You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why we need Steemit: 42% of Republicans say accurate, negative stories are fake news [dTube]
Hello,
I don't get into alot when it comes to politics because I know nothing about it, but when it comes to fake news I know a thing or two about it. I believe more than 60% of anything including the news is fake (my opinion). I think TV is the BIGGEST distraction in this world. So yes, I believe that 49% of whatever news is fake.
But you just contradicted yourself. You said "60% of the news is fake, in your opinion." Part of your statement looks like a statistical fact, and part admits that it is mere opinion. Which is it?
There are two things in life, facts and opinions, and they are very different things. A fact is objectively measurable and observable. It is not subject to debate.
In contrast, an opinion is subjective. It is a mere belief that has not been supported or corroborated by objective evidence.
Now let's look at the media. Every single news story can either be corroborated by objective evidence, or it can't. There is no reason to have opinions on the subject. Either a news story reports a fact or it doesn't. Do most countries in the world support the Paris accord on global warming? Yes ... you can count all the signatories to the treaty. Has trickle down economics ever increased wages? No. The data about the national economy is out there. Do most people in the country support DACA? Yes, look at all the polls on the subject.
When repubs express an opinion that the mainstream media distributes fake news, then why do those same people reject fact-checking organizations who objectively look at the data?
I understand EVERYTHING you are saying, but my opinion is my opinion and I don't think I contradicted myself at all. Like I said before Im NOT in politics. I don't get in to that because EVERYBODY knows you don't talk about Politics or Religion. I just stated my opinion. I understand yours as well.
I LIKE your educational blog and keep them coming!!
Hey, thanks for the shout out about my blog. Glad you like it.
We may actually be more in agreement here. While I think that the mainstream media does have a lot of good journalism behind it, there seem to be a lot of "partisan" (totally one sided) internet sites out there spewing out what amounts to propaganda, or PR spin, or whatever you might call it.
👏👏👏🌸
Settle down, cowboy. She's right.
The news is fake; at least in America. We literally watch your news for comedy. Literally.
Watch Kyle Kalinski, and read Chomsky. CNN and MSNBC are every ounce as fake news as Fox.
Also hold on to your boots: everything is subjective; there is no 'truth'. Truth is a religous word, as in 'gospel truth', halleluiah!
"When repubs express an opinion that the mainstream media distributes fake news, then why do those same people reject fact-checking organizations who objectively look at the data?"
Why do paranoid people who won't listen to facts listen to facts? Well, I'm no scientician but: I'm pretty sure it's because they won't listen to facts.
Or is it that they are trying to make up their own "facts." There are a lot of snake oil salesmen out there.
I don't think it's responsible to say that all news is fake. That's the first thing a dictator like Putin wants you to believe. As soon as a dictator gets power, he starts bashing the press (or jailing them, or killing them).
" Either a news story reports a fact or it doesn't. Do most countries in the world support the Paris accord on global warming? Yes ... you can count all the signatories to the treaty. Has trickle down economics ever increased wages? No. The data about the national economy is out there. Do most people in the country support DACA? "
Ahahhaha! Dude. If you believe half of that stuff: congratulations, you think the news is exactly as fake as she just said she thinks it is!
CNN and MSNBC also run content that dismisses those things! XD
Welcome to the 'news is fake club'.
How do you figure? NBC, CBS, and NBC all seem to support the validity of global warming theory, the folly of supply side economics, and the massive popularity of DACA as an ethical and humane policy.
But I don't expect you to take my word for it, here's proof:
MSNBC neglects real news to speculate about garbage more than anything else.
Media claims problem with what Trump does is his verbiage
Media circus about how much the Dem's are fighting Trumplestiltskin while bending over backwards to help him
But yeah. She was wrong. 90% of the news is fake. So fake that you're defending an institution that makes America the laughing stock of the world.
Newspaper reporters (especially investigative journalists) do a good job, and are the only things standing in the way of corrupt government. Cable TV news programs, on the other hand, tend to be crud ... 30 minute news magazines that are white washed and vapid.
So the real culprit here is the American corporation. Corporate managers always cite as their defense that they have a "fiduciary duty to protect shareholders" and maximize profits. But that's a disingenuous statement, since corporations can and will screw their investors if it benefits the excessively paid "executive managers."
Look at why all of the US cable TV news programs covered Trump so heavily and overwhelmingly during the 2016 campaign, but let others wallow in a desert of no-coverage. They did it because anything that creates a spectacle will make people watch, thereby increasing their ad revenue. Trump was a clown ... a total sideshow ... so TV execs couldn't get enough of him. They hoped for people to tune in and watch the train wreck, and that's exactly what they got. It didn't matter to them that Trump was a wreck of a human being: a college graduate who was dumb as a brick and hated to read, a wealthy "businessman" too stupid to make any sense out of a company's balance sheet, an adulterous philanderer who played sick games to sleep with friends' wives, an ignorant racist who took out a full page ad in the New York Times trying convict five black people of murder who were innocent of any crime. The thought that this parasite could possibly win the most powerful political office and cause great harm meant nothing to deter the greed of cable TV executives.
"Newspaper reporters (especially investigative journalists) do a good job, and are the only things standing in the way of corrupt government."
That's fair, as is the rest of what you wrote here... But you said 'media' and 'News', not 'journalists', and
"Cable TV news programs, on the other hand, tend to be crud ... 30 minute news magazines that are white washed and vapid."
In other words: you think the majority of the news is fake. Congratulations, you're one of us.
Edit: That second paragraph... do you not know what fake means? I don't mean to be mean, but you've got some very deviant understanding of the English language.
I'm not going to dignify that rudeness with a response. Learn to have an intellectual debate without clinging to argumentum ad hominem as a crutch.
Agreed, to a certain extent. But it's not just the media. It's also Americans themselves. Very few people in America pay attention to anything going on outside of their borders, except if they could lose money over it. There were very few (if any) news stories on televised news programs about Yemen, but the same thing happened during the genocide in Africa years ago. Nada. Not a word. It wasn't until people started shaming the TV news channels that they started covering it.
I'm quick to defend the media, because I see it as individual reporters working hard to report truthfully and ethically, which dictators and autocrats threaten them with their lives. So there is a distinction to be made here ...
"I'm quick to defend the media, because I see it as individual reporters working hard to report truthfully and ethically"
Well, I'm glad to hear that, but that's not what 'the media' means. Say 'journalists'.
Media: the main means of mass communication (broadcasting, publishing, and the Internet), regarded collectively.
In other words: the corporations. Which as you put it: "So the real culprit here..."
Well I guess that solves that... Yeah, media is very distinct from journalism. Journalists are like .5% of the media... probably less.
You are misinformed. Here is the definition of "news media" from Wikipedia: "The news media or news industry are forms of mass media that focus on delivering news to the general public or a target public. These include print media (newspapers, newsmagazines), broadcast news (radio and television), and more recently the Internet (online newspapers, news blogs, etc.)." [Emphasis mine.]
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media.
Read your own quote: "The news media or news industry are forms of mass media that focus on delivering news to the general public or a target public...."
It doesn't say 'excluding these things'.
"These include print media (newspapers, newsmagazines)"
Yeah. Those aren't things anymore. Welcome to the 21st century. Don't put your investments in papers or books. They're not doing so good.
"These include..." So.... you could call them 'distinct entities' within the Media...
How was I misinformed exactly?
You're terribly misinformed. You keep drawing a distinction that doesn't exist, that the "media" doesn't include print newspapers. It does. The New York Times continues to enjoy its position in the industry as being the nation's "paper of record." It's the gold standard against which all the media outlets are compared. You act as if you follow politics, and you don't know that? What about the Washington Post? They have always provided leadership investigating political matters in Washington, from the Watergate impeachment to the Trump-Russia investigation.
You seem quick to dismiss their impact on society with your breathtakingly arrogant comment welcoming us to the 21st century. So you're a fanboy of all those clickbait news ads on the internet, just because they're making money? Or maybe you get your news from Facebook (of all things), with "fake news" written by people inspired by propaganda written by state-run media Russia Today? Or maybe you're a fan of internet sites like Breitbart, posting "articles" that are 100% opinion (from the lunatic fringe), and 0% corroboration from legitimate sources? The internet distributes garbage, because there are no adults providing editorial oversight. Yet, you probably think that reading that stuff makes you "woke," right? LOL
"that the "media" doesn't include print newspapers."
I never said that. Pull your head out of your ass.
Oh and another fact:
You know WHY the papers are accurate and less corrupt, right?
It's because they're so obsolete and ignored that the corporations don't even bother to buy them out anymore:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_newspapers
Tell that to Jeff Bezos. LOL
I'm glad you changed your mind.
Hot off the presses:
By hot I mean: it's a steaming pile of neoliberal bullshit that's just as fake as Fox news. Again: 90% of the news is fake.