WH official: We'll say 'fake news' until media realizes attitude of attacking the President is wrong - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51789609]Do you think Trump really cares? He probably can't even read.[/QUOTE] and back to the same "republicans are dumb" rhetoric that Dubya also had

[QUOTE=Chonch;51790210]I suspected from the first WaPo report on "fake news" that the term would end up being used like this. Good job, leftist media outlets.[/QUOTE] Did I miss something? Are you criticizing them for originally calling the actually fabricated clickbait articles fake?

the point here is the media started the "fake news" thing first and it's been ripe for abuse since day 1, and has been used abusively since day 1. the media is the boy that cried wolf and we're not going to be able to do anything when they start getting ripped apart. instead of pointing at trump and laughing at him maybe we should realize we've been fucked from the start, and that things need to change not at just the presidential level but at the media level as well. words by the news people have far too much sway and they're far too irresponsible with that power. now that power of words is being swung right back at them and all we have to say at this point is "ha ha fake president"? shit is fucking weak. step the fuck up.

I think Trump is losing his personal war against the media. I honestly believe if he could he'd ban them from talking bad about him. But he can't and he's losing because he doesn't have the approval to do what he wants because the country would boot him out in a second if he tried to become a dictator. I know comparisons to Hitler are tacky but I genuinely believe they're extremely similar. Only Hitler was somehow actually easier to swallow than Trump is. You could write an essay about why.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;51790235][url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html?utm_term=.0af57639e8c3]source is washington post back in 2012[/url] this "he doesn't even do daily meetings!" criticism meme needs to die. it's fake news. sad![/QUOTE] Obama could at least actually could be arsed to attend the daily briefings at all, if irregularly, instead of arrogantly blithering on about not needing them at all because he's a 'smart person' But of course no Trump thread would be complete without a post trying to deflect criticism from Trump by pointing out some other guy who did something almost kinda similar if you squint a bit that one other time

[QUOTE=TheJoey;51790270]the point here is the media started the "fake news" thing first[...][/QUOTE] What are you even talking about? Fake news started because [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html?_r=0"]some people[/URL] found a cheap way to make money, which was especially easy this time because your president and his followers supported this behaviour indirectly by creating the mainstream media bogeyman.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;51790270]the point here is the media started the "fake news" thing first and it's been ripe for abuse since day 1, and has been used abusively since day 1. the media is the boy that cried wolf and we're not going to be able to do anything when they start getting ripped apart. instead of pointing at trump and laughing at him maybe we should realize we've been fucked from the start, and that things need to change not at just the presidential level but at the media level as well. words by the news people have far too much sway and they're far too irresponsible with that power. now that power of words is being swung right back at them and all we have to say at this point is "ha ha fake president"? shit is fucking weak. step the fuck up.[/QUOTE] How are the media the boy that cried wolf when the news pieces they called fake were actually fake? That's not a fitting analogy. The media addressed an actual issue and the Trump administration are the one who hijacked it to spin it to their advantage. How is that the media's fault somehow?

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51790265]and back to the same "republicans are dumb" rhetoric that Dubya also had[/QUOTE] I haven't said anything about the Republicans. But seriously, Donald Trump appears to be illiterate.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;51790235][url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html?utm_term=.0af57639e8c3]source is washington post back in 2012[/url] this "he doesn't even do daily meetings!" criticism meme needs to die. it's fake news. sad![/QUOTE] The next paragraph: "ietor did not dispute the numbers, but said the fact that the president, during a time of war, does not attend his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis is “not particularly interesting or useful.” He says that the president reads his PDB every day, and he disagreed with the suggestion that there is any difference whatsoever between simply reading the briefing book and having an interactive discussion of its contents with top national security and intelligence officials where the president can probe assumptions and ask questions. “I actually don’t agree at all,” Vietor told me in an e-mail, “The president gets the information he needs from the intelligence community each day.”" [B]notice[/B] how it's different from Obama saying "I'm a smart guy, I don't need intel briefings!"

[QUOTE=Chonch;51790210]I suspected from the first WaPo report on "fake news" that the term would end up being used like this. Good job, leftist media outlets.[/QUOTE] Yeah how dare they report propaganda lmao stupid fuckers.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51790210]I suspected from the first WaPo report on "fake news" that the term would end up being used like this. Good job, leftist media outlets.[/QUOTE] Yes, leftist media is to blame for fake news because they reported on it. Are you fucking high?

[QUOTE=Chonch;51790210]I suspected from the first WaPo report on "fake news" that the term would end up being used like this. Good job, leftist media outlets.[/QUOTE] I don't get you, Chonch. You claim to have voted for Obama, and that you became disillusioned with him over an absolute triviality by comparison to the crimes of this new administration. And yet you defend this administration no matter what they do. An administration headed by a man who denies objective reality, calling any criticism or negative poll 'fake news', whose cabinet is very literally composed of unqualified idiots like Conway and DeVos, corporate oligarchs like Tillerson, and literal neo-Nazis like Bannon and Gorka, whose lack of qualifications are very apparent as well. Look at yourself. You're going so far as to blame news media for reporting actual fake news and calling it out; in other words, you're condemning journalistic integrity for the actions of this clown? I used to think you were something of an intellectual. Now I know you're nothing but another cultist.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;51790383]Yes, leftist media is to blame for fake news because they reported on it. Are you fucking high?[/QUOTE] people who didn't support trump are responsible for him winning. real news is responsible for fake news. donald trump had the biggest inauguration crowd of all time. get with the times.

Cool, and Drumpf will be a "Fake President" until he starts acting like a legitimate one and stops sucking Putin's cock.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51790210]I suspected from the first WaPo report on "fake news" that the term would end up being used like this. Good job, leftist media outlets.[/QUOTE] Expanding on this: This whole "fake news" thing is a relatively recent phenomenon from what I can tell, and it doesn't seem to have a clear definition. Much of what's been denounced under this term is often not "fake," just often examples of poor journalistic integrity. We used to have a term for this kind of journalism--yellow, but that's not nearly as marketable (and marketability has a [I]lot[/I] to do with what kinds of stories get published) There's a big difference between a poor source of news and a source of news that peddles outright fabrications, but I think a lot of MSM outlets are intentionally blurring this distinction, and a politically-charged audience has gobbled it up like candy. As an added distraction, news is now being broken up into smaller and more easily digestible, social-media friendly bites, and this only spurns sources to play hard and fast with due diligence and journalistic skepticism; and ultimately to report on nebulous events that [I]might[/I] not be confirmed, while simultaneously labeling sources that do so as "fake news." Luckily for the peddlers, this isn't an issue for an audience that only reads headlines and lets animus and groupthink take the place of critical thought. What's happened now is that the term has become so widespread, its use so profligate, and its effect on readers so immensely powerful--e.g. the reaction to InfoWars--that it's been adopted as a tool for the political establishment, a group whose very existence is fueled the silencing of inconvenient information. The "fake news" label is very effective at this, and the recent election made clear that all sides could garner appeal with it by attacking the nebulous factoids that underpin every campaign. "Leftist media outlets" is a harsh term to use; I regret it and the sycophantic vibe it gave my earlier post, but "fake news" is just one of those rare items on the internet that really infuriate me. [editline]7th February 2017[/editline] As for the article, I can totally see where Gorka was coming from in this bit: [QUOTE]"It's a Holocaust remembrance statement," Gorka said. "No, I'm not going to admit it. Because it's asinine. It's absurd. You're making a statement about the Holocaust. Of course it's about the Holocaust because that's what the statement's about. It's only reasonable to twist it if your objective is to attack the President."[/QUOTE] What's the fake news here? Is it the administration that labels news as fake, or is it the media that publishes these factually-hazy stories? Both?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51790081]Also this bit from his wikipedia profile... So another Neonazi in the administration trying to suppress dissent and spread propaganda. Great.[/QUOTE] Aaaand that quote's gone from the wikipedia page. Turns out it was... Fake! Oh no! Lies! On the internet! (Fake news?) (The article it referenced, [URL="http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama-neuters-war-on-islamic-terrorists"]http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama-neuters-war-on-islamic-terrorists[/URL], doesn't say anything remotely close to what the wiki page claimed, and it's a fake quote.)

[QUOTE=Zanom;51791771]Aaaand that quote's gone from the wikipedia page. Turns out it was... Fake! Oh no! Lies! On the internet! (Fake news?) (The article it referenced, [URL="http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama-neuters-war-on-islamic-terrorists"]http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama-neuters-war-on-islamic-terrorists[/URL], doesn't say anything remotely close to what the wiki page claimed, and it's a fake quote.)[/QUOTE] Wikipedia [I]is[/I] after all the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Shows me for not investigating sources on WP. :v:

[QUOTE=TheJoey;51790235][url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html?utm_term=.0af57639e8c3]source is washington post back in 2012[/url] this "he doesn't even do daily meetings!" criticism meme needs to die. it's fake news. sad![/QUOTE] trump (and the GOP) spent the last few years attacking obama as being lazy, shitty, what the fuck ever, and now you guys are saying 'well its ok because OBAMA did it'?? like jeez dude it doesnt take more than a few braincells to realise that means you're saying trump is as bad as however you perceived obama to be. in other words - in your eyes - trumps bad?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51791779]Wikipedia [I]is[/I] after all the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Shows me for not investigating sources on WP. :v:[/QUOTE] What surprises me even more is that someone would just flat-out make up something like that. Someone with a lot of time and a pretty serious vendetta, I suppose.

Theodore Roosevelt wrote a series of articles on the necessity of legitimately criticizing the president durlng WWI when President Wilson was jailing anti-war activists under the Espionage Act of 1917. I quote. [quote]"PATRIOTISM means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him in so far as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or about any one else–save in the rare cases where this would make known to the enemy information of military value which would otherwise be unknown to him.[/quote] Also this: [quote] The President–any President–can by speech or action (by advocating an improper peace. or improper submission to national wrong) give aid and comfort to the public enemy as no one else in. the land can do, and yet his conduct, however damaging to the, country, is not seditious; and although if public sentiment is sufficiently aroused he can be impeached, such course is practically impossible.[/quote] You can read more of what he says here. [url]http://newroseandcrown.org/theodore-roosevelts-1918-wartime-essay-lincoln-and-free-speech/[/url]