On 12/07/2016 11:01 AM, jim bell wrote:

   From: Shawn K. Quinn [1]<skquinn@rushpost.com>
   On 12/06/2016 10:46 PM, Razer wrote:
   >> The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using
   their
   >> data to create #FakeNews.
   >
   >>
   [2]https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-c
   hange
   >
   >> ROTF!
   >Good for them. We need more real news, and less fake news.
   We could agree with THAT, but I happen to believe that the main
   American sources of fake news
   are ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and many others, called the "MSM".

   Oh absolutely. #FakeNews is called Government Press Releases, and
   Official Stories (from often un-named sources) which the media can
   parrot fully indemnified because News REPORTING requires no obligation
   to fact-check those sorts of official items. Like fact check to see if
   that CWD lab outside Saddam's 'palace' is really what it's claimed to
   be  "By Official Sources".  Journalists and Critics are tasked with
   that, and they ARE obstructed at every turn. There's WAY more
   'reporting' than investigative journalism and critics are often bought
   off.
   Rr

    We saw in the recent election season
   that these organizations were tending to avoid covering things that
   were negative to Hillary Clinton.
   This was particularly true once the Wikileaks leaks became heavy, a
   couple of months before the
   election, especially.  Sure, there's the "fake news" meme, but I don't
   recall a single email that came
   from the DNC/Podesta/Weiner camp that was claimed to have been "fake":
    By and large, eventually
   the MSM simply refused to publicize them.
   That's one big reason I blame the MSM itself for the "fake news"
   phenomenon.  In prior election
   cycles, generally all the outlets covered all the stories...with a
   different slant and spin, of course.  An
   average person would have a good clue that a given story was fake if it
   came solely from a given
   source, or 'side'.  But in 2016 the public observed that the MSM was
   studiously limiting its coverage
   on those issues that happened to be negative to Hillary.  I'm not
   saying that they entirely avoided
   them, but I think most people would agree that their coverage was
   completely stilted.
   As a consequence, it became virtually "normal" for there to be
   apparently-quite-legitimate stories on
   one 'side', and not another.  This meant that ordinary people no longer
   had this as a clue to tell them
   which thing to believe, and which not to.
              Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:skquinn@rushpost.com
   2. https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change