Assuredly we believe things that are just as ridiculous, but as I pointed out earlier, they’re probably a lot less significant in their implications than an attempt to delegitimize a sitting President on totally spurious grounds.
Again, can you come up with examples that matter in a big way, rather than a trivial way?
Mote: the U.Va. rape story.
Plank: Obama was born in Kenya.
MF’ing lumberyard: Global warming is a hoax.
Somewhere in between plank and lumberyard: Obamacare is a failure, Obamacare has made Medicare less solvent and in need of major changes to save it, tax cuts (from current levels of taxation) pay for themselves…
ETA: Feel free to recategorize these if you think you can justify it. But I’m seeing liberals occasionally buying into a mote, while conservatives hold onto vast quantities of lumber for decades.
Can you provide some examples from your POV outside the liberal echo chamber?
I’m asking not as a way of challenging you but in sincerely hoping you’ll point out actual liberal blind spots. I would really like to know what specific, factual things you believe liberals are misinformed about. Otherwise, we’ll just be talking in vague and nebulous concepts and never get to the heart of it.
And to add to what **RTFirefly **noted, the effort at mea culpa and corrections made to articles does point to sources that still deserve support. As another doper pointed out in a different thread, no source is perfect. But, even if suspected of being partisan correcting the record is key to be seen as responsible after a screw-up.
On the other hand you get, as in the case of right wing sources that many from the right report as important to them, **constant **erroneous “reports” about global warming with no corrections whatsoever. And then one can see the corruption that is going on from those sources of information.
Case in point:
The Weather Channel and also scientific groups reported on the deceptive nature of that article. The lack of correction after almost a week of being debunked elsewhere does point to an effort to willfully deceive the public, but most importantly here:
With no correction then it follows that there is an effort from that and other sources to corrupt the record and ultimately and attempt to change history. With an added worrisome development:
That we have a new president and an administration that is relying on that source of information, and it is also a source uses more propaganda than reporting.
A certain Doper was vociferous in defense of Jerry Sandusky during the whole Penn State child sex abuse scandal and at least part of the defense had something to do with anal sex with a child being impossible because of some kind of thing that he thought was proved by the dimensions of a paper towel tube (I don’t even remember the exact argument now).
Do they still believe them? What percentage of liberals do you think still buy into those stories? Oh right, fucking nobody, because when we get things wrong, we correct the record. Rolling Stone publicly flagellated itself over its error. It sent the story for independent critique to a journalism review board, then took the time to publish their entirely damning response.
Now how many Daily Mail readers do you think still believe that the Met Office claimed global warming has “stopped”? The majority? Doubtful. How many Trump fans accepted any of the many, many correction to Trump’s lies (most of which he never retracted or admitted to)? Why is it that the actual “fake news” producers in Macedonia tried and failed to get a decent liberal audience?
Neither of those things were “fake news”. They were lazy reporting or bad facts, but neither was fraudulent news knowingly trying to pass off lies and propaganda as fact. “Fake news” is a specific phenomenon. It’s not just a reporter being lazy or facts being unclear and the news taking the wrong side. Stop diluting the term.
The UVA rape story: bad reporting that was uncovered and apologized for
The Michael Brown story: bad information that was corrected and not repeated
Pope Francis Endorses Trump: fake news, invented out of whole cloth, never corrected or retracted by the “news source” that published it.
There’s a difference here, whether you want to admit it or not.
Yes, actually. I can’t remember the last time I saw Michael Brown brought up as anything other than a gotcha by conservatives who like to pretend that because BLM was wrong on this one case, it was wrong about all the others as well.
I don’t agree. the only people I see throwing it around “casually” are conservatives who are trying very hard to make it mean something it doesn’t, to stretch its meaning until we all forget what the hell we’re actually talking about - deliberate hoaxes put up for the sake of propaganda or clickbait - people like pleks and astorian. At most, a few liberals are stretching it a bit by including things like Breitbart, but it’s often hard to draw the line between Breitbart and actual fake news sites.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Says the guy whose party rejects the existence of global fucking warming.
Yep. Us liberals believe ridiculous stories such as:
Sandy Hook was a real shooting with real dead people
Nidal Hassan was a crazed lone gunman rather than a “false flag” operation
Hurricane Sandy was a natural hurricane and not one created by Obama
All of which have been proven wrong by Conservative “thinkers”.
Oh, come on. You have to admit that the Sandy Hook/Hurricane Sandy name thing was too much to be mere coincidence (someone actually told me this in all seriousness, and I could not stop laughing)
I was on a slightly more conservative forum when that huge snowstorm hit Georgia. People there thought it was fake snow from the government. No, seriously.
Tell them that the dual “Operation Sandy” was named after Obama’s (white) girlfriend.
Good thing her name wasn’t something like Wendy or Xaviera. Waiting so long into the season to get an “S” hurricane was chancy enough. Plus lucky it wasn’t a year where it would be Hurricane Sam. Have to wait a whole 'nother year.
