Widgets Magazine
Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 783

Thread: Fake news

  1. #226

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    No, that is not what fake news is. What you're describing is propaganda, bias, slant, etc. Fake news, by definition, is lies. From the Cambridge Dictionary (and many many many many others, but I don't have time to list all the other correct definitions of fake news):

    "false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke"
    I'm sure I am still the lone member of the dreaded TheTravellers ignore list but Eric makes a valid point. Most all the MSMedia has been using the same fake pics of children supposedly separated from their parents at the border when they have long been proven they are not.

    TheTravellers is wanting to use an acedemic definition which is fine, but the MSM seems to now accept as an acceptable practice to use false information to support or justify their desired outcome. This goes beyond just putting a slant on something. It's becoming common for important facts to simply be left out. If the result is that Trump is the Devil when Obama did the same thing, even more, it's fake. If the MSM represents as false something Trump said, when he either did nit say it, said it in an entirely different context or what he saidvwas actually true, its fake news. If the outcome is simply outright false, it's fake news.

  2. #227

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by mugofbeer View Post
    I'm sure I am still the lone member of the dreaded TheTravellers ignore list but Eric makes a valid point. Most all the MSMedia has been using the same fake pics of children supposedly separated from their parents at the border when they have long been proven they are not.

    TheTravellers is wanting to use an acedemic definition which is fine, but the MSM seems to now accept as an acceptable practice to use false information to support or justify their desired outcome. This goes beyond just putting a slant on something. It's becoming common for important facts to simply be left out. If the result is that Trump is the Devil when Obama did the same thing, even more, it's fake. If the MSM represents as false something Trump said, when he either did nit say it, said it in an entirely different context or what he saidvwas actually true, its fake news. If the outcome is simply outright false, it's fake news.
    Parsing between propoganda and fake news doesn't exactly leave you in a good place either way. Unless of course the claim is being made that what AP did was not misleading in any way. Good luck with that one.

    What is the most irritating about this is that organizations like AP that have all this credibility, walk this fine line. While technically nothing they say in the article is an outright falsehood, the presentation and timing of such a piece is by no coincidence intended to shape the narrative, not just to report the facts. There is literally no other reason to present this piece the way they did, when they did, other than to extend the narrative right now that this is absolutely unequivocally Trump's fault.

    I also found the original piece on the waybackmachine.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20180621...907b49ae624e79

    Another example of misleading claims that I missed earlier.

    Original:

    In court filings, lawyers for the detention facility have denied all allegations of physical abuse.
    Updated version:

    In court filings, lawyers for the detention facility have denied all the allegations of physical abuse. The incidents described in the lawsuit occurred from 2015 to 2018, during both the Obama and Trump administrations.
    In the original piece, Obama's name is never mentioned. Not one time. Yet, the subject of the entire piece centers around an event the predates Trump (whose name is conveniently peppered throughout the piece).

  3. #228

    Default Re: Fake news

    The fact that this was deemed necessary to post in the Washington Post is astounding.

    After a fake interview of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went viral, its maker said it was satire

    To mimic WaPo's breathless concern...

    It would be one thing if her original unedited interview weren't so embarrassing, but it was...so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

    Watching the original may explain why there was so much confusion over the satirical piece.

    Democracy dies in Satire

  4. #229

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    The fact that this was deemed necessary to post in the Washington Post is astounding.

    After a fake interview of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went viral, its maker said it was satire

    To mimic WaPo's breathless concern...

    It would be one thing if her original unedited interview weren't so embarrassing, but it was...so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

    Watching the original may explain why there was so much confusion over the satirical piece.

    Democracy dies in Satire
    Only when it is done by a conservative. It's normal late night TV and comedy club material for leftists.

    To be fair, I know nothing of Allie Stuckey but if she does not normally do satire work, she should have immediately stated that it was such on her web site. There are too many out there on both sides willing to use unverified information as fact to hurt a political opponent.

  5. #230

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by mugofbeer View Post
    Only when it is done by a conservative. It's normal late night TV and comedy club material for leftists.

    To be fair, I know nothing of Allie Stuckey but if she does not normally do satire work, she should have immediately stated that it was such on her web site. There are too many out there on both sides willing to use unverified information as fact to hurt a political opponent.
    Obviously she ain't mainstream entertainment, but she does make a habit of doing these sorts of things. I'm guessing the subject matter is about the only thing that "fooled" the mainstream press. However, about 5 seconds of "research" would have unearthed this. Instead, how many words and minutes were wasted informing the world that someone was making a joke.

  6. #231

    Default Re: Fake news

    All of this whining about the investigatory process.

    I find that when defendants are complaining so much about the process itself and not the facts churned up by the process, they tend to be guilty as hell.

  7. #232

    Default Re: Fake news

    They like to say they own up to their mistakes, but apparently it's selective...

    Israel Picks Identity Over Democracy. More Nations May Follow. @ New York Times

    The lead of the story is debunked here.

    I guess we could give them some time to correct it.

  8. #233

    Default Re: Fake news

    That's not fake news, that's sources disagreeing with each other. In fact the direct source, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg claims Ben-Gurion said something about returning territory in a speech in 1948 that he himself heard. Hertzberg claimed this in speeches and books for decades and the now in 2018 the writer of your article claims Ben-Gurion did not say what Hertzberg claims based on 3rd party information including incomplete transcripts and articles written the time about the speech. It's nothing more than supposition long after everyone that actually heard the speech is dead. It may be supposition with some facts supporting it, but it is still speculative. Hertzberg first made the claim in the 1980s and people had 20 years to rebuke his claim until his death in 2006 and no one did so until now.

    So who is the better source? I would still say it's Hertzberg.

  9. #234

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Swake View Post
    That's not fake news, that's sources disagreeing with each other. In fact the direct source, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg claims Ben-Gurion said something about returning territory in a speech in 1948 that he himself heard. Hertzberg claimed this in speeches and books for decades and the now in 2018 writer of your article claims Ben-Gurion did not say what Hertzberg claims based on 3rd party information including incomplete transcripts and articles written the time about the speech. It's nothing more than supposition long after everyone that actually heard the speech is dead. It may be supposition with some facts supporting it, but it is still speculative. So who is the better source? I would still say it's Hertzberg.

    He didn't claim he didn't say it. He read the transcripts and it wasn't there. That is a pretty big difference. If it wasn't in the transcripts of Hertzberg's statements, then how did it come to be associated with him?

  10. #235

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    He didn't claim he didn't say it. He read the transcripts and it wasn't there. That is a pretty big difference. If it wasn't in the transcripts of Hertzberg's statements, then how did it come to be associated with him?
    Read more, from your link:
    The transcript of his speech, delivered to a visiting group of Conservative American rabbis on July 12, 1967, is preserved, and while it may not be complete, it bears not the faintest resemblance to Hertzberg’s account of it.

  11. #236

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Swake View Post
    Read more, from your link:
    Exactly. He is saying Hertzberg's account bears no resemblance to the reality of what was said. Yet Hertzberg’s account is what is used in the NYT story. Essentially he is saying that the transcript would have had to left out a considerable amount to comport with Hertzberg’s take on it. In other words, it's extremely unlikely Hertzberg got it right, and far FAR less likely that Ben-Gurion actually said anything like it. Coupled with the letter also mentioned, it seems incredibly unlikely Hertzberg got it right. But you grasp on to the one line that the writer includes to simply point out that he is not a first hand witness. Also consider that Hertzberg's account is only recorded 20 years after the interaction with Ben-Gurion. I doubt the transcripts were that dated by the time they were published.

    Just remember that the NY Times is the publication that denied the holocaust was occurring as it was happening. It's not like they don't have a track record or anything.

  12. #237

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Exactly. He is saying Hertzberg's account bears no resemblance to the reality of what was said. Yet Hertzberg’s account is what is used in the NYT story. Essentially he is saying that the transcript would have had to left out a considerable amount to comport with Hertzberg’s take on it. In other words, it's extremely unlikely Hertzberg got it right, and far FAR less likely that Ben-Gurion actually said anything like it. Coupled with the letter also mentioned, it seems incredibly unlikely Hertzberg got it right. But you grasp on to the one line that the writer includes to simply point out that he is not a first hand witness. Also consider that Hertzberg's account is only recorded 20 years after the interaction with Ben-Gurion. I doubt the transcripts were that dated by the time they were published.

    Just remember that the NY Times is the publication that denied the holocaust was occurring as it was happening. It's not like they don't have a track record or anything.
    Based on what is in the transcript, which is not complete. Why is this difficult?

  13. #238

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Swake View Post
    Based on what is in the transcript, which is not complete. Why is this difficult?
    It COULD BE incomplete, not that it IS incomplete. Again, that is like saying a transcript that gets published today might be incomplete, but it's unlikely.

  14. #239

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    It COULD BE incomplete, not that it IS incomplete. Again, that is like saying a transcript that gets published today might be incomplete, but it's unlikely.
    If the writer believed the transcript to be complete, he would have never mentioned that it "may not be complete".

  15. #240

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Swake View Post
    If the writer believed the transcript to be complete, he would have never mentioned that it "may not be complete".
    Maybe he didn't think readers would cling to those 5 words instead of the 500 or so other words he wrote.

  16. #241

    Default Re: Fake news

    Isn't "Fake" aka "Faux" aka "Fox" News entirely "in the eye of the beholder"? In my opinion? Of course it is. So . . . stay tuned to argue . . . =~) Personally? I always question CNN (Canadian News Network), the BBC ("Auntie Beeb") and NBC [insert definition of choice . . . National Biscuit Cabal?] (sorry . . . preppin' dinner for my sweetheart so we don't have to watch a rerun of The British Baking Challenge . . .

  17. #242

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Maybe he didn't think readers would cling to those 5 words instead of the 500 or so other words he wrote.
    But inclusion of those five words moves the entire piece to supposition. Pointedly so.

    In fact, if the transcript was complete, he could have just said that "the transcript of the speech shows that Ben-Garin never said what Hertzberg claimed" and the rest of the article isn't even needed.

    Those 500 words were trying to prove what was missing in the transcript. It's supposition.

  18. #243

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Swake View Post
    But inclusion of those five words moves the entire piece to supposition. Pointedly so.

    In fact, if the transcript was complete, he could have just said that "the transcript of the speech shows that Ben-Garin never said what Hertzberg claimed" and the rest of the article isn't even needed.

    Those 500 words were trying to prove what was missing in the transcript. It's supposition.
    But the WHOLE Piece basically says (if you read it in context), EVEN IF the transcript were incomplete, all this other evidence (like the guy who supposedly said it doesn't recall saying or the press releases a few weeks later that mention nothing of it) completely vindicate the transcript BEING ACCURATE. OMFG you are being so obtuse on this in order to protect the New York F'ing Times of all things. Why. Why do you do that. There is absolutely no reason to do so. Why do you latch on two five words COMPLETELY out of context in order to discredit a scholar that knows a whole ****ing lot more about this than you could ever even imagine. And for what, a professional columnist who hasn't studied any single subject as much as much as Martin Kramer has studied the very subject we are discussing. This is ludicrous. And for what? Why? It just makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Other than party first. Reality second.

  19. #244

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    But the WHOLE Piece basically says (if you read it in context), EVEN IF the transcript were incomplete, all this other evidence (like the guy who supposedly said it doesn't recall saying or the press releases a few weeks later that mention nothing of it) completely vindicate the transcript BEING ACCURATE. OMFG you are being so obtuse on this in order to protect the New York F'ing Times of all things. Why. Why do you do that. There is absolutely no reason to do so. Why do you latch on two five words COMPLETELY out of context in order to discredit a scholar that knows a whole ****ing lot more about this than you could ever even imagine. And for what, a professional columnist who hasn't studied any single subject as much as much as Martin Kramer has studied the very subject we are discussing. This is ludicrous. And for what? Why? It just makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Other than party first. Reality second.
    Keep digging.

  20. #245

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Swake View Post
    Keep digging.
    I already pointed out how amazingly wrong you are characterizing this, but I would like to hear you dig yourself out of basically ignoring a scholar's work in order the somehow defend a "journalist" misunderstanding of what happened. I'm not even saying that Fisher was willingly incorrect. But, after the fact, in spite of evidence to the contrary, he refuses to make corrections. I assume basically because it would negate the point of his entire story.

  21. #246

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    I already pointed out how amazingly wrong you are characterizing this, but I would like to hear you dig yourself out of basically ignoring a scholar's work in order the somehow defend a "journalist" misunderstanding of what happened. I'm not even saying that Fisher was willingly incorrect. But, after the fact, in spite of evidence to the contrary, he refuses to make corrections. I assume basically because it would negate the point of his entire story.
    I'm not wrong, all the other "evidence" and examples he brings up are not needed if the transcript was complete.

  22. #247

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Swake View Post
    I'm not wrong, all the other "evidence" and examples he brings up are not needed if the transcript was complete.
    He didn't say it WAS incomplete. He said even if it was, all other evidence supports that it is complete. FFS, are you being for real?

  23. #248

    Default Re: Fake news

    No, he said "while it may not be complete", which seems pretty parsed to be able to be read multiple ways.

  24. #249

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Swake View Post
    No, he said "while it may not be complete", which seems pretty parsed to be able to be read multiple ways.
    Here's the whole damn thing. You are the one that is parsing. Only when that fragment is taken on it's own would it mean what you are intending.

    The problem with this story is that Ben-Gurion never uttered the words Hertzberg attributed to him. The transcript of his speech, delivered to a visiting group of Conservative American rabbis on July 12, 1967, is preserved, and while it may not be complete, it bears not the faintest resemblance to Hertzberg’s account of it. There is no mention of the West Bank or its inhabitants, no mention of urgent withdrawal, no victor’s remorse. When Ben-Gurion wasn’t lauding Israel’s astounding victory, or reminiscing about his own past, he was haranguing the rabbis over Israel’s desperate need for Jewish immigration from America so that it could rapidly settle 100,000 Jews in unified Jerusalem. “Ben-Gurion Calls for Mass Immigration in Conservative Rabbinic Seminar,” ran the headline in the Israeli daily Davar two days later. If Ben-Gurion had said anything remotely resembling what Hertzberg claimed he said, that headline would have been radically different.
    So essentially he is saying that it would be a completely radical idea for Ben-Gurion to have uttered the words Hertzberg has attributed to him. He goes on further below this giving even further evidence that there is literally no way this could have happened. But again, keep ignoring it. That seems to be your MO lately.

  25. #250

    Default Re: Fake news

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Here's the whole damn thing. You are the one that is parsing. Only when that fragment is taken on it's own would it mean what you are intending.



    So essentially he is saying that it would be a completely radical idea for Ben-Gurion to have uttered the words Hertzberg has attributed to him. He goes on further below this giving even further evidence that there is literally no way this could have happened. But again, keep ignoring it. That seems to be your MO lately.
    Things that make you go hmm.

    Ben-Gurion ON VIDEO in 1968 saying the exact things that Hertzberg claims he said.

    If I could choose between peace and all the territories which we conquered last year, I would prefer peace
    David Ben-Gurion

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/peace-...-lost-footage/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Fake Dentist
    By GoOKC1991 in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2012, 03:49 AM
  2. Hurricane Irene - Fake?
    By Just the facts in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-28-2011, 06:53 AM
  3. Blake the Fake...?
    By BiggThunda in forum Sports
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-26-2011, 11:31 AM
  4. Most of you go to fake churches
    By Easy180 in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-26-2007, 04:37 PM
  5. Fox 25 airing "fake news"
    By Moondog in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-01-2006, 02:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO