Trump, Polarization, Partizanship and Social Media Consumption.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As much information as possible should be provided for the reason I stated.

But journalists sometimes need to protect their sources, and sometimes there are issues of national security.

Sure the information could be verified, but information to the contrary might be suppressed.

That is why we have freedom of the press. If another reporter can falsify the story, the can always publish an expose. Of course, the government has the power to use "national security" as an excuse to withhold information from the public, as Trump is doing now with the Schiff memorandum.

Or the Schiff memorandum purposefully included classified material in order to impugn the president, unlike the GOP memo.

Trey Gowdy: Democrats may have intentionally included info in their FISA memo that requires redactions

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

However, I could fit CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT and many more in 4 of the categories for at least one of their crew of 'journalists' and often more (note that the Oxford Uni opinion piece only requires 3 of 5).

Still waiting for examples.

Examples of what?
I already explained that the criteria are junk, so why would I try to fit stories to them?

I am quite happy to call out the likes of Rachael Maddow claiming that the US Govt may be run by Russians in her emotional rant to millions of viewers as fake news or her disaster show about Trump's tax returns where she tried to paint a picture of mafia-like ties to Russian oligarchs, with no evidence. I could list hundreds (maybe thousands) of those types of hysterical nonsense pieces designed to mislead the public over the last 2 years. From the serious to the stupid.

Do you know, for example, how many times pundits on CNN or MSNBC have called the President a white supremacist? No evidence of such, just their own definitive statements and conclusion, never redacted, never an apology. Just politically biased opinions spewed to millions of gullible viewers who then spread it across twitter and facebook. None of that nonsense has been counted in the Oxford University opinion piece.

a reply to: UKTruth

Do you know, for example, how many times pundits on CNN or MSNBC have called the President a white supremacist? No evidence of such, just their own definitive statements and conclusion, never redacted, never an apology. Just politically biased opinions spewed to millions of gullible viewers who then spread it across twitter and facebook. None of that nonsense has been counted in the Oxford University opinion piece. 

Examples, have they called him a white supremacist or have they alluded to him being one?

Provide examples, he/she wants examples... Not opinions and allegations.

Personally I find most media to be ran by muppets, admittedly though I seldom ever come across entirety fabricated "journalism" with MSN outlets...

I mean, reports that may be fabricated but have disclaimers don't count.

I'm not exactly looking but the only time I've seen absolute fake news is when here on ATS and following links to the likes of Breitbart or some crap like Facebook.

It's ALL propaganda, nobody is providing media for your benefit, they all have an agenda, be it money, influence... Or a good laugh.

I like to think sites like Breitbart or infowars are just trolling the world, but then I like to believe that people don't believe nonsense and can think for themselves.

a reply to: Painterz

The problem with their analysis of “junk news” is that much of it is not news, nor pretends to be. An example is The Federalist or The National Review. The National Review is a magazine, not news. In the example they gave for the National Review, a correction was in fact issued.

So the thesis that “These sources deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture” is false.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That isn't the point.

They could have big bold letters that give warnings on the fictitious nature of the content but people will still receive it as news.

Let's not kid ourselves, I just visited The Federalist. It's designed to come across as news. Many read such sites as a news source.

Their very nature is deceptive, but then again most people have their heads so far up the you know what to even realise they are deceived daily on a 24 hour basis.

a reply to: RAY1990

It matters not whether it was alluded to or stated outright - both have occurred. The problem is that the criteria is so loose as to make it impossible to determine what they were actually defining to narrow down their list. Does a pundit on CNN, or guest, who spouts off some conspiracy theory or throws ad hominems at the President qualify as the kind of fake news that drives social media tweets/retweets and flame wars??? We don't know because they have not said.

Misleading news foisted by media outlets that drives polarisation, partisanship and social media consumption is what the study was supposed to be about - yet they missed huge swaths of that social media debate driven by the media because they used junk criteria and came up with a biased list in order to produce their "analysis". To be kind it's a poor piece of analysis, though I rather suspect it was produced by one of those liberal professor types and his students - for the consumption of leftists to confirm their bias.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That isn't the point.

They could have big bold letters that give warnings on the fictitious nature of the content but people will still receive it as news.

Let's not kid ourselves, I just visited The Federalist. It's designed to come across as news. Many read such sites as a news source.

Their very nature is deceptive, but then again most people have their heads so far up the you know what to even realise they are deceived daily on a 24 hour basis.

I think that is the point - I can not actually think of an unbiased news source these days - and there is certainly no agreed upon definition of fake news. Major alarm bells should be ringing in any objective persons head when reading a report that classifies fake news as almost entirely in one direction. I would have thought that to be a fairly reasonable position to take, but apparently, there are those that actually do believe it's all in one direction. Pretty sad.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That isn't the point.

They could have big bold letters that give warnings on the fictitious nature of the content but people will still receive it as news.

Let's not kid ourselves, I just visited The Federalist. It's designed to come across as news. Many read such sites as a news source.

Their very nature is deceptive, but then again most people have their heads so far up the you know what to even realise they are deceived daily on a 24 hour basis.

That’s false. They do not purport to be news, as was claimed.

At The Federalist, you’ll read interesting essays informed by this general worldview, with writing on big subjects and small. If you are a subscriber to The Transom, you can expect more content along those lines, with the sharpest writers digging into the major issues of the day with a viewpoint that rejects the assumptions of the media establishment. You can also expect us to expand more into the cultural space, featuring longreads on a wide variety of interesting topics about a nation facing a period of historic transformation. And we may add another newsletter or three.

Introducing The Federalist

If you read it like news that is your own fault.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A perfect example! You did not link to the "first page," which does indeed present itself as news:
thefederalist.com...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A perfect example! You did not link to the "first page," which does indeed present itself as news:
thefederalist.com...

How so?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As much information as possible should be provided for the reason I stated.

But journalists sometimes need to protect their sources, and sometimes there are issues of national security.

Sure the information could be verified, but information to the contrary might be suppressed.

That is why we have freedom of the press. If another reporter can falsify the story, the can always publish an expose. Of course, the government has the power to use "national security" as an excuse to withhold information from the public, as Trump is doing now with the Schiff memorandum.

Or the Schiff memorandum purposefully included classified material in order to impugn the president, unlike the GOP memo.

Trey Gowdy: Democrats may have intentionally included info in their FISA memo that requires redactions

The memo can easily be redacted. Why are his lawyers refusing to allow it?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A perfect example! You did not link to the "first page," which does indeed present itself as news:
thefederalist.com...

How so?

A masthead, bold headlines,pictures... If you don't know better it sure looks like a newspaper.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As much information as possible should be provided for the reason I stated.

But journalists sometimes need to protect their sources, and sometimes there are issues of national security.

Sure the information could be verified, but information to the contrary might be suppressed.

That is why we have freedom of the press. If another reporter can falsify the story, the can always publish an expose. Of course, the government has the power to use "national security" as an excuse to withhold information from the public, as Trump is doing now with the Schiff memorandum.

Or the Schiff memorandum purposefully included classified material in order to impugn the president, unlike the GOP memo.

Trey Gowdy: Democrats may have intentionally included info in their FISA memo that requires redactions

The memo can easily be redacted. Why are his lawyers refusing to allow it?

That’s publically available information.

Donald F. McGahn II, the president’s lawyer, said in a letter to the committee on Friday night that the Democratic memo could not be released because it “contains numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages.” He said the president would again consider making the memo public if the committee, which had approved its release on Monday, revised it to “mitigate the risks.”

NYT

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A perfect example! You did not link to the "first page," which does indeed present itself as news:
thefederalist.com...

How so?

A masthead, bold headlines,pictures... If you don't know better it sure looks like a newspaper.

It looks like a blog too. Either way, it explicitly says what it is, despite the study’s claim.

a reply to: UKTruth

Examples of what?
I already explained that the criteria are junk, so why would I try to fit stories to them?

Because you said you could. But first you might want to explain why you think they are junk. Let me post them again so you can critique them, explaining why they are "vague" or "too broad."

•Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.

• Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.

• Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility.

• Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently presentopinion and commentary essays as news.

• Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts,branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.

Next, you can explain what criteria you recommend to someone who wants to tell how reliable a news item is.

a reply to: Painterz

Ironically, or not, this exact same study has been shared by the major of my liberal friends on FB. The kicker? None of them have allowed me or any others to debate the veracity of said study either.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Wait...

So is deception OK or not?

Again, the point I was making is that people do visit such sites and consider it news just as people read CNN reports asking "is Donald Trump a white supremacist" I mean... What's good for the goose?

I've came across no news articles claiming Trump is a white supremacist but I've read 1 or 2 that allude to it, attempted to make my mind up for me.

Anyways, in my opinion it's designed in a style not dissimilar to a news website. I would argue that it's "essays" are just reports of an informing nature.

Call that what you will.

a reply to: DJW001

Dude, what happened to you? I had you pegged as a middle age guy with some sense, you sound like a flustered teenage girl. I'm sorry Trump is doing such a number on your head. There is help out there.....when you are ready.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Wait...

So is deception OK or not?

Again, the point I was making is that people do visit such sites and consider it news just as people read CNN reports asking "is Donald Trump a white supremacist" I mean... What's good for the goose?

I've came across no news articles claiming Trump is a white supremacist but I've read 1 or 2 that allude to it, attempted to make my mind up for me.

Anyways, in my opinion it's designed in a style not dissimilar to a news website. I would argue that it's "essays" are just reports of an informing nature.

Call that what you will.

It would be a dangerous assumption to assume they are deceiving people.

It is a fact that online magazines share features with online newspapers and blogs. If you can suggest a better format, it might help to allay any confusion you and others face. But until then, it helps to read the mission statements to see what they purport to be instead of assuming, or worse, falsely accusing them that they are purporting to be “real news”.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you can suggest a better format, it might help to allay any confusion you and others face

Did you just assume my method of learning?

How dare you!

But until then, it helps to read the mission statements to see what they purport to be instead of assuming, or worse, falsely accusing them that they are purporting to be “real news”.

I don't read stuff like that much so a mission statement is useless to me, as it stands I've accused them of nothing. I did accuse them of using a design not dissimilar to a news agency's design, whether this is deception as to appear as a news site or just efforts to be more attractive and thus make money I honestly don't know.

I see the affects such sites have though.

It would be a dangerous assumption to assume they are deceiving people. 

Yeah... Assumptions can be dangerous, it depends how you use them. To me they hold no value, like opinions. Just meandering thoughts fluttering about.