The dip in the fake chart is early in the year.
It would have been easy enough to bring forth numbers that would confirm such a theory and(knowing how that network loves to gloat) spend a week or so rubbing it in the faces of their critics.
Even if we assume they were using out-of-date numbers (extremely unlikely), the chart itself still doesn’t depict those hypothetical out-of-date numbers. The line is very inaccurate.
Or “just plain wrong”. That’s what ABC News president James Goldston said. Of course, Goldston did not specifically use the word - FAKE - to describe the story, but… wait a minute… that is exactly how Goldston described the story.
Chances are this has already been said, but:
I believe you misspelled “the President of the United States” and “tweeting” as “a legit news organization” and “going on the air with.”
I agree about firing the screw-up, though.
I mean, unless you believe that news orgs should be held to a higher standard than the President, who has resources at his disposal far beyond those of any news organization when it comes to determining what’s true and what’s not.
He described it as being pilloried for fake news. Other people claiming it was fake news.
He did not admit it was fake news. He was using the term used by the persons criticizing the network.
If you tell someone, “the cop accused me of speeding”, that is not an admission of speeding.
You know that this misstatement has already been shown to be incorrect more than once, right?
If you tell someone, "that Ross reported information that was “just plain wrong,” and did so without anyone “having ever made a decision that we were going to go to air with that information”, how do you make the distinction that “just plain wrong” could not possibly be defined as “fake news”?
Quote:
[ABC News president James] Goldston noted that ABC News “spent this weekend getting absolutely pilloried as a news division for reporting fake news.”
“250,000 tweets. One percent positive, 99 percent negative about this news division. Two tweets from the president,” he told staff.
Goldston also said, “If it isn’t obvious to everyone in this news division, we have taken a huge hit and we have made the job of every single person in this news division harder as a result. It’s much, much harder. We have people in Washington who are going to bear the brunt of this today and in the days forward. Very, very, very, very unfortunate. Really, really angry about it.”
The ABC News chief said that Ross reported information that was “just plain wrong,” and did so without anyone “having ever made a decision that we were going to go to air with that information.”
…
“The thing that compounded our mistake is that not only did we make a mistake, if we had then corrected ourselves right away, again – we wouldn’t be in this position. It would have been a very different story,” he said. “But we ended up in the impossible situation where we had actually conflicting information that we said on air, which conflicted with the information that was online. And then it took us seven hours, eight hours to get our story straight. This is not acceptable. It’s not acceptable. And we will all pay the price for a long time.”
Being wrong is not the definition of “fake news”, as has already been been established in this thread(and so many others).
Why are you bringing up already hashed over points? Have you read this thread?
Well that certainly does raise the bar for the discussion septimus and I are going to have.
There also a very long pattern of Fox News using misleading graphics (or videos), and then claiming it was a mistake when called on it. Oddly, these mistakes always seem to support their narrative.
They are either attempting to distort the truth, or terribly incompetent.
Let’s see if I can help you out?
fake news
noun [ U ] uk /ˌfeɪk ˈnjuːz/ /ˌfeɪk ˈnuːz/
false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke:
FAKE NEWS | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
As you are probably aware - The ABC News chief said that Ross reported information that was “just plain wrong,” and did so without anyone “having ever made a decision that we were going to go to air with that information.”
Just plain wrong = false stories = fake news.
I consider these terms to be synonyms. Just because Goldston didn’t use the specific phrase “Fake News” to describe Ross’s release of a just plain wrong/false story/fake news story does not mean that ABC is not guilty of releasing fake news. YMMV, of course, but try to remember that ABC News president Goldston noted that ABC News “spent this weekend getting absolutely pilloried as a news division for reporting fake news.”
Of particular note is that out of
"250,000 tweets, only one percent was positive, while 99 percent where negative. That’s the good news. People are getting fed up with false/fake news rumor mongers and are placing the blame directly on the false/fake news provider.
doorhinge, you’re obviously not too good at picking up on the meanings of sentences, as evidenced by your re-re-re-posting of Goldston’s comment, and your posting of a dictionary definition that had the clues you should have picked up on, but didn’t.
Try this, spelled out in Wikipedia with a few more words:
So it sounds like “false stories” and “just plain wrong” stories also qualify as fake news.
Tell you what. This is obviously going nowhere, so we’ll just pass you with a C+ and you don’t have to come to class anymore. Sound good?
Even if we excuse Fox’s use of those numbers, and even if it’s just one data point in the wrong place, that’s still completely, utterly inexcusable. That data point simply cannot be out of place by accident. Do you think that they make those charts by drawing in each point by hand? Of course not. They have a computer program, and they put a list of numbers in the program, and the program makes the graph. Push another button, and the same program puts the value of each data point above the point. But to get that graph, you have to go in and manually change things, which you would have no reason ever to do unless you wanted to deliberately lie.
From what I’ve seen fake news are more generally about withholding or favouring some information than manufacturing it outright, and MSM sources do that day in and day out.
The Fake News is a fringe right thing meme has no basis in reality; they all do it, it’s a matter of what method they employ to do it.
Nonsense! Utter balderdash!!
On numerous occasions Fox News has appended “(D)” to the names of Republican Congressmen charged with immorality or crime, or who express views with which Fox disagrees. And that barely tips the iceberg of the lies with which FoxNews continually barrages its victims.
What is “MSM” in your eyes, and what sources of information aren’t? Name names-I really want to know which sources you trust.
You’re giving it up for me? You’re giving it all up for me? I feel just like Wallis Simpson.