do not accept your absolutism and unwillingness to "compromise", in allowing other's their viewpoints too.

Like I said, you are welcome to your opinion. You are not welcome to your own facts.


The objective facts are that Obama did not say what the author said he said, and that you and the author are willing to go to great lengths to misrepresent Obama. No opinion needed because it is right there in Obama's speech. You can call it opinion but then you'd be spitting more falsities. No compromise needed. There is true and false, and I'll keep with the truth than more entertain your limitations towards it, your dogmatic opinions, and your sophistry.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



The objective facts.....


No, they are NOT objective facts. They're your opinion, and your opinion is not the ultimate authority or the last word of what is truth in journalism.

Concepts are not facts. Just because an author doesn't parrot exact wording, that doesn't make their paraphrasing and/or their summation of the gist of what they took away from what the orator was trying to conveying, fake, false or untrue.

You're free to disagree with and criticize the author's assessment. You're not free to control what and how the author presents their case. You're free to your own personal journalistic standards. You're not free to absolutely dictate your journalistic ideals nor are you free to dictate what perspectives are true and what perspectives are false.



There is true and false, and I'll keep with the truth...........


Such arrogant authoritarianism is inappropriate in political and religious discussions. It truly shows how small and limited your world view actually is. It's quite disqualifying, in my opinion.



edit on 23-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




Concepts are not facts. Just because an author doesn't parrot exact wording, that doesn't make their paraphrasing and/or their summation of the gist of what they took away from what the orator was trying to conveying, fake, false or untrue.

You're free to disagree with and criticize the author's assessment. You're not free to control what and how the author presents their case. You're free to your own personal journalistic standards. You're not free to absolutely dictate your journalistic ideals nor are you free to dictate what perspectives are true and what perspectives are false.


Obama was right:

"If we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not -- and particularly in an age of social media where so many people are getting their information in soundbites and snippets off their phones -- if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems."

You're not serious about what's true and what's not, and you cannot discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda. You haven't considered any of my arguments, resorting to red herrings about opinions, a subjectivist fallacy, and frivolous ad hominem denouncements about authoritarianism, when it is you who cannot even back your dogma with serious arguments and evidence, and without fallacious reasoning.

Neither are these my own journalistic ethics. I utilize the ethics as put forward by the Society of Professional Journalists to hold journalists to account. Rather, it is you who dictates his journalistic ideals, which unfortunately, do not have anything with anything outside your own skull. Quite disqualifying.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"If people, whether they are conservative or liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic process, and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down."

Obama isn't suggesting, in this quote, that the press, or anyone in authority should determine what is truth and what is not truth. You don't have that right. you have the right to determine what is true for you, and only you. You have attempted, in this instance, to dictate what is truth for everyone; to hold up this specific example of one author's opinion as a standard of fraudulent representation of a news story, and the ultimate definition of "fake news". It is not!

The author didn't lie or present "fake news". You are free to accept or disagree with their analysis. You're not free free to dictate mine, or judge my opinion as true or false.

Someone can say, "God says homosexuality is a sin". You would, by your logic, say that's false, a lie, "fake news", because the word homosexual isn't in the Bible. But the person is paraphrasing biblical scripture, and combining experience with doctrine and dogma to take away as the basis for a particular world view. Someone else might reject the whole statement as fraudulent, a lie, and "fake news" because the god in the Bible isn't their "GOD", and their "GOD" said no such thing.



You haven't considered any of my arguments, resorting to red herrings about opinions, a subjectivist fallacy, and frivolous ad hominem denouncements about authoritarianism, when it is you who cannot even back your dogma with serious arguments and evidence, and without fallacious reasoning.


I have considered your argument, and I rejected it. Again, you can throw out insults in frustration, as an attempt to get the upper hand, but in reality it's all just your subjective opinion and NOT an objective fact.

Your lack of intellectual flexibility has caused you to have a fallacious authoritarian view, believing you have the truth, just like the guy who insists "God says homosexuality is sin!", and everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you is a fraud. When you can't convince someone of your absolute authoritarian superior viewpoint you insult and demonize your opponent. When opposition is silenced by authoritarian absolutism, democracy breaks down. Just like Obama said. All over your beliefs of "fake news".


edit on 23-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




"If people, whether they are conservative or liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic process, and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down."


There is nothing absolutist about being empirical on the topic. As previously stated countless times, it is true that Obama did not say what the author said he said. This is confirmed by simply looking, not by using silly mental contortions or contextomy. Even now you will not say "Obama did not say fake news threatens democracy"—which he didn't—because it is you who is being the absolutist and dogmatist.

You could easily prove me wrong by pointing to where I am wrong. But you aren't willing to. You'd rather hide behind your subjectivity.

The author did lie. This is confirmed by simply looking at the text. This is confirmed by observing the contextomy. It is a fact that he took statements from different paragraphs, rearranged the order, and this is confirmed by simply looking. You call that paraphrasing, but is not paraphrasing according to any definition of paraphrasing. It is a fact the article wasn't in the Opinion section of the website. You are unwilling to prove otherwise because it is likely you know you cannot. You have pointed to nothing but what's in your skull, just like the author. You are unwilling to admit the author did this, likely because of your dogma. Your opinion is demonstrably false, not because I say so, but because it doesn't conform to the reality.

Try it. Point to something outside of yourself that confirms your opinion.

Your relying on religious examples is ironic, since your dogmatic stance and falsity on this minor topic is quasi-religious in character.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
...quasi-religious in character.

A wise jerk might say the same thing about your insistence on preaching to this audience.

Keep up the good work.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKKKKK...KEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey LesMis.

"They" want to be revealed. They are selling the normies on just how bad they are after priming them to respect their interpretation of "rebellion" as "good". You are selling them to them. I think I know why you are selling how bad they are because you seek truth, but I have to ask, but... why? Remember... they start off with abuse as the foundation of introduction into their hive civilization. I = We for them.

Watch how little I have to change the lyrics for "Them"...

-------------------------------------------------------

We like it like it
We like it like it...

Na na na na
Come on
We like it like it
Na na na na
Come on
We like it like it
Na na na na na
Come on
We like it like it
Na na na na
Come on, come on, come on
Na na na na

Feels so good being bad (Oh oh oh oh oh)
There's no way we're turning back (Oh oh oh oh oh)
Now the pain is our pleasure cause nothing could measure (Oh oh oh oh oh)
Evol is great, Evol is fine (Oh oh oh oh oh)
Out the box, outta line (Oh oh oh oh oh)
The affliction of the feeling leave U.S. wanting more (Oh oh oh oh oh)

Cause we may be bad, but we're perfectly good at it
Sex in the air, we don't care, we evol the smell of it
Sticks and stones may break our bones
But chains and whips excite U.S.

Cause we may be bad, but we're perfectly good at it
Sex in the air, we don't care, we evol the smell of it
Sticks and stones may break our bones
But chains and whips excite U.S.
Na na na na
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it

Just one night full of sin (Oh oh oh oh oh)
Feel the pain on your skin (Oh oh oh oh oh)
Tough, we don't scream mercy
It's your time to hurt U.S.
Yeah (Oh oh oh oh oh)
If we're bad tie U.S. down (Oh oh oh oh oh)
Shut U.S. up, gag and bound (Oh oh oh oh oh) U.S.
Cause the pain is our pleasure
Nothing comes better
Yeah
Oh oh oh

Cause we may be bad, but we're perfectly good at it
Sex in the air, we don't care, we evol the smell of it
Sticks and stones may break our bones
But chains and whips excite U.S.

Na na na na
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it

S-S-S & Mainstream Media Magic
S-S-S & Mainstream Media Magic

Oh, we evol the feeling you bring to U.S., oh, you turn U.S. on
It's exactly what we've been yearning for, give it to U.S. strong

And meet U.S. in our boardrooms, make our cronies say ah ah ah
We like it-like it

Cause we may be bad, but we're perfectly good at it
Sex in the air, we don't care, we evol the smell of it
Sticks and stones may break our bones
But chains and whips excite U.S.

Cause we may be bad, but we're perfectly good at it
Sex in the air, we don't care, we evol the smell of it
Sticks and stones may break our bones
But chains and whips excite U.S.

Na na na na
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it (Na na na)
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it
Come on, come on, come on
We like it-like it

S-S-S & Mainstream Media Magic
S-S-S & Mainstream Media Magic
S-S-S & Mainstream Media Magic
S-S-S & Mainstream Media Magic
edit on 25-11-2016 by ThereforeTheMeh because: Love.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




There is nothing absolutist about being empirical on the topic.


LOL. Do you think I'm stupid, or don't what words mean, or how to use them? Words are hardly ever empirical, and the author's take away on Obama's statement were well withing the context of his assertion, that "fake news" is a problem for democracy.



You could easily prove me wrong by pointing to where I am wrong. But you aren't willing to.


I did, more than once. In your blind and absolute myopic ramblings, you have ignored my explanations and refuse even acknowledge that I have presented an argument. That's not a winning debate strategy, it's a refusal to engage in any conversation that doesn't support you authoritarian need to dictate to others what is true/fake, right/wrong.

News is always going to be a combination of reporting and opinion. You have neither the mental capacity nor the right to determine, or sort out for others, what is valid opinion and what is not. You have an opinion just like everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less.




edit on 26-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




LOL. Do you think I'm stupid, or don't what words mean, or how to use them? Words are hardly ever empirical, and the author's take away on Obama's statement were well withing the context of his assertion, that "fake news" is a problem for democracy.


What I take away from your words is that you've given up, and this is your way of apologizing for supporting fake news. I accept.

You ignored all of my arguments, and especially the point that you and the author needed to take phrases from disparate sentences and paragraphs so as to invent your fake news angle, which is the most common technique of disinformation, and is against journalistic ethics. You called it opinion when it wasn't in the opinion section.

But I accept your apology, and thank you for admitting you were wrong and a fool.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join