Current Events > CNN want's to ban the term ''fake news'' *serious*

(+) Yeah! (+)

Caution998 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Caution998 posted...

CNN wants to ban free speech?

Don't think so, CNN.

CNN is the left's version of breitbart - if not, it's actually worse.

Lmao imagine thinking a site that has writers that are openly white nationalists is worse than CNN having a slant you disagree with.

This is why people laugh at you

CNN Edits footage and recordings to play up a narrative that will support their ratings. If you can't admit IRREFUTABLE proof, then I will ignore you. Admit it: CNN is a joke. You need to separate yourself from that joke of a network. It doesn't mean your ideologies or political affiliation is incorrect by doing this.

Literally all news media does that.

No one is really saying CNN doesnt have a bias. Were just saying that the alt-right with shit like infowars and Breitbart are worse offenders and are actually fake news. CNN is just slanted news ala Fox News.

Also rofl at Mal. Getting owned yet again in an argument. What a sad life.
---

So only the other ones are fake and CNN is just slanted.

lmfao have fun with your head in the sand, dude.
---

the funniest part of this topic is that Mal's sense of irony entirely revolves around the fact that CNN corrects their reporting errors -- which ironically for the rest of us is one of the biggest things that makes not fake news not fake news
---

Balrog0 posted...

the funniest part of this topic is that Mal's sense of irony entirely revolves around the fact that CNN corrects their reporting errors -- which ironically for the rest of us is one of the biggest things that makes not fake news not fake news

To be fair, one could argue that after certain errors, the damage has been done and any corrections or retractions are just obligatory posturing. Edit: fucking ninjad

We'd also have to admit that "fake news" itself is evolving beyond Russian troll-farms.

Tbh I have no problem calling CNN fake news. But if we do that there's a few other publications I think we should put under that banner.
---

Balrog0 posted...

the funniest part of this topic is that Mal's sense of irony entirely revolves around the fact that CNN corrects their reporting errors -- which ironically for the rest of us is one of the biggest things that makes not fake news not fake news

This is called being an apologist and ignoring the information at your feet because...feels.
---

Caution998 posted...

So only the other ones are fake and CNN is just slanted.

lmfao have fun with your head in the sand, dude.

Irony.

Also if you call CNN fake news, we have to call most media fake news. So what do you want to do? Call CNN fake news (which means shit like Fox News is fake news) or call it slanted news which it is.
---

I'm gonna go and use 3 scoops of ice cream tonight.

Oh shit we got a major story tonight, Right @sktgamer_13dude
---

masticatingman posted...

This is called being an apologist and ignoring the information at your feet because...feels.

I don't see how. I am neither upset at this topic, nor a big fan of CNN.
if anything this topic and the responses within it amuse me very much, including yours
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Answer the question. Do you think it is accurate to say kids 0-14 are more likely to die in bathtubs since enough die from 0-4 to skew the data? If so many toddlers died that the range could be extended to 30 year olds , do you think it would be accurate to say 29 year olds are more likely to drown in a bathtub than get shot? That seems like a flawed assessment. One might even call that an intentional non-truth used to push a certain agenda

No, the drowning in a bathtub vs. accidental gunshot statistic could not be extended to 30 year-olds because it would not be true in that case.

It is true, however, for young kids, as Carlson said.

Is this becoming at all clear to you?

Bio1590 posted...

Here's the thing about Mal. Is the statement correct? Yes.

So it's kind of weird then how politifact said the statement was a pants-on-fire lie, huh?
---

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond-japan/index.html

Mal_Fet posted...

No, the drowning in a bathtub vs. accidental gunshot statistic could not be extended to 30 year-olds because it would not be true in that case.

It is true, however, for young kids, as Carlson said.

Is this becoming at all clear to you?

the two CNN headlines referencing the intelligence chiefs are both true as well by this logic

the issue is more about framing than content, the latter article just adds

When asked by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida during a Senate intelligence committee hearing, "Are prepared to say you have never been asked?" Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers declined to answer.

which happened after the article was originally published, since it was a live hearing...
---

but yes, if you lack any context at all for the articles and just post hot takes from an anti-media lens then it does indeed look bad!
---

Caution998 posted...

So only the other ones are fake and CNN is just slanted.

lmfao have fun with your head in the sand, dude.

Says the dude who called fucking Breitbart more legitimate than CNN.
---

Caution998 posted...

I'm gonna go and use 3 scoops of ice cream tonight.

Oh shit we got a major story tonight, Right sktgamer_13dude

Im gonna go get some pizza tonight at Comet Ping Pong.

Oh shit we got a major story tonight, right @Caution998?

See how youre a joke? I never said they werent biased. I never said that sometimes they werent terrible. Theyre not fake news tho, else all of your news sites are fake news too.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Caution998 posted...

So only the other ones are fake and CNN is just slanted.

lmfao have fun with your head in the sand, dude.

Says the dude who called fucking Breitbart more legitimate than CNN.

I said it was just as bad. Learn to read. I suggested CNN was possibly worse.
---

The kid who died from accidental gunfire was not in the 0-4 age range, so he was not more at risk of drowning from a bathtub.
---

I'm gonna put some koi fish as a topping on that pizza. They're fake news, dude. Separate yourself now before it's too late.
---

Caution998 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Caution998 posted...

So only the other ones are fake and CNN is just slanted.

lmfao have fun with your head in the sand, dude.

Says the dude who called fucking Breitbart more legitimate than CNN.

I said it was just as bad. Learn to read. I suggested CNN was possibly worse.

Which is 100% wrong rofl
---

Caution998 posted...

I'm gonna put some koi fish as a topping on that pizza. They're fake news, dude. Separate yourself now before it's too late.

Still more legit than Breitbart lmao.

It's kind of silly you cling to the same stupid tounge-in-cheek reports from them too. How long will you cling to silly things like the ice cream scoop stuff anyways?
---

Caution998 posted...

I'm gonna put some koi fish as a topping on that pizza. They're fake news, dude. Separate yourself now before it's too late.

Coming from the guy whos new sources legitimately thought Obama wasnt American, this is pure irony.
---

seems fair, since "fake news" doesn't actually mean fake news and instead means "whatever redhats don't like"
---

Caution998 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Caution998 posted...

So only the other ones are fake and CNN is just slanted.

lmfao have fun with your head in the sand, dude.

Says the dude who called fucking Breitbart more legitimate than CNN.

I said it was just as bad. Learn to read. I suggested CNN was possibly worse.

No you didn't but whatever, I'll ask you directly. Which news source do you consider more legitimate, Breitbart or CNN?
---

I mean almost every time someone finds something wrong CNN did, it either is something that is not unique to CNN (the Comey flip was widely reported by other outlets, too, I know at least ABC) or it's not even a thing -- like that intelligence chiefs headline which seems contradictory until you actually read the two versions, or how during Harvey people were saying CNN faked a rescue because the anchor or cameraman changed clothes during the shot -- only if you listen to the whole segment they name a third person who was on the crew assisting at the time so they weren't hiding anything

mostly the hate for CNN shows a shallow level of news consumption rather than a problem with CNN which definitely does have legitimate problems which people mostly ignore in these discussions. like how they cut off their washington reporters to talk about prince harvey or whoever
---

Mal_Fet posted...

No, the drowning in a bathtub vs. accidental gunshot statistic could not be extended to 30 year-olds because it would not be true in that case.

His analogical situation is identical to the current case. Either you say it's correct, or you say that you were incorrect in generalizing the relationship to children 0-14, when it's really only 0-4.
---

Balrog0 posted...

CNN which definitely does have legitimate problems which people mostly ignore in these discussions. like how they cut off their washington reporters to talk about prince harvey or whoever

Indeed, the issues that CNN has stem mostly from weighting airtime by ratings, so stories that get high ratings get more coverage, and so equally important stories, or even more important stories, often get quashed or at least minimized. But I'd argue that this is an issue with almost all major cable news outlets that run on a 24 hour cycle. The 24 hour news cycle is kinda just a bad thing for journalism in general, as it also means that, on average, stories are being fact checked less rigorously before airing.
---

COVxy posted...

Balrog0 posted...

CNN which definitely does have legitimate problems which people mostly ignore in these discussions. like how they cut off their washington reporters to talk about prince harvey or whoever

Indeed, the issues that CNN has stems mostly from weighting airtime by ratings, so stories that get high ratings get more coverage, and so equally important stories, or even more important stories, often get quashed or at least minimized. But I'd argue that this is an issue with almost all major cable news outlets that run on a 24 hour cycle.

the difference is that Fox and MSNBC both have ideological hackery to fall back on for ratings, whereas CNN has to use graphics and headlines to drum up excitement about random crap that really doesn't matter (the ice cream Trump story is actually a good example of this to be fair)
---

want's
---

Balrog0 posted...

(the ice cream Trump story is actually a good example of this to be fair)

Did this actually get much airtime? As far as I understood, it was like a couple of minutes at the end of a segment. Like a transition piece, where the time would have otherwise been taken up by anchors jib jabbing with forced laughter.
---

COVxy posted...

Balrog0 posted...

(the ice cream Trump story is actually a good example of this to be fair)

Did this actually get much airtime? As far as I understood, it was like a couple of minutes at the end of a segment. Like a transition piece, where the time would have otherwise been taken up by anchors jib jabbing with forced laughter.

It literally was like, the last 5 minutes of their shows and plenty of the clips were said tongue in cheek. Doesn't change the cultists from using that specific example as a reason to hate CNN and call it fake.

Like I didn't call Fox News fake for a huge segment about Obama's tan suit, I called them fake for literally pushing stories they've been sued over for being fake
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Caution998 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Caution998 posted...

So only the other ones are fake and CNN is just slanted.

lmfao have fun with your head in the sand, dude.

Says the dude who called fucking Breitbart more legitimate than CNN.

I said it was just as bad. Learn to read. I suggested CNN was possibly worse.

No you didn't but whatever, I'll ask you directly. Which news source do you consider more legitimate, Breitbart or CNN?

I don't visit either site or watch that garbage network. That's it.
---

COVxy posted...

Did this actually get much airtime? As far as I understood, it was like a couple of minutes at the end of a segment. Like a transition piece, where the time would have otherwise been taken up by anchors jib jabbing with forced laughter.

yeah but you shouldn't replace jib jabbing with elevating to a headline something that would normally not even make the scroll

if you're serious about being a news organization

of course the other side of the argument would probably be something like, "that was an entertainment show anyway and not a news show" which is what people used to defend fox news by saying
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Doesn't change the cultists from using that specific example as a reason to hate CNN and call it fake.

Like I didn't call Fox News fake for a huge segment about Obama's tan suit, I called them fake for literally pushing stories they've been sued over for being fake

I mean, we're no longer discussing the label of fake news, this is absolutely not what such stories fall under. It's mostly about ethical use of air time, and whether these pointed puff pieces are actually meaningfully impactful.

I think it's much less pieces like these, and much more things like spending 30 minutes plus with multiple rounds across many pundits regarding a single high hitting story of the day, while not covering other less exciting, but important stories.
---

Sadly too many people are believing the lies of Trump. Still wanting to ban the term fake news will only hurt CNN.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Alucard188 posted...

A pre-emptive Mal_Fet CNN meltdown topic.

you should be ashamed for shitposting this way, being that youre a mod and a public face for this site

Moderator corruption. He acts like this all the time. If it were anyone else that wasnt a mod he would have been suspended years ago. The ToU doesnt apply to mods.
---

Nomadic View posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Alucard188 posted...

A pre-emptive Mal_Fet CNN meltdown topic.

you should be ashamed for shitposting this way, being that youre a mod and a public face for this site

Moderator corruption. He acts like this all the time. If it were anyone else that wasnt a mod he would have been suspended years ago. The ToU doesnt apply to mods.

---

COVxy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

No, the drowning in a bathtub vs. accidental gunshot statistic could not be extended to 30 year-olds because it would not be true in that case.

His analogical situation is identical to the current case. Either you say it's correct, or you say that you were incorrect in generalizing the relationship to children 0-14, when it's really only 0-4.

Do you even remember what you're defending anymore? I understand that you're desperately trying to separate the conversation from Carlson's statement because you now realize you're in a losing battle, but at least don't be so obvious about it

Politifact are the ones manipulating statistics to call Carlson a liar. You're the one trying to argue that yes, it's fair to call Carlson a liar because the majority of bathtub drownings happen in a specific age range which does not contradict his statement whatsoever.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills
---

Bio1590 posted...

Here's the thing about Mal. Is the statement correct? Yes.

This is your argument for an example of Mal doing a bad thing...
---

Imagine literally typing "want's" instead of "wants." Sadder than sad!
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Do you even remember what you're defending anymore? I understand that you're desperately trying to separate the conversation from Carlson's statement because you now realize you're in a losing battle, but at least don't be so obvious about it

Politifact are the ones manipulating statistics to call Carlson a liar. You're the one trying to argue that yes, it's fair to call Carlson a liar because the majority of bathtub drownings happen in a specific age range which does not contradict his statement whatsoever.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

this is significantly more misleading than the CNN headlines you posted that were supposed to be contradictory, though. your double standards are a big part of why people don't take you seriously.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Bio1590 posted...

Here's the thing about Mal. Is the statement correct? Yes.

This is your argument for an example of Mal doing a bad thing...

Just because a statement is correct at face value does not exclude the conclusion being drawn from it from being nonsense.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

This is your argument for an example of Mal doing a bad thing...

yes, making technically correct statements (which, in this case, isn't even technically correct unless you agree with Mal_Fet that 16 and 17 year olds aren't kids -- that is a very contentious claim, as many people refer to adults in their 20s as kids colloquially for instance) that are used to support patently absurd conclusions is a bad thing

another bad thing is shallow drive-by posting that selectively quotes part of a post to make it look worse than it is
---

We want facts from the news, rather ban opinions and half-truths. The 100% made up lies (Trump being a sexual predator) should be the end of them. I'm just waiting for Trump to sue one of those women for so much money that she rolls over and admits a major news network paid her to lie. Then sue them. No more CNN, no more fake news.
---

Bio1590 posted...

Just because a statement is correct at face value does not exclude the conclusion being drawn from it from being nonsense.

it is not even correct at face value, though, just to be clear

it is correct at Mal_Fet's selectively interpreted statistics value

tucker carlson never specified 0-14 year olds, Mal_Fet did

Mal_Fet is never this charitable towards someone who disagrees with him, though. Taken at face value, which is what politifact does, Carlson is wrong. We can understand what he means and not call him a liar, but that would be like not taking claims that the girl scouts have about 'forcing' kids to hug their relatives as an absolute statement, for an example of something Mal_Fet is not charitable enough to do.
---

southcoast09 posted...

We want facts from the news, rather ban opinions and half-truths. The 100% made up lies (Trump being a sexual predator) should be the end of them. I'm just waiting for Trump to sue one of those women for so much money that she rolls over and admits a major news network paid her to lie. Then sue them. No more CNN, no more fake news.

Lmao Trump isn't suing anyone you chucklefuck
---

Balrog0 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Do you even remember what you're defending anymore? I understand that you're desperately trying to separate the conversation from Carlson's statement because you now realize you're in a losing battle, but at least don't be so obvious about it

Politifact are the ones manipulating statistics to call Carlson a liar. You're the one trying to argue that yes, it's fair to call Carlson a liar because the majority of bathtub drownings happen in a specific age range which does not contradict his statement whatsoever.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

this is significantly more misleading than the CNN headlines you posted that were supposed to be contradictory, though. your double standards are a big part of why people don't take you seriously.

So CNN, a global news network should be held to lower standards than some random goof on the Internet?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

So CNN, a global news network should be held to lower standards than some random goof on the Internet?

Are you calling Tucker Carlson a random goof on the internet? Good one, Jon Stewart!
---

I see you predictably dodged the question.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

COVxy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

No, the drowning in a bathtub vs. accidental gunshot statistic could not be extended to 30 year-olds because it would not be true in that case.

His analogical situation is identical to the current case. Either you say it's correct, or you say that you were incorrect in generalizing the relationship to children 0-14, when it's really only 0-4.

Do you even remember what you're defending anymore? I understand that you're desperately trying to separate the conversation from Carlson's statement because you now realize you're in a losing battle, but at least don't be so obvious about it

Politifact are the ones manipulating statistics to call Carlson a liar. You're the one trying to argue that yes, it's fair to call Carlson a liar because the majority of bathtub drownings happen in a specific age range which does not contradict his statement whatsoever.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

If you track the conversation, I only stepped in on this point after you had deliberately misrepresented the data. It was your statement that I found so offensive, because you were just betting that nobody would click the link.
---