So the guy that witnesses a crime should just look the other way for a more peaceful place instead of reporting and making others aware? I think there are many more followers of bogus headlines than you realize.
Not sure what you mean? Are you saying you are 'reporting a crime' of media bias? If that's the concept, then I don't think I told you you shouldn't complain - just that the complaints will not be effective. There are no police to arrest the malefactor, and there are plenty of witnesses who will say you've identified the perp incorrectly. Oh, I don't think I underestimate that. People are going to believe what they want to believe. barfo
And so you blame ignorant people who may, may not have the same access to news as those reporting, but not the reporters reporting incorrectly.? Flawed logic.
Come on now., We are having a good debate, lets keep it real. Blame may not have been the best word, but you basically said the people shouldn't believe everything they read: I read that that you believe its up to the people to ignore the false, or inaccurate reporting. My stance is reporters often have access to more info than the readers, so how do the readers know its always truth or not? There is a certain amount of trust always provided to the Press because of the FREEDOM OF PRESS and how it came to be. There was a time when the press, or reporting was suppressed by their government and/or rulers(still is) And in this country we hold those truths to be very important and powerful enough to create an amendment for it, so the Press was Free to print the truths. Somewhere along the way the press has abused this freedom to the point that fake news is almost more prevalent than true news. Do you not agree that these fake news outlets and authors should be stemmed? I think if a member of the press is printing fake news or trying to twist the public into their narrative, then they should lose their press credentials from any and all outlets that provide them access. To simply say the readers should ignore the fake news is disingenuous at best. How does the reader know its fake or not? The press is provided faith by the people and they are abusing it.
Do you disagree? Do you think people should believe everything they read? There is usually more than one reporter on the job, often from competing outlets. The reality is that different people have different perceptions, biases, and opinions. It's an imperfect system, but it's better than state-approved press only. I disagree with your last statement. But yes, free press means everyone is free to print whatever they want. Press credentials don't mean much of anything anymore. Hard to see how anyone pushing lies would be harmed by that - if you aren't interested in the truth, you don't really have much need for access. Of all the things that get reported on, only a tiny fraction require a press pass to observe. But to the general point, how are you going to crack down on what you call fake news outlets without repealing the 1st amendment? Some of them are. Some of them try to print the truth. Some people will be happy to point out which is which. But those people have biases themselves, so you are back to the problem that humans just can't be trusted. barfo
So justification of fake news pushers is that there are other reporters? Why would that matter? I get your point that freedom of press is just that and that media credentials don't hold much value these days with interneters. But its a start. To answer your question i bolded? Easy. You make it known its fake news and that so and so pushes it. Much akin to this thread people are minimizing. Like all things of freedom, I'm free to do what i want. However if i choose to abuse that freedom there are consequences. Steal a car? Go to prison. Slander/liable someone? ...go to prison. Knowingly contribute to fake news aimed at contorting their audience into believing something untrue? ...Be publicly admonished and called out as such. Just like the OP has done. There is only one way to fight false words and thats by speaking the truths about it in return.
Not justification. More like mitigation. That's a fine answer. Just realize that fake news is in the eye of the beholder. Sure. Although an article about a Trump tweet about the NFL draft might not be the most important issue, and the framing of that issue here was somewhat less of a search for truth and more of a search for an argument. Yes, we agree. barfo
I expected you to not grasp what I was trying to relay. That's about all I have to say on the subject which is growing exceedingly tiresome. I'll let you have the last word.
We can agree to disagree. I was simply trying to understand how you come to your conclusion that its okay to write this type of stuff. The article.
There's no descent about trying to find the truth. The issues of obstruction and obfuscation are still in question but now we have Barr obviously lying about the Mueller report. Now, we can add to that the issue of Barr and the White House refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas. Let's see how this plays out in court.
