(04-19-2017 10:28 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  No matter what story you link to, everyone will say it is fake without saying what in the article is actually fake or just taking it as truth and actually discussing the article. It is super small minded, just down right stupid but that is the conservative playbook yell fake and hope people believe you.

Tennis, you just have to learn which ones are sarcasm "fake" news posts.

(04-19-2017 11:29 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 10:28 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  No matter what story you link to, everyone will say it is fake without saying what in the article is actually fake or just taking it as truth and actually discussing the article. It is super small minded, just down right stupid but that is the conservative playbook yell fake and hope people believe you.

Tennis, you just have to learn which ones are sarcasm "fake" news posts.

You would think some of them are but when they are called out on it they dig in deeper.

A couple of months ago I posted two links that pertained to the same news story; one each from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

By reading only the headlines and first paragraphs, you could have safely concluded that the stories were about two separate events.

Therein lies the problem. A news story can be written to slant either way. And depending upon the writer's unconscious (or sometimes overt) bias and which an individual chooses to read, you end up with differing renderings of the facts.

A lot has to do with what is included and excluded.

(04-19-2017 11:30 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  A couple of months ago I posted two links that pertained to the same news story; one each from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

By reading only the headlines and first paragraphs, you could have safely concluded that the stories were about two separate events.

Therein lies the problem. A news story can be written to slant either way. And depending upon the writer's unconscious (or sometimes overt) bias and which an individual chooses to read, you end up with differing renderings of the facts.

A lot has to do with what is included and excluded.

Or the problem is not reading the whole story before coming up with a conclusion.

(04-19-2017 11:15 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 10:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And labeling is a big one too. If you're a Democrat or a liberal Republican or a conservative, you're automatically stupid or evil, but if you're a conservative or a Republican liberal or a Democrat, you're not. So you'll be painted as one or the other all the time in a pitiful attempt to belittle you.

It's a massive defense mechanism for many here who are unwilling or unable to thoughtfully engage in rational debate.

See how easy that is? Interchangeable. Nice use of a passive aggressive personality by the way; using a seemingly innocuous comment as a backhanded insult. Well done. #smh

Clearly, you're new here. Republicans and conservatives are rarely if ever labeled as stupid or evil by the liberals here solely because they are one. We normally confine it to the words they say and not their political philosophy. Sorry.

(04-19-2017 11:19 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 10:42 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 10:28 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  No matter what story you link to, everyone will say it is fake without saying what in the article is actually fake or just taking it as truth and actually discussing the article. It is super small minded, just down right stupid but that is the conservative playbook yell fake and hope people believe you.

You have to understand just how much fun we have had declaring certain news outlets as nothing more than "fake"...

You see, the point is that these outlets have been caught putting out some stuff that was actually fake in an effort to help and prop up their hero Hillary. In other words, they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Now - well, they deserve the label "fake news".

All news outlets get stuff wrong from time to time. The credible ones release retractions and make updates and clarifications.

And these days more and more of them are making more and more "mistakes".

Source?

(04-19-2017 11:23 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 10:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 10:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And labeling is a big one too. If you're a Democrat or a liberal, you're automatically stupid or evil, but if you're a conservative or a Republican, you're not. So you'll be painted as one or the other all the time in a pitiful attempt to belittle you.

It's a massive defense mechanism for many here who are unwilling or unable to thoughtfully engage in rational debate.

Pot calling kettle....

Wrong.

yes, you are.

Dude, you don't know jack squat about me so just stop. You're doing exactly what I just said: Forming opinions based upon my political ideology instead of the words that I say.

(04-19-2017 11:26 AM)miko33 Wrote:  My biggest pet peeve is that it's common to talk across each other and to not have those give and take discussions. I try my best to do that but I'm sure that I don't always do so.

You normally do a pretty good job. I would like to as well...but I get sucked into the mud too quickly.

I don't have one per se.

I hate when people quote quotes of quotes and build a damn text wall.

(04-19-2017 11:30 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  A couple of months ago I posted two links that pertained to the same news story; one each from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

By reading only the headlines and first paragraphs, you could have safely concluded that the stories were about two separate events.

Therein lies the problem. A news story can be written to slant either way. And depending upon the writer's unconscious (or sometimes overt) bias and which an individual chooses to read, you end up with differing renderings of the facts.

A lot has to do with what is included and excluded.

This is exactly it. It took oh so long, but a pretty good sized segment of the American people have figured out that the media has their own agenda and have been playing Americans as too stupid or lazy to research anything ( to a large degree they are correct )

One thing about people in general - fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.

The CNNs, MSNBCs, etc. of the world at one point had some credibility........they don't anymore - and it's their fault.

"Fake News"

I see a headline and before I'll click in, I check for where it came from. If it's Vox, Huff Po, Time, Newsweek, Salon, etc. - probably 50% of the time, I'll just decline to check it out - I already know the slant.

With that said, I also generally avoid NewsMax, WND, etc. for the same reasons with an opposite slant.

(04-19-2017 11:31 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:30 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  A couple of months ago I posted two links that pertained to the same news story; one each from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

By reading only the headlines and first paragraphs, you could have safely concluded that the stories were about two separate events.

Therein lies the problem. A news story can be written to slant either way. And depending upon the writer's unconscious (or sometimes overt) bias and which an individual chooses to read, you end up with differing renderings of the facts.

A lot has to do with what is included and excluded.

Or the problem is not reading the whole story before coming up with a conclusion.

No because you are only going to read the story that supports your confirmation bias needs. Then you feel comfortable telling people on boards how informed you are.

(04-19-2017 12:13 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:31 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:30 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  A couple of months ago I posted two links that pertained to the same news story; one each from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

By reading only the headlines and first paragraphs, you could have safely concluded that the stories were about two separate events.

Therein lies the problem. A news story can be written to slant either way. And depending upon the writer's unconscious (or sometimes overt) bias and which an individual chooses to read, you end up with differing renderings of the facts.

A lot has to do with what is included and excluded.

Or the problem is not reading the whole story before coming up with a conclusion.

No because you are only going to read the story that supports your confirmation bias needs. Then you feel comfortable telling people on boards how informed you are.

Well if the other people don't read the story and automatically call it fake yes i'm the informed one and the rest have their heads in the sand.

The solution is simple. Just keep track of who calls what fake news without reading it and who actually reads the reports and comments on it or at the very least, offers alternate news sources that disputes the original post.

There are some that want to have an actual discussion and those that just want to deflect, deflect, deflect.

(04-19-2017 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 12:13 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:31 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:30 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  A couple of months ago I posted two links that pertained to the same news story; one each from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

By reading only the headlines and first paragraphs, you could have safely concluded that the stories were about two separate events.

Therein lies the problem. A news story can be written to slant either way. And depending upon the writer's unconscious (or sometimes overt) bias and which an individual chooses to read, you end up with differing renderings of the facts.

A lot has to do with what is included and excluded.

Or the problem is not reading the whole story before coming up with a conclusion.

No because you are only going to read the story that supports your confirmation bias needs. Then you feel comfortable telling people on boards how informed you are.

Well if the other people don't read the story and automatically call it fake yes i'm the informed one and the rest have their heads in the sand.

Some people post fake news, think they are informed, then get indignant when people don't agree with them.

Anything else peeve you. I mean, you know, your happiness is our goal.

(04-19-2017 10:28 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  No matter what story you link to, everyone will say it is fake without saying what in the article is actually fake or just taking it as truth and actually discussing the article. It is super small minded, just down right stupid but that is the conservative playbook yell fake and hope people believe you.

Whine much....

#SafeSpace

(04-19-2017 12:48 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 10:28 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  No matter what story you link to, everyone will say it is fake without saying what in the article is actually fake or just taking it as truth and actually discussing the article. It is super small minded, just down right stupid but that is the conservative playbook yell fake and hope people believe you.

Whine much....

If it's whining to tell people to do better and actually have discussions here then sure.

(04-19-2017 11:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:15 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 10:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And labeling is a big one too. If you're a Democrat or a liberal Republican or a conservative, you're automatically stupid or evil, but if you're a conservative or a Republican liberal or a Democrat, you're not. So you'll be painted as one or the other all the time in a pitiful attempt to belittle you.

It's a massive defense mechanism for many here who are unwilling or unable to thoughtfully engage in rational debate.

See how easy that is? Interchangeable. Nice use of a passive aggressive personality by the way; using a seemingly innocuous comment as a backhanded insult. Well done. #smh

Clearly, you're new here. Republicans and conservatives are rarely if ever labeled as stupid or evil by the liberals here solely because they are one. We normally confine it to the words they say and not their political philosophy. Sorry.

Well when you are basing your argument on a stupid AND evil political philosophy.....

(04-19-2017 12:34 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 12:13 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:31 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:30 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  A couple of months ago I posted two links that pertained to the same news story; one each from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

By reading only the headlines and first paragraphs, you could have safely concluded that the stories were about two separate events.

Therein lies the problem. A news story can be written to slant either way. And depending upon the writer's unconscious (or sometimes overt) bias and which an individual chooses to read, you end up with differing renderings of the facts.

A lot has to do with what is included and excluded.

Or the problem is not reading the whole story before coming up with a conclusion.

No because you are only going to read the story that supports your confirmation bias needs. Then you feel comfortable telling people on boards how informed you are.

Well if the other people don't read the story and automatically call it fake yes i'm the informed one and the rest have their heads in the sand.

Some people post fake news, think they are informed, then get indignant when people don't agree with them.

Anything else peeve you. I mean, you know, your happiness is our goal.

Dibs

(04-19-2017 11:30 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  A couple of months ago I posted two links that pertained to the same news story; one each from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

By reading only the headlines and first paragraphs, you could have safely concluded that the stories were about two separate events.

Therein lies the problem. A news story can be written to slant either way. And depending upon the writer's unconscious (or sometimes overt) bias and which an individual chooses to read, you end up with differing renderings of the facts.

A lot has to do with what is included and excluded.

New York Times is particularly bad about headlines that have nothing to do with the facts in the story. And they do tend to exclude a lot of facts that make their headline even more ridiculous.

Newspapers used to not mix editorials with news. They might include/exclude to support their point of view, but now even the AP will editorialize in what is supposed to be a news story.