Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fake news"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Tapes)
(Not fake news.)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
:::Also, it doesn't matter what the MSM does or does not publish--Trump supports were the subjects, not perpetrators, of numerous incidents of violence.  They may be sweeping this under the carpet, but it is our job not to let them succeed completely.  Even if they did hire people to pretend to be Trump supporters and cause violence, the truth still exists.  Some of it may be too deeply buried to prove, but we need to make an effort.--[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:00, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
 
:::Also, it doesn't matter what the MSM does or does not publish--Trump supports were the subjects, not perpetrators, of numerous incidents of violence.  They may be sweeping this under the carpet, but it is our job not to let them succeed completely.  Even if they did hire people to pretend to be Trump supporters and cause violence, the truth still exists.  Some of it may be too deeply buried to prove, but we need to make an effort.--[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:00, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
 
:::::[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-can-you-still-doubt-trumps-intelligence/2017/06/23/6d10aab8-5856-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html?utm_term=.8d30268a7d59 Kathleen Parker has the best take on it yet]. Trump baited Comey into leaking. She's not only was he fired, he's now exposed as the treachous double-dealing subversive with a reputation in the dumpster. Here article is an object lesson now for anyone in Washington wanting to cross Trump's path. They are not dealing with a politician who's always looking for cover - they're dealing with a businessman who looks toward the bottomline results and won't accept failure. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:53, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
 
:::::[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-can-you-still-doubt-trumps-intelligence/2017/06/23/6d10aab8-5856-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html?utm_term=.8d30268a7d59 Kathleen Parker has the best take on it yet]. Trump baited Comey into leaking. She's not only was he fired, he's now exposed as the treachous double-dealing subversive with a reputation in the dumpster. Here article is an object lesson now for anyone in Washington wanting to cross Trump's path. They are not dealing with a politician who's always looking for cover - they're dealing with a businessman who looks toward the bottomline results and won't accept failure. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:53, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::I concede the point.  I never thought that the "James Comey better hope there aren't tapes" tweet was fake news; I just wanted to be sure it didn't get totally censored.  If it's in a more appropriate place at Conservapedia, that's fine.  Publicly threatening a federal official (or, in this case, a former official) is despicable, reprehensible, and totally beneath expected standards for Presidential behavior, but it isn't "fake news".  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
  
 
== Another usage ==
 
== Another usage ==
  
 
Before the common usage in the 2016 election cycle, the term "fake news" had been used to describe satirical news media with intentional falsehoods inserted for humorous value rather than malicious deceit (''The Onion'', ''The Daily Show'', ''UnNews'', etc.) Should this usage of the term be incorporated in the article in some fashion? --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 12:31, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
 
Before the common usage in the 2016 election cycle, the term "fake news" had been used to describe satirical news media with intentional falsehoods inserted for humorous value rather than malicious deceit (''The Onion'', ''The Daily Show'', ''UnNews'', etc.) Should this usage of the term be incorporated in the article in some fashion? --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 12:31, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:Yes.  Things like The Onion, The Daily Show, etc., should be listed as pre-2016-election examples of fake news.  Basically, they constitute the early transition from supermarket tabloids printed on paper to internet news, before the recent deluge.  I'm probably going to work on that.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Revision as of 00:24, 27 June 2017

This article was moved and the talk page was not. Here is the link to the original talk page: Talk:Fake News

It looks like we already have a page on this, named Fake News. --David B (TALK) 13:32, 30 November 2016 (EST)

I merged the two. The paragraph on this one is a good intro paragraph, but the body on the other article is superior. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2016 (EST)

NYT lies in editorial about Trump's lies

Apparently, a New York Times editorial about President Trump's lies has lies. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Did we get the NYT retraction on Sarah Palin after the Gabby Gifford's& Scott Scalise shootings? This story illustrates fake news reporting and NYT lies to affect GOP presidential candidate prospects having been going on long before Trump. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:58, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Tapes

Personally, I don't see were discussion of tapes is news at all until it proven they either exist or were destroyed. Trump never said they existed, and speculation on whether they exist or not is speculation, not news. Hence, literally by definition fake news. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:13, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

I agree, Rob. The classic definition of fake news is "clickbait." For example, "Hollywood is shocked by the loss of [actor]" which people click on to read about [actor]'s death. The actual linked website has nothing to do with [actor] who is still alive. Here, Trump implied there were tapes, and taxpayer dollars were wasted because the White House refuse to admit or deny there were tapes, when asked by Congress and the press. It was a made up story that earned a lot of clicks with "Is Trump as bad as Nixon?" or "Trump's outside counsel will not say if there are tapes." At least with "confefe", Trump took the tweet down after 6 hours, not 6 weeks. I am glad that Conservapedia never accepted the "Trump has been recording White House meetings" theory. JDano (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
The MSM never accepted the existence of tapes, and it does not seem like Trump every said they existed either. You may not like what Trump did, but that does not justify you adding it here as "fake news." Content yourself with adding it White House tapes, as you already did. You are overeager to add content attacking Trump, whether it means adding the opinions of RINOs (Graham and McCain), or adding the tapes speculation as "fake news." --1990'sguy (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
1990'sguy is right--it's not "fake news" outright. He never said there were or were not tapes. It could be just a jab at Comey, which he later decided was too unprofessional and retracted. I don't know why he said or retracted it, nor do I know if there are recordings. That's doesn't make it fake news, or clickbait. Other may make fake news out of it, for the purpose of being clickbait. For example, "Trump admits to making secret recordings or private meetings!" That would server both purposes. Why did he say it? I don't know for sure, but his post was not fake news--it was just the basis of others' fake news, which is not his fault. --David B (TALK) 23:36, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
Also, it doesn't matter what the MSM does or does not publish--Trump supports were the subjects, not perpetrators, of numerous incidents of violence. They may be sweeping this under the carpet, but it is our job not to let them succeed completely. Even if they did hire people to pretend to be Trump supporters and cause violence, the truth still exists. Some of it may be too deeply buried to prove, but we need to make an effort.--David B (TALK) 00:00, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
Kathleen Parker has the best take on it yet. Trump baited Comey into leaking. She's not only was he fired, he's now exposed as the treachous double-dealing subversive with a reputation in the dumpster. Here article is an object lesson now for anyone in Washington wanting to cross Trump's path. They are not dealing with a politician who's always looking for cover - they're dealing with a businessman who looks toward the bottomline results and won't accept failure. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:53, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
I concede the point. I never thought that the "James Comey better hope there aren't tapes" tweet was fake news; I just wanted to be sure it didn't get totally censored. If it's in a more appropriate place at Conservapedia, that's fine. Publicly threatening a federal official (or, in this case, a former official) is despicable, reprehensible, and totally beneath expected standards for Presidential behavior, but it isn't "fake news". SamHB (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Another usage

Before the common usage in the 2016 election cycle, the term "fake news" had been used to describe satirical news media with intentional falsehoods inserted for humorous value rather than malicious deceit (The Onion, The Daily Show, UnNews, etc.) Should this usage of the term be incorporated in the article in some fashion? --Anglican (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

Yes. Things like The Onion, The Daily Show, etc., should be listed as pre-2016-election examples of fake news. Basically, they constitute the early transition from supermarket tabloids printed on paper to internet news, before the recent deluge. I'm probably going to work on that. SamHB (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)