Washington Post Cries Uncle: Stop Using ‘Tainted’ Term ‘Fake News’

This is wonderful. A complete propaganda back fire.
They jumped the shark and are getting eaten

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

Figures - Breitbart

Stop calling it fake news - call it lies instead?

Pretty straightforward. How can people not understand this? :-)

They should never have attempted to suppress freedom of speech in the first place.

Hilarious. Did you read the WashPo piece - in the Style section?

My country is doomed

This is priceless. These maggots are the enemies within. They are the lowest scum on this planet because of the lies, filth and division they repeatedly spew. ~$heopleNation

I'm here for the kekz.

Sounds to me like the Post is correctly pointing out that conservatives have reacted to the fake news angle by referring to everything under the sun as "fake news."

Erego, the suggestion is to use terms that are more precise so they can't be so easily manipulated by sour-grapes eating conservatives.

A hoax is a hoax. A lie is a lie.

These are unambiguous terms.

It sure as hell doesn't change the fact that most of the Hillary stories leading up to the election were bald faced lies.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

Writing at the Washington Post, Margaret Sullivan bemoans the fact that conservatives have flipped the meaning of “fake news” from a term used by the mainstream media to attack stories that are troublesome for progressives to a label to call out the media’s false narratives

That is a lie, of course. What she actually said was:

Fake news has a real meaning — deliberately constructed lies, in the form of news articles, meant to mislead the public. For example: The one falsely claiming that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump, or the one alleging without basis that Hillary Clinton would be indicted just before the election.

But though the term hasn’t been around long, its meaning already is lost. Faster than you could say “Pizzagate,” the label has been co-opted to mean any number of completely different things: Liberal claptrap. Or opinion from left-of-center. Or simply anything in the realm of news that the observer doesn’t like to hear.

The original op-ed piece.

The right relies on lies to influence people, and it welcomes fake news-- properly defined-- if it furthers their agenda.

The first 3 paragraphs of the WP article are examples of how the alt-media co-oped the term the Establishment media invented. The Breibart writer was spot on.

Talking about furthering their agenda, this is exactly what the Establishment media was doing by coming up with this label. The Establishment media's agenda is to discredit and eliminate the opposing point of views of the alt-media (soon to be MSM) thereby suppressing freedom of speech.

The left relies on lies to influence people, and it reports fake news-- properly defined as govt propaganda -- because it furthers their agenda.

BTW link to WP article was in the opening OP.

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

The left relies on lies to influence people, and it reports fake news-- properly defined as govt propaganda -- because it furthers their agenda.

It's kinda cute how you can use Breitbart as your source - and then say that with a straight face

:-)

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

Writing at the Washington Post, Margaret Sullivan bemoans the fact that conservatives have flipped the meaning of “fake news” from a term used by the mainstream media to attack stories that are troublesome for progressives to a label to call out the media’s false narratives

That is a lie, of course. What she actually said was:

Fake news has a real meaning — deliberately constructed lies, in the form of news articles, meant to mislead the public. For example: The one falsely claiming that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump, or the one alleging without basis that Hillary Clinton would be indicted just before the election.

But though the term hasn’t been around long, its meaning already is lost. Faster than you could say “Pizzagate,” the label has been co-opted to mean any number of completely different things: Liberal claptrap. Or opinion from left-of-center. Or simply anything in the realm of news that the observer doesn’t like to hear.

The original op-ed piece.

The right relies on lies to influence people, and it welcomes fake news-- properly defined-- if it furthers their agenda.

The first 3 paragraphs of the WP article are examples of how the alt-media co-oped the term the Establishment media invented. The Breibart writer was spot on.

Talking about furthering their agenda, this is exactly what the Establishment media was doing by coming up with this label. The Establishment media's agenda is to discredit and eliminate the opposing point of views of the alt-media (soon to be MSM) thereby suppressing freedom of speech.

The left relies on lies to influence people, and it reports fake news-- properly defined as govt propaganda -- because it furthers their agenda.

BTW link to WP article was in the opening OP.

Mainstream media sources very seldom push hoaxes and outright lies. When they do, it's big news, and heads usually roll.

The alternate media, however, lives on lies and hoaxes.

The echo chamber appears to have swallowed you whole.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Pyle
Great job guys you co-oped a term that perfectly explained something. ATS helped make it completely worthless. Enjoy the continuation a BS news stories only made to get click revenue with no fact behind it. Long live Alex Jones and Macedonian Ad revenue.

MSM outlets like the Washington Post fertilized the ground to grow all of the alternative media out there today.
You know about fertilizer, right?

fertilizer?....we have one coming into office soon

a reply to: Greggers

Mainstream media sources very seldom push hoaxes and outright lies.

how's the weather in that bubble ?

My god man...good luck out there...you're gonna need it.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Greggers

Mainstream media sources very seldom push hoaxes and outright lies.

how's the weather in that bubble ?

My god man...good luck out there...you're gonna need it.

You're the one in the bubble.

The MSM is often guilty of bias. Sometimes (as in the talking-head programs), bias is baked INTO the show format. However, there is a difference between bias and lies.

Also, MSM does very little in the way of actual investigative reporting these days, so mostly they are just reporting information as claimed by other sources. Which means as long as the source they've cited is claiming it, it's not a lie. This of course means you can't count on the MSM for actual investigation, but it also means they don't do much in the way of actually making up their own stories.

Alternative media, on the other hand, spews out complete lies fabricated from whole cloth.

This is part of the reason why the Post is saying to "call a lie a lie," and "call a hoax a hoax." It's because these terms very rarely apply to MSM, but far more often apply to alternate media.

a reply to: Greggers

Bahhaha, quoting "sources" and claiming they did not lie, how is that different from anyone else ?

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Greggers

Bahhaha, quoting "sources" and claiming they did not lie, how is that different from anyone else ?

Because they are REPORTING the FINDINGS of a QUOTED SOURCE. Almost all general news is communicated in this way. The primary exception would be investigative journalism, which does independent research and draws its own conclusion. That has never, ever been the nature of the evening news. It's more the domain of programs like 60 minutes.

If I write an article that says, "According to the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA, the DNC leaks were perpetrated by actors on behalf of the highest levels of the Russian government," it is, in fact, a TRUE statement.

If I write an article that says "According to the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA, actor Hugh Jackman is responsible for hacking the DNC servers," that is a lie.

It's pretty simple, really.

You guys act like you don't understand basic terms. A lie is a statement that is demonstrably false.

double

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

So, here’s a modest proposal for the truth-based community. Let’s get out the hook and pull that baby off stage. Yes: Simply stop using it. Instead, call a lie a lie. Call a hoax a hoax. Call a conspiracy theory by its rightful name. After all, “fake news” is an imprecise expression to begin with.

The term "conspiracy theory" has been used as a weaponized term (used by the CIA and MSM and made popular in the case of JFK's assassination) to shut down anything that disputes the officially sanctioned narrative of events.

It could be outlandish and false or a hoax, or, it could be entirely valid.

Conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms:
plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informal racket
"a conspiracy to manipulate the results"
the action of plotting or conspiring.
"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
synonyms:
plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason
"conspiracy to commit murder"

Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms:
hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
opinion, view, belief, contention
"I reckon that confirms my theory"
principles, ideas, concepts;
philosophy, ideology, system of ideas, science
"modern economic theory"
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

While I do disagree with the media for using the term fake news to silence any voice that goes against their held opinions. I think we should be careful and not fall into the same trap. After all fake news-deny ignorance kind of mean the the same thing. When a story is posted here to ats if that poster doesn't provide valid proof of claim, the members of ats will tear it apart. And rightly so. Those post are a form of fake news. So we should clearly define the phrase fake news and abide by that before we turn it into a blanket term that anyone can use to attack the "other" side. The same thing we have done with words like terrorism, racism, hate crime.


My real feelings about these fake news story stuff is that it is a form of disinformation. It is taking our attention away from the things that happened that lead to the idea of calling out fake news. The DNC emails and Russia's involvement in US politics are trying to be pushed aside and replaced with conversations about what is fake news and who is putting out more of it.

originally posted by: queenofswords
CNN will forever be known as the Clinton News Network, or Cartoon News Network.

It has stuck. Their credibility is mostly out the window. When you hear the words, 'fake news', you automatically think CNN now. NYT and WaPo aren't too far behind, imo.

I think both fox news and CNN when I think propaganda.

They wanted to damage alternative sources where people would seek and discuss the truth, so screw them. The MSM and the feds were the purveyors of "Fake News" , nobody else. They were masters of it, and had done it for years. Screw them. Now we have to stop and think about everything else they've been telling us. Global warming. Isis. Obama's background. Iraq. Iran. Everything they tell us is suspect and conspiracy theories don't sound so crazy, anymore.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Greggers

Mainstream media sources very seldom push hoaxes and outright lies.

how's the weather in that bubble ?

My god man...good luck out there...you're gonna need it.

You're the one in the bubble.

The MSM is often guilty of bias. Sometimes (as in the talking-head programs), bias is baked INTO the show format. However, there is a difference between bias and lies.

Also, MSM does very little in the way of actual investigative reporting these days, so mostly they are just reporting information as claimed by other sources. Which means as long as the source they've cited is claiming it, it's not a lie. This of course means you can't count on the MSM for actual investigation, but it also means they don't do much in the way of actually making up their own stories.

Alternative media, on the other hand, spews out complete lies fabricated from whole cloth.

This is part of the reason why the Post is saying to "call a lie a lie," and "call a hoax a hoax." It's because these terms very rarely apply to MSM, but far more often apply to alternate media.

Explain hands up, don't shoot. Blatant lie, often still repeated by the msm.

This can only occur if there is one controlling entity for them all



about 10 years ago about 50 corporations controlled the MSM channels, Today that has literally shrunk to just 6 which makes a lot of sense since that number is much easier to control from just 1 leading entity.



I say that leading entity is Reuters, controlled by rothschild.

This is in front of reuters:


But going into that would require a thread on its own.