Intel: Russia has Compromising info on Trump.

[Tijuana]

So what about all those other news outlets in the world like BBC and pretty much all major newsoutlets in the world? oh they are fake news too or?

Most are, yes. There is no credibility left in the industry, if there ever was any. However, one should note that EVERYBODY had this story 6 months ago, and since they were never able to substantiate it, the "more reputable" outlets just let it be. But CNN is just off the rails at this point. If you spend an entire day talking about fake news that you know to be fake news, well....you are a purveyor of fake news. It's just that simple.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

That's actually a pretty good definition of fake news. Fairly accurate. And they even show pictures of "The Denver Guardian" and "Abcnews.com.co", which were legitimate fake news websites.

So looking at that definition, explain how the WAPO article is "fake news".

To me, and perhaps I am wrong, but this fit the "disinformation" category.

It's a joke. Deal with it.

When it comes to Wikileaks, for whatever reason, your ability to harness the power of logic, reason, and objectivity fly out the window. It doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes your discussion about that particular subject tedious. Especially on a thread that has nothing to do with Wikileaks.

Some people have political affiliations. I have moral affiliations. Personally, I hold the truth above them and the only reliable source that I have is them. And I make sure to prevent people from pulling false allegations against them. I couldn't care less about Trump or Hillary for that matter.

I also don't bring up Wikileaks unless relevant. I've had plenty of discussion speaking about politics without the interference of "Wikileaks". But you're accusing me of defending a principle and something that I believe is right? -- That is factually true?

And that's fine but that's not an issue in this case (the subject of the thread, not your article). The source is considered credible.

True, the source is considered credible. Not true, but regardless of that, I still support the publication of the document, as I've stated numerous time in this thread.

[Tijuana]

Hey, just noticed you completely edited this post. Much more substantive, but still wrong. Donna Brazile didn't write this.

I only edited out insults because I didn't want to stoop to your level, after some thought. Donna Brazile didn't write this but, her employer ran this fake story for 24 hours before getting excoriated by their peers.

[TZucchini]

Most are, yes. There is no credibility left in the industry, if there ever was any. However, one should note that EVERYBODY had this story 6 months ago, and since they were never able to substantiate it, the "more reputable" outlets just let it be. But CNN is just off the rails at this point. If you spend an entire day talking about fake news that you know to be fake news, well....you are a purveyor of fake news. It's just that simple.

What did CNN publish regarding this story that was fake?

- - - Updated - - -

To me, and perhaps I am wrong, but this fit the "disinformation" category.

So disinformation basically requires one to publish material that they know to be false.

What is your evidence for this claim?

[Tijuana]

What did CNN publish regarding this story that was fake?

- - - Updated - - -



So disinformation basically requires one to publish material that they know to be false.

What is your evidence for this claim?

They spent 24 hours talking about this "story". Did they say it was unsubstantiated? Yes they did. Does it still make them shameless hacks to spend an entire day on gossip, while EVERY OTHER outlet would not touch this fake story on air or in print, aside from a legit fake news website? Yes it does.

To your point to the other poster, the evidence that they knew it was fake is in that they knew the allegations could not be corroborated after every media outlet spent 6 months trying. Everyone had this story; CNN and Buzzfeed just showed they have the lowest ethics in the industry, at a time where the industry is suffering from the lowest ethics in history (in free societies).

[Zandalarian Paladin]

So disinformation basically requires one to publish material that they know to be false.

What is your evidence for this claim?

The evidence I have is their repeated claim that they couldn't corroborate the information from the document, but that some allegations made sense and the source was credible.

[Shadowmelded]

True, the source is considered credible. Not true, but regardless of that, I still support the publication of the document, as I've stated numerous time in this thread.

So, you're saying the allegations are untrue? Based on?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

So, you're saying the allegations are untrue? Based on?

It is considered credible, not true. I haven't said the allegations are not true. I've said that they cannot be considered true, because they cannot be corroborated right now.

[TZucchini]

They spent 24 hours talking about this "story". Did they say it was unsubstantiated? Yes they did. Does it still make them shameless hacks to spend an entire day on gossip, while EVERY OTHER outlet would not touch this fake story on air or in print, aside from a legit fake news website? Yes it does.

See this is what I'm talking about. Just because you don't like the story, or don't think it should have been printed, does not make one a disseminator of fake news.

[Tijuana]

The evidence I have is their repeated claim that they couldn't corroborate the information from the document, but that some allegations made sense and the source was credible.

The source was an intelligence document that noted right at the top that this was Russian disinformation. They literally knew about this story 6 months ago, and the reason they knew about it, is because intelligence officials said, "Hey, there is this fake story floating around; here is the claim."

They are being shredded by every media outlet. Yet, here comes MMO-C to defend them. Hilarious.

[Shadowmelded]

It is considered credible, not true. I haven't said the allegations are not true. I've said that they cannot be considered true, because they cannot be corroborated right now.

Fair enough, the phrasing was a little deceptive.

[Tijuana]

See this is what I'm talking about. Just because you don't like the story, or don't think it should have been printed, does not make one a disseminator of fake news.

It's literally a story that is KNOWN to be fake. It has fuck all to do with ideology, given the fact that EVERY MEDIA OUTLET has ripped them a new asshole over this.

[TZucchini]

The evidence I have is their repeated claim that they couldn't corroborate the information from the document, but that some allegations made sense and the source was credible.

Are you still talking about the electrical grid story that you claimed was fake news?

[sethman75]

So, you're saying the allegations are untrue? Based on?

Are your saying they are correct based on?

[Shadowmelded]

Are your saying they are correct based on?

Nope, unproven. Hence "allegations" and not "facts".

[TZucchini]

It's literally a story that is KNOWN to be fake. It has fuck all to do with ideology, given the fact that EVERY MEDIA OUTLET has ripped them a new asshole over this.

Again. Point to the parts of the published CNN article that are fake.

You can't. Because nothing CNN published was fake. They reported on factual events.

Just because you don't like their decision to report on those factual events, does not make them a fake news outlet.

[Machismo]

They spent 24 hours talking about this "story". Did they say it was unsubstantiated? Yes they did. Does it still make them shameless hacks to spend an entire day on gossip, while EVERY OTHER outlet would not touch this fake story on air or in print, aside from a legit fake news website? Yes it does.

To your point to the other poster, the evidence that they knew it was fake is in that they knew the allegations could not be corroborated after every media outlet spent 6 months trying. Everyone had this story; CNN and Buzzfeed just showed they have the lowest ethics in the industry, at a time where the industry is suffering from the lowest ethics in history (in free societies).

Then you must surely be angry about all the unverified reports that came out over Benghazi and Hillary's e-mails. Did you voice your displeasure then?

Nope.

[sethman75]

See this is what I'm talking about. Just because you don't like the story, or don't think it should have been printed, does not make one a disseminator of fake news.

Right but facts that can't be verified is fake news. Buzzfeed and CNN printed them anyway knowing full well it was unable to be verified.

That is a cardinal sin of journalism and why nobody outside the liberal echo chamber take Buzzfeed and CNN seriously

[Machismo]

It's literally a story that is KNOWN to be fake. It has fuck all to do with ideology, given the fact that EVERY MEDIA OUTLET has ripped them a new asshole over this.

Did the memo that CNN report about not exist? Were they not told about it? What part of their reporting was false?

[NYC17]

To me, and perhaps I am wrong, but this fit the "disinformation" category.



Some people have political affiliations. I have moral affiliations. Personally, I hold the truth above them and the only reliable source that I have is them. And I make sure to prevent people from pulling false allegations against them. I couldn't care less about Trump or Hillary for that matter.

I also don't bring up Wikileaks unless relevant. I've had plenty of discussion speaking about politics without the interference of "Wikileaks". But you're accusing me of defending a principle and something that I believe is right? -- That is factually true?



True, the source is considered credible. Not true, but regardless of that, I still support the publication of the document, as I've stated numerous time in this thread.

Jesus Christ you are not only tedious, but dramatic as well.

Your "moral affiliations" as they pertain to Wikileaks are not exactly clear minded. You have fancied yourself some sorta Wikileaks Knight and it's weird. To launch into pages long defense of them on a thread that has zero to do with them, and hide behind it is some sort of superior moral obligation...just stop already haha.

If you want to get down to it, I jokingly accused you of being a Beetlegeuse/Dorothy of OZ type shill for Wikileaks. Emphasis on jokingly. If I had known you have no sense of humor to speak of...well, honestly, I still would have made the joke.