i guess that depends on what religion you were back in the 1600s when the Church started using it with it's new 'agenda' meaning.Yes it is. That word is derived from the latin propagate. Its only in modern times we attached a negative stigma to it.
Demonization of the MSM is prevalent in the CT community, though. Post ANY source that is not a CT source, any news station, the WP, metabunk, snopes, anything.... it's discounted. A commen taunt from CTs is "you believe everything the MSM spoon feeds you?" or similar. I think Critical Thinker is right.that demonization is responsible for people not trusting MSM.
That's true, but lets keep the context of "church and state" durring the 1600's in mind as well as the lack of widespread information at the time. From the perspective of the western establishment or "Christendom" ,at that time, propaganda was a useful tool towards the furtherance of an "orthodox" agenda... Now that this tool is in the hands of anyone with an opinion; it has become a hiss and a byword. Not surprisingly. One persons "fake news"/propaganda is anothers entertainment/information. Same as it always was. The important bit is what information is going viral and what is being ignored and why.i guess that depends on what religion you were back in the 1600s when the Church started using it with it's new 'agenda' meaning.
View attachment 23450
Don't forget to invoke the sinister hand of George Soros.Demonization of the MSM is prevalent in the CT community, though. Post ANY source that is not a CT source, any news station, the WP, metabunk, snopes, anything.... it's discounted. A commen taunt from CTs is "you believe everything the MSM spoon feeds you?" or similar. I think Critical Thinker is right.
silly. obviously the people spreading the propaganda always thinks it's good. otherwise what would be the point of spreading itFrom the perspective of the western establishment or "Christendom" ,at that time, propaganda was a useful tool towards the furtherance of an "orthodox" agenda
Well yes, news that goes viral is quite often going viral because that was the intent. Regular news has headlines that are designed to make people want to read the story. There's a continuum of just how accurate the headlines are, but the "fake news" sites have basically arrived at a point where they are maximizing clicks, regardless of facts.isn't one of the simple answers "clickbait" and the need for websites to get ad revenue
so in a sense even some of the MSM are responsible - in part
I have been on pretty main stream i.e. reputable websites, and the banner ads at the bottom have the
"you'll never believe what happened next"
you are then usually just a click away from viral news sites
agreed.isn't one of the simple answers "clickbait" and the need for websites to get ad revenue
the above is also true of conspiracy theories too, often a "fact" with a completely erroneous narrative wrapped around it. The best viral fake stories have verifiable facts, but just tweak their meaning. For example, from the OP:
I totally agree. I always show Edward R. Murrow in class and point out the lack of fancy graphics and theme music. Murrow read copy and let the words speak for themselvesPart of the problem is that "credible" news sources are using more and more sensationalist techniques to grab eyeballs too. They are frantic over loosing their share of attention.
Maybe I am cynical but both Republican and Liberal Media Organizations are know for making fake news every so often so I doubt their will ever be enough support in the USA for any kind of bill to pass at a state or federal level as neither stand to gain anything from a bill that would be difficult to pass other than maybe the liberals with fake news appearing more commonly in Republican political groups like the Tea Party (do they even exist anymore?) and Trump's Group.A recent California Bill by Chau, AB 1104, 'fake news law' was pulled, but it specified,
Of interest......one website quoted similar historical attempts, to the now defunct Bill....(according to the below site)
Hi....Republican and Liberal Media Organizations are know for making fake news...
...claim being the fact checkers like Snopes for example has a liberal bias....
When I refer to Media Organizations I mean Media Organization like CNN and Fox News. Both are known for pushing narratives for their respective side and caught lying and distorting fact in the past. With both Fox News and CNN making news pieces that border on and sometimes fit the definition of fake news in the meaning of a story with fake facts used to push a narrative.Hi.
Could you give examples of what you mean in the first passage? I'm kinda clueless both on what
"organizations" you're talking about, and what kind of "fake news" you mean.
As to Snopes, I think that one's easy: I discussed with Barbara Mikkelson (maybe 15 years ago?)
the reasons why Snopes is always dealing so many more claims from the right than the left,
and it seems obvious to me that Snopes shooting down most of the fun "Did Obama cuss out a soldier?"
etc., stories is why the "Well, you know Snopes is liberal shills, don't you?" talking point had to be created.
p.s. I nominate "viral" for most overused word in cyberspace.
It would be political insanity to pass any such law and have the government involved in policing such things.A recent California Bill by Chau, AB 1104, 'fake news law' was pulled, but it specified,
Of interest......one website quoted similar historical attempts, to the now defunct Bill....(according to the below site)
Thank you. That's a lot of stuff.When I refer to Media Organizations I mean Media Organization like CNN and Fox News. Both are known for pushing narratives for their respective side and caught lying and distorting fact in the past. With both Fox News and CNN making news pieces that border on and sometimes fit the definition of fake news in the meaning of a story with fake facts used to push a narrative.
For example in CNN's case take the coverage of the 2016 American Election and the follow up. Take their "No, the presidential election can't be hacked" vs. their "Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?".
Where they try to prepare the defense for the victory of Hillary Clinton but their defense works against their narrative of Russian hacking the elections so they just ignore the first piece and create a clear contradiction in the first said it's impossible for an outside group to influence the election outcome, while the other piece said we should be angry that an outside group influenced the election outcome.
No, the presidential election can't be hacked - Article
The public is understandably concerned about the integrity of next month's election. 
But election officials and cyber experts say it's virtually impossible for Moscow or some other outside group to influence the election outcome. 
Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election? - Article
But that's not what we got. Confronted with an attack by a hostile foreign power on our most critical institutions, Republicans decided that Russian hacking was OK, as long as it was against Democrats -- indeed, as Wikileaks strategically released the hacked emails over a period of weeks for maximum political impact, Republicans celebrated. 
CNN has been caught lying in non political matters as well.
Take the St. Mary’s Medical Center case where CNN claimed that the hospital had an mortality rate that was 3 times higher than the national average. With the court case still outstanding but the fact that their statement was a lie a clear cut fact as no data supports this statement.
"According to the documents CNN obtained from the state, from 2011 to 2013, St. Mary's Medical Center performed 48 open heart surgeries on children and babies. Independently, CNN determined that six infants died, and confirmed the deaths with parents of all six children. From those numbers, CNN was able to calculate the death rate for open heart surgeries as 12.5%, more than three times the national average of 3.3% cited by the Society for Thoracic Surgeons."
"Davide Carbone, former CEO of St. Mary’s Medical Center in West Palm Beach, filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN after they aired what he claims were a “series of false and defamatory news reports"
"On Wednesday, Federal District Judge Orinda Evans ruled that the case could move forward, even ruling that she found that CNN may have acted with “actual malice” with the report — a standard necessary to prove a defamation claim."
I use to believe that Snopes were shills to be honest but after reading debunks/articles they publish. They seem to be fine with Snopes responding to both claims that befit both sides. Regardless the more the merry IMO as Snopes can only handle so much work flow and the amount of claims and news after the 2016 election is insane.
As I would not be surprised if the news out pore was equal to or exceeded 911. Making it rather hard for experts let alone people trying to be skeptical to keep up.
 - http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/hospital-ceo-wins-major-court-ruling-after-accusing-cnn-of-false-reporting/
 - http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/index.html\
 - http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/opinions/how-politicians-let-russia-hack-americas-election-waldman/index.html
 - http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/health/st-marys-medical-center/index.html
(late in responding, sorry)A pet peeve of mine has been the lack of Critical Thinking skills being taught in American grade schools
A recent California Bill by Chau, AB 1104, 'fake news law' was pulled, but it specified,
I love the spirit of the attempt, but application would be an absolute mine field...and in the U.S.It would be political insanity to pass any such law and have the government involved in policing such things.
I hope that holds true in the face of the PC/identity politics/social engineering being implemented these days across the western world. I have my doubts, as free speech which gets designated as "hate speech" by rabid ideologs doesn't fare well.and in the U.S.
we virtually always err on the right of more free speech.
They are pushing a narrative for sure but there are no "fake facts" used. Its not "fake news". Its biased coverage.news pieces that border on and sometimes fit the definition of fake news in the meaning of a story with fake facts used to push a narrative.
For example in CNN's case take the coverage of the 2016 American Election
The example you gave is not evidence of CNN "lying". The actual numbers used by CNN were correct. Its their interpretation of them that the plaintiff- Carbonne- disagrees with. As the judges ruling states: "the plaintiff is not disputing the numbers; he is disputing the manner in which CNN used them as a comparison" Its a dispute over statistical methodology. Moreover, the ruling only allowed to the case to move forward and offered no judgement on the actual claims of the plaintiff. Hard to say they were "caught" when no ruling has actually determined that yet.CNN has been caught lying in non political matters as well.
After taking a closer look at my evidence you guys look to be right, at worst CNN is biased and can be deceptive and the claim that they engages in fake news and lying doesn't really hold up.Thank you. That's a lot of stuff.
My first question would be about lumping CNN & Fox. The former was set up to make money.
The latter was set up to advance a political position...to the degree that Murdoch took the extraordinary
step of actually paying carriers to carry the channel. Murdoch & Roger Ailes felt strongly that the media
wasn't telling the conservative side of the story enough, so they would. And for two decades, they've been 100% faithful
to the mission: No Republican presidential candidate has had to worry that Fox wouldn't be openly promoting them.
A Cheney or Trump can always find safe haven on Fox, when they don't want to expose themselves to tough questions.
I realize that some Republicans feel CNN is like Fox (but on the other foot), but one simply can't support that view
with facts. And I'm no fan of CNN...but it's origin, reason to exist and track record are nothing like Fox's.
I'm not clear on your point on the Russia hacking (for one thing, your link #2 doesn't work)...
but it seems like you're talking about two different issues: Could Russia literally hack the election:
change electronic vote totals? (Answer: Probably not) vs. could Russia affect the outcome of the election by
releasing illegally obtained info, designed to hurt one candidate, to help the other win (Answer: Almost certainly).
Why in the world--other than traditional hyping of the news--would CNN have motive to harm a particular hospital?
I thought you were going to suggest a political bias (?)
Even still, if this really is a significant problem, why couldn't you cite a single example?
I know, you mentioned St. Mary's Medical Center, but that's currently an open file with no wrongdoing
determined. A judge merely said that a suit could proceed. All that means is that the hospital's complaint
is not so absurd as to deny them the right to try to sue. If CNN has a bad pattern, surely you can illustrate
it with multiple resolved cases that shows them lying, right? They've covered thousands and thousands of storie
During the 2016 American election I came to believe a variety of far right conspiracies theories. I originally believed 911 truth, creeping sharia and all sorts of nonsense. Of the nonsense I grew to believe that the whole media was part of NWO or Deep State conspiracy and I came to believe that Snopes was just one more member. I eventually took a chance and checked them out and came to learn that the they where fine and the evidence for them being shills was nonsense.And, just curious, why did you "use to believe that Snopes were shills"?
I went on longer than I wanted, but you took some time to meet my request, so I figured I owed you the same.
They are pushing a narrative for sure but there are no "fake facts" used. Its not "fake news". Its biased coverage.
I looked at her, followed her source down to her bibliography, and saw that it was quoted from Conservapedia. I told her 'this has to go,' and she asked why so I told her it was a biased source. It amazed me that she didn't get that and it still does to this day.
I would be careful about over generalizing here.No. You should be aware that every history (just to name one discipline) book cites another history book as supporting reference. They don't cite the original research, just the author/work that made it. They are relying upon YOU to read that reference whereby you will find the original material, or as often happens, another cited author/work that contains that material.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|UK cancer charity appoints 'fake news' nurse||Health and Quackery||2|
|NY Times: In Italian Schools, Reading, Writing and Recognizing Fake News||Practical Debunking||60|
|Debunked: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’ [HOAX]||9/11||12|
|Debunked: Cargo Plane Carrying "Nukes" to Korea [French Air Display]||General Discussion||5|
|Acknowledging and Confronting our own biases||General Discussion||19|
|UK cancer charity appoints 'fake news' nurse|
|NY Times: In Italian Schools, Reading, Writing and Recognizing Fake News|
|Debunked: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’ [HOAX]|
|Debunked: Cargo Plane Carrying "Nukes" to Korea [French Air Display]|
|Acknowledging and Confronting our own biases|