Fake news: How do Dems use this to their advantage?

Politics & Elections
41

That looks like a great example of one of those fake news. Many of the LSM outfits decided to shorten Trump’s statement to something they thought would fool many of the voters. Apparently, it worked.

What Trump said -
*According to Republican presidential contender Donald Trump, his supporters are a staunchly loyal bunch – so loyal, in fact, that the billionaire could get away with some pretty drastic acts and his fanbase wouldn’t bat an eye.

“My people are so smart – and you know what else they say about my people? The polls?” Trump asked a crowd at a Sioux Center, Iowa, rally Saturday. “I have the most loyal people – did you ever see that?”

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” he said, referring to the major street in New York City that cuts through Manhattan’s large commercial district. “It’s, like, incredible.”*

What the LSM chose to mis-report -

*Donald Trump boasted Saturday that support for his presidential campaign would not decline even if he shot someone in the middle of a crowded street.

“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump said at a campaign rally here.*

*With less than two weeks to go until the Iowa caucus, Donald Trump remains characteristically confident about his chances. In fact, the Republican front-runner is so confident, he says his supporters would stay loyal even if he happened to commit a capital offense.

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. “It’s, like, incredible.”*

It’s amazing how easy it was for the LSM/DNC to take Trump’s words out of context. And no LSM outlet complained about it. Amazing.

42

Hmm… I smell a rat.

From the NPR article.

From the CNN article.

Whoops.

Someone is taking things out of context. It’s not the news articles, who rightfully saw this and found it appalling - they clearly and openly provided the context for the statement, not that said context makes the statement less disturbingly cult-like. Rather, it’s you, quoting only specific snippets of the news articles in order to pretend that they cut out the context. Your critique of the “Lamestream media” is both childish and unimpressive. It utterly misses the point - the context of “my voters are super loyal” is exactly what makes this statement disturbing. Trump is saying that he could shoot someone and not lose support. That’s at best an extremely tasteless joke, and says a lot more about his supporters (and what he thinks about his supporters) than you seem willing to admit. Turns out he could brag about committing sexual assault and not lose support, so he wasn’t even that wrong.

And meanwhile, you’re continuing to conflate bad or biased reporting (or rather, in this case, what you are pretending is bad or biased reporting) with “fake news”. Why do you want to defend propagandists who intentionally publish completely fabricated news stories? Why do you feel the need to run cover for the kinds of assholes who will brazenly make shit up to support Trump?

43

(post shortened)

Hahahaha. The bottom line is that LSM support, and fake news, failed to convince enough voters to vote for Hillary. I’ll suggest that the same LSM support, and fake news, encouraged more voters to vote for Trump.

And the OP wanted to know how the Democrat Party can better use fake news to further it’s agenda. :smack: It didn’t turn out well the last time they tried it, but that might have been because Hillary was such an incredibly piss-poor candidate.

44

And I don’t want to live in the U.S. under Trump. I hate living in a country where hate speech can’t be outlawed. I hate living in a country where sexuality can be freely discriminated against. What does any of that have to do with anything?

The people in those countries like things the way they are. They could vote so as to change those things, and they haven’t. They are thus no less democratic.

On the other hand, fake news is a threat to democracy. If there is no reputable source of information, there is no way for the people to decide. Hence sensible democracies have realized this threat and work against it.

I don’t know if the Fairness Doctrine was the best way to deal with this situation. I do know it was never found to impinge on the First Amendment.

45

Please stop misusing the term “fake news”. Why are you running cover for the assholes who make shit up wholesale? Why do you feel the need to conflate entirely separate issues in order to defend people who are just inventing news stories out of whole cloth? And do you accept that you were wrong about NPR and CNN?

46

You could say the same thing about us having a Constitution. Why didn’t we just trust the people to never vote to take away any civil rights?

Our Founding Fathers spoke a lot over not trusting pure democracy. Does that mean they should have chosen a monarchy?

If people in general could be trusted not to fall for enticing lies, we wouldn’t need fairness in advertising laws. We wouldn’t need the FDA–you could just trust the news that a particular drug or food was bad for you. Oh, and libel and slander. Why don’t we trust the people not to fall for that?

You are expressing some uncharacteristic black and white thinking on this subject. Hell, you even have supported some regulations in other areas, despite being a free market guy. Should that mean we might as well have a state sponsored market?

47

Fake news is fake news. It’s news that is fake. News that has been spun, twisted, employs half-truths, or is just plain horseshit.

Please stop limiting the term “fake news” to mean only what you find to be acceptable. Or not.
CNN and NPR plus the many other LSM outlets who chose not to include the opening part of Trump’s statement, chose to publish fake news.

“My people are so smart – and you know what else they say about my people? The polls?” Trump asked a crowd at a Sioux Center, Iowa, rally Saturday. “I have the most loyal people – did you ever see that?”

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” he said, referring to the major street in New York City that cuts through Manhattan’s large commercial district. “It’s, like, incredible.”*

48

The term being used has a clear meaning in its current usage. You are diluting that to mean “any news I happen to disagree with”.

This is irrelevant. They clearly stated the context, as I showed above. Why do you insist on repeating information that is clearly false?

49

(post shortened)

No, it’s not been made clear. You chose to use a narrow meaning, and I chose to use a much more broad meaning. Fake news is fake news. Fake news is news that is fake. You don’t approve of my choice. I don’t approve of your choice. Perhaps if you told me who has granted you the authority to demand that I must accept your choice of this narrow version of “fake news”, I may be convinced to play along. Or not.

50

…so just to be absolutely clear here: all news is fake news?

Can you give me an example of any news report that would not fit your criteria for “fake news?” A single example would suffice.

51

This might be a dumb question, but what fake news stories were most damaging to Democrats? I’m mostly curious if there were stories out there that I never found out were fake.

52

Pope endorsed Trump? That’s just a guess.

53

(post shortened)

Really? “all news is fake news?” I didn’t know that. May I quote you?

54

…I don’t need to give you explicit permission to quote me. By accepting the terms and conditions of this site I have granted you permission to use the software on this site to “quote me.”

And in fact you have already used the software on this site to quote me. So why are you asking me permission to do something you have already done?

My question appears to have confused you. It was a request for clarification from you, it was not a statement of my belief. And if you hadn’t have shortened my post, then my request for clarification would have remained clear.

Do you believe that all news is fake news or not? If you don’t accept this: then can you provide a benchline for us? Can you link to an example of “news” that you think isn’t an example of “fake news?”

55

You’re right, I do fine your posts confusing. Much better now, though. Maybe?

I’ve never said that all news is fake news. That was your interpretation, not mine.

I find the following link to be an excellent example of “news” that I think isn’t an example of “fake news”.

56

Not sure if this is “fake news” per se, but more “wrong perception” - there is a belief genuinely held by some folks that Hillary and Obama willfully denied assistance to the folks under attack at Benghazi, for…some reason.

And if some Internet memes are to be taken seriously, there are people who claim that folks who were about to provide witness testimony against Hillary, have mysteriously turned up dead, implying a hit job to silence those would-be witnesses.

I’m sure there are a few folks who sincerely believe these things, but chances are they wouldn’t have voted for Hillary to begin with.

57

…it wasn’t an interpretation. It was a request for clarification. The answer is apparently “no”, is that correct?

I’m struggling to find a way to differentiate this from your examples of what you regarded to be “fake news.” Can you point out the difference? I can’t see it. Both examples cherry pick and selectively quote. Both spin an editorial stance. Your example seems to fit the same criteria as what you regard as “fake news.” Can you explain the difference? Why is this an “excellent” example of “news” and not just another example of “fake news”, using your criteria?

58

Apparently, the answer is no, is correct. Yes.

What did you find in the linked article that proved to be false, or incorrect? I did not find anything false, or incorrect. Is that correct? And by correct I mean not false. Or do you have a different interpretation?

59

…I didn’t find anything in the linked article to be false or incorrect.

I also didn’t find anything to be false or incorrect in the article you cited in post 41.

In the article you cited in post 41: what did you find in the linked article that proved to be false or incorrect, that made the articles “fake”?

60

It’s more like if people are going to use positions of influence such as academic professors or journalists to advance an agenda don’t be surprised if the sources are looked at as tainted. That’s why corruption is terrible. It undermines the integrity of highly useful systems.