FAKE NEWS? You haven't seen the real thing yet.

[TenEightyOne]

Yes it is factually incorrect. Do you really believe he's KING Donald Trump and that I must disprove it?

Which is not the way it works anyway -- you assert the truthfulness of something, it's on you to furnish the evidence, it is not anybody else's obligation to disprove it although they may if they wish.

Right-by-birth isn't a mandatory part of the definition of a king, he's arguably describable as that.

And that whole "madness" thing... on just what evidence are they declaring he "may" be mad? Pedantically they may be not calling him outright a madman, but it certainly seems to me that that's what they want their readership to think.

That raises the whole grey area between fake noos and misleading noos (terrible noos). What the readership think and what the story actually says are, as we know, often poles apart.

 

[eran0004]

Yes it is factually incorrect. Do you really believe he's KING Donald Trump and that I must disprove it?

Do I really have to hold your hand and guide you through the headline of an essay?

Okay, pay attention because here we go: the essay draws parallels between Donald Trump and courts of old Europe. Hence the use of "king" in the headline. It is an essay, not a news report, so the author has a greater artistic freedom than what a news reporter have.

In an essay drawing parallels to The Animal Farm the title might have been "Piggy Trump", which doesn't mean that you should take it literally.

You are confusing your own inability to read literature with the recent phenomenon of fabricated news posted on fake news websites. Just because you don't understand something does not make it fake.

Which is not the way it works anyway -- you assert the truthfulness of something, it's on you to furnish the evidence, it is not anybody else's obligation to disprove it although they may if they wish.

Except that what is claimed is that the article is fake, which means that the burden of evidence is on you.

And that whole "madness" thing... on just what evidence are they declaring he "may" be mad?

If you had read the essay before accusing it of being fake you would have known. Here it is:

"The result, however, has been chaos and confusion, contradiction and paralysis. It has become clear that the president of the United States is someone who does not read his briefs; who does not take the advice of experts in the intelligence field or indeed in any other; who fires off brief statements without thinking whether they are consistent with his administration’s declared policies; who is seemingly incapable of putting together a coherent sentence with a subject, a verb and an object; who is apt to give away state secrets to a foreign power; and who seems to have no respect either for the truth or for the Constitution (not least in respect of freedom of religion and freedom of speech). He may not be mad, but a growing number of commentators allege that Trump is suffering from dementia, or is mentally subnormal, or is suffering from a personality disorder of some kind."

Pedantically they may be not calling him outright a madman, but it certainly seems to me that that's what they want their readership to think.

Probably. Which makes it provocative, but not fake.

 

[photonrider]

If you feel that I'm trolling you by questioning the nature of your thread, then you may want to flag my posts.

No. What you must not do is take on the mantle of moderator - insinuating that they aren't doing their job. Easy enough to press the report button in the first place and alert them to the fact that you have concerns about the existence of the discussion at this forum. Simple enough to read and understand?

Or let those who are contributing to the discussion have their say.

____________________

Now to continue digging:

Seems like the mainstream media is also on the hunt for fake news/false information/misinformation/dubious propaganda/mischievous text/dangerous gossip, etc:

A Shark in the Street, and Other Hurricane Harvey Rumors You Shouldn’t Believe

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/shark-hurricane-harvey-rumors.html?mcubz=0

 

[Beeblebrox237]

You either appear to be trolling now, or English is not your native language.

If you feel that I'm trolling you by questioning the nature of your thread, then you may want to flag my posts.

No. What you must not do is take on the mantle of moderator - insinuating that they aren't doing their job. Easy enough to press the report button in the first place and alert them to the fact that you have concerns about the existence of the discussion at this forum. Simple enough to read and understand?

You were the one who accused him of trolling. It's not your job to be a moderator or to insinuate that they aren't doing their job. It's easy enough for you to press the report button alert them to the fact that you have concerns about the nature of the discussion here.

 

[TenEightyOne]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/shark-hurricane-harvey-rumors.html?mcubz=0

Has any news outlet reported the "shark in the street" claims et al as fact? If not then we're back to "mad internet gossip" which doesn't seem in line with the thread title

 

[UKMikey]

You were the one who accused him of trolling. It's not your job to be a moderator or to insinuate that they aren't doing their job. It's easy enough for you to press the report button alert them to the fact that you have concerns about the nature of the discussion here.

Much obliged @Beeblebrox237.

As far as contributing to the discussion goes, I thought it was interesting that the article from the Swedish newspaper I posted upthread, although very much on topic with its in depth description of the creation of fake news articles destined for the US market, seems to have gone completely undiscussed by @photonrider.

Perhaps the fact that it painted some Trump supporters in a less than flattering light was somehow unwelcome or maybe it was a reading comprehension issue?

If not then we're back to "mad internet gossip" which doesn't seem in line with the thread title

I'm beginning to wonder whether that thread title is fake news, or at least fake information, itself. I noticed your post #28 (which discussed the differences between the two) also appears to have slipped through the net.

 

[BobK]

You are confusing your own inability to read literature with the recent phenomenon of fabricated news posted on fake news websites. Just because you don't understand something does not make it fake

I can read literature very well, and very likely have been doing so since before you were born. So you can cut the condescending crap.

Now, you can attempt to make a reasoned, intelligent reply. Or not, your choice.

 

[eran0004]

I can read literature very well, and very likely have been doing so since before you were born. So you can cut the condescending crap.

Now, you can attempt to make a reasoned, intelligent reply. Or not, your choice.

So why the naive "but he is not a KING!" remark? If you read that as a factual statement, how are you supposed to be able to have an intelligent discussion about the content of the essay?

 

[BobK]

So why the naive "but he is not a KING!" remark? If you read that as a factual statement, how are you supposed to be able to have an intelligent discussion about the content of the essay?

Because I said:

How about the headline: "The madness of King Donald Trump..." are you seriously claiming that's factually accurate?

and you said:

That is the topic of the essay, so yes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How about the headline: "The madness of King Donald Trump..." are you seriously claiming that's factually accurate?

I think the pair of you are at cross purposes (maybe not, forgive me ). As I said earlier the term "king" doesn't necessarily apply to a birthright sovereign so it's not factually inaccurate - however pejorative - to describe him in that way.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Have either of you read the article "The madness of King Donald..." in full? It's a very interesting article, and one worth consideration. It's very much a historical study rather than an attack on Donald Trump, and if you read the piece you'd realise this. The author, a historian, uses the premise that Donald Trump is not a capable leader to examine past precedent of such events, and examines whether populist leaders will ever be successful due to the nature of populism.

He says about Trump:
"He may not be mad, but a growing number of commentators allege that Trump is suffering from dementia, or is mentally subnormal, or is suffering from a personality disorder of some kind."

And then sets the question which he seeks to answer in the piece:
"What happens when a political elite concludes that the real or titular head of state has to be deposed in the interests of the country as a whole? Of course, given Trump’s leadership style, the pertinent question might be narrowed down further: What happens when a monarch is judged as mentally unfit to rule?"

https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh...-the-45th-president-of-the-united-states.html

It's not news, so how can it be fake? How is it relevant to this thread? It's a piece that examines historical precedent with regard to the current political environment in the US under the growing consensus that Donald Trump may have some sort of mental illness. It's an interesting read, with the author making a prediction on what might happen in certain cases rather than trying to convince the public of any particular viewpoint, and that should be clear to anyone who reads the paper.

 

[Famine]

Is the title of the piece not just simply the title of the film "The Madness of King George III" with Donald Trump's three syllables swapped in for "George the Third"'s to preserve the metre? And is it not just an op-ed, and thus not news, fake or otherwise?


I was under the impression that "Fake News" referred to news articles that reported fiction, or were based off known-false information. I've not seen a single example of that in this thread so far.

 

[UKMikey]

I'd suggest Google image searching the phrase "King Trump" for comparison, were I not afraid that there'd be complaints that those images were artificially promoted by the PC history erasure project.

 

[Biggles]

Is the title of the piece not just simply the title of the film "The Madness of King George III" with Donald Trump's three syllables swapped in for "George the Third"'s to preserve the metre? And is it not just an op-ed, and thus not news, fake or otherwise?


I was under the impression that "Fake News" referred to news articles that reported fiction, or were based off known-false information. I've not seen a single example of that in this thread so far.

Exactly.

This thread seems to be nothing more than an excuse for photon to ramble on self-indulgently. The "King Trump" article is not presented as "news" - it's an essay by an historian. Aside from that, newspapers have exhibited editorial "bias" - ie. a particular point of view - in editorials & commentary for a long time - centuries, in fact. This is not the same thing as false information, although that may also appear deliberately or accidentally. "Pizzagate" was demonstrably "fake news", millions of illegal votes being cast in the GE was "fake news", Obama's birth certificate being faked was "fake news", scores of "Soros buses" in Chicago was "fake news". NYT & Wash Post editorial writers despising Trump - that's not "fake news".

 

[eran0004]

Because I said:

and you said:

The headline is factually correct, because it describes the content of the article, which is the parallel that is being drawn between the present US government and the mad regents of old Europe. The essay essentially provides you with a pair of tinted "mad king" glasses and say "hey, let's take a look at Donald Trump through these. It's a pretty interesting picture."

That is the Donald Trump that is being referred to in the headline. It's not meant to be taken as a fact that Donald Trump is objectively and formally a king. It is an essay and not a news report, and the essay format comes with a certain level of artistic freedom that the news format doesn't have.

As for fake news: had it been a news report, then it would have been important to be formally correct. If you want to use the title king in such a headline it should be put in quotation marks. But even without such quotation marks it would still not have been enough to call it fake news. It would however be disrespectful and an obvious sign of bias, but bad journalism isn't per definition fake news.

Fake news is about forging news, or at the very least publishing a story without properly checking the sources first. It is necessary to separate that kind of journalism from journalism that you dislike for other reasons.

As for Trump's use of the term "fake news", I totally understand that he doesn't like the media, I'm sure it's a royal pain (pun intended) to always have everything you say twisted and interpreted in the worst possible way. But he must also understand that it's important that the media plays that role, because if they don't keep him in check, then who will?

 

[homeforsummer]

Okay, so on whatever reasons this thread was started, I think it could be quite useful as an ongoing resource for debunking the kind of misinformation that crops up regularly on social media.

For instance, this appeared on my timeline just now, courtesy of a retweet from my local Green Party candidate:

​

Damning claim, quotation from a Doctor, link to an actual journal - could be legit at first glance, and plenty of retweets to show people support it.

I wasn't convinced though. First, check out all the links at the bottom - lots of anti-GMO organisations (implies conflict of interests). Next, the person tweeting it, whose profile begins with "Big #homeopathy promoter" (a pseudoscience) and whose tweets are also heavily anti-vaccination (another belief system based on pseudoscience), which always rings alarm bells.

Dig further and you'll discover the journal in which the study is published isn't an approved journal, and the organisation that funded it no longer exists. The first link on Google for the doctor quoted in the image is known for that one study alone - and debunks that study completely.

And for a bonus, a video describing everything that's wrong with the study in question - including evidence that the pigs supposedly fed on non-GMO feed actually had GMO contamination, and that some of the pigs were ill (of different causes) before they were slaughtered.

​

Always, always investigate further.

 

[polysmut]

Always, always investigate further.

I choose to accept your post at face value.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers:

The Article: https://apnews.com/20dd16f97a144a04...e-facts-surrounding-Obama-immigration-program

The key point that is lost in all of this is these quotes from Trump:

At the same time, I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.

The legislative branch, not the executive branch, writes these laws – this is the bedrock of our Constitutional system, which I took a solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend.

In June of 2012, President Obama bypassed Congress to give work permits, social security numbers, and federal benefits to approximately 800,000 illegal immigrants currently between the ages of 15 and 36. The typical recipients of this executive amnesty, known as DACA, are in their twenties.

In referencing the idea of creating new immigration rules unilaterally, President Obama admitted that “I can’t just do these things by myself” – and yet that is exactly what he did, making an end-run around Congress and violating the core tenets that sustain our Republic.

There can be no path to principled immigration reform if the executive branch is able to rewrite or nullify federal laws at will.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers:

In June of 2012, President Obama bypassed Congress to give work permits, social security numbers, and federal benefits to approximately 800,000 illegal immigrants currently between the ages of 15 and 36. The typical recipients of this executive amnesty, known as DACA, are in their twenties.

90% of whom work at an average of $17 per hour on which they pay taxes. They had to under 16 when they arrived in the US and had to have lived there before 2008. More than half of US voters supported the "Dreamer" programme along with nearly 2,000 attorney generals, mayors, judges and police chiefs. That along with the $460billion loss in GDP from axing those 700,000 workers hardly seems a solid mandate for trump.

It seems that you're propogating fake news or at least heavy spin.

 

[Sanji Himura]

90% of whom work at an average of $17 per hour on which they pay taxes. They had to under 16 when they arrived in the US and had to have lived there before 2008. More than half of US voters supported the "Dreamer" programme along with nearly 2,000 attorney generals, mayors, judges and police chiefs. That along with the $460billion loss in GDP from axing those 700,000 workers hardly seems a solid mandate for trump.

It seems that you're propogating fake news or at least heavy spin.

You missed the point of the quote. Obama DID in fact bypass Congress to get those kids legal. What Trump wanted to do was to allow Congress to pass DACA as is their constitutional right to do in the first place.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You missed the point of the quote. Obama DID in fact bypass Congress to get those kids legal. What Trump wanted to do was to allow Congress to pass DACA as is their constitutional right to do in the first place.

Which, by the power of the XO, he was allowed to do. It wasn't a secret. I'm struggling to find the fake news except for the misleading Trump quotes?

 

[Joey D]

Not surprisingly there's a ton of fake new around Harvey and Irma, presumably Jose will be the same way.

The Washington Post did a decent job fact checking these: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oaxes-about-the-storm/?utm_term=.533f6452ca30

My favorite though has to be from the blubbering buffoon that is Rush Limbaugh. It takes a real idiot to think meteorologist are embellishing Irma's forecast to promote climate change.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Which, by the power of the XO, he was allowed to do. It wasn't a secret. I'm struggling to find the fake news except for the misleading Trump quotes?

Really? Show me in the Constitution where a sitting President can create law at the stroke of a pen just because Congress refuses to pass something?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Really? Show me in the Constitution where a sitting President can create law at the stroke of a pen just because Congress refuses to pass something?

I still don't see the fake news, but I'll humour you. Executive power. Every president in history (but one, Harrison) has made executive orders including the Emancipation act. They're established in law and in the constitution.

Trump's own executive orders also include immigration matters, of course. The difference between him and Obama in this regard is that Trump's first XO didn't stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny according to their precedent judgements on the three separations of power.

 

[ryzno]

My favorite though has to be from the blubbering buffoon that is Rush Limbaugh. It takes a real idiot to think meteorologist are embellishing Irma's forecast to promote climate change.

I about chocked on my coffee and drove off the highway when I heard him ranting about that!

 

[Sanji Himura]

I still don't see the fake news, but I'll humour you. Executive power. Every president in history (but one, Harrison) has made executive orders including the Emancipation act. They're established in law and in the constitution.

Trump's own executive orders also include immigration matters, of course. The difference between him and Obama in this regard is that Trump's first XO didn't stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny according to their precedent judgements on the three separations of power.

Since we are going to debate the Constitution, Let's get into what that really means. The power of the executive order has to be based on existing Federal law. When Obama "passed" DACA, he absolutely created new Federal law, and not basing the order on already existing Federal law. Obama called Congress "do-nothing" too many times in his administration and has shut down the Federal Government in 2013 over his signature piece of legislation. Oh, and need I forget that he also used his power of the XO to pass NEW gun control regulations that target those on Social Security because of the Sandy Hook shooting?

What Trump basically said that got over everyone's heads is that he is going to stop DACA just long enough to allow Congress to pass it as is their right Constitutionally to do so. That is what the AGs in 13 states missed, that is what the MSM who are always in a mood to bash Trump missed, and that is what most anti-Trumpers missed.

If it were anyone else but Trump in that Oval Office right now, this could be a non-story.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Since we are going to debate the Constitution, Let's get into what that really means. The power of the executive order has to be based on existing Federal law.

That's a weird interpretation and not one that's borne out by history, judgements of the supreme court or the opinions of the Attorneys General. Quote from my link: "Executive orders have the full force of law, based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)". By your logic the slaves weren't even free when they were freed. In the case of DACA it's moot anyway, legal powers already existed to allow stays for hitherto-illegal immigrants thus the law was "faithfully executed".

Have you got any fake news or is this just a pro-Trump crusade?

 

[Sanji Himura]

That's a weird interpretation and not one that's borne out by history, judgements of the supreme court or the opinions of the Attorneys General. Quote from my link: "Executive orders have the full force of law, based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)". By your logic the slaves weren't even free when they were freed. In the case of DACA it's moot anyway, legal powers already existed to allow stays for hitherto-illegal immigrants thus the law was "faithfully executed".

Have you got any fake news or is this just a pro-Trump crusade?

I didn't vote for Trump, if that is what the jab is for.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I didn't vote for Trump, if that is what the jab is for.

Where's the fake news? That's all I was asking.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Where's the fake news? That's all I was asking in addition to the snide remark about a hidden political agenda.

FTFY.