Discussing ideas, not people

I love the most recent example in the media of this. Donald Trump typically calls out Fake News and he says "Reporters that report fake news should be silenced". This is a call out to suppress fake news reporters. However when the media gets ahold of this they conveniently leave out a portion and report that Donald Trump said "Reporters should be silenced". This is classic out of context quote mining and it happens quite frequently on this board as well.

@Kyrin Wyldstar
I don't think that's a fair characterization of the entire media and those who agree with their response. It's not at all out of context because Donald Trump isn't referring to literal fake news as "fake news" is an oxymoron to the extent that it is a false statement. It is "fake news" to say that certain outlets, that you don't like, are "fake news". Trump has repeatedly called out specific networks by this moniker. So yes... everyone should know who he's talking about. So if he says "fake news should be silenced" its not in a vacuum but rather well within the larger context of addressing specific news outlets he simply doesn't like because of their negative (not fake) reporting.

Now if the news says something that's not true then that's different. If that happens you call out what they said, give your evidence, ask for a retraction, etc. However, creating a caricature of their entire work, as an entire organization, as being "fake", is a way to minimize their relevance in general, attack them in general, and without evidence make claims that he cannot prove. That's propaganda. And it's anti-press propaganda which is dangerous.

If someone from TOJO made a tweet Trump didn't like and Trump said we were all "fake jedi" how would you feel about that? Basically everyone knows (or should) Trump was talking about people, not an idea called "fake news". His own people call it "punching back".

ZealotX wrote:

I love the most recent example in the media of this. Donald Trump typically calls out Fake News and he says "Reporters that report fake news should be silenced". This is a call out to suppress fake news reporters. However when the media gets ahold of this they conveniently leave out a portion and report that Donald Trump said "Reporters should be silenced". This is classic out of context quote mining and it happens quite frequently on this board as well.

@Kyrin Wyldstar
I don't think that's a fair characterization of the entire media and those who agree with their response. It's not at all out of context because Donald Trump isn't referring to literal fake news as "fake news" is an oxymoron to the extent that it is a false statement. It is "fake news" to say that certain outlets, that you don't like, are "fake news". Trump has repeatedly called out specific networks by this moniker. So yes... everyone should know who he's talking about. So if he says "fake news should be silenced" its not in a vacuum but rather well within the larger context of addressing specific news outlets he simply doesn't like because of their negative (not fake) reporting.

Now if the news says something that's not true then that's different. If that happens you call out what they said, give your evidence, ask for a retraction, etc. However, creating a caricature of their entire work, as an entire organization, as being "fake", is a way to minimize their relevance in general, attack them in general, and without evidence make claims that he cannot prove. That's propaganda. And it's anti-press propaganda which is dangerous.

If someone from TOJO made a tweet Trump didn't like and Trump said we were all "fake jedi" how would you feel about that? Basically everyone knows (or should) Trump was talking about people, not an idea called "fake news". His own people call it "punching back".

There is a difference between not liking the news being reported and that news being reported being false. He is calling out news media that reports false news or biased news or news that has been slanted in such a way as it becomes opinion pieces and not true news. So yes it is being taken out of context and they are reporting fake news. Report one fake news story, the rest comes into question. Its about integrity and these sources have none.

There is a difference between not liking the news being reported and that news being reported being false. He is calling out news media that reports false news or biased news or news that has been slanted in such a way as it becomes opinion pieces and not true news. So yes it is being taken out of context and they are reporting fake news. Report one fake news story, the rest comes into question. Its about integrity and these sources have none.

sounds like "alternative facts" lol

This argument is problematic. Just because Trump would like us to believe that the "fake news media" is a thing, doesn't make it so. He could have clearly attacked a specific article if he wanted to. But instead he chose propaganda. Clearly. Because what you took from it is "the rest comes into question". I don't like this because it is the very basis of racial and gender stereotyping. What one person says or does who happens to be a member of the group is not owned by everyone in the group. Even in publishing. The decisions of what to publish are not going to always be without mistakes. That's why retractions exist. That doesn't make that mistake the wanton mishandling of CNN's janitorial staff.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-retracts-article-on-seth-rich-murder-investigation

It's a type of selective absolutism. By that logic, if a school teaches one fact that is wrong about US history, for example, then that calls the whole school and all of its teachers in question? It calls other schools using the same book into question? Trump doesn't think this way at all. He lied to Forbes and used the national enquirer to say things he wanted. So let's not act like this was some kind of public service.

Trump was talking about certain outlets, not Fox punditry. Why doesn't this "rest comes into question" apply to their entire profession? Why stop at one whole organization of people? It is because he wanted to politically attack those specific outlets and damage their credibility so that people didn't listen even when they are telling the truth which is most of the time. If they said nice things about him they wouldn't be called "fake news". It's not about accuracy at all. It's about his feelings. I don't know how that's not clear with this guys sophomoric attacks on twitter. He simply punches back. But when he punches back it's not usually clever or truthful or, by any standard, representative of reality. It's simply to make his great pompousness feel better and to get his followers to attack his enemies.

I'm so glad that we are not defined by our mistakes or the mistakes of others. That would be a sad world to live in.

An old farmer once told me and it Ramon’s true for me today..


Don’t forget - news is not news as we think it is - if it’s on tv or in print they are askin for money one way or another , by your presence there as a statistic to sell to vendors or by asking directly. If news was free - it wouldn’t be sold.

I dont have to rely on trump to know the news like CNN report fake news. Im never one to take any word for it. I have studied it myself. I have seen the statements trump has made and I have seen the report of those statements made about him by CNN. They are fake and lies and misrepresentations taken out of context many times.

I have no idea where you arrive at the basis for racism out of my comments. That is really reaching. I take each incident on a case by case basis. Because CNN has reported things out of context it does bring the rest of their stuff into question and so I have less of a tendency to trust it. In fact they have been so blatant in their misrepresentations that I no longer have the time to research their garbage and so I pretty much ignore them now. This is not a universal thing at all though nor is it stereotyping. It is a function of reputation only.

https://images.app.goo.gl/68edsxmtxNL8sYSAA
Bias in News does happen. To suggest otherwise is rather naive. I'm not suggesting the leanings are correct, but this came up in a basic google search.
Consider that news outlets are privately owned, privately staffed. Any privately owned, staffed org has a culture. A culture implies an in and out group.
As much as possible, read, look for primary sources, policies, persons before acting

I think there is a lot of bias shown by presenters and newsroom writers as well, more then from the owners of media outlets.... being the combination of visual and audio in a streaming format as provided by TV and internet platforms is like a main line to peoples minds, compared to previously with newspapers a person would have to actively choose, bother to start, bother to continue to finish a piece of written text which they say in their own voice.. to have any exposure to it at all! Now a TV can just be on non-stop and people can see the same non-verbal signals from presenters over and over day after day. It's human nature to mimic, and if the narrative of news is explanatory and biased then its akin to brainwashing :silly:
If anything there should be a significant push to make 'presentation' of news overtly unbiased and overtly balanced... to compensate for this. But I guess we're all used to it and so we pick and choose from the selection of news sources for the ones which sit easiest
So its more realistic perhaps to ensure sufficient accessibility to diversity in news sources, and let the individual decide how to best educate or delude themselves.
In that regard I tend to support the idea of government funded news to set a bar of fairness, but here in Australia that has not worked because they tend to try and compete with the commercial channels for sensationalism and shaping an audience which they try to keep.... inevitably leading to a populist superficial version of what is usually very complex matters. Whomever does the sensationalism best gets the viewers and then other networks follow in a race to the bottom of the barrel. Where's Ron Burgundy when you need him....

Since the discussion has moved on to the news media, the more honest and fair critique of it would be how they operate, and why, politics aside-

The mainstream news media decided it wanted to be an entertainment medium a long time ago, and the greater interest in following and focusing on more "entertaining" stories over, well, actual news, is the result.

So, now, when they grow up and try to report truthful news, well, people in general are more willing to question if they're being fair and honest, particularly when they set themselves up by not even verifying some news stories they eagerly report to boost ratings. (particularly when the subjects don't like being scrutinized or criticized, but, I digress)

If we're going to criticize the media, let's do it for valid reasons, and not just when we don't like what they have to say about who we voted for? I think that's the more honest avenue, if one's issues with the media is sincere and not, ironically, politically motivated.