pleks
December 11, 2016, 8:28pm
201
Budget_Player_Cadet:
Dan Rather, the man who spent 30 years with a damn near impeccable record, got suckered into one bad story, and lost his entire career as a result? That Dan Rather?
You’re completely diluting the concept of “fake news”, by the way. Fake news is not news that later turns out to be wrong. It’s intentionally deceptive crap put together to appear as though it was legitimate news. When Rather published his report on the Killian documents, there was no reason to believe he knew the documents were fraudulent. That wasn’t fake news. It was just a hoax. It was bad reporting, but is there any reason to believe that Rather was not operating in good faith when he made the report? I don’t think there is. And it came from a news source which is generally trustworthy. It’s not “fake news”. You’re conflating very different issues here; please stop.
Did you see what those covers were referring to? Trump’s campaign did melt down on both occasions. He got into a week-long bitching competition with a gold star family, then again he went on an angry tirade against a former miss universe. The fact that he won has no influence on the facts at the time.
That people make mistakes .
Where do you get your news? In fact, WillFarnaby , and anyone else touting this line of argumentation, what are your go-to news sources? What sites do you visit for your news? And are those sites completely and utterly flawless in their accuracy and analysis?
Because what you’re doing is holding mainstream news outlets to an impossible standard. You’re saying that whenever a source gets anything wrong, they become untrustworthy. Dan Rather fell for a hoax, ergo nothing he says is reliable. The Washington Post published a crummy article on “fake news” and didn’t dig as deep as they could have, ergo they cannot be trusted on anything. The New York Times had a reporter publish a horrible story misrepresenting the state of things in Russia and that reporter won a pulitzer 85 fucking years ago
So where do you get your news? What shining paragon of media never, ever gets anything wrong, in decades or centuries of investigative reporting?
I’ll tell you who: fucking nobody . There is not an outlet in the world who is older than a year and has never gotten anything wrong. Because in a business where the facts are not always immediately clear, but there is a clear motivation to publish first and have compelling news stories, sometimes someone’s going to get something wrong. It happens. The trick is to figure out when that happens, and try to find the places it happens the least. And the Washington Post and New York Times are among the very best in the business at doing exactly that. So was Dan Rather, until his parent network decided that this one flubbed story was too much for their trustworthiness to bear.
Trump lost the popular vote by a margin of 2.5 million. He barely squeezed out a win by a few hundred thousand votes in a handful of swing states. The entire election, he polled well beneath his competition. So when you say something like “Trump crushed his opposition with ease”, it makes me wonder - where do you get your news from? Because clearly they’ve been misleading you.
Wow, dude, that’s a long post, and it’s time for me to poop and catch some zzzzs, so 'll respond only to what I think is your most pressing question.
For example, a few years ago, there was a story about some black whore accusing a group of white university students of rape. You had your Al Sharptons, your Jesse Jacksons, your Democrat district attorney, your liberal professors and media, all calling for blood of the students in question.