Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Eh, no. *gestures at the Right Wing Insults To The Mentally Infirm trying to "reclaim" "fake news"*
I believe I posted many pages back about how those directly targeted by fake news stories can sue for libel in theory. The problem is that, again, most platform owners are unlikely to hand over data on those deliberately spreading stories with the intent, to, say, start a mass shooting. At least not anymore.
Shower thought: Isn't "fake news" merely a more politically correct way of describing psychological active measures?
That would just fuel the sorts of people who think false rape accusations are a huge deal.
edited 10th Dec '16 3:08:03 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThe problem with trying to punish fake news is how you also open up a breach for dipshits to punish factual news.
Think it through for a minute, how many people have you need whining about lying media on Reuters, NYP, Wa Po and any other big newspapers comment section when they published some news that contradicted their views?
If someone starts suing papers and journalists because they published fake news about a person or occurrence you will still have to spend a lot of time and money defending legit news and journalistic institutions while those fake news websites and fake news stories were probably created by a spam bot or a paid troll from China or Russia which are either out of reach or don't have a solid institution or person behind it.
You also have to prove certain stories true depending of what happened, phony lawsuits could force actual journalists to have to expose their sources and where they took that information from. This might involve people who don't want to be exposed or shouldn't be exposed to prove the veracity of the statement.
A better way to get rid of fake news stories is to pressure major tech companies like Google, Facebook and other social media companies to actually start filtering bullshit news websites like they already do with phishing, malware and scam websites.
Inter arma enim silent legesIf we have laws against fake news being libel then we risk turning into the UK where people are constantly suing the media over things that are more or less true and the tabloids are bugging everything and everyone from celebrities and political figures to random mothers of dead children (and screwing with their recordings to trick them into thinking said dead children are still alive) so they can back up what they publish to avoid losing their court cases.
edited 10th Dec '16 3:44:06 AM by AlleyOop
There's still the First Amendment.
Given that Trump has gone on the record about wanting to "tighten up" libel laws, things might get interesting if he doesn't flip flop on that. A random Wordpress can't afford the legal firepower national newspapers and cable news channels have access to.
EDIT: United Steelworkers Local 1999 doesn't think it's actually Chuck Jones running that Twitter account
.
edited 10th Dec '16 5:17:32 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
Trump "going on record" means absolutely nothing. I don't need to remind you how often he flip-flops on some issue, and then insists that the new stance is what he always believed, and that he never held the previous position. He'll even deny it when confronted with a recording of himself saying it. The man is a walking Retcon.
edited 10th Dec '16 6:31:28 AM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
True. At this point I barely concern myself with what Trump says (at least in the context of what I think about Trump, what he might inspire his more radical supporters to do is another matter), I'm only concerned with what he does.
Since cabinet and other executive appointments represent actual concrete action, I'm more concerned with the kind of people he's appointing to those positions, and it's...not looking good.
edited 10th Dec '16 6:54:49 AM by Falrinn
Media Matters For America: Right-Wing Media Are Using The Term “Fake News” To Attack Credible News Sources
As public discussions about fake news reach critical mass, right-wing media figures and outlets have attempted to redefine “fake news” completely, downplaying the problem it poses. Rush Limbaugh claimed that fake news is largely “satire and parody that liberals don’t understand because they don’t have a sense of humor.” The Washington Free Beacon’s Bill Mc Morris described fake news as “whatever people living in the liberal bubble determine to be believed by the right.”
Other conservatives are even using fake news to describe reporting from credible news outlets with which they disagree. Fringe right-wing conspiracy site Infowars.com declared that “The mainstream media is the primary source of the most harmful, most inaccurate news ever,” and included outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, and Politico (and Media Matters, for good measure) on their “full list of fake news outlets.” Fox contributor Newt Gingrich lamented the Times’ reporting on the fake news phenomenon, arguing,“The idea of The New York Times being worried about fake news is really weird. The New York Times is fake news.” Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham — a contender for Trump’s press secretary — lashed out at CNN while appearing on Fox News’ Hannity, stating “the folks over at CNN” and “the kind of little games they’re playing are so transparent … they’re the fake news organizations.”
While there isn’t an official, universally accepted definition of fake news, a variety of outlets and experts across the ideological spectrum have identified common themes. Buzz Feed’s Craig Silverman, one of the first to report frequently and extensively on the fake news phenomenon, defines fake news as “false … stories from hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs.” The New York Times’ Sabrina Tavernese wrote that, “Narrowly defined, ‘fake news’ means a made-up story with an intention to deceive, often geared toward getting clicks." David Mikkelson, the founder of the fact-checking website Snopes.com, describes fake news as “completely fabricated information that has little or no intersection with real-world events.” Mikkelson goes on to explain, “not all bad news reporting is ‘fake,’ and that distinction should be kept clear.” Slate senior technology writer Will Oremus argues fake news is “fabricated,” “sensational stories” that imitate “the style and appearance of real news articles.” Fox media analyst Howard Kurtz defines fake news as “made-up-stuff being merchandized for clicks and profits,” clarifying that he doesn’t “mean the major media stories that some ... find unfair or exaggerated.” And CNN and Conservative Review’s Amanda Carpenter wrote that “fake news is malicious, false information that somehow becomes credible” often “printed on what appears to be a professional looking website.” Carpenter also distinguished fake news from “commentary that never purported to be straight news in the first place” or “political speech someone doesn’t happen to agree with.”
None of these definitions are even remotely similar to how right-wing media figures are trying to redefine fake news.
Right-wing media’s attempt to conflate fake news with reporting from legitimate journalistic institutions feeds into a larger conservative effort, led by President-elect Trump, to delegitimize mainstream media outlets. Trump, who has long waged a war on the press, has consistently expressed his contempt for journalists and news organizations and violated the norms of any president or president-elect when it comes to his relations with the media. During the month of November, Trump repeatedly attacked media outlets, calling The New York Times “dishonest,” decrying the “the crooked media” for investigating his unprecedented business conflicts of interest, and suggesting that CNN has gotten “worse” since the election. In a December 7 interview on NBC’s Today, Trump admitted he uses Twitter to bypass the media and “dishonest reporters.”
Some experts have suggested Trump’s attacks on the media are part of a concerted effort to discredit journalists and outlets and thereby “inoculate” himself from reporting that could be damaging. On CNN’s Reliable Sources, former Time Inc. Editor-in-Chief John Huey argued that Trump used “demagogic techniques” that “smack of authoritarianism” during the campaign because “the media poses a real threat to him.”
Attacking mainstream outlets as “fake” is the latest step in a conservative-media-fueled campaign to delegitimize credible news sources — a dangerous path in a media landscape where people are already too willing to accept actual fake news, but are hard-pressed to believe real reporting.
Well, referring to fake news as black propaganda wouldn't work, since "liberal propaganda/indoctrination" has been around for ages.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotSo, death/rape threats against anyone whose views they disagree with and purposefully spreading fake news to confuse people. This is the "new normal"? Lovely.
edited 10th Dec '16 8:34:03 AM by speedyboris
Welcome to our new post-facts world, where people trying to do actual journalism are repeatedly undermined due to conspiracy theorists, reactionary politicians and autocrats making the truth extremely difficult for well-meaning people to find.
Fuck me.
EDIT:
Evan McMullin on the GOP and Russia
Our nation has been the target of hostile Russian intelligence efforts for decades. That's nothing new.
What's new is that our leaders have become so self-serving that they're willing to sacrifice our national security for their own power.
Republican leaders knew Russia was undermining our democracy during the election and they chose to ignore it.
Their willingness to put party before country & power before principle has resulted in one of the worst compromises of US security ever.
edited 10th Dec '16 8:59:49 AM by Draghinazzo
Andy Puzder, the pick for Secretary of Labor, is against Border Security and in favor of Illegal Immigrants working in the US and reforming Immigration laws
, according to an interview he had in 2013. Although he might have changed his mind, he has not publicly done so, so that is what we can all assume is his position.
I like Mr. Puzder much more now, although he still will suck as the Labor Secretary.
edited 10th Dec '16 10:14:03 AM by DingoWalley1

Man I am praying something serious comes out of this investigation. It'd better.
Oh really when?