That's probably true.

.

_________________

It seems clear to me that there is only one definition of "fake news" that people want to use, and it isn't the unambiguous and and unbiased "patently false statement of material fact". It includes "patently false statement of material fact" to be sure, but it also has an undeniable modifier on the ideological hue of the statement.

"Russia hacked the election" is a patently false statement of fact. No matter whether it is stated explicitly in the body of a piece or as an "attention-grabbing headline", it is unquestionable that such a statement is patently false. However, it appears that MANY want to contort themselves to not include such a statement (or similar ones) in their definition of "fake news" despite it being a "patently false statement of material fact".

Either "fake news" is an issue on its own, or it isn't. Burning calories to say "no, that's not real fake news, this is real fake news", makes it an ideological issue, and further evidence that MANY can't seem to cope with admitting that Hillary Clinton was a poor candidate and/or ran a poor campaign.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

It took every ounce of my willpower not to start a thread called "bake Jews."

_________________

I think your Trumpet bias is showing. You're dug in on this and you're wrong. You open any paper or scroll through any website and you'll find similar attention grabbing headlines. Regardless of whether it's sports or politics or gardening. The purpose is so you can click the article or read it. When you read the article it usually doesn't match the headline. That isn't fake news. Is it misleading? Sure. Is it annoying at times? Definitely.

Opinion pieces aren't fake news. Their purpose is to push a very subjective point of view. Saying Obama is the greatest or worst president isn't fake news. Saying that his kids aren't his and that Michelle Obama is really "Michael Robinson " is fake news.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

So, patently false statements of fact are only "fake news" when they are at odds with your ideology?

Does "fake news" require an explicit statement outside of the article's headline, or can it have a statement in the headline followed by innuendo and implication in the main text?

Would this story, before it's update and subsequent editing, have been considered by you to be "fake news"?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chr ... 58648563ef

Here is the first line in the article (not the headline):

This isn't a political thing for me. Even though you would like to place me in a particular box. Misleading/attention grabbing headlines or biased stories are NOT fake news.

That article isn't fake news. MANY parents believed the play was cancelled because of a particular family and that family and the school denies it. Peeps posted a couple of articles that are fake news. It's pretty easy to understand the difference.

BTW it's okay to move on from last week's disagreement.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Here's the thing though: the family never said any of that. The line I quoted was completely made up by HuffPo, and was a patently false statement of a material fact.

It wasn't until the Anti-Defamation League got a hold of the family that it was revealed they didn't fear anything, and didn't "flee", but embarked on a scheduled vacation.

So then: what, in general, do you define to be "fake news", without referencing a specific instance?

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

If she'd won we'd be talking about a "rigged" election remember. There is an entire industry of fake news stories involving the Clinton which go back decades.

It's patently false to suggest that this is a Democrat thing and Trump ran fake news stories throughout his campaign.

Fakes news is also not a new phenomenon either. The Enquirer and World News participated in it for years. This is much to do about nothing.

Remember this doozy

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57a3a ... bad214f633

What about this one.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/op ... -vote.html

_________________

It was an attention grabbing headline or an opinion as to why they left by the writer. The story isn't made up.

There was a meme floating around prior to the election about Donald Trump saying that if he ran for office he would run as a republican because their voters are stupid. That's fake news. Nothing about it was true. Hillary killing a doctor or federal agent or Trump threatening to go to war is fake news.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

It isn't. I've never said Hillary lost because of fake news. My Facebook feed proves that it isn't. I've spent a lot of time posting "that's not true" or "that's fake" about all types of stories. I know that's the only way you and MANY others can view it.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Dude.



That's not an opinion, nor was it a headline.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

"Scandal free Obama regime".

Top fake news story of the last several years.

runner up: "Trump can't win".


#fakeopinions
#fakeplant

_________________
Obama's Legacy is Trump.
And dead cops.

"One guy lays the pipe, the other guy smokes it"--Clint Eastwood

I haven't read every comment in this thread, but has caveat emptorbeen brought up? If I read a news story from any site, (or even on CBS based on Dan Rather's issues), I don't take it as gospel. I read other sources. I use my own common sense. Seem like the Liberal Elite think they know best what should be published for all to consume, because they are so much smarter than the rest of us. "Those that don't agree with my policies must not understand them."

Yeah I don't think anyone should punish or ban them.

It's just more of a commentary on how people have become quicker to believe everything they read.

Eveyone has their own truth now.

_________________

Yes, that was in the article. The family never said any of that:



http://www.businessinsider.com/fake-new ... em-2016-12

So when HuffPo alleges a family said something they end up never having said or done, that's not "fake news". Got it.

Fake News?

EPA Moves To Fine Alaskans For Burning Wood To Keep Warm

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/12 ... keep-warm/


#fatherKnowsbest
#fuckU

_________________
Obama's Legacy is Trump.
And dead cops.

"One guy lays the pipe, the other guy smokes it"--Clint Eastwood

You could have written the headline and I would have felt the same way. It's not a huge leap to infer from the statements that the family made that they were/are worried.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Fake news:

https://www.rt.com/usa/372448-washingto ... n-hackers/

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

Yes.

_________________

The funny thing is that "fake news" doesn't really seem to be the issue. Unbelievably stupid "fake news" that only an idiot would believe is the issue.

For instance, most people, me included at one point, thinks that Trump called for a list of ALL Muslims. The fact is he never did say that. There was a few slightly confusing answers but it is obvious that he isn't calling for that and it was clarified very quickly that he was not calling for that.

I'd say the type of news like that, which is what the mainstream media often pushes, is a lot more damaging than "Hillary Clinton personally kills an enemy".

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

As the article JLN linked pointed out, there's an obvious ideological bent to the fake news that is pushed by the largely liberal reporters in the mainstream media. And beyond that, the lines get blurred between entertainment and news. There are still people who actually believe Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

This is absolutely fake news:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... el-n695871

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... maybe.html

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

No it isn't

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Yeah, it really is. There is no law that Trump must divest of the hotel and no GSA official ever made any such statement.

You are actual proof of how ideological the "fake news" tempest in a teapot actually is.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

This is Trumpetism on full display. You realize that the actual article quotes the GSA? Anyone who reads that article will know the official position of the GSA.

The agency "does not have a position that the lease provision requires the President-elect to divest of his financial interests," the spokesperson read in a statement. "We can make no definitive statement at this time about what would constitute a breach of the agreement, and to do so now would be premature."

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

How many people are just going to read the fake headline? I don't know why you're defending fake news. Must be a Hillarette thing.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

Your official position is any headline that isn't 100% accurate is fake news. That's weird. Now headline writers are more important than the journalist who have factual information in their stories. A factually accurate story instantly becomes fake if a headline writer creates a misleading/attention grabbing headline according to you. I thought MANY of us knew the purpose of the headline writer and clearly I was wrong.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!