New England Patriots bust fake news
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
Always 3 sides to the story. No defense of disingenuous NYT slant, but fewer players did attend. Empty spots filled by non-player staff. Both angles can be true.
I'd contend it is an imperative of the NYT not to purposefully mislead, which they did in original tweet.
They got called on it and attempted to save face by actually reporting the information that was factually accurate.
This is a function of social media and the inability to provide full context in 148 or so characters. Couple that with a low attention span society not willing to take the time to go beyond the sound bite to get context and full information, and this is what you get.
As has been shown several times when I and others have dug into some of NZ's links, this is a dysfunction of media across the board. People pick and choose whatever sound bites confirm what they already believe and call the rest fake news. There is really very little in depth, fact based, fully contextualized reporting going on anywhere by anyone IMO. A post fact society is becoming the norm more and more.
Besides, who REALLY cares how many NE Patriots showed up?
I'm a NE fan, and I could not care less. There is so many more important things to focus on than this.
Crap like this is just a distraction from the substantive things IMO.
I'm a NE fan, and I could not care less. There is so many more important things to focus on than this.
Crap like this is just a distraction from the substantive things IMO.
That was the difference between the times that NE appeared after winning the Super Bowl 2 times in three years.
The team went on to note that while there were fewer players in attendance this year than in 2015 (34 players compared to just over 45), the total turnout was about the same, and that the number of players who attended was almost identical to those who came while President George Bush was in office.
So your failure to provide full context is also "fake new".....and I feel a little bit dirty for even bothering to come back and point this out.
Which is why it is a shame that what should be a respected news source goes out of their way to put a negative slant on such a minuscule event to suit their political leanings. It's sad but I pretty much trust nothing I read from any source. It really is scary because you read this board and one side is saying, as if it is fact with a news story to back it up, that there is nothing to the Russia rumors. The other side, just as convinced in their stance and also citing a news source, state that there is little doubt that Trump and the election have been influenced by Russia. The two sides are living in two separate worlds. How do you ever work together in a situation like that?
You make a valid point.
At the same time, there are exceptions. Fresh example:
On the flipside:
I agree.
It seems like it is heresy to say things like "I'm not sure" or "I need more information" or even "Let's wait and see if more info will be forthcoming before judging".
Everybody has to have a hot take.....now.
At the same time, when you throw everything possible at the wall to see what sticks, you're doing a disservice to the stories that may have some weight and accuracy to them. When their is a completely overload of claims and some of those claims are easily rebutted factually or rationally, it's very easy to just lump them all together and dismiss everything or take the opposite tack and choose to believe them all.
I agree with what your saying @CowboyJD
And I especially agree with what I've quoted by you @NeekReevers
A good chunk of "visible" society now weaves and sees politics in every facet of life. How f*ing burdensome and sad is that.
And another poster patted him on the back for being so well informed.
AP yesterday. LOL
BBC got busted recently too. (look closely at headlines and dates - it's the same person)
AP: Isn't that what everyone was calling on them to do? Clarify that he said "God is great" in Arabic. The original report was accurate strictly speaking, but wasn't fully given context. Which is kind of my point.
BBC: Again, those two headlines aren't mutually exclusive and don't necessarily contradict each other. I'm not sure what they got "caught" doing except headlining an article to focus the content differently to appeal to and catch the eyes of both Trump haters and Trump fans....at least without the headlines.
Finally, I don't see you posting on the foibles and contradictions of sites and media outlets that agree with your world viewpoint, ever. You post those memes, tweets, etc. without a critical eye and then claim you're just doing so for fodder for discussion rather than adopting them as accurate or verified.
In a roundabout way, because of how manic and verklempt the media was both during the election and in the run up to the presidency in its reporting on Trump, what you're describing of a poster losing credibility due to story/boogeyman overload is analogous to the Trump administration being justified in labeling several news outlets "fake news" and the dreaded "very fake news."
Oh really?
Trump and Russia?
I may be the only person on this board (and am definitely one of the few if not the only) that hasn't proclaimed it either a non-story with no facts or an absolute certainty that it happened.
There are other examples as well.
Sure, I have an opinion....especially when it comes to questions of law....and when I do, I'm fairly certain as to the correctness of it. Of course, I've studied and dealt with the law for 27 years or so.
I agree.
I don't think there is very much "real" news reporting out their anywhere from either "side".
i apologize for not clarifying
my comments were not personal, to be construed as directed upon your person or your acumen as it pertains to the law
Who?
It seems to me EVERYBODY cares....Left and right....pro-Trump and anti-Trump.
If pro-Trumpers didn't care, there would be no need to spin wheels attempting to debunk.
Fair enough. Thanks.
I've started clarifying parenthetically what I mean when I quote someone and then use "you" because I realized it could mean the general broad everyone you or the specific person. It's a pain in the ass. Lol.
The President cares. That's why the media continues to point these silly things out, because they know it gets to him and distracts from everything else. Just like Spicer made a big deal about the crowd size of the inauguration.
Got it.
I agree. I just wish things were different.
Wishes and a dollar get me a pack of gum.
I'm guessing the bigger driver is that their consumers care.
Gotta perpetuate the echo chamber.
I agree.
In a weird way, the MSM feeds and needs the alternate media (and vice versa) to sell whatever they are selling to their own consumers.
Yeah. If news reporting was more "just the facts ma'am" and hadn't morphed into the opinion business, I'm guessing the industry would be 1/10th its current size.
I agree, but the same could be said about attendance at the inauguration which (A) Trump was too defensive about and (B) the establishment press failed to consider any contextual factors beyond implied unpopularity. None of this matters. I don't remember ever having attendance of world championship teams or inauguration crowds examined before now.
I would also add - any player on a sports team who denies himself the opportunity to be a guest of any sitting president in our nation's Whitehouse is a selfish tool who is making no real point except that he is not a good teammate. Just my opinion.
Bingo! The information that comes out is constantly damning to the other side so. It's like toxic hunger (look it up) the more crap you put in your body the more you crave it. Advertisers are happy to pay the big bucks because they don't care why you are watching the station or reading the website, just that their new cool shirt that looks good untucked is being advertised to a loyal audience. The media companies are doing the Notre dame football/duke basketball strategy or maybe the huck Finn strategy. Love them or hate them, you are intrigued and engaged.
The media corporations have turned us into bickering lemmings that slobber at the trough of salacious fast moving controversies.
And they are owned or operated by Jews. @07pilt
Similar threads
