|
Post by Christine on Mar 1, 2017 21:11:08 GMT -5
Ce, the very first news clip in each of my links is a Fox news segment purporting that (a) Obama was not born in the US, (b) Obama is a Muslim and (c) Obama is a socialist. If you're going to pick and choose segments you think don't qualify as news, while not having time to "vet them all".... okie dokie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 21:13:00 GMT -5
I find it hilarious that half of us are apparently now right wingers. I find it hilarious that the left wingers apparently all think I'm a right winger, while the right wingers all think I'm a left winger. Everyone agrees I'm biased -- it's just a question of for whom. On the thread topic, the article is fine, but the title is a bit misleading, and at a time when the media is more vitally important than ever and coming under fire by Trump, I would prefer mainstream sources do their very best to not sacrifice accuracy for click-baity-ness. I DO trust mainstream media to get the facts right in the articles. But since many don't get past the headline, the headline should be accurate, too. Leave the click-baity-ness for Daily Kos. ETA: They probably could have dug up a few other Trump voters with regretsies if they tried, thus making the headline match the article.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 1, 2017 21:19:50 GMT -5
I find your feigned hilarity hilarious. Okay. It's not really hilarious. More like baffling. Seriously, do you actually peg me (or other members of this forum) as "right wing"? I did not find it as outrageous as rob did (and even for rob, I think "outrage" is an exaggeration), I just agreed with his reasoning that the title was inaccurate and misleading. Like ohio said, and I said, IT'S A HEADLINE. It's supposed to get you to click, and read the article, even. The article does not contain any untruths, as far as I know. So... it's misleading for... people who gather their "facts" from headlines. What is the real problem there? The headlines, or the subset of people who believe they contain the entirety of the information available? With whom lies the responsibility for people who only read headlines?
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 1, 2017 22:03:40 GMT -5
Ce, the very first news clip in each of my links is a Fox news segment purporting that (a) Obama was not born in the US, (b) Obama is a Muslim and (c) Obama is a socialist. If you're going to pick and choose segments you think don't qualify as news, while not having time to "vet them all".... okie dokie. Hahaha, I randomly picked two. I did not pick and choose. There were, like, a hundred. I will take a look at the first news clip and let you know. EDITED TO ADD: Maybe I'm doing this wrong, but I don't "get" those links. Anyway, I don't care if it's Fox or some other company. I just want factual news.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 1, 2017 22:36:32 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 22:44:19 GMT -5
A flashback to the 2008 election coverage. Fox kept up a rumor about a Michelle Obama "whitey" tape...that somehow never surfaced. It wasn't just this one clip -- as I recall, they kept this rumor in play for a while.
Fake news at its finest.
ETA:
At the time, the Obamas were still relative unknowns. I had concerns myself that unexpected things might turn up. That's why this sort of rumor was especially damaging.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 1, 2017 22:44:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 2, 2017 0:39:15 GMT -5
On that segment above, the host of the show, at 2:37 or so, says " We'll keep our eye on this, we'll keep digging, it may or may not be, but it certainly opens up a can of worms or at least questions..." Yes, his guest may have been over the top suspicious, but the host of the Fox show was still "digging". I'm sure you can do better, Christine. And Cassandra - Bob Beckel clearly said several times whatever was maybe going to be revealed was a rumor, but he's heard it from enough sources that he's concerned. But he wouldn't even say what it was, because it's a rumor. So maybe they shouldn't have even mentioned it, but really - I'm not going to get worked up about someone telling me a bombshell might be dropped, but in the same breath emphasizing that it is just a rumor. I don't consider that fake news. Sorry, but I'm not impressed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 2:27:48 GMT -5
As a result of those reports, tons of people were going about believing that there most be some foundation behind those rumors (which were repeated again and again -- I remember it well) or Fox would not be repeatedly reporting them -- and from there went on to believe they were true. Some people STILL think they're true. They went right to the very heart of people's worst prejudices about the Obamas, and deliberately so. It was a despicable hatchet job if ever I saw one.
And there wasn't the slightest, flimsiest basis for either rumor. Nope, just hysterical rumors, repeated again and again, with rumors that evidence would follow any day. And Fox viewers ate it with a spoon. It was fake news of the worst kind.
Really, you are hand-wringing about the exaggerated (and not particularly damaging) WaPo headline and not the Fox news repetitions of damning and utterly baseless "rumors" in the feeble guise of news?
Yeah...
It's time to check your bias, c.e.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 2, 2017 5:07:39 GMT -5
I find it hilarious that half of us are apparently now right wingers. I find it hilarious that the left wingers apparently all think I'm a right winger, while the right wingers all think I'm a left winger. Everyone agrees I'm biased -- it's just a question of for whom. I feel your pain.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 2, 2017 6:29:26 GMT -5
So... it's misleading for... people who gather their "facts" from headlines. What is the real problem there? The headlines, or the subset of people who believe they contain the entirety of the information available? With whom lies the responsibility for people who only read headlines? Can't both be "real problems"? People should read articles, not just assume the titles are true statements. Media outlets shouldn't use false or misleading headlines/titles. Those are outrageously crazy suggestions, I know. I'm really livin' on the edge...
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 2, 2017 6:42:51 GMT -5
So... it's misleading for... people who gather their "facts" from headlines. What is the real problem there? The headlines, or the subset of people who believe they contain the entirety of the information available? With whom lies the responsibility for people who only read headlines? Can't both be "real problems"? People should read articles, not just assume the titles are true statements. Media outlets shouldn't use false or misleading headlines/titles. Those are outrageously crazy suggestions, I know. I'm really livin' on the edge... "Buyer Beware" strikes me as a seriously crony crapitolist position for anyone to take. I'm a firm believer in the prosecution of fraud being one of the few legitimate concerns of government, from fraudulent commercials showing smoking as sexy to "click-bait" headlines that lie about the content of a story. Of course, pursuing such fraudulent activities takes a back seat to imprisoning people for smoking herbs or running around the world telling other countries they're doing it wrong, and backing up that opinion with invasions and widescale murder and destruction... and defending those actions be presenting fraudulent rationalizations to the public. But that's just me, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 2, 2017 7:03:01 GMT -5
A headline is not fraud, like that commercial picturing that Big Mac isn't fraud. Everyone knows Big Macs don't look like that.
I mean, sure, it would be great if there was no such thing as exaggeration or sensationalism. But the best way to get rid of those things is for people to get wiser.
And again, this is a not new phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 2, 2017 7:33:26 GMT -5
A headline is not fraud, like that commercial picturing that Big Mac isn't fraud. Everyone knows Big Macs don't look like that. I mean, sure, it would be great if there was no such thing as exaggeration or sensationalism. But the best way to get rid of those things is for people to get wiser. And again, this is a not new phenomenon. Well, no one is suggesting it's a new phenomenon, all on it's own. But it has different consequences now. And whether it's new or old has no impact on whether it's wrong or right. The headline of the piece here--which frankly was one I happen to read and is just an example; this isn't about WaPo or one political "side" for me--was: These Iowans voted for Trump. Many of them are already disappointed.Now I think a reasonable person would suppose that the story is about: a) Iowans who voted for Trump and b) How many of them are already disappointed. Yet that's not really the case. And this wasn't even a big bombshell kind of story, which is exactly why I used it. You say "just a headline," but again, where's the line? How about if the piece used the headline "Melania offers sex to Iowans in exchange for their support"? That would be just a headline, too. Imo, if you're okay with obvious misrepresentation (which I think is a polite way to say "lying") in headlines, then you're okay with flagrant, borderline libelous lies in headlines. It's really not much of a slope. And I have to echo Don't sentiments, as well. Imo, we've let advertising go way too far.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 2, 2017 8:17:00 GMT -5
I would be more upset at a false headline that constituted libel against a person. I don't think you get to say what I'm okay with. Now, if Melania had offered sex to ONE Iowan in exchange for his support, and the headline read "Iowan s" ... I'd be less disturbed, though it would still not be "fact" and it might still be libelous, idk.
|
|