Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous A started this discussion 9 years ago#61,132
Do you believe that all news is fake, and that only what Trump says is true? Many of his supporters believe that, you know. Also, why exactly do you support him? I am asking seriously this time.
Meta joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 29 minutes later[^][v]#773,881
I'll try to answer this as best I can.
I don't believe @realDonaldTrump is "real news" and the mainstream media (eg ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, WaPo, NPR, NYT, etc) is "fake news". I think all news is biased. Of course the news that happens to line up with your biases is always "real news" and those that don't are "biased" or "fake news". I think it's not actually possible to have a really objective news source. All news is fake news.
Now why exactly do I support him? Because I think he's funny. It's like we elected the class clown to be school principal. I laughed more during the 2016 campaign than I think I did in my entire life up to that point. I don't think he'll actually do anything he promised to do (because as we're finding out now the President really doesn't have much power at all), nor do I agree with everything he says.
Meta double-posted this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#773,887
Even though Bernie Sanders is on the opposite corner of the political compass from me, I would have supported him too because I like him and think he's authentic.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 37 minutes after the original post[^][v]#773,890
@773,881 (Meta)
But shouldn't you take the president more seriously? I mean, just being funny is not really relevant. What if he does something horrible?
brie !kGoudaMCFA joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 38 minutes after the original post[^][v]#773,893
@previous (A)
The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.
Meta replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^][v]#773,896
Meta replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^][v]#773,901
@773,899 (A)
I never said it was. I'm just pointing out that Trump can't even go to the bathroom without getting permission from every Federal judge in the country.
Anonymous D replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 56 minutes after the original post[^][v]#773,902
@previous (Meta)
There might be trans people in there. It's best to be cautious.
Meta replied with this 9 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#773,908
@previous (D)
But on the other hand, there might not be trans people. It's like that Schroeder's cat thing. Until you kick the stall door open there is both a tranny and a non-tranny in there until the quantum thingy resolves to one or the other.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#773,927
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#773,943
@773,881 (Meta)
So you think fake news is biased news? Do you believe that an article from The Economist is no more informative than an article from Breitbart or Infowars or Dailykos or TruePundit? I feel like that's just abdicating your responsibility to analyze sources and distinguish good journalism from bad. "It's all biased so it's all equally wrong."
Meta replied with this 9 years ago, 42 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#773,948
> So you think fake news is biased news? Do you believe that an article from The Economist is no more informative than an article from Breitbart or Infowars or Dailykos or TruePundit? I feel like that's just abdicating your responsibility to analyze sources and distinguish good journalism from bad. "It's all biased so it's all equally wrong."
You can have facts certainly. If I read in The Economist that the Fed raised rates half a percent or whatever I'm not gonna say FAKE NEWS! Or if I read in the NYT that Donald Trump was the oldest President at inauguration, that's a fact that can be pretty easily verified. I mean the non-factual content of news, and also what the news does and doesn't cover, and the tone in which it reports the stuff it covers. You could easily weave a pro- or anti-Trump narrative from the same set of facts (not alternative facts but fact facts). That sort of thing.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#773,950
@previous (Meta)
So, when Trump said that more people had attended his inauguration than any in history, was that "fake news"?
Meta replied with this 9 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#773,954
A pro-Trump rally ended up with a man getting beaten with a 'Make America Great Again' sign
Even without reading the story you know what it means: Trump supporters are violent. Right? Now the headline is factually true. Someone did get beaten with a MAGA sign. But the headline makes it look as if it was completely unprovoked and Trump supporters just hit people for no reason.
Other headlines they could have used (equally factual): Peaceful Trump supporters assaulted at rally Trump supporting patriot forced to defend wife from Democrat pepper spray Anarchist violence disrupts peaceful rally
Look at this paragraph:
The video detailed the violence: One man was held down to the ground and punched and hit in the face with pepper spray. Later, another man was hit over the head again and again with a “Make America Great Again” sign.
Which side was the first man on?! The article is deliberately ambiguous (while being factually correct). The second sentence "Later, another man was hit over the head again and again with a MAGA sign" implies both acts of of violence were commited by Trump supporters.
Anonymous E replied with this 9 years ago, 39 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#773,975
@previous (Meta)
that's the Washington Post
how about you write them off and find a better source instead of saying all news is that bad
Meta replied with this 9 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#774,005