By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - "Fake" or "Fast" News (Not just Politics anymore)

 

Is "Fake News" a legitimate concept?

Yes 43 61.43%
 
No 22 31.43%
 
Not sure 5 7.14%
 
Total:70
robzo100 said:
Dravenet7 said:

Yes you are right those are two completely different points. I never made the second point about the topic not having any substance. I specifically said, "the only substantiave point you give regarding your (re)definition of fake news is all about politics. Everything else is merely is merely a vague suggestion that it could be in any other subject matters. [Thus, they have] Nothing of substance."

I read the op and I am aware of your analogy. Analogies are good, always good because they highlight, clarify or make information easier to understand, but they are nothing of substance. It isn't a matter of whether you are right or wrong in your argument. If you are saying something like it doesn't revolve around more than this subject matter, you actually have to give at LEAST one actual example of one instance where it isn't about that subject matter, and that is typically for one situation. You include, "videogames, entertainment, music, food, politics, sports, etc. " Yet the only actual example of fake (... or fast) anything you actually give is regarding Trump. If you want to someone to realize a concept you actually have to put context for that in your argument. I clicked on this feeling I completely wasted my time. It all comes off as you wanting to put a seed of politics into things it doesn't belong just to further "whatever agenda you have". Now again, I don't know your full agenda but I frankly don't care. I avoid politics in general to begin with. Your argument is centralized on something happening in politics not more than politics.

You write a lot for things you don't care about :)

*rolls eyes*

"Now again, I don't know your full agenda but I frankly don't care."

When I say I don't care about your full agenda, I am talking about your political views. I only care about the specifics of your agenda to incorporate politics into general discussions with nothing of substance, whether they are wrong or not. That is what I specifically wrote about since I find a problem with this and I care that it is addressed. That wasn't hard to understand...



Around the Network
Dravenet7 said:
robzo100 said:

You write a lot for things you don't care about :)

*rolls eyes*

"Now again, I don't know your full agenda but I frankly don't care."

When I say I don't care about your full agenda, I am talking about your political views. I only care about the specifics of your agenda to incorporate politics into general discussions with nothing of substance, whether they are wrong or not. That is what I specifically wrote about since I find a problem with this and I care that it is addressed. That wasn't hard to understand...

You care a lot about the choice of thread. I explained the reasoning, or as you put it, my "agenda".

My agenda was to see how people are choosing to unpack this term, guage the public opinion, see if people think it's a valid term, if it has multiple meanings or just one, to see if people think it's purely political-based or symptomatic of a more general trend in information consumption.

So far all of that has come up. Also, all discussion, even this back-and-forth right here, is intellectually stimulating imo and therefore fruitful. It may be me, but I'm picking up uneccsarily negative vibes from your rhetoric, stemming from the choice of where I posted my thread, something I explained unarbitraily.



There is such thing as "fake news". The Onion is "fake news". But that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about the sorts of things Breitbart will put out--purposefully inaccurate or outright fake news stories with just enough real world context to appear real to gullible readers, designed to manipulate them. Propaganda. There's some on the left, and some on the right.

But that's not what the president is referring to, either.

The term "fake news" is being used overwhelmingly by the Trump administration in an attempt to delegitimize reputable news outlets, to manipulate their base in to believing only them or the outlets they sponsor. It's what dictators do, and if any policies are enacted it's a blatant violation of the constitution. The fact that they're putting out surveys asking their base if they think the government should step in to do something about the media is incredibly messed up. They're looking for permission to strip away our freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment is the most important thing the people have to defend ourselves with. The government has absolutely no business touching it. If we have a problem with the biased media, it is up to citizens to do something about it, not the government.



GribbleGrunger said:
Slimebeast said:

He just misspoke. He meant that last night TV showed a segment about Sweden's problems with immigration. Not that last night something happened in Sweden.

So look what you just did, you provided fake information about Trump.

You're always on point.

And yet the swedish embassy asked the state department for clarification on what Trump meant. I guess they've been watching too much liberal media and/or are too dumb to figure out what is obvious for Trump supporters, right?



robzo100 said:
Dravenet7 said:

*rolls eyes*

"Now again, I don't know your full agenda but I frankly don't care."

When I say I don't care about your full agenda, I am talking about your political views. I only care about the specifics of your agenda to incorporate politics into general discussions with nothing of substance, whether they are wrong or not. That is what I specifically wrote about since I find a problem with this and I care that it is addressed. That wasn't hard to understand...

You care a lot about the choice of thread. I explained the reasoning, or as you put it, my "agenda".

My agenda was to see how people are choosing to unpack this term, guage the public opinion, see if people think it's a valid term, if it has multiple meanings or just one, to see if people think it's purely political-based or symptomatic of a more general trend in information consumption.

So far all of that has come up. Also, all discussion, even this back-and-forth right here, is intellectually stimulating imo and therefore fruitful. It may be me, but I'm picking up uneccsarily negative vibes from your rhetoric, stemming from the choice of where I posted my thread, something I explained unarbitraily.

Yes...! Yes...! I have been essentially stating the underlined. I have been continually stressing this. You forced me to make it abundantly clear in my last response. How was it hard to understand? Why was it necessary to restate?

Nevermind that. I don't care what you currently claim your agenda was as that was not your agenda:

The first paragraph of this post, and the second paragraph of this post says all that needs to be said when it comes to your intentions of making this thread. I don't feel like restating this a third time.

And yes, between you and me, it is just you. Not only are the negative vibes you are picking up completely necessary, the rhetoric stems not from merely your choice of where you posted your thread (which is the only reason I clicked) but from your intention to force politics into non-politics (which is the sole reason I commented on this thread). Something that I have been making very clear from the get go.

With all that said, I have nothing more to add to this.



Around the Network

I just find it funny how people who can't stop lying are calling factual and credited articles "fake".



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Its not funny its the new reality.

For example Trump is deporting illegals but people on the left won't believe the stats that Obama deported 2.5 million of them too.


They just ignore the fact as it shatter their perspective of the world.

Its really sad as we can longer have debate as a society.



naruball said:
We had tons of articles with trivial information about Obama since 2008. My conservative friends posted them on fb every single day. Some times even several. Yet people started using the term "fake news" only after Trump did.

Coincidence? I think not.

I agree.  It's not a coincedence.  Trump started using "Fake News" after Obama did.



Dravenet7 said:
robzo100 said:

You care a lot about the choice of thread. I explained the reasoning, or as you put it, my "agenda".

My agenda was to see how people are choosing to unpack this term, guage the public opinion, see if people think it's a valid term, if it has multiple meanings or just one, to see if people think it's purely political-based or symptomatic of a more general trend in information consumption.

So far all of that has come up. Also, all discussion, even this back-and-forth right here, is intellectually stimulating imo and therefore fruitful. It may be me, but I'm picking up uneccsarily negative vibes from your rhetoric, stemming from the choice of where I posted my thread, something I explained unarbitraily.

Yes...! Yes...! I have been essentially stating the underlined. I have been continually stressing this. You forced me to make it abundantly clear in my last response. How was it hard to understand? Why was it necessary to restate?

Nevermind that. I don't care what you currently claim your agenda was as that was not your agenda:

The first paragraph of this post, and the second paragraph of this post says all that needs to be said when it comes to your intentions of making this thread. I don't feel like restating this a third time.

And yes, between you and me, it is just you. Not only are the negative vibes you are picking up completely necessary, the rhetoric stems not from merely your choice of where you posted your thread (which is the only reason I clicked) but from your intention to force politics into non-politics (which is the sole reason I commented on this thread). Something that I have been making very clear from the get go.

With all that said, I have nothing more to add to this.

If you ever feel like adding things, math, words, whatever it is, feel free to let me know :)



LadyJasmine said:
Its not funny its the new reality.

For example Trump is deporting illegals but people on the left won't believe the stats that Obama deported 2.5 million of them too.


They just ignore the fact as it shatter their perspective of the world.

Its really sad as we can longer have debate as a society.

Sometimes I wonder if this statement is more true now, has always been true, or was maybe truer in some previous era of history. "Fake News" is just the current clothing, but there's no denying that it's currently a hot topic.