Free Press/Fake Press

[KI4MVP]

Fake news or real news and an ABC Station did this?

 

[KI4MVP]

Moving this out of the either thread into this one.

No, the results are not the same.

One is completely fabricated, the other can be found to be factual, with the benefit of the doubt going to one side or the other.


If someone puts an add on craigslist that says "$20 to protest Mike Brown shooting," then writes a story entitled "Dems Posting Ads on Craigslist for Protestors," that is fraudulent.

If CNN covers Donald Trump using his own words and provides and interpretation of them based on their liberal/conservative beliefs, that is bias.


It's not even remotely the same thing.

when the station has a full quote, cuts the sentence in half, giving it a completely different meaning, then talks about that, that's something more than talking about someone's words.

When they have a full 60 second video, cut the first half out to take away the context, then pretend they don't know what happened before the 30 seconds they show, that's more than just interpreting what happened.

When they have a live video clip that is the opposite of the what they wanted to happen, then cut that clip out when they replay the rest of the video, that's more than interpreting what happened.

This all happened in the election.

Just yesterday CNN criticized readers of the NY Times for believing what they read when the NY Times made a mistake.


It's just nuts how hard they try to manipulate people with misinformation when they fully know the facts.

How is presenting conclusions you know is wrong because you already have the proof really any different than another source jumping to conclusions on partial information.

 

[David.]

Moving this out of the either thread into this one.


when the station has a full quote, cuts the sentence in half, giving it a completely different meaning, then talks about that, that's something more than talking about someone's words.

When they have a full 60 second video, cut the first half out to take away the context, then pretend they don't know what happened before the 30 seconds they show, that's more than just interpreting what happened.

When they have a live video clip that is the opposite of the what they wanted to happen, then cut that clip out when they replay the rest of the video, that's more than interpreting what happened.

This all happened in the election.

Just yesterday CNN criticized readers of the NY Times for believing what they read when the NY Times made a mistake.

It's just nuts how hard they try to manipulate people with misinformation when they fully know the facts.

@jigo

 

[gourimoko]

Kind of pathetic the mindset we're seeing where there is even a debate about "fake news."

 

[AZ_]

Moving this out of the either thread into this one.


when the station has a full quote, cuts the sentence in half, giving it a completely different meaning, then talks about that, that's something more than talking about someone's words.

When they have a full 60 second video, cut the first half out to take away the context, then pretend they don't know what happened before the 30 seconds they show, that's more than just interpreting what happened.

When they have a live video clip that is the opposite of the what they wanted to happen, then cut that clip out when they replay the rest of the video, that's more than interpreting what happened.

This all happened in the election.

Just yesterday CNN criticized readers of the NY Times for believing what they read when the NY Times made a mistake.


It's just nuts how hard they try to manipulate people with misinformation when they fully know the facts.

How is presenting conclusions you know is wrong because you already have the proof really any different than another source jumping to conclusions on partial information.

Can you provide actual examples?

 

[KI4MVP]

Can you provide actual examples?

I did throughout the election. the one they went to the most was the video of the trump person hitting the guy being escorted out. CNN never showed the whole video. The whole video showed the guy was sitting a row or two in front of the guy who hit him, and the reason he was being escorted out is he was standing, cursing at and flipping off all of the people right behind him. He was pretty much doing everything he could to get someone to lose their cool.

CNN not only never showed that part, which they had to have, they pretended he was being escorted out from far below after peaceful protests. Not only that, they somehow tried to blame not the guy who was being a complete jackass, and not the guy who hit him, but rather Trump himself (using another out of context video clip).

The other video example was the night of the Chicago rally that Trump canceled. They were cutting from different cameras and caught a "protestor" punching a Trump supporter. Not only did they never mention what they just aired, they later repaired multiple times the same series of clips with only that single clip edited out while they continued to call the protesters peaceful and somehow blame Trump for canceling the event.

Their own cameras captured something that contradicted how they wanted people to believe what happened so they edited out their own evidence and continued like it never happened,

 

[CommD]

If you are interested in media manipulation of facts and context, you may want to google David Pecker, CEO of American Media, Inc., regarding his publications' overt support of Donald Trump and active discrediting of Hillary Clinton as well as Trump's primary opponents.

American Media publishes National Enquirer, Star Magazine, RadarOnline, Men's Fitness, among others; publications undoubtedly popular among non-college educated, working class folks.

Below is a quote from from Mr. Pecker (not completely truthful of course, because he has been closely associated with Trump for well over 25 years) related to his overt support of Trump and tear-down or Clinton in AMI publications.

Note that I apologize for quoting a NY Post story, but a google search of "David Pecker and Donald Trump' will return results from numerous credible mainstream sources. We will have to stay tuned to see if he actually is rewarded with a Trump administration appointment, as this story was written pre-election.

The CEO does acknowledge that he has been pushing favorable Trump covers — and anti-Hillary covers — because that is what readers want.

“Our readers have clearly spoken and they want more news about Trump and his vision for America.

“The pro-Trump and anti-Hillary covers have seen newsstand sales pop 23 percent,” Pecker said. “That is the only poll data that I care about.”

http://nypost.com/2016/07/19/trump-said-to-have-promised-tabloid-boss-ambassador-job/

 

[CommD]

Forgot to mention the National Enquirer's purchase of the rights to the Playboy playmate's story of her affair with Trump while she was married to his current wife.

The story was purchased but never published, with contract stipulating that it could not be propagated in any other publication or social media outlet.

Is it possible that publication of this story during the "pussy grab" controversy could have affected the outcome of the election? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[David.]

Forgot to mention the National Enquirer's purchase of the rights to the Playboy playmate's story of her affair with Trump while she was married to his current wife.

The story was purchased but never published, with contract stipulating that it could not be propagated in any other publication or social media outlet.

Is it possible that publication of this story during the "pussy grab" controversy could have affected the outcome of the election? Inquiring minds want to know!

Are you making an argument for corruption of media or against Donald Trump?

Both?

 

[The Oi]

Moving this out of the either thread into this one.


when the station has a full quote, cuts the sentence in half, giving it a completely different meaning, then talks about that, that's something more than talking about someone's words.

When they have a full 60 second video, cut the first half out to take away the context, then pretend they don't know what happened before the 30 seconds they show, that's more than just interpreting what happened.

When they have a live video clip that is the opposite of the what they wanted to happen, then cut that clip out when they replay the rest of the video, that's more than interpreting what happened.

This all happened in the election.

Just yesterday CNN criticized readers of the NY Times for believing what they read when the NY Times made a mistake.


It's just nuts how hard they try to manipulate people with misinformation when they fully know the facts.

How is presenting conclusions you know is wrong because you already have the proof really any different than another source jumping to conclusions on partial information.

Agreed. This is done all the time and it's disgusting. They're using CONTENT that's not fake to create the same result that fake news would achieve. But when they manipulate the content the way that they do, it might as well be fake.

I did throughout the election. the one they went to the most was the video of the trump person hitting the guy being escorted out. CNN never showed the whole video. The whole video showed the guy was sitting a row or two in front of the guy who hit him, and the reason he was being escorted out is he was standing, cursing at and flipping off all of the people right behind him. He was pretty much doing everything he could to get someone to lose their cool.

CNN not only never showed that part, which they had to have, they pretended he was being escorted out from far below after peaceful protests. Not only that, they somehow tried to blame not the guy who was being a complete jackass, and not the guy who hit him, but rather Trump himself (using another out of context video clip).

The other video example was the night of the Chicago rally that Trump canceled. They were cutting from different cameras and caught a "protestor" punching a Trump supporter. Not only did they never mention what they just aired, they later repaired multiple times the same series of clips with only that single clip edited out while they continued to call the protesters peaceful and somehow blame Trump for canceling the event.

Their own cameras captured something that contradicted how they wanted people to believe what happened so they edited out their own evidence and continued like it never happened,

@David. I think you tagged me on this one earlier...

I am no Hillary supporter, I am no MSM supporter and I think the MSM is blatantly liberal slanted.

What @KI4MVP described is a real problem. This happens ALL THE TIME. It's really difficult to deny that manipulating footage like THAT is a hell of a lot better than full out fake news. That kind of shit is shameful and manipulative and people eat it up, even people who should know better.

I won't defend what he just described.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Hey, look at all the people who don't know the difference between the media making a mistake and the actual topic! We've only been discussing it for three weeks, I'm sure in a few more months you will catch up. No worries.

 

[Maximus]

 

[CommD]

Are you making an argument for corruption of media or against Donald Trump?

Both?

Willful large-scale corporate media manipulation of message and context to benefit the Trump candidacy.

 

[David.]

Willful large-scale corporate media manipulation of message and context to benefit the Trump candidacy.

thank you for showing how media manipulation works, and citing sources that prove how real and impactful it is.

 

[NorthCoastBias]

View: https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/806151252002406401