What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining abo

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining abo

Post #1

Post by Elijah John »

HRC is calling for legislation that would prohibit "fake news".

Just wondering, what is she referring to?

What are some examples of "fake news"?
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining

Post #2

Post by DanieltheDragon »

Elijah John wrote: HRC is calling for legislation that would prohibit "fake news".

Just wondering, what is she referring to?

What are some examples of "fake news"?
Such legislation limits free speech, so I am against it.

Fake news can be found on face book and info wars and the enquirer.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining

Post #3

Post by Elijah John »

DanieltheDragon wrote:
Elijah John wrote: HRC is calling for legislation that would prohibit "fake news".

Just wondering, what is she referring to?

What are some examples of "fake news"?
Such legislation limits free speech, so I am against it.

Fake news can be found on face book and info wars and the enquirer.
That's a good question that I should have included in the OP for debate.

Are you for or against possible legeistation that would prophibit "fake news"?

Daniel, do you have some examples of facebook (etc.) "fake news"?

I heard something about a pizza joint and guns, didn't hear the details.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

TheBeardedDude
Scholar
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:06 pm
Location: Connecticut

Post #4

Post by TheBeardedDude »

Infowars is an excellent example of fake news. Fake new is news that is patently false, made-up, straight-up lies.

Like the pizza place child trafficking story that resulted in a person taking a gun to the pizza shop to "investigate" what was going on.

They are intentionally false stories that are intended to generate harm.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #5

Post by Elijah John »

TheBeardedDude wrote: Infowars is an excellent example of fake news. Fake new is news that is patently false, made-up, straight-up lies.

Like the pizza place child trafficking story that resulted in a person taking a gun to the pizza shop to "investigate" what was going on.

They are intentionally false stories that are intended to generate harm.
I favor laws against that kind of thing then. "Free speech" should not be unlimited. That's worse than crying "fire" in a crowded theatre.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining

Post #6

Post by Divine Insight »

Elijah John wrote: Are you for or against possible legeistation that would prophibit "fake news"?
This is an interesting question because there already exist laws against falsity or fraud in advertising which I personally feel are good laws.

I think there should be laws against the outright telling of lies, especially if they are being presented by a source that claims to be a "News Source".

I also think there's a huge difference between the freedom of speech to suggest a conspiracy "hypothesis" versus the outright claiming that certain things have been done when there is absolutely no evidence to back up those claims.

I think one really good example are the conspiracy theories that the 9/11 world trade center attacks were an "inside job" actually carried out secretly by the United States government. Infowars pushed this conspiracy to the hilt. Yet we have video of Osama Bin Laden gloating over the incident clearly taking credit for it.

I mean, some of these conspiracy theories can easily be shown to be as false as they can possibly be. Therefore I have no problem with the people who spread these kinds of obvious lies being at least called-out by the law.

I think there are legitimate reasons for a society to legally call people out for spreading obvious lies as if they have some sort of credibility.

I think Alex Jones and Infowars is a prime example of a media that takes advantage of audiences who fall for the most obvious outrageous lies. And it should bother every American citizen that Donald Trump actually called Alex Jones and promised Alex Jones that he won't let him down. :roll:

That's scary. And with all the lies that go around anymore I can't even be sure that Trump actually did this, but I believe this was reported on MSNBC, a news source that I do feel is very trustworthy, albeit possibly biased. But being biased is one thing, telling outright lies is something altogether different.

If I report only negative stuff about someone, that's not lying as long as everything I've reported is true. But it would certainly be biased if I never report anything good they do. So a news source can be biased without telling lies.

But if I report outright lies about someone, then I'm being far more than biased, I'm actually committing slander.

There are laws against slander too. So if a news source tells lies about someone they would be open to slander suits. In fact, the US government should slap a huge slander suit on Alex Jones and Infowars for spreading lies that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks against the world trade centers.

I think one problem with the US government suing for slander is that this would just cause even more conspiracy theories proclaiming that the government has something to hide and is anxious to cover up these accusations. So it's a slippery slope to try to enforce TRUTH without just inciting even more suspicions that there might be something to the original slander.

It's a shame that we have to live in a world filled with liars like Alex Jones and so many others. It's also disgusting that Donald Trump is even talking to Alex Jones as if he's a reputable person. If indeed there is any truth to that claim. I certainly hope that's a lie, but unfortunately I'm afraid its not. I can certainly imagine Donald Trump looking up to someone like Alex Jones with respect. That wouldn't be out of character for Mr. Trump. And that's the sad truth of that.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #7

Post by bluethread »

"Fake news" has existed long before the establishment of the first amendment. It used to be called "yellow journalism". When I was studying radio and television news in college, it became apparent that it has more to do with entertainment than accurate information. Politicians have always had a love/hate relationship with the press and have sought to marginalize the latest innovations in journalism, as more and more people gained access to a press. Now that practically everyone has a 24/7 "press", those in power are doing everything they can to maintain control of information provided to the public. This, however, is a lost cause. Even if the federal governement were to set up a politburo to filter the news, the underground press would still provide inside information and would gain credibility, simply because it is forbidden. So, in short, this is just yet another attempt by Hillary to divert attention away from her actions, by blaming the messenger. The only real defense against truly fake news is a free market of ideas and diligence on the part of the consumer.

User avatar
KenRU
Guru
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:44 pm
Location: NJ

What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining abo

Post #8

Post by KenRU »

bluethread wrote: "Fake news" has existed long before the establishment of the first amendment. It used to be called "yellow journalism". When I was studying radio and television news in college, it became apparent that it has more to do with entertainment than accurate information. Politicians have always had a love/hate relationship with the press and have sought to marginalize the latest innovations in journalism, as more and more people gained access to a press. Now that practically everyone has a 24/7 "press", those in power are doing everything they can to maintain control of information provided to the public. This, however, is a lost cause. Even if the federal governement were to set up a politburo to filter the news, the underground press would still provide inside information and would gain credibility, simply because it is forbidden. So, in short, this is just yet another attempt by Hillary to divert attention away from her actions, by blaming the messenger. The only real defense against truly fake news is a free market of ideas and diligence on the part of the consumer.
I never thought I would be typing this sentence, but I agree 100% with bluethread.

It is nothing more then her stamping her feet and crying that she didn't get her way. The government should stay away from limiting news sources. It has all it can do to police itself, let alone the free market of information. Which, as blue accurately points out, it has no chance of corralling anyway.

Well said, sir.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

TheBeardedDude
Scholar
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:06 pm
Location: Connecticut

Post #9

Post by TheBeardedDude »

Elijah John wrote:
TheBeardedDude wrote: Infowars is an excellent example of fake news. Fake new is news that is patently false, made-up, straight-up lies.

Like the pizza place child trafficking story that resulted in a person taking a gun to the pizza shop to "investigate" what was going on.

They are intentionally false stories that are intended to generate harm.
I favor laws against that kind of thing then. "Free speech" should not be unlimited. That's worse than crying "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Yes, there should be some way of evaluating and vetting news stories. This election cycle saw blatantly false stories being perpetuated and presented as real news.

It would help to have something like the Fairness Doctrine reestablished (something Regan let lapse and has never been picked back up). An explanation of it from Wikipedia:
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced."

Basically, there needs to be some measure of accountability for the person(s) and organizations presenting something as news.


On a separate issue, I think there should also be something that requires organizations and news publishers to be more forthright about their biases. No one is perfectly objective and neither is any given news source. I think it would be immensely valuable for organizations to make it clear where and how they are funded, for instance. Or if they have a particular political opinion as an organization. I don't think partisan papers or news sources are bad per se. But I do think they are bad when they try and lie and hide their intentions. An example would be Fox News. It shouldn't be a surprise that it is a conservative-leaning news organization, but its tagline is "Fair and Balanced" and it is neither. It is conservative news and it should present itself that way, that is how a lot of our news in America was historically. You didn't fool yourself when you picked up an explicitly Republican or Liberal newspaper, you knew you were getting news from one perspective. This allowed for a person to understand that attaining an alternate opinion/perspective meant going to another news source with a known political leaning. But now, with places like Fox News, people really do believe that they are getting "fair and balanced" news from an objective source because all other news sources are just "liberal media."

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining

Post #10

Post by Divine Insight »

KenRU wrote: The government should stay away from limiting news sources. It has all it can do to police itself, let alone the free market of information. Which, as blue accurately points out, it has no chance of corralling anyway.
Why not?

The government protects its citizens against advertisement fraud, why not also offer some protection against "news fraud"? :-k

Although in a sense they already do. I mean if Hillary Clinton feels that some news source has slandered her with lies she has the right to sue them for slander.

One problem is the question of who do you sue? What happens is that some original news fraud source creates a totally fabricated story and then that story starts getting repeated by a lot of other social media. Do you then need to narrow it down to who actually started the false stories? Or should everyone who repeats false stories be held responsible for not verifying their sources before passing on the false information.

I think we all know that many of the stories told about Hillary Clinton on the Internet are totally bogus lies. I mean, for crying out loud, they have her torturing babies in basements. :roll:

At what point do the readers have a responsibility to just know that such stories are insanely unreal? :-k

Does anyone genuinely believe that Hillary Clinton tortures babies in secret basements? Just how utterly absurd can accusations get?

Hillary Clinton -lesbian-demon-pedophile-child-rapist

I mean, come on, these people are the scum of the earth propagating such hateful lies as if there is some sort of truth to them. This is the ultimate "Bearing false witness against your neighbor".

It truly is a "Hate Crime" to spread these kinds of hateful lies about someone, and it should be treated as such.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply