"Fake news networks"

[Mightysword]

And yet Donald Trump seems to pump the term out daily... ever criticised his use of it?

Your point being?

First: I don't remember seeing myself excluding him for that. Rather I repeatedly said both left and right are in this game, one is the pot and one is the kettle.

Secondly: a friendly reminder this topic here is to talk about fake news itself, not about Trump specifically. There is another thread if you want to make this about Trump.

[Chips]

And yet Donald Trump seems to pump the term out daily... ever criticised his use of it?

Your point being?

First: I don't remember seeing myself excluding him for that. Rather I repeatedly said both left and right are in this game, one is the pot and one is the kettle.

Secondly: a friendly reminder this topic here is to talk about fake news itself, not about Trump specifically. There is another thread if you want to make this about Trump.

Ah, i see, so fake news discussion without actually referring to someone who is notorious and indeed popularised the entire phrase. I understand the parameters you're imposing on the discussion and considered it censored content to mention... him. Because, you know, can't mention a name in another topic (my reference to him was due to your explicit "especially the left" comment, which indicates not quite the "it's left/right" as you subsequently claim to make it - but no matter - especially given you repeatedly refer to the left as Trump(eting) this line out).

[Vertigo 7]

Ah, i see, so fake news discussion without actually referring to someone who is notorious and indeed popularised the entire phrase. I understand the parameters you're imposing on the discussion and considered it censored content to mention... him. Because, you know, can't mention a name in another topic (my reference to him was due to your explicit "especially the left" comment, which indicates not quite the "it's left/right" as you subsequently claim to make it - but no matter - especially given you repeatedly refer to the left as Trump(eting) this line out).

Well, like when he tried to redefine standards of living for 370 million people with a total BS story, attempting to deflect from the king of lies can be just as easily dismissed and ignored.

It is incredibly hypocritical of Trump to use "fake news" as a defense when he has told 15,000 verifiable lies as of 12/10/2019. To claim that he is not worthy of direct mention in a thread about fake news is "fake news" itself. Some people just have to lie to make themselves seem relevant and informed. Fortunately, few of those people become a nation's leader, though I would argue that any is too many. Though, in Trump's case... he came out of the gate screaming "fake news" because he was a known liar before he entered politics and he knew he was going to be called out frequently.

And again, Trump's use of Cambridge Analytica to target voters on social media with disinformation during the 2016 campaign is incredibly relevant to this topic. Trump did try to run for president in 2000 and his campaign failed spectacularly, arguably because the ability to weaponize disinformation that he employed wasn't available then. It was his use of social media to vilify his opponents in conjunction with targeted political adds that allowed him to gain traction.

[Mightysword]

Ah, i see, so fake news discussion without actually referring to someone who is notorious and indeed popularised the entire phrase. I understand the parameters you're imposing on the discussion and considered it censored content to mention... him. Because, you know, can't mention a name in another topic (my reference to him was due to your explicit "especially the left" comment, which indicates not quite the "it's left/right" as you subsequently claim to make it - but no matter - especially given you repeatedly refer to the left as Trump(eting) this line out).

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, I simply said it to ensure the discussion does not go off topic and descend into another Trump thread. I had said many time, in many different threads that I hope you would least recall that I don't have an obsession with Trump, not everything revolves around him, at least not for every person. The left, the right they had existed long before Trump. At least for me, when I refer to the right I don't put Trump face on it, just like I don't consider neither Warren nor Sander a representative of the left. However, being neutral doesn't mean I must abstain from pointing out what I consider an objective facts, whether it it is to the benefit or detrimental to either side of the argument. I don't know why so many people have this idea being subjective/neutral is the same as not having opinion. I'm not good at explaining thing, so I'll point you to Alan Phipps's post, he refuted the point I made base on what I said (about the exposure of fake news to older people). To me that's an objective argument. Yours seem to be a provocation or a bait, and I'm just saying I don't like to take it. I'm not interested in a "you vs me", "us vs them" tussel. Sometime I talk about the pot, sometime I talk about the ket, they are both black to me.

And please, I start seeing some "heavy" words here, so I'll just take a step back. I'm neither a moderator nor the original creator of this thread, I have no power to censor or imposing on any person here. I simply inform you that I have no intention of entertaining taking the discussion in that direction. It's because I respect the people who 'quote' me that I feel I should always inform them, whether giving them a response to what they said or simply to inform I'm not interested (like I did to you). If you insist talking about Trump, not like I can stop you, I simply won't be part of it in this thread.

And lastly, as I was typing this post a perfect example for the reason why I want to head-off the potential of this turning into a Trump thread were made right before. You would have read the post above before you read this, you WILL understand why I'm exercising such caution. I hope I had make my intention and reason clear, but you are of course free to take it however you wish. But it will be the last time I mention Trump in this thread. I know this post is a bit ironic itself given how I don't want to talk about Trump, but I feel I own you at least one explanation.

Just once though.

[Vertigo 7]

Case in point.

I don't have a Twitter account. I'm not active on Face Book. I don't utilize snap chat or tik tok or whatever. But when Trump tweets something, I hear about it through news outlets and other things, which plenty of older people see as well. This isn't new. This has been the norm since he took to Twitter more than 3 years ago. I know he's not the only politician using Twitter and what not, but as he is the POTUS and chooses to use Twitter instead of a press release or a news conference to address the public, it's reportable news. It also shields him from accountability since he can say whatever he wants to and not have to answer any challenges to his assertions.

I'll give him credit, it's smart. His tweets can reach more people than any rally can and doesn't cost him a dime to do it. Why lie to thousands when you can lie to millions with a push of a button? It's rather insidious. He tweets about it, news reports on it, people across the country and further hear about it whether they want to or not and it doesn't even have to be factual and he knows that and relies on that. It's like he's a little Putin protege without KGB style assassinations.

Fortunately, we do still have a free press that will fact check his BS. Unfortunately, we do still have a large swath of the population that just accepts what he says at face value. It's because of the latter that makes Trump such a danger.

I don't know what the political spectrum exactly looks like in the UK. I mean, I'm aware of some of BoJo's antics including, like Trump, utilizing Cambridge Analytica for the pro-Brexit campaign. But I don't know what/how much social media is playing a role in politics there like it is here. I'm really curious what the state of affairs there is. Any of you Brits care to enlighten me on how things are moving there? I'm really curious to know if you guys are getting slammed with the same torrential level of BS that we are.

[EmperorDragon]

Well, I googled II and AC disinformation campaigns and came up blank. Can you elaborate on it / them please? Also, do have you any supporting evidence for your assertion that the BBC is "one of the most notorious fake news networks"?

Cheers,


RM

The Integrity Initiative/Institute of Statecraft scandal was quite widely reported (not on the Beeb, of course). Even Google (known for deranking inconvenient truths) returns varied results. Several BBC staff were involved.

Quickly pulled from Google (I prefer DuckDuckGo and Cryptome.org):

https://www.globalresearch.ca/inside-th ... ar/5663465
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article ... r-playbook
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-a ... -see-this/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn1rwgBJKPs

The Atlantic Council is an already well-known NATO-funded propaganda "think-tank" (these "think-tanks" tend to spring up like moss after a rainy season whenever there's a war to be started).

But as I said, it's always best to go places and investigate yourself. The most accurate source of information is your own pair of eyes, they cannot lie to you.

EDIT: In short, it's basically the modern-day equivalent of Operation Mockingbird (yes, fake news and disinformation is nothing new, not at all).

[RegisterMe]

The Integrity Initiative/Institute of Statecraft scandal was quite widely reported (not on the Beeb, of course). Even Google (known for deranking inconvenient truths) returns varied results. Several BBC staff were involved.

Quickly pulled from Google (I prefer DuckDuckGo and Cryptome.org):

https://www.globalresearch.ca/inside-th ... ar/5663465
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article ... r-playbook
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-a ... -see-this/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn1rwgBJKPs

The Atlantic Council is an already well-known NATO-funded propaganda "think-tank" (these "think-tanks" tend to spring up like moss after a rainy season whenever there's a war to be started).

But as I said, it's always best to go places and investigate yourself. The most accurate source of information is your own pair of eyes, they cannot lie to you.

EDIT: In short, it's basically the modern-day equivalent of Operation Mockingbird (yes, fake news and disinformation is nothing new, not at all).

Thanks for taking the time to reply. It's all a little tinfoil hat for my liking but I appreciate the effort and the perspective.

* "Global Research" is, to use Rational Wiki's description a "crank magnet". Note the comments on it being on the anti-spam list for English Wikipedia (because of its frequent and recurring inaccuracies), and it's frequent repeating of Russian propaganda.
* The Morning Star is... reliably the Morning Star. I'm not going to claim that it's crank land, or conspiratorial, but it is obviously and openly extremely left wing in its perspective and reporting.
* I know nothing about The Canary other than what I can read about it on wikipedia. I note that the article you linked to offered no sources. The Institute of Statecraft sounds like some half-arsed moody charity that probably shouldn't be either a charity or receiving funding from governments (assuming that it actually does), either way, if it's trying to orchestrate some kind of global conspiracy it's not doing a very good job of it.

You'll no doubt disagree with me but from my perspective, with the exception of the Morning Star, all of those above are far closer to the "fake news" end of the spectrum than the BBC.