FAKE NEWS? You haven't seen the real thing yet.

Johnnypenso
Nope. Who said anything about not liking it? If the underlying data is questionable then you can't draw conclusions and therefore the so called "facts" are fake.
Click to expand...

You're implying that you don't like the police data by calling it "questionable". Why are the figures questionable, and do you like the use of those datasets?
 
You mean you can't answer? You didn't answer if you liked the use of the datasets or why the police reporting year-on-year was questionable? The data wasn't represented as anything it wasn't, it simply had a misleading headline. The clear inference is that you didn't like it, of course.
 
TenEightyOne
You mean you can't answer? You didn't answer if you liked the use of the datasets or why the police reporting year-on-year was questionable? The data wasn't represented as anything it wasn't, it simply had a misleading headline. The clear inference is that you didn't like it, of course.
Click to expand...
The clear inference is yours, you own it, not me.
 
TenEightyOne
It's still your claim -



which is a claim that you've failed to illustrate. So, again, how are the FBI wrong in this and/or what claims are made about those data in the article which are false?
Click to expand...
Even if the increased agency participation is the sole cause of the rise in Indiana (which we don't know since we don't know how many of them may have reported a loss) this wouldn't account for the 200% rise in hate crimes in Portland, Oregon in the cities graph so I don't see how the whole article is invalidated or "fake". Media bias.
 
No, no, no, no, no . . . nothing special is going to happen on the 23rd of September 2017, apart from another round of humans being born around the world to various screams of delight.

Otherwise, predictably, it's going to be business as usual; a hot day somewhere, a cold day somewhere else, a youngster walking into the path of a motorist who is texting while driving . . . maybe (hopefully) some posts at GTPlanet that make people chuckle or learn something new.
Someone with bad credit might even get that loan approved.

Greater chance of that happening than the end of the world as we know it. Keep calm and carry on processing experiential reality. Avoid the gossip - Please and Thank You.

Cheers. :cheers:
H.
 
photonrider
No, no, no, no, no . . . nothing special is going to happen on the 23rd of September 2017, apart from another round of humans being born around the world to various screams of delight.
Click to expand...
Someone spouting an "end of world" story again?
 
Obelisk
Someone spouting an "end of world" story again?
Click to expand...

Some religious nutjob somewhere, also heard something about a wiki-page that documents like 170+ past religion-based dooms-day theories that never happened.

That's all I heard over the radio this morning before switching stations.
 
Well Nibiru is a jerk of a planet. If it ends the world on the 23rd, that means I'll miss a day of football on the 24th.

Doomsday prophecies always make me laugh, there's almost no logical thought put into them. Also that article (the CBS one) continues to perpetuate the misconception that the Mayan calendar ended in 2012, the calendar doesn't really end for some absurdly future date (like trillions of years).
 
ryzno
May I ask what it is then?
It is fake and being discussed on various news platforms.
Click to expand...
Fake news is the reporting of fiction as fact, not the reporting of fiction as fiction.

The title of your second link's title clearly sets out that it's not real. Your first link presents the claim, and then immediately brings out experts debunking it. That's not "fake news". It would be fake news if the article reported the doomsday scenario as if it's definitely an actual thing that is really going to happen.
 
Famine
Fake news is the reporting of fiction as fact, not the reporting of fiction as fiction.

The title of your second link's title clearly sets out that it's not real. Your first link presents the claim, and then immediately brings out experts debunking it. That's not "fake news". It would be fake news if the article reported the doomsday scenario as if it's definitely an actual thing that is really going to happen.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but...

I always got the impression that fake news was really about things that were not newsworthy. Am I wrong?

Incidentally, @TenEightyOne, is the guy in your avatar holding his hand to his mouth, or smoking a cigarette? or both?
 
Danoff
I always got the impression that fake news was really about things that were not newsworthy. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I don't remember it even being a thing before Trump, but in essence it's new-speak for propaganda (not the good kind). Presumably because Trump can spell "fake news"... The definition is loose, but ultimately requires information that is false being posted as if it were true in order to mislead.

During the last election cycle it became a term that meant non-traditional news sources that post unverified information to social media, and Trump has since gone on to use it as an insult against traditional news sources that he doesn't like - essentially turning media bias into an accusation of posting actually untrue information.

The problem is that Trump's use of it has made it into a rather confusing catch-all that pretty much now means "I don't believe you" or "What you say doesn't agree with my own opinion". Vaccines work? Fake news. Earth is round? Fake news. 9/11 was terrorism? Fake news.

A lot of satire sites are falling under the banner too. As a lot of people believe anything posted to social media, they react to satire as if it's real news and when they find out it's a joke, FAKE NEWS...


Stuff that isn't newsworthy has kept the last five minutes of televised news alive since 1947 :D
 
Famine
Fake news is the reporting of fiction as fact, not the reporting of fiction as fiction.

The title of your second link's title clearly sets out that it's not real. Your first link presents the claim, and then immediately brings out experts debunking it. That's not "fake news". It would be fake news if the article reported the doomsday scenario as if it's definitely an actual thing that is really going to happen.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
That's why I posted the second link.
I still think it qualifies as fake news though. Some people won't even bother to read it or read it in whole and just run with the headline.
 
ryzno
I still think it qualifies as fake news though. Some people won't even bother to read it or read it in whole and just run with the headline.
Click to expand...

The man quoted in the headline did say the world would end on September 23rd. That's a fact which is true which the headline reflects. The fact that he's wrong doesn't make it fake news.
 
Frida Sophia didn't exist.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/mexico-shocked-news-girl-trapped-rubble-exist-50015049

_____________
Note: Those of you intent on attaching the phrase 'fake news' to any particular entity - what are your motives? The concept of false information has existed for a long, long, long time . . .. Get over it, stop politicizing it. Please and Thank You. Whenever anybody believes something false and passes it around - whether word-of-mouth or chiselled in clay - that's fake news.
This thread highlights that activity.
 
photonrider
Whenever anybody believes something false and passes it around - whether word-of-mouth or chiselled in clay - that's fake news.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's very specifically false information presented as if it is true, by media, in order to mislead. By your version, if someone answers a question in a pub quiz wrongly and convinces his team that it's right, believing it's the right answer, it's fake news. You're rather missing the "news" aspect of the phrase.

Superstition is something people believe and pass around that is false. It's superstition, not "fake news" - unless presented as if it is true by a media outlet.
Religion is something people believe and pass around that is false*. It's religion, not "fake news" - unless presented as if it is true by a media outlet.


Even your link isn't fake news. It's certainly news that didn't turn out to be true, but the media was reporting facts they believed to be true. For it to be fake news, it needs to be facts they know are untrue, published with the intent to mislead.


*Even if you believe yours is true, all the others must be false
 
Last edited:
I'd just like to warn you all that anyone wishing to take advantage of the Oktoberfest burger and beer deal at Honest Burgers - they stop selling them on 2nd October. FAKE NEWS!!

The local garden centre advertised a 2-for-1 offer on multi-purpose compost but when I got to the till the lady told me that the offer ended on Saturday and they'd forgotten to take the sign down. FAKE NEWS!!

Honestly, it's getting so much these days that you don't know who to trust.
 
I'm sure this isn't going to qualify for "fake news" but I can't really think of another thread to post it in.(Funny Strange news stories?)
No More Child Support After 2017?
http://www.snopes.com/no-child-support-2017/

Which makes me wonder if we should consider social media posts as fake news.
They spread like wild fire...
 
ryzno
Which makes me wonder if we should consider social media posts as fake news.
They spread like wild fire...
Click to expand...

Already well-covered in this thread... if they're published by a news organisation as news then they're news. If they're published by idiots on facebook then they're **** published by idiots on facebook.
 
When I think of "fake news," I think of The Onion. I don't think CNN is "fake news." I definitely think that they and MSNBC are biased and get their talking points from the DNC, but that doesn't mean what they report is fake.
 
stonesfan129
When I think of "fake news," I think of The Onion. I don't think CNN is "fake news." I definitely think that they and MSNBC are biased and get their talking points from the DNC, but that doesn't mean what they report is fake.
Click to expand...
I guess that means Breitbart has a direct line to the RNC then. Although with Bannon getting canned, maybe not any more.

Either way, media bias sounds like the correct explanation to me.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back