What to do with Trump between now and when Biden takes over

[houndawg]

BDMBKNT

Densedawg the slow retarded kid who takes 10 days to reply..

Just making sure you had enough time to finish your thought.

[UNI88]

I’m not sure you guys quite understand what fake news means or how reporting works.

Lol. yeah, I’m only married to a reporter. in the “good old days” 25 years ago, you didn’t run with shit like the first story without checking, double checking and triple checking your facts, sources, etc. Now, it’s print on rumor, issue correction on fact (or not at all in many cases with MSM).

Maybe if you explain it to Jelly really slowly he won't fall for it again.

[AZGrizFan]

Lol. yeah, I’m only married to a reporter. in the “good old days” 25 years ago, you didn’t run with shit like the first story without checking, double checking and triple checking your facts, sources, etc. Now, it’s print on rumor, issue correction on fact (or not at all in many cases with MSM).

I believe the accusation was “peddling fake news”. What part of Jelly’s post was “fake news”? That someone on Twitter posted that CNN and NBC reported on something that actually happened? Where did they get that information from? Did any of it not happen? Was their a “developing” or “continuing” story tag line? Even if anything in the first tweet were incorrect, has there since been a correction, retraction, or continuing new information?

Did they not have retractions, ombudsman, et al 25 years ago?

Literally the ONLY thing that was “factual” in the first tweet was that there’d been an arrest.

[kalm]

I believe the accusation was “peddling fake news”. What part of Jelly’s post was “fake news”? That someone on Twitter posted that CNN and NBC reported on something that actually happened? Where did they get that information from? Did any of it not happen? Was their a “developing” or “continuing” story tag line? Even if anything in the first tweet were incorrect, has there since been a correction, retraction, or continuing new information?

Did they not have retractions, ombudsman, et al 25 years ago?

Literally the ONLY thing that was “factual” in the first tweet was that there’d been an arrest.

The entire tweet as accurate...literally. Here’s also a follow up for the less news savvy...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newswe ... 68%3famp=1

[UNI88]

Literally the ONLY thing that was “factual” in the first tweet was that there’d been an arrest.

The entire tweet as accurate...literally. Here’s also a follow up for the less news savvy...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newswe ... 68%3famp=1

Why did Jelly post the Tweet? Because he thought it was newsworthy and relevant? Or because he thought it would reflect poorly on the alt-right? If it was the latter, then it was another fail.

[GannonFan]

Lol. yeah, I’m only married to a reporter. in the “good old days” 25 years ago, you didn’t run with shit like the first story without checking, double checking and triple checking your facts, sources, etc. Now, it’s print on rumor, issue correction on fact (or not at all in many cases with MSM).

I believe the accusation was “peddling fake news”. What part of Jelly’s post was “fake news”? That someone on Twitter posted that CNN and NBC reported on something that actually happened? Where did they get that information from? Did any of it not happen? Was their a “developing” or “continuing” story tag line? Even if anything in the first tweet were incorrect, has there since been a correction, retraction, or continuing new information?

Did they not have retractions, ombudsman, et al 25 years ago?

Now you're being naive. How often do we see a news story that hits headlines, and then, when proven to be either inaccurate or just flat out wrong, the correction gets reported, but not anywhere near the same level of headlines as the initial, incomplete (or just wrong) story? How is that not on the same level as "peddling fake news"? Just because the motivation may be slightly more moral? In the end, a story that wasn't true, at least not in how it was told, entered the public sphere, and the correction of it got much less notice, meaning that many people only heard and only know of the initial, wrong story. It's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and then, under your breath, while everyone is running pell-mell (love that word) for the exits, whispering "my bad, there's no fire". I suppose you can pretend you didn't peddle fake news because you corrected it, but for an outside observer not privvy to your inner conscience I'm not sure that really matters.

[kalm]

I believe the accusation was “peddling fake news”. What part of Jelly’s post was “fake news”? That someone on Twitter posted that CNN and NBC reported on something that actually happened? Where did they get that information from? Did any of it not happen? Was their a “developing” or “continuing” story tag line? Even if anything in the first tweet were incorrect, has there since been a correction, retraction, or continuing new information?

Did they not have retractions, ombudsman, et al 25 years ago?

Now you're being naive. How often do we see a news story that hits headlines, and then, when proven to be either inaccurate or just flat out wrong, the correction gets reported, but not anywhere near the same level of headlines as the initial, incomplete (or just wrong) story? How is that not on the same level as "peddling fake news"? Just because the motivation may be slightly more moral? In the end, a story that wasn't true, at least not in how it was told, entered the public sphere, and the correction of it got much less notice, meaning that many people only heard and only know of the initial, wrong story. It's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and then, under your breath, while everyone is running pell-mell (love that word) for the exits, whispering "my bad, there's no fire". I suppose you can pretend you didn't peddle fake news because you corrected it, but for an outside observer not privvy to your inner conscience I'm not sure that really matters.

Simmer down, Sparky.

It’s also similar to “breaking news” chyrons in sensationalism. I get it.

Twitter is not a news source but often used as such. If a tweet links or references a legit source it has more value. But like all information, it requires skepticism and can easily be judged and dismissed.

“Fake news” in popular lingo tends to refer to anything the msm reports that doesn’t jive with one’s sensibilities.

[GannonFan]

Now you're being naive. How often do we see a news story that hits headlines, and then, when proven to be either inaccurate or just flat out wrong, the correction gets reported, but not anywhere near the same level of headlines as the initial, incomplete (or just wrong) story? How is that not on the same level as "peddling fake news"? Just because the motivation may be slightly more moral? In the end, a story that wasn't true, at least not in how it was told, entered the public sphere, and the correction of it got much less notice, meaning that many people only heard and only know of the initial, wrong story. It's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and then, under your breath, while everyone is running pell-mell (love that word) for the exits, whispering "my bad, there's no fire". I suppose you can pretend you didn't peddle fake news because you corrected it, but for an outside observer not privvy to your inner conscience I'm not sure that really matters.

Simmer down, Sparky.

It’s also similar to “breaking news” chyrons in sensationalism. I get it.

Twitter is not a news source but often used as such. If a tweet links or references a legit source it has more value. But like all information, it requires skepticism and can easily be judged and dismissed.

“Fake news” in popular lingo tends to refer to anything the msm reports that doesn’t jive with one’s sensibilities.

Doubling down on the naivete there, "Sparky". That requires there to be "legit" news sources (and certainly one of the casualties of the Trump presidency has been news sources gutting their own legitimacy) and it's getting harder and harder to judge and dismiss news stories, especially at the rate at which they are produced. The chyrons are pretty much what are important these days.

[AZGrizFan]

Now you're being naive. How often do we see a news story that hits headlines, and then, when proven to be either inaccurate or just flat out wrong, the correction gets reported, but not anywhere near the same level of headlines as the initial, incomplete (or just wrong) story? How is that not on the same level as "peddling fake news"? Just because the motivation may be slightly more moral? In the end, a story that wasn't true, at least not in how it was told, entered the public sphere, and the correction of it got much less notice, meaning that many people only heard and only know of the initial, wrong story. It's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and then, under your breath, while everyone is running pell-mell (love that word) for the exits, whispering "my bad, there's no fire". I suppose you can pretend you didn't peddle fake news because you corrected it, but for an outside observer not privvy to your inner conscience I'm not sure that really matters.

Simmer down, Sparky.

It’s also similar to “breaking news” chyrons in sensationalism. I get it.

Twitter is not a news source but often used as such. If a tweet links or references a legit source it has more value. But like all information, it requires skepticism and can easily be judged and dismissed.

“Fake news” in popular lingo tends to refer to anything the msm reports that doesn’t jive with one’s sensibilities.

Here’s the thing: back in the day, REAL reporters would have verified the initial story before “breaking” it. Then the National Enquirer and TMZ became popular and the entire journalism profession collectively shit the bed and became TMZ. Facts and multiple sources became mere annoyances that were easily avoided. Editors look the other way if the story meets their desired narrative. Like this one. THAT’S why it’s fake news.

[UNI88]

Simmer down, Sparky.

It’s also similar to “breaking news” chyrons in sensationalism. I get it.

Twitter is not a news source but often used as such. If a tweet links or references a legit source it has more value. But like all information, it requires skepticism and can easily be judged and dismissed.

“Fake news” in popular lingo tends to refer to anything the msm reports that doesn’t jive with one’s sensibilities.

Here’s the thing: back in the day, REAL reporters would have verified the initial story before “breaking” it. Then the National Enquirer and TMZ became popular and the entire journalism profession collectively shit the bed and became TMZ. Facts and multiple sources became mere annoyances that were easily avoided. Editors look the other way if the story meets their desired narrative. Like this one. THAT’S why it’s fake news.

Trump and his team of legal beagles were unable to provide verifiable proof that the election was stolen. That narrative must be fake news too.

[AZGrizFan]

Here’s the thing: back in the day, REAL reporters would have verified the initial story before “breaking” it. Then the National Enquirer and TMZ became popular and the entire journalism profession collectively shit the bed and became TMZ. Facts and multiple sources became mere annoyances that were easily avoided. Editors look the other way if the story meets their desired narrative. Like this one. THAT’S why it’s fake news.

Trump and his team of legal beagles were unable to provide verifiable proof that the election was stolen. That narrative must be fake news too.

And it was reported as such from the very beginning.

[UNI88]

Trump and his team of legal beagles were unable to provide verifiable proof that the election was stolen. That narrative must be fake news too.

And it was reported as such from the very beginning.

The MAGAts were buying that fake news narrative hook, line and sinker and still are.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

And it was reported as such from the very beginning.

The MAGAts were buying that fake news narrative hook, line and sinker and still are.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Well what someone is “buying” and what’s being reported are very often two very different things.

[UNI88]

The MAGAts were buying that fake news narrative hook, line and sinker and still are.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Well what someone is “buying” and what’s being reported are very often two very different things.

I would argue that BDK has bought the fake news that has been peddled by Trump. Many of the rioters/seditionists at the Capitol obviously bought the fake news.

Speaking of reporting, what are OAN and their ilk reporting? Have they confirmed their stories with reputable sources? Or are they peddling conspiracy theories without proof?

[AZGrizFan]

Well what someone is “buying” and what’s being reported are very often two very different things.

I would argue that BDK has bought the fake news that has been peddled by Trump. Many of the rioters/seditionists at the Capitol obviously bought the fake news.

Speaking of reporting, what are OAN and their ilk reporting? Have they confirmed their stories with reputable sources? Or are they peddling conspiracy theories without proof?

And you are buying the fake news by labeling someone protesting something you apparently disagree with as "seditionists".

And I have never watched 5 seconds of OAN, so I can't answer that question for you.

[Ibanez]

Well what someone is “buying” and what’s being reported are very often two very different things.

I would argue that BDK has bought the fake news that has been peddled by Trump. Many of the rioters/seditionists at the Capitol obviously bought the fake news.

Speaking of reporting, what are OAN and their ilk reporting? Have they confirmed their stories with reputable sources? Or are they peddling conspiracy theories without proof?

I tried watching a few minutes of OAN the other day. Absolutely awful. They weren't reporting on anything political but the lead up to a story said one thing and then the actual "reporting" said something completely different. That happened a few times (it was a young guy reporting, forget his name).

[UNI88]

I would argue that BDK has bought the fake news that has been peddled by Trump. Many of the rioters/seditionists at the Capitol obviously bought the fake news.

Speaking of reporting, what are OAN and their ilk reporting? Have they confirmed their stories with reputable sources? Or are they peddling conspiracy theories without proof?

And you are buying the fake news by labeling someone protesting something you apparently disagree with as "seditionists".

And I have never watched 5 seconds of OAN, so I can't answer that question for you.

Loaded question. I consider them rioters not seditionists but that's an opinion, others have a different opinion.

The fake news that they've bought is that the election was stolen. Trump and his formunda suckers keep peddling the conspiracy but can't prove it = fake news.

[AZGrizFan]

And you are buying the fake news by labeling someone protesting something you apparently disagree with as "seditionists".

And I have never watched 5 seconds of OAN, so I can't answer that question for you.

Loaded question. I consider them rioters not seditionists but that's an opinion, others have a different opinion.

The fake news that they've bought is that the election was stolen. Trump and his formunda suckers keep peddling the conspiracy but can't prove it = fake news.

well Trump isn't a news source, so it's more of a "fake opinion"....no news source (other than maybe OAN, or some such BS) has reported it as fact, have they?

[SDHornet]

Loaded question. I consider them rioters not seditionists but that's an opinion, others have a different opinion.

The fake news that they've bought is that the election was stolen. Trump and his formunda suckers keep peddling the conspiracy but can't prove it = fake news.

well Trump isn't a news source, so it's more of a "fake opinion"....no news source (other than maybe OAN, or some such BS) has reported it as fact, have they?

But his tweets though...

[kalm]

Loaded question. I consider them rioters not seditionists but that's an opinion, others have a different opinion.

The fake news that they've bought is that the election was stolen. Trump and his formunda suckers keep peddling the conspiracy but can't prove it = fake news.

well Trump isn't a news source, so it's more of a "fake opinion"....no news source (other than maybe OAN, or some such BS) has reported it as fact, have they?

50% of Republicans believe the fraud story. Where are they getting their news?

[UNI88]

well Trump isn't a news source, so it's more of a "fake opinion"....no news source (other than maybe OAN, or some such BS) has reported it as fact, have they?

But his tweets though...

Many in his base thinks his tweets are a reputable news source.

[AZGrizFan]

well Trump isn't a news source, so it's more of a "fake opinion"....no news source (other than maybe OAN, or some such BS) has reported it as fact, have they?

50% of Republicans believe the fraud story. Where are they getting their news?

same place most people get their news. Twitter, Tic Tok, Facebook and Snapchat.