One thing I am noticing is the MSM still cant help themselves and continue to jump on any far out shady character or allegation and try and either pin it on Pres. Elect , smear him with it, or make up baloney news.
CNN Jake Tapper is outraged over the latest CNN stunt. They just cant help themselves. CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Wash Post, NYT, La Times, Chicago Tribune all have political PTSD and aren't getting that its time to give the guy a chance to put his team together and agenda he campaigned on into action.
There will be plenty of things to pounce on, as I am not one to believe there will be no mis-steps along the way.
Right now, settling a Trump university minor annoyance and tweeting about the Broadway stunt the Hamilton cast attempted are not worth getting all frothy about or start making things up which CNN has no problem doing in furthering some far left revolt of the 2016 election.
[Edited on 11/22/2016 by OriginalGoober]
One thing I am noticing is the MSM still cant help themselves and continue to jump on any far out shady character or allegation and try and either pin it on Pres. Elect , smear him with it, or make up baloney news.
CNN Jake Tapper is outraged over the latest CNN stunt. They just cant help themselves. CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Wash Post, NYT, La Times, Chicago Tribune all have political PTSD and aren't getting that its time to give the guy a chance to put his team together and agenda he campaigned on into action.
There will be plenty of things to pounce on, as I am not one to believe there will be no mis-steps along the way.
Right now, settling a Trump university minor annoyance and tweeting about the Broadway stunt the Hamilton cast attempted are not worth getting all frothy about or start making things up which CNN has no problem doing in furthering some far left revolt of the 2016 election.
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds? If it's Clinton's emails (which she was heavily investigated for and there were no possible charges found and no harm done), she is "crooked" because you heard someone on FOX news say it. But if it's the President-elect settling a FRAUD case, it's not new-worthy? If it's Obama, he should be prepared for constant scrutiny under the spot light, but if it's Trump, fraudulent business practices and he himself directing the spot light onto his own embarrassing Twitter meltdowns*, should be ignored.
Sorry, buddy, but you can't pick and choose the facts as they come at you. If you can defend what Trump did, fine, but don't blame the media and the people for paying attention.
*Regarding the Hamilton moment, Pence, had no problem with and handled beautifully. He listened rather than reacted. Had it not been for Trump making a larger issue out of it (as opposed to racist swellings in his name through out the country) we wouldn't be talking about it. He has only himself to blame. It doesn't change much at the end of the day, but it's another instance of Trump playing victim (by the theatre kids, no less).
One thing I am noticing is the MSM still cant help themselves and continue to jump on any far out shady character or allegation and try and either pin it on Pres. Elect , smear him with it, or make up baloney news.
CNN Jake Tapper is outraged over the latest CNN stunt. They just cant help themselves. CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Wash Post, NYT, La Times, Chicago Tribune all have political PTSD and aren't getting that its time to give the guy a chance to put his team together and agenda he campaigned on into action.
There will be plenty of things to pounce on, as I am not one to believe there will be no mis-steps along the way.
Right now, settling a Trump university minor annoyance and tweeting about the Broadway stunt the Hamilton cast attempted are not worth getting all frothy about or start making things up which CNN has no problem doing in furthering some far left revolt of the 2016 election.
_________________________________________________________________________The corrupt liberal media tried hard through misrepresenting what Donald Trump actually said and out right lying.
Between all their efforts and the Democrats utter failure along with a candidate who is corrupt, a criminal and habitual liar they lost.Now they are focusing on nonsense "issues" none of which hit the top reasons why Donald Trump won the election and the issues most important to The American People.
Is it because they have nothing to offer the country or are just having a temper tantrum?
Both?Supposition is not news or important to anyone but the few who don't matter.
Good lord. Still not happy, offended by Obama, offended by the media, offended by SNL, offended by Broadway, still angry at the left. Get over it! You are only happy when fighting with Liberals. So sad.
About two weeks before the election, the right wing side of my Facebook feed, including many extended family members, went nuts sharing a story from an imaginary newspaper going on about Hillary's secret satanic witchcraft pedophile activities.
The existence of the article didn't startle me as much as how many people either believed it or were at least entertaining the thoughts.
The political world has been consumed by and is drowning in a blood red sea of confirmation bias.
About two weeks before the election, the right wing side of my Facebook feed, including many extended family members, went nuts sharing a story from an imaginary newspaper going on about Hillary's secret satanic witchcraft pedophile activities.
The existence of the article didn't startle me as much as how many people either believed it or were at least entertaining the thoughts.
The political world has been consumed by and is drowning in a blood red sea of confirmation bias.
People have stopped seeking out news, and would rather find articles they agree with. I've seen people here cite a few of these "facts" or believe stuff without fact checking it several times. Hell, even Sean Hannity fell for and reported a totally fake news story.
I still see this stuff popping up after the election. And it's often not born from some political fanaticism, there is money to be made from link/ad clicks:
This is how Facebook’s fake-news writers make money
By Abby Ohlheiser November 18(J.J. Alcantara/The Washington Post; iStock)
How much money can you bring in by making stuff up and putting it on the Internet? “I make like $10,000 a month from AdSense,” Paul Horner, a prolific, Facebook-focused fake-news writer told us this week. And among a growing group of Macedonian teenagers who see fake-news sites as a way to make easy money from American gullibility, the most successful can make about $5,000 a month, BuzzFeed reported.
The money comes from ads, provided by the self-service ad technology of companies such as Google and Facebook. It is a business model that has changed little over the years, David Carroll, an associate professor of media design at the New School and an expert in advertising tech, told us. “Anybody can make a site and put ads on it,” he said. “They can easily set up a business, create content, and once it is viral, it drives traffic to their site.”
In 2016, the churn of fake news was a daily onslaught of fabricated or exceedingly misleading news stories designed to elevate or demonize presidential candidates, mixed into the flow of true or mostly true stories about the election. The stories were designed to be believed and shared. On Facebook, they were seeded into conservative and liberal filter bubbles through hyperpartisan media organizations with enormous numbers of Facebook followers.
That alarming reach prompted critics to accuse Facebook, and to a much lesser extent Google, of influencing the elections by incentivizing fake political news — a charge that Facebook has denied. The attention was enough for the two companies to announce Monday that they were going to crack down on fake-news purveyors who use their services to make ad money.
If they are successful in stopping fake-news sites from profiting, Horner told us, the effect would be devastating for his revenue. But Horner seemed confident that he and others like him would be able to adapt to the changes. After all, he has been doing this for a long time.
There are a lot of variables that factor into exactly how much a viral hoax story can make for its creator. But if you take Facebook shares as an indirect indicator of how widely viewed some of these sites might be, you start to understand why, if optimized properly, fake-news sites targeting hyperpartisan audiences can be lucrative.
How to spot fake newsThe fabricated story posted to a fictional Denver news outlet just before the election “FBI AGENT SUSPECTED IN HILLARY EMAIL LEAKS FOUND DEAD IN APPARENT MURDER-SUICIDE” got more than 500,000 shares on Facebook. “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President, Releases Statement” is not remotely true, but one fake-news website reeled in more than 100,000 shares with it. A copycat version of the hoax on Ending the Fed was even more popular, shared more than 900,000 times on Facebook, according to Facebook’s API.
Although hoax sites vary in sophistication, a quick tour of the usual suspects makes it clear that you don’t really have to put much thought into the design or functionality of the site — in other words, they can be cheaply made. Horner’s ABC News knockoff is much more rudimentary than the real thing, but looks roughly like a news site:
Others might be cluttered, filled with barely readable prose and, frankly, tough to look at. But a fake-news site does not need you to stay for long. They just need you to click, and they need a way to spread their work.
Facebook has been a crucial vehicle for the spread of these fake stories. But it did not hurt that political personalities connected to the Trump campaign were also sharing those stories as if they were real, creating even more of an incentive for fake-news writers to target that audience. “When political personalities have shared the fake-news story,” Carroll said, it expands the reach of that story, and it “validates the source” in the eyes of its potential audience, because “a prominent person has shared it.”
Carroll estimated that a fake-news share from within the Trump campaign could earn the lucky hoaxer as much as $10,000 in extra revenue, provided they have taken full advantage of the ad services available to them. That’s a “huge economic incentive to create stories that they want to distribute.”
So why are Google and Facebook just taking action against this use of their ad services now? Well, for one thing, those companies profit off the viral sites — legitimate or hoax — that use their services, too.
“Google has more of an incentive to make information reliable,” Carroll noted, because Google’s business is based on providing accurate information to people who are looking for it. Facebook, though, “is about attention, not so much intention.” It’s generally good for Facebook’s business when something goes viral on the site, even if it’s not true.
In short, each company could “lose revenue if it shuts down a huge number of fake sites,” he said. The announced crackdown on fake-news sites using the companies’ ad services, at least “show an initial willingness to sacrifice some of their own revenue” to address the growing problem of bad information in their networks.
There is also the question of how Facebook and Google will determine what is and is not in violation of their rules. Facebook has shown some reluctance in becoming the arbiter of truth. Chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has said that the company is not a “media company,” and he regularly resisted acknowledging its increasing responsibility in the greater media ecosystem online, instead sticking to its longtime assertion that Facebook is just a neutral platform for connecting people to others.
Given Facebook’s resistance, Carroll’s suggestion was this: a crowdsourced, open, list of fake-news sites, regularly updated and refined by consensus. If companies such as Google and Facebook agreed to abide by the list, it would provide a way for them to distinguish between “real” and “fake” sites — and identify the many sites that publish a mix of both — for the purposes of enforcing their own policies, without taking on the responsibility of deciding those categories for themselves. It would work similarly to the lists that drive some ad-blocking services.
Of course, there’s just one thing. “It’s uncharacteristic of them to adopt a crowdsourced model like this,” Carroll said.
And in the bigger picture, not all hoaxers are motivated by the money. Cutting off the revenue of those who make fake news to earn a living will not stop people from sharing stories that are untrue.
[Edited on 11/22/2016 by porkchopbob]
One thing I am noticing is the MSM still cant help themselves and continue to jump on any far out shady character or allegation and try and either pin it on Pres. Elect , smear him with it, or make up baloney news.
CNN Jake Tapper is outraged over the latest CNN stunt. They just cant help themselves. CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Wash Post, NYT, La Times, Chicago Tribune all have political PTSD and aren't getting that its time to give the guy a chance to put his team together and agenda he campaigned on into action.
There will be plenty of things to pounce on, as I am not one to believe there will be no mis-steps along the way.
Right now, settling a Trump university minor annoyance and tweeting about the Broadway stunt the Hamilton cast attempted are not worth getting all frothy about or start making things up which CNN has no problem doing in furthering some far left revolt of the 2016 election.
[Edited on 11/22/2016 by OriginalGoober]
Goob,
Does General Flynn, Trump's nominee for National Security Advisor qualify in your book of criticism in your baloney news category? Looks like the general makes good baloney sandwiches.
http://fortune.com/2016/11/19/trump-security-adviser-hoax/
One thing I am noticing is the MSM still cant help themselves and continue to jump on any far out shady character or allegation and try and either pin it on Pres. Elect , smear him with it, or make up baloney news.
CNN Jake Tapper is outraged over the latest CNN stunt. They just cant help themselves. CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Wash Post, NYT, La Times, Chicago Tribune all have political PTSD and aren't getting that its time to give the guy a chance to put his team together and agenda he campaigned on into action.
There will be plenty of things to pounce on, as I am not one to believe there will be no mis-steps along the way.
Right now, settling a Trump university minor annoyance and tweeting about the Broadway stunt the Hamilton cast attempted are not worth getting all frothy about or start making things up which CNN has no problem doing in furthering some far left revolt of the 2016 election.
[Edited on 11/22/2016 by OriginalGoober]
Goob,
Does General Flynn, Trump's nominee for National Security Advisor qualify in your book of criticism in your baloney news category? Looks like the general makes good baloney sandwiches.
_______________________________________________________________________
General Flynn is exceptionally well qualified and holds the distinction of being fired by the amateur Obama.
Just like 3 Secretaries of Defense and many Generals who told truth to power Obama was not interested in the truth if it didn’t fit his political agenda and National Security Policy of cut and run.
