I don't think many serious news outlets use fake news per se. They are too accountable to fact checkers, experts, and rigorous editorial processes, and if they consciously publish false information it would really invalidate all of their output! You'll always find corrections and apologies or when something is libelous then the possibilty of law suits is very real. What we have at the moment are leaks and conjecture, those are of course newsworthy however they are never presented as fact. The news outlets that are guilty of using fake news such as Fox or the Daily Mail or even many unaccountable online sources like Breitbart should be prosecuted where possible! The hilarious thing about this whole Fake News subject, is the way the fake news outlets have actually turned it on its head, so many conspiracy theorist using it as an excuse to challenge serious news outlets! Calling free independent press, propaganda machines for the multitude of conspiracies they believe in, it's quite frightening at the moment, mostly because people believe everything they read on the internet!

Fake news is more than just particular points of facts. It is also about political intent and timing, as in the case of CNN lately.

So have we (you?) redefined the meaning of "fake"? It means not real.

It doesn't mean not conforming to what I am biased towards.

He reminds me of the longest-serving Labour prime minister of the 20th century Harold Wilson.
He was one of the youngest Oxford dons of the century at the age of 21.

Nevertheless he was very convincing at playing the role of the "common man". I remember you would see photos of him eating a meal with a bottle of HP Brown sauce prominently displayed on the table.

Posh bugger. We had Daddies brown sauce.

I think it is more about integrity of the journalism than simply factual points. A bad journalist can intentionally omit pertinent information so as to not dilute the bias they want to make.

In this sense, I actually trust Wikileaks than most out there. Because there, you simply see raw documents. I saw a few polls that approx. 70% of Americans trust wikileaks more than the US government or MSM.

Just had a shuddering memory of Ed Miliband french kissing a bacon sandwich.

is this process something you personally checked for every article in all news sources you accept or dismiss?

or is it just something you choose to believe and build your entire argument and worldview on?

A good journalist could omit the info because they do not have it.

Does that make the good journalist's news less fake? They have both submitted the same report, one can't be fake and one real, can it?

precisely the point. was it wrong but mistaken, or deliberately wrong to mislead? how to distinguish?

arbitrarily designating some sources as serious and others as crap is therefore all that is left. very shaky.

I think they are always making judgment calls, and then get judged afterwards on how valid and responsible it was.

When asked yesterday what should be done to reform news, Trump said he will not recommend reforms, he will simply recommend good ones, and if any, the journalists need to find their own moral compasses. I applaud that.

There is no need for a witch hunt, nor a black list. The journalists' reputation and credibility simply rise and fall along with the decisions they make.

Except for the fact that you will be allowing one man's viewpoint to dictate what is fake and what isn't.

They have both reported the same story.

As I said before, one cannot be real and one fake. This is you projecting your own bias onto things.

I would say the timing of the supposed leak and the people who leaked it were doing it with that plan. CNN might have a political bias that does not serve the interest of Trump and I doubt Trump will ever serve the interest of free press. But then he is bed fellows with a man who has made the concept of free press in his own country a recent distant memory. (Recent, because the free press emerged post Soviet Union and a few years later when it challenged Putin it was quickly shut down and journalists were simply disappeared).

The facts so far re: Trump

He is a tax dodger
He is a liar (especially in regards to having had meetings with Vlad)
He is a sexist
He is a molester
He is racist (as were his gran pa and great gran pa).
He did not make his money himself, see above.
He is a nepotist
He is a denier of Climate Change as caused by mankind.

Some conjecture and theories so far, re: Trump

He colluded with the Russians to gain power, it suits Russia incredibly to have someone so devicive in power and someone who will bend to Russian will when needed.

He is into watersports

He pushed for those e-mails to be released at exactly the right time.

He loves the Fake News outlets, because he knows they are supporting him, and they are mostly run by Alt Right neo fascist conspiracy theorists.

I think you totally missed the point. That kind of control of perspectives is what takes place in leftist thinking. Like he said, everyone needs to develop their own moral compass.

he has slagging matches with people on the internet, that should tell you all you need to know

Maybe HP were sponsoring him, or maybe he genuinely loved HP sauce, we may never know...

Aha. You forgot Pussy Grabber. :roll eyes:

I think this adamance to demonise and propagate will only lead to your own blindness about the situation. But go ahead and suit yourselves.

Nothing wrong with that.

Tom

Except for being wrong.