On December 7, 2016 2:01:32 PM EST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using
On 12/06/2016 10:46 PM, Razer wrote: their
data to create #FakeNews.
https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change
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 newsare ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and many others, called the "MSM". We saw in the recent election seasonthat 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 theelection, especially. Sure, there's the "fake news" meme, but I don't recall a single email that camefrom the DNC/Podesta/Weiner camp that was claimed to have been "fake": By and large, eventuallythe MSM simply refused to publicize them.
There's no question the DNC fucked itself with its dirty shenanigans to fuck Sanders for Clinton, a fucking god awful candidate. That said, some of the fake news conspiratard shit has ended up causing a lunatic with a gun to go "investigating" .... (Pizzagate HEH). Nobody looks good in this election. Then again, I can't think of a counter example ;). (Obama as first black president was mildly inspiring if you paid zero attention to the details eg his global assassination program, etc etc) John
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. Anaverage person would have a good clue that a given story was fake if it came solely from a givensource, 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 onone 'side', and not another. This meant that ordinary people no longer had this as a clue to tell themwhich thing to believe, and which not to. Jim Bell
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.