hahaha, so you got duped by more fake news, and you turn around and blame Trump for your gullibility to believe something so stupid? Wow. You must really hate Trump.
OK, I capitulate. It appears I was duped on social media.
But realize this about Trump: Just how believable it was.
I got duped by social media. But keep calling legitimate news sources fake. Your cult leaders are very pleased you reject everything but what they tell you. That's right, only Alex Jones, Limbaugh and Fox News is right... It makes you very easy to lie to. Guess what the difference between you and me is? I can admit when I'm wrong and adjust my world view to fit the facts.
Only believable if you want to believe. To literally everyone else that is at least somewhat skeptical it was obvious. I'm not even a Trump fan and its obvious.
No, she works for an actual news outlet.
Also, the photo itself has been debunked.
hahaha, so you got duped by more fake news, and you turn around and blame Trump for your gullibility to believe something so stupid? Wow. You must really hate Trump.
hahaha, so you got duped by more fake news, and you turn around and blame Trump for your gullibility to believe something so stupid? Wow. You must really hate Trump.
It was a tweet.
Tweets are not news.
So one side thinks social media is real news, and the other side thinks CNN is fake news. Peas in a pod I suppose...
Actually, those are the same side. Just look at Pokerguy!
It's easy to jump the gun, sure, but here's the difference: OP admitted he was wrong. Let's start counting how many times you will see that from PG and the peanut gallery. This is as easy game for all--you don't even need fingers!
I'm saying she is relevant in that she works for an actual news outlet and should have known better. When she spreads this fake news around, it makes it seem more possible than what it is. She is not an investigative reporter but she has more clout than the average Joe.
Yes, she should have known better. But she didn't spread fake news around because it was a tweet. It was a dumb tweet, but it's only news when if someone confuses it for news.
Obviously, tweets have become and have spawned news once they are vetted, but this really is no different than what this asinine 24-hour news cycle brought us with cable news. Without sourcing, and without vetting, it simply isn't news. Should some in the media be more responsible with this? obviously. But don't be naive to pretend that a significant number of people in this country don't believe that the only "news" they need is a Cernovich twitter feed.
It was a tweet.
Tweets are not news.
People get a large amount of their information on social media and memes.
I have heard in people, in public, repeat verbatim the below meme. This was a meme circulated on social media that became the truth to people.
That goes against the argument that has lead some to say that Russia helped win the election for Trump with fake news. Spreading around something that is false and obviously so is the ultimate issue. If she had been any other person that might be different, but she was not. Her position does make it seem more real that what it is.
As for what constitutes news, you should let all the news outlets know to source and vet their claims. I can recall multiple times during the Boston Bombing where the crap being put on CNN was super dumb. I used to watch the Daily Show every day and I remember when Steward ripped them apart. Fake shit was thrown at CNN and they just ran with it.
All that said, it was pretty obvious that this was not real.
People get a large amount of their information on social media and memes.
I have heard in people, in public, repeat verbatim the below meme. This was a meme circulated on social media that became the truth to people.
It had a lot of truthiness...
It's the standard of talk radio:It does! this is why fake news works.
Actually, these two issues are exactly what I was saying. Either you guys missed that or I wasn't clear.
1: Tweets are not news, period. A tweet on its own, newly farted from whatever source, is not news.
2: Yes, there are people that treat tweets as news. As their only news. That wholeheartedly believe in fake news. Yes, this is why the (predominantly) Russian fake news campaign was so successful.
3: The conversion of journalism --> TV news -->24 hour TV news has truly blurred the lines. The rush for ratings and "BREAKING NEWS!" has left an unending poison on information dissemination. A single tweet, from a legit journalist or not, is simply a part of that. It might be real, or it might be terrible reporting because it was never vetted.
4: Some journalists making a single mistake, or some making repeated mistakes or lying, does not in and of itself disenfranchise the entire Fourth Estate. (this is part of the Republican strategy of the last several decades). This means individuals are, today, generally more responsible for informing themselves honestly despite the muck they need to sift through. I find the easiest way to do this is to change the channel if you hear shouting, or a "collection of experts" that are clearly there to provide "counter points" to a topic that likely has no counter points.
5: The preponderance of Breaking News hysteria and the 24 hour cycle, twitter and fake news (all independent factors of the same problem) certainly make it easier for even the most vigilant individual to be duped from time to time. It happens. The only gauge of someone's ability to remain rational and informed in this environment is their clear admission of error. That is really all it takes. to whit:
--this journalist apologized for her false tweet
--"MLK guy" immediately apologized (but many will not let it go, as if an admission of a mistake is somehow equivalent to brazen insistence that a lie is the truth wrg to obvious population statistics)
6. "Both sides" can make mistakes, but this does not insist that both sides are equal. I mean, the writing is on the wall, here.
It does! this is why fake news works.
I agree with this post. I would add that Trump's penchant for lying doesn't help matters as he has nullified his capacity to correct incorrect allegations about his own conduct.The problem is that its truthiness is dependent on the persons bias. I would bet far more people on the Left felt that tweet was real than on the Right. One of the big issues is that people have confirmation bias and that bias might not be built off of reality.
I will presume you are not a Right leaning person from the posts I have seen you make, but, did you think this was likely untrue? I would bet you put aside your feelings and though rationally on how likely this was to be real and judged it from there. The Right for a long time was the side that bought into conspiracy theories because the government was out to get them. The Left looks to be gaining ground and that has me worried.
The problem is that its truthiness is dependent on the persons bias. I would bet far more people on the Left felt that tweet was real than on the Right. One of the big issues is that people have confirmation bias and that bias might not be built off of reality.
I will presume you are not a Right leaning person from the posts I have seen you make, but, did you think this was likely untrue? I would bet you put aside your feelings and though rationally on how likely this was to be real and judged it from there. The Right for a long time was the side that bought into conspiracy theories because the government was out to get them. The Left looks to be gaining ground and that has me worried.
I can't say for sure. But I believe you are probably more likely to accept something as true if it confirms how you already feel. But the question is what first shapes how you feel in the first place? Trump / Hillary is bad because D/R??? And the rest flows from there?