Trust in the news media is mostly gone

People increasingly distrust the news media (as well they should) according to a new poll, although for mostly stupid reasons.
cjr-reuters-confidence.jpg
cjr-reuters-01.jpg
cjr-reuters-nb01.jpg

This poll is just the latest of a trend.

04/02/2018 77 percent say major news outlets report 'fake news'

The "fake news" moniker, which has become a rallying cry for Trump and his supporters, surprisingly gained popularity across partisan lines, including among Democrats. According to the Monmouth findings, 61 percent of Democrats believe outlets spread misinformation, up from 43 percent from last year. Belief in the spread of "fake news" by major news outlets also rose from 2017 to now among Republicans, up from 79 to 89 percent, and independents, rising from 66 percent to 82 percent.

06/27/18 72 percent say traditional outlets 'report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading'

The poll of nearly 4,000 adults shows that 92 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents "say that traditional news outlets knowingly report false or misleading stories at least sometimes," a finding in line with other recent polls conducted by Pew Research and Gallup.

It found the sentiment extends to those who identify as independents and Democrats, with 79 percent of independents also saying traditional outlets knowingly report false or misleading stories at least sometimes. Democrats agree by a slight majority of 53 percent.

The poll also found that almost two-thirds of those polled say fake news "is usually reported because people have an agenda." About one-third of those polled say false information is reported because of "poor fact-checking" or laziness.

The news media shouldn't be trusted. But their sins are mostly of misleading framing and lies of omission.
Not actual 'fake news'.
The good news is that this lack of trust means the ruling elite's control of the commoners is on very shaky grounds.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

SnappleBC's picture

For my money, I'm uninterested in how, exactly, someone chooses to mislead me. They might lie outright. They might omit facts. They might frame the conversation. In the end, the effect is entirely the same. They have knowingly presented a false story with the intent to deceive.

It's all lies in my book and it all counts as fake news. If you don't agree, I have a bridge in Venezuela to sell you *grin*

up
0 users have voted.

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Roy Blakeley's picture

@SnappleBC I recently looked at a video of Mueller testifying about Iraq before Congress in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. It was full of statements that are misleading rather than outright lies. For example (not verbatim, I don't have time or the inclination to view the sickening spectacle again): Q: "Do you believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" A: "Secretary Powell has told us in his speech at the UN that (you can fill in the rest of the drivel)." My point is that answering in this way, demonstrates beyond doubt that he knew that there was no real evidence that Iraq had consequential WMD. If he had been misled by the the evidence presented to him, he would have said something like "Our best evidence indicates that Iraq has significant WMD." One could then give him the benefit of doubt and dismiss him as a fool rather than a murderous apparatchik. Instead, it is clear that he chose to avoid perjury while misleading a credulous and cowardly congress (who were more than happy to be misled). ...and thereby contributing to the deaths of half a million people.

up
0 users have voted.

I've been railing against our crappy msm for about ten years. And I ain't retracting a thing.

I think we've all seen examples of fake news, even if there is retraction or implicit backpedaling later. How many times have you seen or heard political commentators state or write that Clinton was impeached for a (pick one: affair, getting a blow job), with no mention of the perjury count or any other count? (Of course, neither affairs or blow jobs were even among the impeachment counts.)

Here's another: Hillary is so far ahead that Bernie cannot possibly catch up to Hillary's lead--if that claim is based on including her contingent super delegate votes with her locked in delegate votes. Hayes and Kornacki and the rest of the msm thugs knew damn well that super delegate endorsements are not even super delegate votes; and super delegate endoresements can flip, as had many of Hillary's super delegate endorsements in 2008. Not to mention that Hayes and his ilk should have been explaining that super delegates should not get any vote, period, much less votes with the weight that the Democratic Party gives them. Of course, to the best of my knowledge, a truthful explanation of super delegate votes was no part of msm's coverage of the primary.

Anyway, Saying the super delegates were unlikely to change their minds this time would have been accurate, but stating that Bernie could not possibly win the primary based on super delegate votes was an outright lie. Worse, it was a lie intended to deceive voters before they went to the polls to choose one of two Presidential nominees who had any realistic chance of becoming POTUS.

We've also all seen headlines that even the story beneath them proves are false. Also retractions and corrections of fake/false/inaccurate "news" reports. I very much doubt that all of them were innocent mistakes.

Studies have shown that many readers do not read past a headline.
So a hyperbolic, misleading headline is unlikely to be a inadvertent error that doesn't matter because the story beneath it is accurate. "In related news," studies have also shown that the first version of a story, which is indeed often the false headline, sticks in a reader or listener's head. Not only that, but get this one: Studies have shown that a later retraction or "correction" serves to reinforce the original story in the reader or listener's mind.

After these studies, should decent, honest journalists and "commentators" have taken care to at least get the headline right? You're damn skippy, they should. Instead, incorrect headlines began proliferating. (Government used those studies, too: do you remember how many times in 2009 the unemployment figures were given, then were "corrected" (always upward) a few days later? I was aware of the studies then, so I noticed.)

As far as headlines: I used to do layout and write headlines for my union local's little newspaper. The copy itself was never done on time; and I was a volunteer, meaning I did those things late at night, tired after having put in at least an eight-hour day and then cooled my heels at the union office waiting for the copy. I was probably good and hungry, too, but I don't have a specific recollection of that. Based upon that little bit of experience, I can tell you, writing an accurate headline probably is both easier and faster than writing a false or misleading one.

To write a false headline, you have to do the same things as you would to write an accurate headline, namely, read the lede, whether or not the lede is the first paragraph, and skim the rest of the story to ensure you understood the lede. If you want to write a false headline, you also need to think about your objective in falsifying. Next, you need to make sure that the headline you write is close enough to the truth to pass for an honest mistake, but still damaging to whatever or whomever you want to damage (and the reverse, when you want to help). By that time, I could probably have written ten accurate headlines. (Incidentally, the headline also has to be short or long enough to fit the layout, but that is so with both true headlines and false ones.)

The very term "commentators" has all but replaced "journalist," as though "a rose by any other name" is not subject to journalistic ethics. Love, if you sit there all day commenting on news stories that are "politically-tinged" and speak as though you are spouting fact, not just your opinion, you just might be a political journalist. In my book, Only a scoundrel pretends his or her obligations change if he or she simply re-names his or her occupation.

Besides, even the scoundrels did not claim that "commentators" have no obligation to be ethical or accurate. They claimed only that commentators were not obliged to be objective; they are free to express opinions.

There are miles between an honest, ethical opinion based upon fact and misleading the public by appearing to state a fact while saying something that is untrue. Listen to Lawrence O'Donnell some night and see how many things he says are based on indisputable fact. Or, should I say, how few. He's damn good at deceiving people that they are hearing nothing but accurate facts. IMO, he's even better at it than Maddow. But, not only are both deceptive, though; they work very hard at being successfully deceptive.

KINDA SORTA ETHICAL OPINION:
"I don't believe that Clinton was really impeached for the things that the bill of impeachment stated. I believe he was actually impeached for having an extra marital affair."

OUTRIGHT LIE:
"Bill Clinton was impeached for a blow job."

Second, the object or intent of "merely" slanting, framing, selective omission, etc. is deceiving the reading or listening public. I don't think it is a great leap from intentional deception to "fake news." "Fake news" is a term that is obviously not intended to be seen as a technical term of journalistic art; and I doubt anyone takes it that way.

I think everyone understands that, by "fake news," Trump means that the msm is deceptive and intentionally so. Which is what I believe with all my heart. And he should know, having been both the beneficiary and the victim of the Pied Piper Strategy--the beneficiary until he had locked in the nom, which he did well before the end of primary voting; and the victim between that point and election day, 2016.

up
0 users have voted.
Amanda Matthews's picture

@HenryAWallace
than others, but the difference is minuscule. For example:

CNN accused of stacking audience vs. Bernie Sanders in town hall event

CNN admitted fault on Wednesday after being accused of failing to disclose Democratic Party ties of several attendees who were able to ask 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders questions during the network’s town hall on Monday.

*

The CNN event followed other recent town halls featuring Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif; Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn; and potential independent candidate, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. But unlike those town halls, many participants who posed policy questions to Sanders appear to have political ties, which was first reported by Paste Magazine.

*

Paste Magazine pointed out that at least four attendees have deep roots in the Democratic Party and the D.C. lobby, and alleged the way CNN described the participants either downplayed their background or did not disclose such ties at all.

Tara Ebersole, who asked about Sanders’ plan for universal health care, was introduced by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer as a “former biology professor,” but her reported LinkedIn page claims her current job is chair of the Baltimore County Democratic Party.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-accused-of-failing-to-disclose...

If anyone would have told me I’d be using Fox as a link 3 or 4 years ago, I’d have laughed out loud. This poor country has been flipped upside down. Both ‘sides’ PTB suck, but it’s been the damn ‘Left’ that took over the Bush/Cheney playbook and ran with it, i.e. Patriot Act (new and improved); NSA spying, more ‘wars’ that aren’t ‘wars’ and that involve the slaughter of innocent people.

And now Fox (or Faux as I used to say) is more reliable than the ‘msm’, whatever that is nowadays. Right wing Judicial Watch has revealed serious hidden crimes, and the ‘New’ Left has turned what once was considered a CT into a freaking reality show of corrupt public officials, here in the US and Great Britain, and an attempt at overthrowing the menace that honestly won the election.

It’s very disorienting.

up
0 users have voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

@Amanda Matthews

campaign took steps and continues taking to correct or counter the things that cost him the victory last time, the msm out to do him in being one of the most obvious.

As far as linking to FOX: On the Democratic message board on which I once posted, posters would gang up and pile on anyone who linked to almost any source that criticized a "pet" Democrat like Pelosi or Clinton or Democrats in general or a Democratic talking point.

The source would get labeled right wing and the person who posted it would get labeled a Republican. And the same gang of posters would escalate the next time that source was cited.

Even if you quoted, let's say, Gandhi, but the source of the accurately quoted material was, let's say, the FOX News website, you would get ganged up on. Especially if the quote poked a hole in the Democratic world view, let's say, Gandhi's view that depriving a people of weapons was tyrannical (not the word he used, but I ain't friends with search engines right now).

As a result, people posted links to, and quotes from, only the sources that were almost 100% pro-Democrat almost 100% of the time. Shocker: You don't get a full picture of what is going on in America or the world that way. And the reverse is so of Republicans posting about something that might reflect poorly on their politicians or talking points. You must look at both the FOX and MSNBC websites (never watched FOX News and cannot bear to watch MSNBC anymore) and find what resonates with you.

What a great brainwashing, though, eh? Making you afraid to link to, or at least making you steel yourself against an onslaught, before linking to any source that was not approved by the board's Ministry of Truth?

Every time I think how completely and how long I fell for their bullying, I get more and more incredulous that I was the same person then as I am now--and not all that long ago. Group think and peer pressure, especially within affinity groups, are powerful weapons. So are the message board equivalents of gang banging and mass hysteria.

You can grok how traumatic authoritarian message boards are in this post and so many other posts all over the net by people who finally broke free of KOS and boards similar to it and posting about it years later: PTSD.

As far as honestly won elections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

And, as is so often true, the more things change, the morsi they remain the same. (-;

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@HenryAWallace

Many statements have had to be redacted after people have been caught fudging the facts or saying something that isn't true. The biggest lie during this farce is that "all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered with the election."

This has been repudiated numerous times. Only 3 agencies have agreed on that and it's not the full agency, but just the 3 heads of them. Brennan, Clapper and the DNI dude. I always forget his name.

Then there's Rachel... she distorts if not outright lies to her followers and that's why so many people are convinced that Vlad meddled in the election. Nothing anyone says will make people look at this fraud from a different perspective.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg

a US Senate Committee and later tell that Committee that his lie to them had been the "least untruthful" answer he could have provided, short of telling them the truth.

And of course, there we have another source of fake news: government officials outright lying on TV or to reporters and rarely being investigated and exposed, ala Watergate. Investigative reporting has become rarer in the US than girdles. Now, media simply regurgitate material given them in press releases from one totally biased source or another.

up
0 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace

Studies have shown that a later retraction or "correction" serves to reinforce the original story in the reader or listener's mind.

What studies have shown is that there is a statistically significant trend within a test sample population for a later retraction to reinforce the original story in the reader or listener's mind.

Every time you see reports of ANY study claiming a psychological result it is important to realize that although the distilled/digested result is typically reported in absolute or binary terms ("serves to reinforce the original story in the reader or listener's mind"), what the study almost certainly -- like, with 99.9%+ certainty -- found was that the reported result was "observed" (whatever that might be) in a greater fraction of the test subjects "exposed" to the "treatment" than of the control subjects "exposed" to something else. Thus, the use of the definite article is almost never warranted when referring to such studies. Perhaps "some readers' minds". Maybe even only, "the minds of a small but statistically significant fraction of readers."

10% of the population are literally not smart enough to understand, well, almost anything, so it's hardly surprising that psychological experiments find that some fraction of subjects are affected in depressingly irrational and ridiculous ways by any attempt to communicate with them. That doesn't necessarily mean that all, or even most, or even much public discourse should be aimed at the limitations of the cognitively incapable.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@UntimelyRippd

like "some" "many" "likely," the ever-popular "IMO," and so on because I do try very hard not to say or post things that are inaccurate, even partly inaccurate. I try perhaps harder in posts than in speech IRL because the internet seems to remember forever and unlike a privately-conveyed inaccuracy, I can't just make a call or send a text to correct any misimpression with which I may have left someone.

In this instance, I slipped up, as I no doubt have in other instances, perhaps because of my longstanding "heat" over the subject matter and because fallibility is the human condition. I appreciate your setting the record straight despite my slip up.

up
0 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace
it happens to be one of my personal bugaboos.
The implications of George Lakoff's work in particular tend (in my mind) to be overstated -- and Lakoff himself does some of the most egregious overstating. He seems to insist that language simply doesn't work, and even the slightest subtlety in a communication is impossible.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

earthling1's picture

@UntimelyRippd
Small correction.

up
0 users have voted.

Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.

distilled the content embodied in my long explanation above down to a memorable slogan that he repeats, spreading the real news that the msm is deceptive and intentionally so. What he did with about two tweets, I could not have done with a billion scrupulously accurate posts.

Again, I am not a fan of Trump. I am, however, grateful to him for this.

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

k9disc's picture

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "paid" is, I guess.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

...as any well-educated journalist (and/or student of the industry) will likely tell you. It's just that some news is (far) more biased than others.

Or, as Hunter S. Thompson--one of my true heroes--is often quoted:

“There is no such thing as Objective Journalism.
The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”

The CJR piece/report, by the way, is truly outstanding. I've bookmarked and copied it, as much as I could, for further (ongoing) reference. Thank you very much for that!

up
0 users have voted.

"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson

@bobswern

as I can manage within the bounds of human limitations" and "I strive to deceive and people and manipulate their minds and votes while remaining in the realm of plausible deniability." Even at that, there have been "commentators" or "feature writers" or "columnists" who have totally fabricated stories because it was easier than doing the ground work.

The Boston Globe, once considered the New York Times of New England, when both were better papers, caught one of them at it and demanded his resignation (when he should have been fired overtly as, odds are, that was not his first fabrication.

For his punishment, he later got a much easier and higher-paying job as a regular bloviator on Morning Joe, pretending to represent the leftist viewpoint on the panel when Joe was still overtly, proudly, defiantly rightist. That would be Mike Barnicle, who was basically a "reformed" working person's populist turned rightist.

The New York Times caught and fired another who had fabricated a number of columns from whole cloth.

Finally, the fact that someone phrases something in a memorable and absolute way does mean it is true. I believe that most to all journalists are biased, and not only as to politics. However, a well-trained, ethical biased journalist can write an unbiased news story. I don't believe that a well-trained, ethical journalist will say otherwise.

Objective hard news stories (as opposed to features, columns and editorials} are not only possible, but once appeared in once respectable papers daily. However megacorporatons began gobbling up broadcast and print media until only five megacorps controlled most broadcast and print media.

During that time, the demand of respectable new outlets for unbiased news stories and ethical journalists writing objectively dwindled as the demand for deceptive propaganda rose. In fact, as my first post on this thread stated, the very term "journalism" has become a misnomer and a word to be avoided.

"

Well, by definition, there's no such thing as unbiased news...

I don't understand that comment. First, which definition, from which source? Hunter Thompson stated his personal opinion. Otherwise, I'd call his statement false. As it is, I will say only that I beg to differ.

Relatively definitive definitions, definitive in that they are carefully researched and widely-accepted as definitions, are the definitions found in dictionaries. I don't know if dictionaries include a definition of "unbiased news," but here is wikipedia's article on objective journalism. While longer than a dictionary definition, it may be helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity

Sure, every journalist who even gives a crap about objective reporting has to guard against allowing his or her personal bias to seep into hard news stories. However, it is not impossible, requiring training, practice and self-discipline. Again, the problem today is that megacorps are paying their "commentators" to "cloud men's minds" and manipulate, not to provide us with objective information from which we can make up our minds.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@HenryAWallace

There is plenty of room between "as objective and ethical as I can manage within the bounds of human limitations" and "I strive to deceive and people and manipulate their minds and votes while remaining in the realm of plausible deniability."

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

And I am not playing tit for tat, but you've had the two best tag lines I've ever seen. That would be your current interplanetary tag line and your former one about knitting a representation of your vagina and putting it on your head as a response to a crisis.

Not only am I here for both of them but I can never get enough of either one. I want both of them to be the taglines of every post on this board.

My prior favorite dates all the way back to my earliest days of posting. It was a very lightly moderated board on which all political positions were allowed, along with lots of arguments and personal insults. I'm sure I don't remember it correctly. As best I do, it went

Fuck off.

No, really, fuck off.

The politics of the woman whose tag line it was and my politics were then almost identical; and she was very funny in general and very smart. Every time I saw that tag on one her posts, royally, but humorously telling off some rightist, I had to smile.

up
0 users have voted.
ggersh's picture

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

@ggersh
how Carol Burnett got so dark skinned over the last 45 years.

up
0 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

ggersh's picture

@doh1304 [video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=295&v=3qqE_WmagjY]

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

@ggersh don't do that again, I'm Still laughing at that!
My tummy Hurts.

Thank you ggersh.

up
0 users have voted.

Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .

Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .

If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march

@Tall Bald and Ugly T
elephant story.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@UntimelyRippd obvious. The timing on continuing the story was Pure Tim, though. And when Vicky dropped Her bomb was BEAUTIFUL-blew Everybody up!

STILL giggling the next morning.

up
0 users have voted.

Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .

Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .

If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march

ggersh's picture

@Tall Bald and Ugly

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

ggersh's picture

@UntimelyRippd we don't see this happening
anywhere on TV these days

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

@UntimelyRippd cheers for all the laughing. right on
Vicki Lawrence on an infamous blooper on "The Carol Burnett Show"

miles and miles of smiles

PEACE

up
0 users have voted.
Anja Geitz's picture

up
0 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

ggersh's picture

@Anja Geitz

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

@doh1304

up
0 users have voted.

20, 25 years ago There was this headline: "Burger King inspector finds kangaroo meat". 30 minutes later McDonald's was running tv ads claiming that they "only use 100% American beef". Burger King lost 30% of their sales; it took them 20 years to recover. The almost immediate retraction: It was a shipment of beef to McDonald's. Explain to me how that wasn't intentional, Ronald.
Also, studies have shown that people interpret - and even believe - facts that support their prejudices, not the other way around. But IMO those prejudices must initially relate (not necessarily conform) to reality. Fast food is crap, it's easy to believe any accusation, but difficult to believe any defense - even an obviously truthful one.

up
0 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

@doh1304 thanks for the memories, I'm sorry they ever recovered. The world would be a much better place without the Burger King corporation, in my view.
Burger King animal feed sourced from deforested lands in Brazil and Bolivia
...
Burger King to cut use of antibiotics in its chicken as part of superbug fight
... etc. Too big, too unsanitary, too greedy, too expensive.

good luck

up
0 users have voted.
Bollox Ref's picture

The Guardian has never responded to Glenn Greenwald's public requests to explain why they ran the bogus Manafort meets Assange story, (see 'journalist' Luke Harding).

A big fat silence from Katharine Viner. No retraction...... nothing.

(Edited)

up
0 users have voted.

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Amanda Matthews's picture

@Bollox Ref @Bollox Ref

“Watch Aaron Maté Destroy Russiagate Propagandist and “Collusion” Collusion” Author Luke Harding”

This video is was posted 10/6/18. Has he been heard from since? This video is great. Especially when Harding starts stuttering when confronted on his ‘facts’.

EDIT: fixed title and other stuff

up
0 users have voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

dance you monster's picture

Luke Harding.

Just one example. Fake news or not? I'm not sure if he's paid directly by his "sources," or by the real ones, but when the journalistic community addresses that heap o' feces, then I may consider they have a little integrity. 'Til then, they all are smearing that shit all over themselves. I have no sympathy.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Bollox Ref

@dance you monster

This is the best example of the media lying to us. And what makes it worse is that it's very easy to check to see if Manafort was ever there and yet they went ahead with it anyway.

Aaron Mate nails it in this article he wrote a year ago and nothing has changed since then.

Russia Gate is more fiction than fact

These imperatives have incentivized a compromised set of journalistic and evidentiary standards. In Russiagate, unverified claims are reported with little to no skepticism. Comporting developments are cherry-picked and overhyped, while countervailing ones are minimized or ignored. Front-page headlines advertise explosive and incriminating developments, only to often be undermined by the article’s content, or retracted entirely. Qualified language—likely, suspected, apparent—appears next to “Russians” to account for the absence of concrete links. As a result, Russiagate has enlarged into a storm of innuendo that engulfs issues far beyond its original scope.

If you haven't read this yet you're in for a treat.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

snoopydawg's picture

which got a couple websites banned from Facebook. The media is complicit in censorship. George Orwell must be rolling in his grave.

Censorship was one of the first bad things that came from Russia Gate which then started the new McCarthyism. And people who are buying everything that they hear and read from the MSM are unaware of how Russia Gate is being used for many things. Propaganda. We keep getting it because it works. When will people wake up to this?

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

snoopydawg's picture

Facebook as an American geopolitical weapon

When Facebook unilaterally censored Maffick simply because the social media-geared company is backed by Russia’s RT, I saw it as just another example how closely and openly Facebook has been integrated into America’s corporate-national-security apparatus.

Why does Facebook apply a double standard to transparency: It demands it for Pages set up by entities funded by foreign governments, yet allows the U.S. government and U.S. corporations to operate their Pages without hinderance — even when these pages are set up with the stated goal of covertly influencing people.

Darn good question.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

What he did repeal was good laws, not Bush's bad laws like he promised. D-Values
enjoy netflix eat more obama
U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

July 14, 2013
Now, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government's broadcasting to be directed at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years.

"modernization" wtf? just call something outdated and sheeple go baaaah! It's what B.J. Clinton did too, he modernized away more FDR good laws to make himself bigly rich in retirement, so yeah. meh

we have met the enemy

up
0 users have voted.