SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the she-said-he-said-he-didn't-(he-did) dept.
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Television news has long used graphics at the bottom of their screens to identify the people and places in their stories – but with the 2016 presidential race, two networks lately have been injecting analysis into them during their news reporting.
It started in June when Donald Trump denied having said Japan should have nuclear weapons. CNN inserted this snarky line in their chyron:
TRUMP: I NEVER SAID JAPAN SHOULD HAVE NUKES (HE DID)
[...] While fact-checking may or may not be a legitimate new use of the chyron, what is noticeable is a distinct absence of chyron fact-checking for various claims made by Clinton.
For instance, Clinton recently told Fox News' Chris Wallace that FBI Director James Comey had called her answers about her private email use as secretary of state "truthful" – he did not make such a sweeping statement.
Source: FoxNews
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday August 13 2016, @08:30AM
Source: Fox News Submitter:Runaway1956-2626
Yes, I will just pretend this was never on the front page, to preserve my respect for SoylentNews.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Saturday August 13 2016, @11:37AM
Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Same applies to this though as the 'science fiction and racism' story ... if you think the summary is wrong or misleading, explain why this story is misrepresenting what is actually happening.
(Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday August 13 2016, @05:25PM
No issues with the submission, or the summary, just the source. We should always remember that just calling yourself a journalist or a news organization does not make it so. A lot of Soylentils like to have a lot of varied sources for news, and that is a good thing. But some are not sources of news, the are fronts for agitprop, disinformation, titillation, or worse. I would suggest that the eds stay away, if possible, from articles from Fox, Breitbart, Politico, Huffington, Washington Times, American Military News, Washington Beacon, and the Lyndon LaRouche Newsletter, New York Daily News, and the Daily Mail.
(Score: 3, Funny) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 14 2016, @02:01AM
Name a fair and reliable source? Every single MSM outlet is just a high end presstitute, from Fox right on down to from PBS/NPR. The sad fact is that about the only thing that can save America from Trump or Clinton, are random hackers dumping data -- there is virtually no other free press aside from black hats any more.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:44AM
Every other major news outlet was caught checking in with the Democrats to see if stories were OK to run and if interview questions were OK to ask. (see email leak) NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN all did it. Only Fox wasn't corrupted.
So, if we are ranking them about trust, we have to place Fox at the top. You non-Fox people are missing things the Democrats would like to suppress. The only negative things you'll see about Democrats are the stories that are simply impossible to bury.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 15 2016, @05:29AM
Only Fox wasn't corrupted.
It is so cute that you think that! Did you ever consider that the only reason Fox was not "corrupted" was that they already had been? Repeatedly? From the git go? Rupert F**ubg Murdock? Nixon's hit man Roger Ailes? Did you not see this coming? How stupid is it possible to be, and why are you it?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday August 13 2016, @11:45AM
Here's another site with a similar article: https://thinkprogress.org/not-all-heroes-wear-capes-db25e613bf6#.rpug82ugy [thinkprogress.org]
So left and right leaning outlets have covered this story in much the same way, does that mean it's doubly irrelevant and biased? Or do we have to wait for CNN to do a exclusive report on their own bias for it to be a legitimate article?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 13 2016, @01:10PM
That article has no mention of whether or not clinton gets fact-checked in the chyron. The entire point of the submitted article was a claim that clinton doesn't get fact-checked in the chyron, not that Trump does.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Saturday August 13 2016, @02:29PM
You are right.
On the other side of that is.... Was the point of the Think Progress article?
The article I linked called the people 'fact checking' Trump 'heroes' for their efforts. The word Clinton doesn't even appear in a story from TP. I think that's a conspicuous absence in a story around the media fact checking one presidential candidate. They just couldn't find time to mention the competition and how that side has been affected by this type of reporting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 13 2016, @03:45PM
> What was the point of the Think Progress article?
To report on what was happening. Not every story needs to have "two sides." When there is a hurricane in florida, the reporting doesn't also include the fact that the weather is great in california.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 14 2016, @02:07AM
Except there are two sides here and criticism of Clinton is almost totally absent. I'm the polar opposite of Runaway and rather than cruise Fox, I hit up the lefty site, like Mother Jones, Alternet, Nation of Change -- it's one long stream of silence on Clinton and "Trump is teh evil" 24/7. The media has almost nothing bad to say about Clinton despite here constant and repetitious lies, her horrid policies, her refusal to do real press conferences without pre-selected questions -- it's totally puke worthy. It's like everyone got so mesmerized by "bbbut Ruskies!!" that they forgot that contained in the latest Wikileaks dump, the presstitutes out there run their articles by the DNC before publishing, or if some commentator gets a little too honest, the DNC calls up the boss and puts an end to it. It's horseshit.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 13 2016, @04:16PM
What is concerning to me is the level of involvement the media has with her. Her crew is basically writing the news and they are being lazy and just spitting it back out. Yet the other candidate needs to be fact checked. THEY BOTH DO.
It is click bait at its finest. Say some wild thing then put your opinion on the end (like this).
They are 100% behind her selling her campaign. They are using choice architecture to do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_architecture#Defaults [wikipedia.org]
Present 1-3 opinions as fact then make the one you want people to do the least stupid.
The media has been getting worse. CNN at one point was at least semi respectable. Now it is gotcha journalism with quick sound bites. The chyron is just their latest way of doing it.
What is more sad is Trump is playing them like fools and forcing them to fact check what he wants them to. He knows they are doing quick sound bites and are mostly lazy. He says almost plausible things and the Clinton crew do the work for him. They slowly chip away at his opponents for him. As his opponents are feeding the monster. It is called anchoring. Basically you say a crazy price, then your opponent says their minimum bid. He then knows how much wiggle room he has to negotiate as he forced them to play their hand or walk. Both options in this sort of thing are bad. It is like your parents saying be home at 11. Then showing up at 2am. Then your brother spits out 'hey why did you get home at 4', then you spitting out 'I did not I came home at 2' 'thats funny you were supposed to be home at 11'. Busted, but with a lie to lead you out and say it in your own words.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday August 13 2016, @07:24PM
Except that isn't happening AT ALL. It's primarily Trump saying crazy stuff, then everyone and their dog laughing at it. Then a Trump apologist has to claim it was taken out of context or harmless exaggeration and everyone is against him.
If he were to get in, he would be such a train wreck. Between blatantly insulting the leaders of other countries (and their families and their staff and everyone in the country) and speaking without thinking in a race to get ahead of the other person then having to walk it back when someone carefully explains how what he said was completely stupid...it should be great fun to see how he manages to negotiate "awesome" treaties to replace the ones he rips up. And get Congress and the Senate to follow his lead to do what he wants.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @12:34AM
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20280 [wikileaks.org]
Yeah total fabrication... The DNC is basically fully outed as manipulating the media and I quote "pay to play".
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday August 13 2016, @10:47PM
Really? Because I was calling them the "Clinton News Network" back when Bill was in the White House.
Though now it's probably more about how Clinton is the big money/pro-corporations candidate than anything else.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Saturday August 13 2016, @10:05PM
Insightful, seriously? The comment is basically "haha I don't like this source or this submitter because they are poo and should be ignored" and that gets modded insightful? I don't like Fox News either, but there's nothing insightful about that comment. There's not even a rudimentary attempt at refuting the point of the article, nor any sort of observation about the topic. In place of any insight, there's a vague insult on the source and submitter with an insinuation that the topic is unworthy because of them.
Insightful isn't supposed to be a "+1 agree" mod, and anybody using it as such should feel bad. At best the comment should have been left unmodded (or maybe modded "Interesting" but that's a stretch), at worst modded flamebait.