WWTBAM Bored

For anyone who wants to learn more about how to trust a news story, here are the articles I used in class this past week to work with college students.

The first one provides several tips on how to decide if a story is valid. The first tip is to consider the source. If we see Reuters, NY Times, AP, BBC, CNN, we can assume these folks think what they have is correct. They will make a mistake now and then, but they are not deliberately TRYING to trick us. If I don't see a trusted source in the URL, I don't click the headline/link. There is no reason to give them any clicks.

The second link is about a guy who confessed to writing fake news. It is very detailed and interesting, to see that it was just some guy trying to make money, not even a sinister Russian.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/p ... 19744.html

Ritterskoop wrote: If we see Reuters, NY Times, AP, BBC, CNN, we can assume these folks think what they have is correct.

Some Bored members like Flock would disagree with you there.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote: If we see Reuters, NY Times, AP, BBC, CNN, we can assume these folks think what they have is correct.

Some Bored members like Flock would disagree with you there.

Yes, I definitely disagree. Many of these news sources have an agenda, a narrative, that they consciously or unconsciously follow. It is mostly subtle, but sometimes it is blaring.

A couple of examples:

Go back and look at the questions that were asked of Trump and Clinton during the CNN debates.

When Miami/Dade county changed their Sanctuary City policy after President Trump threatened to withhold federal funding, many of your 'Trusted' sources carried a headline like 'Miami caves to Trump' instead of something like 'Miami complies with federal law.'

Most of the 'trusted' new sources continue to blur the specific definitions of 'Immigrant' and 'Illegal Immigrant'. A person that comes to our country to settle here and complies with our laws to become a legal resident and possibly later a citizen is an Immigrant. Someone who comes over our borders covertly or gets a legal visa and stays here after it expires are NOT immigrants. They are people, and we need to have compassion for them, but they are here illegally, which is patently unfair to those immigrants who follow our laws and a potential danger and burden to all who live here. The difference should not be blurred. But those 'trusted' news sources only site the difference when it suits their narrative.

Ritterskoop wrote:For anyone who wants to learn more about how to trust a news story, here are the articles I used in class this past week to work with college students.

The first one provides several tips on how to decide if a story is valid. The first tip is to consider the source. If we see Reuters, NY Times, AP, BBC, CNN, we can assume these folks think what they have is correct. They will make a mistake now and then, but they are not deliberately TRYING to trick us. If I don't see a trusted source in the URL, I don't click the headline/link. There is no reason to give them any clicks.

The second link is about a guy who confessed to writing fake news. It is very detailed and interesting, to see that it was just some guy trying to make money, not even a sinister Russian.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/p ... 19744.html

I see you've excluded Fox and the Washington Post while including CNN and the NYT. I would group these four together as "think what they have is correct" but would not necessarily put my credibility on the line by saying "not deliberately TRYING to trick us".

For me, this is factually true but paints a pretty poor picture of me.

While he was a pretty good husband in 2016, this year, so far he made it just 34 days without beating his wife, and just under 5 weeks without cheating on her.

So much of what one trusts to be true and accurate is pre-filtered by the person's personal world view and one's assessment of a story begins with whatever side of the issue they are on to begin with.

I did not intend to exclude any news sources in particular; I just listed the first few that came to mind.

We each have our own list, and that is part of the situation. What I was trying to emphasize is that respected, respectable news organizations get confirmation from multiple sources before they publish a thing (and that now means online as well as print).

With two independent sources, a respected, respectable news organization is fulfilling its obligation to do its best to report true facts.

I have written before about biases: that we all have them and that we wold do better to acknowledge them rather than try to pretend we are truly neutral. It is impossible to be truly neutral. We all bring something to the story. If we truly only list facts, without any narrative, that's not an article but a list.

I continue to emphasize that we must rely more than ever that respected, respectable journalists are the place to get facts we can trust more than most other outlets, many of which are trying to get our traffic and not our trust.

I still think my orignal statement stands, that the news organizations I listed think that what they have is correct.

I did not say that they are correct, only that their intention is to be correct.

Ritterskoop wrote:I still think my orignal statement stands, that the news organizations I listed think that what they have is correct.

I did not say that they are correct, only that their intention is to be correct.

At least they're all calling out Trump and company on their lies.

Bob Juch wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I still think my orignal statement stands, that the news organizations I listed think that what they have is correct.

I did not say that they are correct, only that their intention is to be correct.

At least they're all calling out Trump and company on their lies.

Yes, like the lie that he moved the MLK bust.

Compare the treatment of President Trump in his first few weeks as President with that of President Obama's. The 'trusted' news sources seem to have a mission to find everything they can to criticise Trump, even to the point of making it up, no matter how petty. They idolized Obama.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I still think my orignal statement stands, that the news organizations I listed think that what they have is correct.

I did not say that they are correct, only that their intention is to be correct.

At least they're all calling out Trump and company on their lies.

Yes, like the lie that he moved the MLK bust.

Compare the treatment of President Trump in his first few weeks as President with that of President Obama's. The 'trusted' news sources seem to have a mission to find everything they can to criticise Trump, even to the point of making it up, no matter how petty. They idolized Obama.

The MLK bust was a mistake; it wasn't "making it up." The reporter thought that the bust had been removed because he didn't see it in its usual spot and noted that in a tweet, not an official story. And as soon as they realized their mistake, they corrected it.

Many of the other things the news reports on are things that Trump, Spicer, Conway, and company KEEP BRINGING UP, over and over, like the size of the inaugural crowds. That story would have died down in one day if Trump hadn't made a big deal about it and kept lying about it. And he's the one that keeps bringing up the "historic landslide" he won by. That's his M.O., and it hasn't changed since the campaign. When caught in a lie, double down, and repeat it over and over. And if you're challenged on your lies, claim media bias.

If Obama had persisted in repeating discredited and debunked lies, the media would have called him out on it as well. But no president has played as fast and loose with the truth as Trump has, not either Bush and not Reagan.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: At least they're all calling out Trump and company on their lies.

Yes, like the lie that he moved the MLK bust.

Compare the treatment of President Trump in his first few weeks as President with that of President Obama's. The 'trusted' news sources seem to have a mission to find everything they can to criticise Trump, even to the point of making it up, no matter how petty. They idolized Obama.

The MLK bust was a mistake; it wasn't "making it up." The reporter thought that the bust had been removed because he didn't see it in its usual spot and noted that in a tweet, not an official story. And as soon as they realized their mistake, they corrected it.

Many of the other things the news reports on are things that Trump, Spicer, Conway, and company KEEP BRINGING UP, over and over, like the size of the inaugural crowds. That story would have died down in one day if Trump hadn't made a big deal about it and kept lying about it. And he's the one that keeps bringing up the "historic landslide" he won by. That's his M.O., and it hasn't changed since the campaign. When caught in a lie, double down, and repeat it over and over. And if you're challenged on your lies, claim media bias.

If Obama had persisted in repeating discredited and debunked lies, the media would have called him out on it as well. But no president has played as fast and loose with the truth as Trump has, not either Bush and not Reagan.

Yes, I'm sure that is the way you see it from your viewpoint in far left field. A lot of Americans recognize how the 'trusted' media is intrinsically biased and that is one reason Trump got elected. Kellyanne Conway listed many incidences of the media's preferential reporting but unfortunately used the words 'alternative facts' instead of 'different point of view' and that is ALL that was reported from that interview. It's become a meme. That's the way it works. Look at the whole interview yourself and try and be a little fair-minded (if you can) and focus on what she meant, rather than what words she chose. I know you won't change your mind, but I see 'alternative facts' that the 'trusted' media ignore all the time. And this is just one example.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Yes, I'm sure that is the way you see it from your viewpoint in far left field. A lot of Americans recognize how the 'trusted' media is intrinsically biased and that is one reason Trump got elected. Kellyanne Conway listed many incidences of the media's preferential reporting but unfortunately used the words 'alternative facts' instead of 'different point of view' and that is ALL that was reported from that interview. It's become a meme. That's the way it works. Look at the whole interview yourself and try and be a little fair-minded (if you can) and focus on what she meant, rather than what words she chose. I know you won't change your mind, but I see 'alternative facts' that the 'trusted' media ignore all the time. And this is just one example.

The media does choose what to report on and in many cases they go with the sensational. But that was true of both candidates. When did you ever hear a detailed analysis of Hillary Clinton's various economic plans, the material that was laid out on her website in great detail? No, all you heard about was e-mails and her health scare. The "lot of Americans" who recognize how the media is "intrinsically biased" are those that eat up the fake right wing news promulgated by hucksters like the one in Skoop's first linked article. Trump doesn't help his credibility with his tirades. There are a number of people who are willing to give Trump a chance (especially if the alternative is to acknowledged that they voted for the wrong candidate or, in other words, confirmation bias), but they haven't necessarily given up on the media either. As we begin to see the actual "results" Trump gets, let's see who the media believes.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Yes, I'm sure that is the way you see it from your viewpoint in far left field. A lot of Americans recognize how the 'trusted' media is intrinsically biased and that is one reason Trump got elected. Kellyanne Conway listed many incidences of the media's preferential reporting but unfortunately used the words 'alternative facts' instead of 'different point of view' and that is ALL that was reported from that interview. It's become a meme. That's the way it works. Look at the whole interview yourself and try and be a little fair-minded (if you can) and focus on what she meant, rather than what words she chose. I know you won't change your mind, but I see 'alternative facts' that the 'trusted' media ignore all the time. And this is just one example.

The media does choose what to report on and in many cases they go with the sensational. But that was true of both candidates. When did you ever hear a detailed analysis of Hillary Clinton's various economic plans, the material that was laid out on her website in great detail? No, all you heard about was e-mails and her health scare. The "lot of Americans" who recognize how the media is "intrinsically biased" are those that eat up the fake right wing news promulgated by hucksters like the one in Skoop's first linked article. Trump doesn't help his credibility with his tirades. There are a number of people who are willing to give Trump a chance (especially if the alternative is to acknowledged that they voted for the wrong candidate or, in other words, confirmation bias), but they haven't necessarily given up on the media either. As we begin to see the actual "results" Trump gets, let's see who the media believes.

No introspection here. As expected.

silverscreenselect wrote: Many of the other things the news reports on are things that Trump, Spicer, Conway, and company KEEP BRINGING UP, over and over, like the size of the inaugural crowds. That story would have died down in one day if Trump hadn't made a big deal about it and kept lying about it. And he's the one that keeps bringing up the "historic landslide" he won by. That's his M.O., and it hasn't changed since the campaign. When caught in a lie, double down, and repeat it over and over. And if you're challenged on your lies, claim media bias.

If Obama had persisted in repeating discredited and debunked lies, the media would have called him out on it as well. But no president has played as fast and loose with the truth as Trump has, not either Bush and not Reagan.

In a normal world, I would say that SSS and I are extremely far apart politically. The last time that someone suggested that I may have a liberal bias was, well .... never. But his above comment about Trump is spot on and is the main reason why there are so many 'attacks' on our new president. He lies, pure and simple and the sad thing is that he lies for what most of us would consider no reason. Who really gives a flip how many people attended his inauguration? Obviously only Trump - enough to lie about it and make a fool of himself. But if ANY political (or famous) figure is going to go before the national media and blatantly tell falsehood after falsehood that can easily be disproven with just some basic fact checking - well, expect the media to call him out on it. Millions of illegal votes making for a rigged election? Bullshit. The bi-partisan and frequently republican controlled election commissions are reporting voter fraud numbers that total in the hundreds - with those small numbers split between both parties. One large mouth backed by lots of money and power spouts out a lie and all the sheeple follow along and believe what they want to believe.

I totally understand different political opinions and I understand that some candidates will represent issues that are near and dear to me that others just don't care about. But I cannot understand how anyone can trust or believe that a President who cannot control his impulse to make himself great by lying to everyone (including himself). I know it's a trite example but if we know that he is lying about these insignificant things then how in hell can we trust him for the big decisions?

Of course the media is biased. Some lean left, some lean right and all will get at least some of the facts wrong in any story. And now we have the added thrill of biased bloggers turning out what looks like professional news stories. Great, just great. But everybody is so hung up on their side being right that they will nit-pic any inconsistency in a story to "prove" their point. This is true of conservatives and liberals and sadly many of the arguments used on these political threads on this forum.

Trump is a three-trick pony: (1) He will loudly profess whatever he wants the facts to be - knowing that loyal followers will be on board, as will those who live in fear of his money and power. Then he gets all those who see all those others in agreement ... so it must be correct - right? .. so they jump on board too. (2) When faced with an obvious criticism, he will point to someone else who has some kind of bad thing going on too and "neener, neener, neener he/she is worse than me - look at them, look at them". And (3) Take some small thing that went right, or something successful that he really had nothing to do with, or make some kind of quick-fix decision and claim ultimate credit for the victory.

And yes, I know that somewhere in there there are times where he does know what to do and is correct in his thinking. I just can't help but see greed and ego as the motivation - not seeing much that is presidential.

Sorry for what has turned into a rant but I'm a bit pissed. I had always wanted a president who was outside most of the political parties, preferably a president who had some real business sense. Instead we got stuck with a salesman who is really good at selling his product. The problem is that his only product is Trump and not the country that he is supposed to represent.

Omg, Jaybee, I miss the "rec" button.

jaybee wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Many of the other things the news reports on are things that Trump, Spicer, Conway, and company KEEP BRINGING UP, over and over, like the size of the inaugural crowds. That story would have died down in one day if Trump hadn't made a big deal about it and kept lying about it. And he's the one that keeps bringing up the "historic landslide" he won by. That's his M.O., and it hasn't changed since the campaign. When caught in a lie, double down, and repeat it over and over. And if you're challenged on your lies, claim media bias.

If Obama had persisted in repeating discredited and debunked lies, the media would have called him out on it as well. But no president has played as fast and loose with the truth as Trump has, not either Bush and not Reagan.

In a normal world, I would say that SSS and I are extremely far apart politically. The last time that someone suggested that I may have a liberal bias was, well .... never. But his above comment about Trump is spot on and is the main reason why there are so many 'attacks' on our new president. He lies, pure and simple and the sad thing is that he lies for what most of us would consider no reason. Who really gives a flip how many people attended his inauguration? Obviously only Trump - enough to lie about it and make a fool of himself. But if ANY political (or famous) figure is going to go before the national media and blatantly tell falsehood after falsehood that can easily be disproven with just some basic fact checking - well, expect the media to call him out on it. Millions of illegal votes making for a rigged election? Bullshit. The bi-partisan and frequently republican controlled election commissions are reporting voter fraud numbers that total in the hundreds - with those small numbers split between both parties. One large mouth backed by lots of money and power spouts out a lie and all the sheeple follow along and believe what they want to believe.

I totally understand different political opinions and I understand that some candidates will represent issues that are near and dear to me that others just don't care about. But I cannot understand how anyone can trust or believe that a President who cannot control his impulse to make himself great by lying to everyone (including himself). I know it's a trite example but if we know that he is lying about these insignificant things then how in hell can we trust him for the big decisions?

Of course the media is biased. Some lean left, some lean right and all will get at least some of the facts wrong in any story. And now we have the added thrill of biased bloggers turning out what looks like professional news stories. Great, just great. But everybody is so hung up on their side being right that they will nit-pic any inconsistency in a story to "prove" their point. This is true of conservatives and liberals and sadly many of the arguments used on these political threads on this forum.

Trump is a three-trick pony: (1) He will loudly profess whatever he wants the facts to be - knowing that loyal followers will be on board, as will those who live in fear of his money and power. Then he gets all those who see all those others in agreement ... so it must be correct - right? .. so they jump on board too. (2) When faced with an obvious criticism, he will point to someone else who has some kind of bad thing going on too and "neener, neener, neener he/she is worse than me - look at them, look at them". And (3) Take some small thing that went right, or something successful that he really had nothing to do with, or make some kind of quick-fix decision and claim ultimate credit for the victory.

And yes, I know that somewhere in there there are times where he does know what to do and is correct in his thinking. I just can't help but see greed and ego as the motivation - not seeing much that is presidential.

Sorry for what has turned into a rant but I'm a bit pissed. I had always wanted a president who was outside most of the political parties, preferably a president who had some real business sense. Instead we got stuck with a salesman who is really good at selling his product. The problem is that his only product is Trump and not the country that he is supposed to represent.

It gets me sick to my stomach everytime Trump sticks his foot in his mouth. I have also been sick to death for a long time about how the media is so frikkin biased towards democrats and liberals. I wish we could have elected someone who 'gets it' that has better verbal and social skills. Pretty much 12-13 of the candidates on the republican side would have done. So I am in limbo land. It seems that neither side has learned anything and both are doubling down on their mistakes.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:It gets me sick to my stomach everytime Trump sticks his foot in his mouth. I have also been sick to death for a long time about how the media is so frikkin biased towards democrats and liberals.

You mean like the way they reported before the election, when it might have done some good, that there's credible evidence that Donny is a Russian asset and that his campaign was actively coordinating with the Russian government's efforts to hack the Democratic National Committee? Or maybe you're talking about the way the media barely covered Comey's statement a week or two before the election that he was going to take another look at e-mails that the FBI may or may not have already seen and that may or may not have anything to do with Secretary Clinton. Or perhaps you're referring to the billion dollars or so in free media Donny managed to accumulate prior to the election. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Donny is a Russian asset
his campaign was actively coordinating with the Russian government's efforts to hack the Democratic National Committee
--Bob

Have you run out of foil? I'm worried about you.


not really

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Donny is a Russian asset
his campaign was actively coordinating with the Russian government's efforts to hack the Democratic National Committee
--Bob

Have you run out of foil? I'm worried about you.


not really

You do realize, don't you, that both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are actively investigating these issues? --Bob

What's the difference between these two Presidential statements?

We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.

There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country is so innocent?

Well, after the first statement, the President in question was accused by right wingers of humiliating the United States as part of an "apology tour."

Let's see how they react to the second statement.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:It gets me sick to my stomach everytime Trump sticks his foot in his mouth. I have also been sick to death for a long time about how the media is so frikkin biased towards democrats and liberals.

You mean like the way they reported before the election, when it might have done some good, that there's credible evidence that Donny is a Russian asset and that his campaign was actively coordinating with the Russian government's efforts to hack the Democratic National Committee? Or maybe you're talking about the way the media barely covered Comey's statement a week or two before the election that he was going to take another look at e-mails that the FBI may or may not have already seen and that may or may not have anything to do with Secretary Clinton. Or perhaps you're referring to the billion dollars or so in free media Donny managed to accumulate prior to the election. --Bob

The black helicopters are coming for you.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:It gets me sick to my stomach everytime Trump sticks his foot in his mouth. I have also been sick to death for a long time about how the media is so frikkin biased towards democrats and liberals.

You mean like the way they reported before the election, when it might have done some good, that there's credible evidence that Donny is a Russian asset and that his campaign was actively coordinating with the Russian government's efforts to hack the Democratic National Committee? Or maybe you're talking about the way the media barely covered Comey's statement a week or two before the election that he was going to take another look at e-mails that the FBI may or may not have already seen and that may or may not have anything to do with Secretary Clinton. Or perhaps you're referring to the billion dollars or so in free media Donny managed to accumulate prior to the election. --Bob

The black helicopters are coming for you.

Then they're also coming for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Donny is a Russian asset
his campaign was actively coordinating with the Russian government's efforts to hack the Democratic National Committee
--Bob

Have you run out of foil? I'm worried about you.


not really

I just thought this could use a bump as well. --Bob