Canada Kicks Ass
"A warning to journalists" about fake news in 2003

REPLY



BartSimpson @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:27 pm

Look what I found. An article from 2003 warning about fake news in the mainstream media.

Worth a read just because of what the author accurately predicted.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/colon.html

$1:
"At Syms, an educated consumer is our best customer." That's the slogan of the Manhattan clothier but followers of current national events should not have to rely on their own efforts to get at the truth. That is supposed to be the duty of journalists but sadly, that is no longer the case. To accurately decipher current events and their importance, readers have to educate themselves rather than rely on certain news sources. Opinions that used to be restricted to the editorial pages now cloud news articles and not only are readers recognizing that fact, they are starting to rebel.


Over 1000 subscribers to the LA Times canceled their subscriptions because of that paper's obvious partisan attack on Arnold Schwarzenegger just days before the recall election. The West Coast newspaper used to have a policy rejecting all charges made by anonymous sources. According to syndicated columnist Jill Stewart, that was the case in 1997 when the paper rejected her article asserting leveling negative charges against Governor Gray Davis. The LA Times, however, had no compunction in reporting anonymous charges against Schwarzenegger in the final hours of the campaign.


It used to be difficult to assess the political predilection of journalists but that was a very long time ago. Walter Cronkite was once named the most trusted man in America because he could be relied on to report the facts fairly and sans bias. He waited for his retirement to reveal which side his political loyalties lie but no such mystery exists about current broadcast anchors. In my opinion, Tim Russert of NBC's Meet the Press is the only network journalist who understands the importance of a fair and balanced interview.


What may be fueling the increasing lack of impartiality among journalists is the high level of animosity towards President Bush emanating from traditional liberals in the Fourth Estate. Many regard this as payback for the shrill voices of the Clinton-haters during and after that administration. But is turnabout fair play when so many lives are at stake? I think not.


While vicious discourse has always been part and parcel of the political forum, we are now engaged in WWIII, a global struggle in which many lives and our own existence are at stake. Kudos to a brave Democratic congressman, Jim Marshall of Georgia, who recognized the hazards of extreme partisanship.


In an interview with Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, the congressman warned, "we have a problem with overly pessimistic media coverage that emboldens our enemies, discourages our potential allies and lessens our resolve." He also said, "media bias is killing our troops." Congressman Marshall who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee was on a fact finding trip to Iraq and reported that there is good news to balance the bad but that there is " a disconnect between the reporting and the reality."


I'll say! Consider the recent release of U.S. Weapons Inspector David Kay's progress report to Congress on the search for WMD's. The New York Times headlined the story "No Illicit Arms Found in Iraq." On the other hand, John Podhoretz of the New York Post reported that key evidence was found. In both cases, the information was accurate but a careful reading of the report itself, however, not only vindicates the president's position it also supports his contention that danger was imminent.


Mr. Kay's statement includes details of a $10 million contract between North Korea and Iraq for the purchase of prohibited military equipment and 1,300-km range ballistic missiles. Military experts have concluded that the only reason North Korea did not deliver that equipment was because it knew that the U.S was going to attack Iraq. What if we had not gone to war? Mr. Kay 's reported testimony from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials confirm that Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. But don't just take my word for it. Read it yourself at www.CIA.gov.


This significance of Kay's report should have been given widespread and accurate coverage in the mainstream press. Instead it has been spun to satisfy each editor's ideological agenda and the public is further polarized. I watched a pundit on the Chris Matthews show argue that the report proves that the United States was not in danger because the missiles could not reach our shores. Apparently, the danger to Israel and the rest of the Middle East is unimportant.


It's foolish and inaccurate to bandy the word 'treason" about lightly but the level of partisan sniping is so out of control that it needs to be reined in. I am reminded of the brilliant Alec Guiness' portrayal of a British POW in Bridge on the River Kwai.


His character is so consumed with ego and ambition that he collaborates with the enemy to build a strategic bridge. Only after betraying his fellow POWs' efforts to sabotage the project and causing several of their deaths, does he come to his senses and realizes the horror of his complicity.


Memo to all journalists and rabid politicians- this is not a movie.

   



Public_Domain @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:35 pm

Fake news in 2003 eh? :lol:

   



Robair @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:42 pm

$1:
Opinions that used to be restricted to the editorial pages now cloud news articles and not only are readers recognizing that fact, they are starting to rebel.
Kind of like how fox news ends, then fox and friends begins. With no obvious change in layout, set appearance etc. Causing my father in law to start ranting and foaming at the mouth, thinking he's still watching the news...

   



Freakinoldguy @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:52 pm

Robair Robair:
$1:
Opinions that used to be restricted to the editorial pages now cloud news articles and not only are readers recognizing that fact, they are starting to rebel.
Kind of like how fox news ends, then fox and friends begins. With no obvious change in layout, set appearance etc. Causing my father in law to start ranting and foaming at the mouth, thinking he's still watching the news...


It might be better to start him watching MSNBC since they have a seamless changeover from fake news to fake discussion, all of which are on separate sets. :wink:

No more confusion about who's lying to you leads to, more harmony in the home. [cheer]



http://www.inquisitr.com/404737/most-bi ... new-study/

   



Robair @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:58 pm

Nope, Fox news 24/7 in that house.

That house is almost on the other side of the continent. Only have to politely listen to the rants with my mouth shut during visits. Due to distance, those visits aren't very often...

   



BeaverFever @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:06 pm

Popular Conservative Joe Scarborough is on MSNBC. Who's the liberal on Fox News?

Fox'a former Chief Sexual Harasser is on the Trump campaign. Who's the MSNBC equivalent in the Clinton/Obama camp?

   



BartSimpson @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:29 pm

BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Popular Conservative Joe Scarborough is on MSNBC. Who's the liberal on Fox News?


Juan Williams (formerly of NPR)

Image

Williams lost his job at NPR for being honest that activist Muslims on an airplane worried him. NPR would prefer he lie about that kind of thing.

FOX News hired him to add to that 'fair and balanced' thing of theirs and it turned out pretty well for Williams since his paycheck went from $180,000 a year at NPR to $2,000,000 in his first year at FOX.

The other notable and publicly avowed liberals at FOX News include:

Alan Colmes
Kirsten Powers
Dennis Kucinich
Shepard Smith
Geraldo Rivera
Mara Liasson
Bill Schulz
Susan Estrich
Santita Jackson
Simon Rosenberg
Howard Kurtz
Meghan McCain

   



Thanos @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:33 pm

$1:
I'll say! Consider the recent release of U.S. Weapons Inspector David Kay's progress report to Congress on the search for WMD's. The New York Times headlined the story "No Illicit Arms Found in Iraq." On the other hand, John Podhoretz of the New York Post reported that key evidence was found. In both cases, the information was accurate but a careful reading of the report itself, however, not only vindicates the president's position it also supports his contention that danger was imminent.


The guy who wrote this column was pretty much a founding father of fake conservative news with this kind of nonsense, considering the only thing they ever found in Iraq was a bunch of old artillery shells with mustard gas in them. So 5000 Allied dead plus at least a couple hundred thousand Iraqi dead as well, all to find a handful of cached shells that were about as dangerous as the hundred-year old ones they keep digging up in the old WW1 battlefields in France and Belgium? All that death and destruction to get rid of some weaponry, as well as an odious regime, that qualified less as a danger and much more like a mere nuisance? It was, like, well worth the price that all those other people (who aren't any of us on the pundit circuit) ended up paying, man! More proof that conservatism really isn't any kind of value system, not when lying comes so easily to those who speak for it. It's more just a big fuzzy ball of negative energy that bounces back and forth between increasingly radical groups of right-wing ideologues.

   



BeaverFever @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:27 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Popular Conservative Joe Scarborough is on MSNBC. Who's the liberal on Fox News?


Juan Williams (formerly of NPR)

Image

Williams lost his job at NPR for being honest that activist Muslims on an airplane worried him. NPR would prefer he lie about that kind of thing.

FOX News hired him to add to that 'fair and balanced' thing of theirs and it turned out pretty well for Williams since his paycheck went from $180,000 a year at NPR to $2,000,000 in his first year at FOX.

The other notable and publicly avowed liberals at FOX News include:

Alan Colmes
Kirsten Powers
Dennis Kucinich
Shepard Smith
Geraldo Rivera
Mara Liasson
Bill Schulz
Susan Estrich
Santita Jackson
Simon Rosenberg
Howard Kurtz
Meghan McCain


I don't think Shepherd and Geraldo are liberals.

   



DrCaleb @ Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:37 am

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Look what I found. An article from 2003 warning about fake news in the mainstream media.


$1:
fake1
fāk/
adjective: fake

1. not genuine; counterfeit.
"fake designer clothing"
synonyms: forgery, counterfeit, copy, pirate(d) copy, sham, fraud, hoax, imitation, mock-up, dummy, reproduction; More
informalphony, rip-off, knockoff, dupe
"the sculpture was a fake"
counterfeit, forged, fraudulent, sham, imitation, pirate(d), false, bogus;
invalid, inauthentic;
informalphony, dud
"fake $50 bills"
imitation, artificial, synthetic, simulated, reproduction, replica, ersatz, faux, man-made, dummy, false, mock, bogus;
informalpretend, phony, pseudo
"fake diamonds"
antonyms: genuine
(of a person) claiming to be something that one is not.
"a fake doctor"
synonyms: charlatan, fraud, fraudster, mountebank, sham, quack, humbug, impostor, hoaxer, cheat, trickster; More
informalphony, con man, con artist, scam artist
"that doctor is a fake"

noun
noun: fake; plural noun: fakes

1. a thing that is not genuine; a forgery or sham.
"the painting was a fake"
synonyms: forgery, counterfeit, copy, pirate(d) copy, sham, fraud, hoax, imitation, mock-up, dummy, reproduction; More
informalphony, rip-off, knockoff, dupe
"the sculpture was a fake"
a person who appears or claims to be something that they are not.
synonyms: charlatan, fraud, fraudster, mountebank, sham, quack, humbug, impostor, hoaxer, cheat, trickster; More
informalphony, con man, con artist, scam artist
"that doctor is a fake"

verb
verb: fake; 3rd person present: fakes; past tense: faked; past participle: faked; gerund or present participle: faking

1. forge or counterfeit (something).
"the woman faked her spouse's signature"
synonyms: forge, counterfeit, falsify, mock up, copy, pirate, reproduce, replicate; More


I understand where you confusion lies Bart. You've had it drummed into your head that bias in news means the news is fake. It's been told to you so often that now you believe it as truth.

All I can do to counter it is to keep repeating, things that don't happen that get reported as happening - that's 'fake'. Things that do happen that get reported from a biased perspective = bias.

Do you thing because Business News Network doesn't report Sports score that they are fake? It's no different than CNN reporting from a liberal bias, or FOX reporting from an alt-right bias. It's just bias, it's not 'fake'.

If they start making things up, or reporting things that someone else made up that didn't happen, then it becomes "fake", ie: counterfeit, forgery, imitation.

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:51 am

BeaverFever BeaverFever:
I don't think Shepherd and Geraldo are liberals.


Shep's coworker Megyn Kelly noted Shep is a liberal and she did so without rebuke.

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/megy ... -fox-news/

And Geraldo Rivera (whose real name is Jerry Rivers) and it's no secret that he's a social liberal with fiscally conservative leanings.

http://100percentfedup.com/fox-news-lib ... ion-video/

   



REPLY