Post by robeiae on Jun 15, 2017 9:17:17 GMT -5
Here's a story from The Daily Caller: dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/for-chris-cillizza-here-are-five-fake-stories-cnn-pushed/
Yes, the DC has a point of view; it's hardly unbiased. But let's look at what led to this story.
First, a tweet by Trump:
Then, a response to that tweet--quoting it, in fact--from CNN's Man About Town, Chris Cillizza:
Okay, now start scrolling through the response to Cillizza. Check the "examples" the DC gives about "fake news."
So, here's my list of "wrongs":
1) The POTUS shouldn't be tweeting this kind of crap. Whining about a lack of an apology? Really? And from Donald Trump, of all people. How many apologies does he owe? Far too many to count, imo. Of course, I get why he does it: a good chunk of his base thinks this crap is great, thinks it's good to have a guy who "pushes back" (even when there's no one pushing).
2) Cillizza is not only a reporter, he's also an editor at CNN. And he needs to STFU too, imo. Getting into a back and forth with the POTUS on twitter? Really? That's what supposed journalists do, now? He should show some actual sense here. Not only does he look small-minded, he also looks stupid...
3)...because there's always a way to twist things to fit a non-specific moniker like "fake news." The examples the DC cites represent either errors or editorializing by on-air personalities, imo. They're fine examples of CNN fucking up royally, but they are not--imo--examples of fake news. They are not stories that was manufactured. Again, errors or expressed pov's. Yet, it's easy enough to spin them as "fake news."
4) Speaking of errors, though, it seems to me that the media--I'm talking the big boys, here--are getting things wrong all the damn time. Part of that is because they've become dependent on anonymous sources and leaks. Part of that is because there's a massive rush to be first or to not be last with everything, a rush that takes place in minutes these days so there's barely any vetting of the stories and the sources. So CNN--like Fox and everyone else--gets stuff wrong, sometimes.
5) Which leads back to Cillizza's idiocy in asking for an example of "a story that is "fake" or "incorrect."" Did he just fall off the turnip truck yesterday? Forget the DC piece, look at the responses to his tweet. Maybe some of those examples are pushing it, but a ton are perfectly fair examples of CNN having an "incorrect" story.
6) The overall thrust here is that this is all evidence of...well...broken people in a broken system. A narcissistic bully is President and he tweets proof that such is the case incessantly. Yet the people who imagine that they can cover the news fairly can't help but follow suit, by actually responding to taunts and the like. Moreover, they care less about truth and more about first. Maybe the last has always been the case, but I don't think it's been in daily evidence before, not like it is today. Oh, and then there's the appalling lack of understanding from these media professionals with regard to how the internet works. You don't defend yourself with "give me an example, then" to the entire world unless you damn well no there are no examples to be had.
Yes, the DC has a point of view; it's hardly unbiased. But let's look at what led to this story.
First, a tweet by Trump:
Then, a response to that tweet--quoting it, in fact--from CNN's Man About Town, Chris Cillizza:
Okay, now start scrolling through the response to Cillizza. Check the "examples" the DC gives about "fake news."
So, here's my list of "wrongs":
1) The POTUS shouldn't be tweeting this kind of crap. Whining about a lack of an apology? Really? And from Donald Trump, of all people. How many apologies does he owe? Far too many to count, imo. Of course, I get why he does it: a good chunk of his base thinks this crap is great, thinks it's good to have a guy who "pushes back" (even when there's no one pushing).
2) Cillizza is not only a reporter, he's also an editor at CNN. And he needs to STFU too, imo. Getting into a back and forth with the POTUS on twitter? Really? That's what supposed journalists do, now? He should show some actual sense here. Not only does he look small-minded, he also looks stupid...
3)...because there's always a way to twist things to fit a non-specific moniker like "fake news." The examples the DC cites represent either errors or editorializing by on-air personalities, imo. They're fine examples of CNN fucking up royally, but they are not--imo--examples of fake news. They are not stories that was manufactured. Again, errors or expressed pov's. Yet, it's easy enough to spin them as "fake news."
4) Speaking of errors, though, it seems to me that the media--I'm talking the big boys, here--are getting things wrong all the damn time. Part of that is because they've become dependent on anonymous sources and leaks. Part of that is because there's a massive rush to be first or to not be last with everything, a rush that takes place in minutes these days so there's barely any vetting of the stories and the sources. So CNN--like Fox and everyone else--gets stuff wrong, sometimes.
5) Which leads back to Cillizza's idiocy in asking for an example of "a story that is "fake" or "incorrect."" Did he just fall off the turnip truck yesterday? Forget the DC piece, look at the responses to his tweet. Maybe some of those examples are pushing it, but a ton are perfectly fair examples of CNN having an "incorrect" story.
6) The overall thrust here is that this is all evidence of...well...broken people in a broken system. A narcissistic bully is President and he tweets proof that such is the case incessantly. Yet the people who imagine that they can cover the news fairly can't help but follow suit, by actually responding to taunts and the like. Moreover, they care less about truth and more about first. Maybe the last has always been the case, but I don't think it's been in daily evidence before, not like it is today. Oh, and then there's the appalling lack of understanding from these media professionals with regard to how the internet works. You don't defend yourself with "give me an example, then" to the entire world unless you damn well no there are no examples to be had.
