David Cameron to Trump: Your ‘fake news’ act is ‘dangerous’

How many votes do you think it changed? I'm betting none.

 

My mind stressed "wane" extra heavy.

 

He's probably reaching out to Hitler in code.

 

The point is “Fake news” has been used by trump to attack any news he doesn’t like. He doesn’t attempt to verify first. If you don’t see how dangerous that is, it’s your head that’s in the ass.

Also calling a news outlet "fake" because its accuracy is only 80% is stupid by any measure.

For all the negative things they report about Trump, how many are lies?

 

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration.

Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.

continued

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...donald-trump-destroy-the-presidency/537921/55

 

No, it doesn't have anything to do with Trump,but I didn't bring it up. As far as the "bogus reports, retractions, resignations and suspensions", yeah there have been some. There always are but like someone has already said on this thread is all in all the press has been very good on their reporting on the clown college of an administration. You don't seem to want to address the constant lies, "alternative facts" (coined by this administration) and simply one hand not knowing what the other is doing in this White House.
As far as "biased" media.....when was it not? Are you going to tell me that until recently newspapers didn't endorse candidates? There has always been bias....both ways.

 

Before Trump the media all treated Obama with respect lol.

 

So when the MSM said Trump hates Mexicans and is anti-immigration, when he was talking specifically about dangerous and criminal ILLEGAL immigrants, do you call that responsible reporting? You can't be racist against mexicans because Mexico is NOT a race. You can't claim Trump wants to ban ALL Muslims from the country either, when he NEVER said it or did it. Thats called commentary or blatant misrepresentation of the facts. The MSM forgot the definition of reporting, but its not surprising when the qualifications to be a journalist now is to just run a BLOG.

 

That is nice, but all of that is innuendo. subjective criticism and options. All of that is what if or what will, not this will happen. "“He is unlikely to be contained by norms and customs, or even by laws and the Constitution.”" WTH where is that coming from?

 

All in all, the MSM has done a terrible job, and I don't even have to point to the constant stream of fake reports, retractions, resignations and suspensions to support my contention - it is reflected in the public's lack of trust in the media.

I work in the communications industry, so I know there always has been bias and always will be bias. However, what we're seeing in the media goes way beyond bias.

As I said before, the suicide of the Fourth Estate is not a good thing. People need to be able to get reliable information on what their government is and isn't doing and they can't rely on the information they are getting from the MSM. Fortunately, people no longer have to rely on the biased, agenda-driven legacy media for information - the Internet has widely expanded people's access to information and improved their ability to verify the information they are receiving.

 

They fawned all over him and propped him up at every turn. Heck, one member of the media actually pulled Obama's fat out of the fire during a presidential debate.

As Ben Rhodes confessed in an inconvenient fit of candor, the MSM served as a propaganda arm of the Obama Administration.

 

There are videos of what Trump said... No denying it, but he's a sloppy, pugnacious speaker so we all fall back on , "well, he REALLY meant something else".

 

When Trump attacks the press, he attacks the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend. When you guys do it, you're doing Putin's work for him. Don't be so quick to discard your rights; you won't get them back after they're gone.

A free country has a free press.

 

Obama did have issues with the press from time to time but he was not as insecure and peevish as Trump.. He didn't attack them.

 

This is the kind of dumbing down that trumpism has caused. Not only is Cameron a conservative leader, he's also a citizen of one of our closest allies. And instead of engage any of his comments, and you know - think, we get bullshit drivel like this.

 

If story was retracted then it's not fake news! By the way, news outlets have redacted stories since the very beginning.

 

Obama never had any issues with his "progressive" fellow travelers in the #BOWDOWN MSM.

As for the one news outlet that didn't kiss his imperial posterior, he was indeed very insecure and peevish with Fox and he repeatedly attacked that network.

 

LOL - How does that work?

It was real news before it got retracted?

 

No, genius, it means it was a mistake. One that got corrected. See how that works?

 

Yes, there are videos and yes, he is sloppy, but NO, he has not said what the MSM wants to convince people he said. However, when they edit it, while commenting on what they THINK he's saying instead of what he's actually saying and reporting on it like its NEWS and not a commentary, thats FAKE news. You can't say Trump wants to ban all Muslims from the country just because the ban is from countries with lots of Muslims. That's factually WRONG in every possible way. Banning ALL Muslims would be banning ALL countries and any Muslim living it them. That has not, did not, and was NEVER implied....but thats what was reported. That's dishonest swill. YOu can't say Trump hates Mexicans just because he wants to prevent ILLEGALS who happen to be murders from entering the country. You can't say he hates gay people, because...well....he hasn't said anything that would insinuate he hates gay people at all. Thats NOT NEWS!!!

You have every right to believe whatever your head is interpreting coming through your ears, but you'd also be nuts. And frankly, people who insert words into people's mouths are either unintelligent or paid to do it.

 

You get what you give

 

No, I mean hell no. The media has done a fine job all in all. The terrible job has been done by those they are covering. The public's lack of trust has been against politicians for eons but now you have one network that has (for many years) blatantly slanted their coverage in one direction and they struck a nerve and built on it to where they had a huge following. Once they had the herd, they drove them where they wanted them to go. Trump is their creation.
The internet HAS expanded people's access to information, the problem is 90% of it is pure crap (I mean really, how many cat videos can one watch). For every one decent source there are 20 Ted Kaczynski's that are sure they have their finger on the pulse of the "Deep State" and other such nonsense.
Actually, you should point out the "fake reports, retraction, resignations and suspension" because you will be surprised at how few there actually are. Even given that there are some the things you point out the fact is the media does police itself. Now, you want to get exhausted? Research the lies coming from the WH. There is a consant flow with no retractions, even doubling down on them.

 

Get back to me when you can prove that the entire Russian collusion story is false.

You can cherry pick a small number of individual stories, but the overall story has stayed consistant and the vast majority of the news stories that the Loser in Chief calls "fake news" are real.

BTW, the only reason that the NYT issued a correction on the 17 agency stories, was because not all 17 had weighed in at the time.

They have since then. There is no controversy or disagreement in the intelligence community regarding Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election .

But there is alarm that the Trump adminstration both refuses to recognize what the world is aware of, much less do anything about it.

It took you quite some time to come up with four stories, one of which is actually true. Compare that to the six lies a day Donald Trump tells, you.

 

1 in 5.

And I believe that if a story is circulating about me, I am the ultimate authority as to whether or not it is fake. What has trump called fake news that wasnt? Is it better than 1 in 5?