Fake News

[EnglishPete]

I think that covers most of your points. Your serve.

[EnglishPete]

The Right, as I said, has a long history of error prone non-factual journalism. I referred to Iraq, in which a lot of the conservative media relentlessly pushed Bush's war as grounded in fact, when it wasn't.

I just have to reply to this one more point. It wasn't just Fox that backed Bush's war. It was most of the liberal media as well. the NYT, WaPo, NBC, CNN, the BBC etc. This should not be particularly surprising. Neo-Conservatism is not a particularly right wing philosophy. Back in the day it was supported by liberal media outlets, as I've mentioned and center left politicians both in the US (e.g. Hillary Clinton) and elsewhere (e.g. Tony Blair).

To this day these two center left liberal politicians continue to back, and indeed be the leading supporters of neoConservative policies in places like Syria, Libya, Russia etc. In this election of course the leading opponent of neoCon foreign policy was the candidate of the right and its leading supporter the candidate of the right. Of course its also opposed from the left by the far left but that doesn't make it a right wing policy.

In a way its unsurprising that the GWB's most famous policy should be one of the center left. Both he and his father were NeverTrumpers who hinted at supporting Hillary in the General election. They were both 'moderate' Republicans who occasionally pretended to be conservative for electoral purposes. Of course HW's father Prescott Bush was a 'moderate' Rockerfeller Republican and one of those Republican lawmakers who led the charge to stab joe Mccarthy in the back so perhaps the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[The_Doctor]

Thanks EnglishPete. I'll respond by tomorrowish? Just letting you know, since I tend to let these things languish.

[The_Doctor]

I think there is however a universal standard for serious journalism as opposed to opinion advocacy. James O'Keefe's "independent documentaries" do not rise to the same level of objective reporting that say, Carl Bernstein's reporting on Watergate. 

I don't know the detail of Bernstein's reporting or Bernstein himself (other than  he was the one played by Dustin Hoffman!) However I will pick up on one point where the watergate reporting illustrates liberal media bias

Watergate building in burgled

Result: nothing is taken

Burglers get caught

Nixon finds out and covers it up, claiming executive privilege to do this

Bernstein uncovers the coverup.

Liberal media proclaim Bernstein to be a hero and Nixon to be a liar and a crook and the embodiment of evil

Thirty years earlier

Communist agents infiltrate the US State Department and other government bodies

Result: Serious secrets are stolen by some agents and given to America's enemies. Other agents successfully work to influence policy in a way that helps the Soviet Union and does severe harm to the free world and the human race as a whole

FBI uncovers and identifies these communist agents

Truman finds out and covers it up, claiming executive privilege to do this

Joe McCarthy uncovers the coverup

Liberal media proclaim Truman to be a hero and Mccarthy to be a liar and a crook and the embodiment of evil.

You see the bias there?

I'll respond to the rest.

Joe McCarthy never supplied the list of 205 names he claimed that were communist-aligned and sparked a Red Scare in the 1950s in the name of self-serving populist publicity. He was elected in 1946 and didn't start making noises about the alleged Communists until 1950.

The irony, you didn't reference Alger Hiss and the case where Nixon did actually uncover a leading Truman Administration figure to be a Communist. But the media destroyed Alger Hiss and he served time. Alger Hiss remains one of the Left's great failures and their momentary lapse into pro-Stalin Sovietism. Not necessarily the media's failures.

[EnglishPete]

I think there is however a universal standard for serious journalism as opposed to opinion advocacy. James O'Keefe's "independent documentaries" do not rise to the same level of objective reporting that say, Carl Bernstein's reporting on Watergate.

I don't know the detail of Bernstein's reporting or Bernstein himself (other than  he was the one played by Dustin Hoffman!) However I will pick up on one point where the watergate reporting illustrates liberal media bias

Watergate building in burgled

Result: nothing is taken

Burglers get caught

Nixon finds out and covers it up, claiming executive privilege to do this

Bernstein uncovers the coverup.

Liberal media proclaim Bernstein to be a hero and Nixon to be a liar and a crook and the embodiment of evil

Thirty years earlier

Communist agents infiltrate the US State Department and other government bodies

Result: Serious secrets are stolen by some agents and given to America's enemies. Other agents successfully work to influence policy in a way that helps the Soviet Union and does severe harm to the free world and the human race as a whole

FBI uncovers and identifies these communist agents

Truman finds out and covers it up, claiming executive privilege to do this

Joe McCarthy uncovers the coverup

Liberal media proclaim Truman to be a hero and Mccarthy to be a liar and a crook and the embodiment of evil.

You see the bias there?

I'll respond to the rest.

Joe McCarthy never supplied the list of 205 names he claimed that were communist-aligned and sparked a Red Scare in the 1950s in the name of self-serving populist publicity. He was elected in 1946 and didn't start making noises about the alleged Communists until 1950.

The irony, you didn't reference Alger Hiss and the case where Nixon did actually uncover a leading Truman Administration figure to be a Communist. But the media destroyed Alger Hiss and he served time. Alger Hiss remains one of the Left's great failures and their momentary lapse into pro-Stalin Sovietism. Not necessarily the media's failures.

Perhaps the reason why he never supplied a list of 205 names is that he never claimed to have a list of 205 names. He actually inititially said that he had a list of 57 names. At a later point he referred to a figure of 205. This was a reference to a letter by the then Secretary of State in 1946 saying that at that time there were 205 people deemed security risks in the State department. This was quite a different statistic from the list of 57 mentioned elsewhere. In one contemporary account the two numbers were mixed up and this is where this idea comes from.

In other contemporary accounts, including a report in the local newspaper the day after the speech, the number of 57 is quoted and he himself also confirmed that this had been the number. In fact he had a list of 102 that he shortly after supplied to the Tydings committee. He had checked these names and found 57 were still employed at State and this was the figure he mention in his first speech on the subject. In actual fact this was an underestimate. The actual number of those from the list working at the State department at that time was 67. All the names along with details and evidence was supplied to the Tydings committee along with additional names. I can give you all the names if you like.

Famously, of course, the Democratic Party majority committee produced a 'move along now, nothing to see here' whitewash report. However the evidence against those McCarthy listed was significant.

[EnglishPete]

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-again-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/

[EnglishPete]

The irony, you didn't reference Alger Hiss and the case where Nixon did actually uncover a leading Truman Administration figure to be a Communist. But the media destroyed Alger Hiss and he served time. Alger Hiss remains one of the Left's great failures and their momentary lapse into pro-Stalin Sovietism. Not necessarily the media's failures.

Also I'm a little curious as to your claim that "the media destroyed Hiss".  It was, as you said, Nixon who led the charge, not the liberal media. Nixon stated in his Checkers speech in 1952

You must be logged in to read this quote.

so what was the anti Hiss media leading up to a during his trail that you say 'destroyed him'?

[EnglishPete]

Confirmation that Fake News has been around for a long time

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/31/fake-news-117-year-old-story-of-pittsburgh-lynching-busted/

[EnglishPete]

Found an interesting video here gives the details of no fewer than 15 different hate crimes hoaxes that took place after Trump was elected

https://youtube.com/watch?v=GokdgkmBvmg

And those are just the ones that got found out. Frankly I rather doubt that even a single one of the hate crimes reported in the liberal legacy media since the election was genuine.

[Cashew]

Wapo now backtracking further on utility hacking claim

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-do-not-appear-to-have-targeted-vermont-utility-say-people-close-to-investigation/2017/01/02/70c25956-d12c-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

[Beet]

The Right, as I said, has a long history of error prone non-factual journalism. I referred to Iraq, in which a lot of the conservative media relentlessly pushed Bush's war as grounded in fact, when it wasn't.

I just have to reply to this one more point. It wasn't just Fox that backed Bush's war. It was most of the liberal media as well. the NYT, WaPo, NBC, CNN, the BBC etc. This should not be particularly surprising. Neo-Conservatism is not a particularly right wing philosophy. Back in the day it was supported by liberal media outlets, as I've mentioned and center left politicians both in the US (e.g. Hillary Clinton) and elsewhere (e.g. Tony Blair).

To this day these two center left liberal politicians continue to back, and indeed be the leading supporters of neoConservative policies in places like Syria, Libya, Russia etc. In this election of course the leading opponent of neoCon foreign policy was the candidate of the right and its leading supporter the candidate of the right. Of course its also opposed from the left by the far left but that doesn't make it a right wing policy.

In a way its unsurprising that the GWB's most famous policy should be one of the center left. Both he and his father were NeverTrumpers who hinted at supporting Hillary in the General election. They were both 'moderate' Republicans who occasionally pretended to be conservative for electoral purposes. Of course HW's father Prescott Bush was a 'moderate' Rockerfeller Republican and one of those Republican lawmakers who led the charge to stab joe Mccarthy in the back so perhaps the apple doesn't fall far from the trees.

Hold on, neoconservatism was definitely a right-wing strategy. The NeverTrump movement was to the right of Trump on foreign policy, not the left. Yes, the NYT, WaPo, etc. shilled for the war too, but they were acting as right-wing agents then (just as they were this year, with their constant focus on Hillary's e-mail scandals, which dominated he election, and giving Trump massive coverage, although these were less deliberate).

Even now, you see the most hawkish people, way more hawkish than Obama or even Hillary Clinton (who supported the Russia reset, the Iran deal, wanted to open relations with Cuba), are people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain. They will even go against their own party leader to push their hawkish views.

I'm not totally convinced Trump is a dove, either. There's talk today he wants to start a war with North Korea, and he could start one with China. Either or both of those would dwarf Vietnam or Korea, let alone Iraq.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That was some serious projection for the Washington Post to complain about fake news.

[Virginiá]

That was some serious projection for the Washington Post to complain about fake news.

What exactly are you saying?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That was some serious projection for the Washington Post to complain about fake news.

What exactly are you saying?

The Washington Post has a lot of fake news.

[Virginiá]

The Washington Post has a lot of fake news.

I wonder how much of your opinion here is based in some way on Bernie/the primaries.

[EnglishPete]

The Washington Post has a lot of fake news.

I wonder how much of your opinion here is based in some way on Bernie/the primaries.

No the Washington Post really is churning out lots of BS.

[Virginiá]

No the Washington Post really is churning out lots of BS.

ofc

[EnglishPete]

The Right, as I said, has a long history of error prone non-factual journalism. I referred to Iraq, in which a lot of the conservative media relentlessly pushed Bush's war as grounded in fact, when it wasn't.

I just have to reply to this one more point. It wasn't just Fox that backed Bush's war. It was most of the liberal media as well. the NYT, WaPo, NBC, CNN, the BBC etc. This should not be particularly surprising. Neo-Conservatism is not a particularly right wing philosophy. Back in the day it was supported by liberal media outlets, as I've mentioned and center left politicians both in the US (e.g. Hillary Clinton) and elsewhere (e.g. Tony Blair).

To this day these two center left liberal politicians continue to back, and indeed be the leading supporters of neoConservative policies in places like Syria, Libya, Russia etc. In this election of course the leading opponent of neoCon foreign policy was the candidate of the right and its leading supporter the candidate of the right. Of course its also opposed from the left by the far left but that doesn't make it a right wing policy.

In a way its unsurprising that the GWB's most famous policy should be one of the center left. Both he and his father were NeverTrumpers who hinted at supporting Hillary in the General election. They were both 'moderate' Republicans who occasionally pretended to be conservative for electoral purposes. Of course HW's father Prescott Bush was a 'moderate' Rockerfeller Republican and one of those Republican lawmakers who led the charge to stab joe Mccarthy in the back so perhaps the apple doesn't fall far from the trees.

Hold on, neoconservatism was definitely a right-wing strategy. The NeverTrump movement was to the right of Trump on foreign policy, not the left. Yes, the NYT, WaPo, etc. shilled for the war too, but they were acting as right-wing agents then (just as they were this year, with their constant focus on Hillary's e-mail scandals, which dominated he election, and giving Trump massive coverage, although these were less deliberate).

Neoconservatism is just the latest version of liberal imperialism which was always an ideology of the left (e.g. WE Gladstone). Or are you suggesting that Pat Buchanan's foreign policy ideas were to the left of GHW Bush's.

[EnglishPete]

Lefty so called 'fact checker' David Mikkelson, founder of Snopes.com has been a very naughty boy. It seems he's been checking more than just facts!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://gotnews.com/boom-wesearchr-mike-cernovich-release-800-pages-nasty-snopes-divorce-records-public-online/

[Virginiá]

ad hominem

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Who cares, and why is this stupid thread still going?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Lefty so called 'fact checker' David Mikkelson, founder of Snopes.com has been a very naughty boy. It seems he's been checking more than just facts!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://gotnews.com/boom-wesearchr-mike-cernovich-release-800-pages-nasty-snopes-divorce-records-public-online/

I heard from a very reliable source that you think dirty thoughts about that woman across the street, so everything you say is invalid now.

[heatcharger]

Who cares, and why is this stupid thread still going?

[EnglishPete]

ad hominem

Yes it is and its appropriate here. When the political bias of Snopes is pointed out leftist will sometimes respond by saying 'But they're trustworthy and professional fact checkers'. Now misappropriation of funds for the purposes of hanky panky is a rather untrustworthy and unprofessional behaviour. Its not the worst crime in the world, what it illustrates however is that the people who run Snopes (and no doubt factcheck.org and the others) are human being with human failings who should hardly be expected to be perfect creatures free of all biases.

[EnglishPete]

Who cares, and why is this stupid thread still going?

After the news has been dominated for days by a massive story about fake news and disinformation I would have thought it would be very appropriate.