When Journalists Cry Wolf

a reply to: diggindirt

The lines between word and violence are blurring at an alarming pace, that I'm getting the feeling fewer and fewer know what real violence and tyranny is.

a reply to: redtic

So multiple nationally acclaimed News organizations did not recently publicly retract stories attacking he President with a false narrative that they ran for more than six months?? NYT and CNN as far as I know admitted by retraction that they lied and peddled fake, false, fraudulent propaganda to the American audience since November.

Your absolutely right, this is certainly not just about one tweet.

This is not the Mud PIt, folks. Please remember that before opinions fly.



Post to the topic, not each other.

Do Not Reply To This Post. Thx.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You don't understand? The press is under attack by the administration. You don't understand that this has been a whisper building to a crescendo for years? You don't understand how Trump is fomenting outright hostility against the press and his supporters are lapping it up like kittens with milk? Milk isn't good for kitties though.

I think you understand all too well. It reminds me of your outrage that people protested Milo and Coulter (before it turned violent). Free speech seems to end for you when people vocalize disagreement with other speakers. I don't agree with trying to get Trump banned from twitter but I hardly think it was a serious call. Funny how Trump and supporters get to use that continuously huh?

I think a journalist is perfectly entitled to call attacks on the press un-American. It is. Saying so is also free speech.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: redtic

So multiple nationally acclaimed News organizations did not recently publicly retract stories attacking he President with a false narrative that they ran for more than six months?? NYT and CNN as far as I know admitted by retraction that they lied and peddled fake, false, fraudulent propaganda to the American audience since November.

Your absolutely right, this is certainly not just about one tweet.

One story. They narrowed 17 intelligence agencies to 6 (iirc). Campaign is still under investigation. That is not peddling fake news.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: redtic
If you think this is all about a single tweet, you really haven't been paying attention.

What's sad is that Trump has been able to get his base all worked up about this false "fake news" paradigm.

There is little that is false about it, that is, unless, we're simply repeating that narrative because that's all we can do.

There is much that is false about it - the new definition of "fake news" is "news that Trumps deems as unfavorable towards him or his administration". There's a lot of negative press about Trump because, well, there's a lot of not-positive news to report about him. When you have a near historically low favorability rating hovering in the 30s, that's kinda just bound to happen..

Last I checked, CNN was still online spouting its usual drivel.

If president Trump's tweet constitutes, "attacks on the media," then what do months and months harping on what has since been retracted as false fall under?

a reply to: Kali74

Any and all responses to the behavior of the media is fomented by the media, not Trump. Again using the terms "war" or "attack" when they are no such thing, is an attempt to dupe or self-deceive. Call it what it is: a tweet.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: redtic

So multiple nationally acclaimed News organizations did not recently publicly retract stories attacking he President with a false narrative that they ran for more than six months?? NYT and CNN as far as I know admitted by retraction that they lied and peddled fake, false, fraudulent propaganda to the American audience since November.

Your absolutely right, this is certainly not just about one tweet.

That's one way to put it, I guess. Yes, they retracted and corrected the number of intelligence agencies that corroborated the fact that the Russians attempted to hack our election.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: redtic
If you think this is all about a single tweet, you really haven't been paying attention.

What's sad is that Trump has been able to get his base all worked up about this false "fake news" paradigm.

There is little that is false about it, that is, unless, we're simply repeating that narrative because that's all we can do.

There is much that is false about it - the new definition of "fake news" is "news that Trumps deems as unfavorable towards him or his administration". There's a lot of negative press about Trump because, well, there's a lot of not-positive news to report about him. When you have a near historically low favorability rating hovering in the 30s, that's kinda just bound to happen..

That's not true. As recently proven, the negative press is a lucrative business. It works especially well in a pacified, media-addicted populace.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You don't understand? The press is under attack by the administration. You don't understand that this has been a whisper building to a crescendo for years? You don't understand how Trump is fomenting outright hostility against the press and his supporters are lapping it up like kittens with milk? Milk isn't good for kitties though.

I think you understand all too well. It reminds me of your outrage that people protested Milo and Coulter (before it turned violent). Free speech seems to end for you when people vocalize disagreement with other speakers. I don't agree with trying to get Trump banned from twitter but I hardly think it was a serious call. Funny how Trump and supporters get to use that continuously huh?

I think a journalist is perfectly entitled to call attacks on the press un-American. It is. Saying so is also free speech.

Is a free press the same as saying a press, free to say whatever it will, regardless of result or repercussion?

Serious question that one, not a drive by attack.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Bull. You can't pretend that he doesn't attack the media several times a day. It's disingenuous to isolate each attack.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In other words:

Don't criticize or insult someone you like or criticize their criticisms?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Bull. You can't pretend that he doesn't attack the media several times a day. It's disingenuous to isolate each attack.

They are not attacks, and the attempt to equate a tweet to violence, especially with suspicious and dubious metaphors, is disingenuous, if not pathological. We have to break this addiction to confusing imagination and reality.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: redtic

So multiple nationally acclaimed News organizations did not recently publicly retract stories attacking he President with a false narrative that they ran for more than six months?? NYT and CNN as far as I know admitted by retraction that they lied and peddled fake, false, fraudulent propaganda to the American audience since November.

Your absolutely right, this is certainly not just about one tweet.

That's one way to put it, I guess. Yes, they retracted and corrected the number of intelligence agencies that corroborated the fact that the Russians attempted to hack our election.

You seem to be intentionally ignoring the other significant incorrect press reports - Comey will testify Trump is under investigation, POTUS performed all these heinous acts alleged in a British spy’s dossier, etc. Debate is better when you don’t try to dilute the facts...BTW, how long did CNN and the MSM push that FALSE narrative of 17 IC agencies confirming Russian Hacks (using anonymous, read nonexistant) sources?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

People, ie the Media, who live in glass houses shouldn't be shocked that people throw stones at them from time to time. Especially when they get themselves caught in repeated falsehoods and unverified statements that turn out to be wrong. Basic journalistic procedures would prevent their glass from being broken.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In other words:

Don't criticize or insult someone you like or criticize their criticisms?

No, in other words, don't follow a multitude to do evil. Do not insult and body shame and ridicule without expecting it in return. Simple ethics.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Our press is not perfect but it is not fake. We can make it better but the push is not to make it better but to delegitimize it. That's scary.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: redtic
If you think this is all about a single tweet, you really haven't been paying attention.

What's sad is that Trump has been able to get his base all worked up about this false "fake news" paradigm.

There is little that is false about it, that is, unless, we're simply repeating that narrative because that's all we can do.

There is much that is false about it - the new definition of "fake news" is "news that Trumps deems as unfavorable towards him or his administration". There's a lot of negative press about Trump because, well, there's a lot of not-positive news to report about him. When you have a near historically low favorability rating hovering in the 30s, that's kinda just bound to happen..

That's not true. As recently proven, the negative press is a lucrative business. It works especially well in a pacified, media-addicted populace.

There's a rather large difference between knowingly perpetuating false stories and (subjectively) over-reporting a perfectly valid one. If we're mostly talking about Russia here, I for one am fascinated with the story. Ignoring any possibly collusion, it's quite likely one of the biggest stories we've had in decades.

So if we're talking differences of opinion on what should and should not be reported, I'll just respectfully disagree with yours, but at the same time respect it. But, in that case, the label of "fake news" is at best inaccurate, and Trump should just focus on making more positive news for himself.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
They are not attacks

According to Merriam-Webster they are attacks.

2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words; a politician verbally attacked by critics