Fake News Awards - page 2

So does this mean NYT won first? Or are they all equally fake? Kind of like everyone gets a participation trophy. https://gop.com/the-highly-anticipated-2017-fake-news-awards/... Read More

  1. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from Lil Nel
    If Trump didn't have something to hide, he wouldn't be so worried about the media. It is just that simple.
    If the media had anything on Trump, then why is he still President? It's just that simple.
  2. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    Number 6 is "CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding." The evidence provided is a looped GIF made by someone on the internet, depending on what you decide is the beginning of loop I guess it could appear that trump is the first to dump his box food, but that's only if you don't understand how a looped video works.

    The actual CNN video is here, and clearly shows Abe first dumping his box of fish food, so CNN never actually did what the award claims. If you're going to have "Fake news" awards which criticize sloppy reporting, don't use sloppy reporting yourself in making the awards.
    And here's the full article: Trump feeds fish, then winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond - CNNPolitics

    Title: Trump feeds fish, then winds up pouring entire box of food into the koi pond

    In the article, it highlights that "Trump's move was met with laughter".

    The first sentence, that Trump took time
    to connect with nature and feed some fish, but after a few delicate scoops, he resorted to a grand gesture met with some laughter.
    The 4th paragraph,
    Abe and Trump tossed spoonfuls of fish food into the pond. Then, with a look of enjoyment, Trump quickly poured his entire box of food into the pond.
    And the very last sentence about the exchange...
    The move got Trump some laughs, and a smile from Abe, who actually appeared to dump out his box of food ahead of Trump.
    The article, four times, tried to point that Trump made the initial dump, but does say other wise at the very end.

    The article is accompanied by a Twitter post, by the author of the article, with a VIDEO with the caption, "President Trump feeds fish with PM Shinzo Abe in Japan, then pours the entire box of food into the koi pond." A FIFTH attempt to portray Trump made the initial dump. Really, they needed to say it FIVE times. Yea, there's no agenda...

    FWIW, the original article is the first link when searching "Trump koi fish". So how long did it take you to find your link to "prove" the author didn't purposefully try to portray that Trump did it first?

    Lastly, seriously?! This is what CNN lies about! And you still think they have any real evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump?
    Last edit by itsybitsy on Jan 21
  3. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from herring_RN
    Fact-checking Donald Trump's fake news awards
    Fact-checking Donald Trump's fake news awards | PolitiFact
    Did anyone actually read this that liked it? It pretty much solidified what the "Fake News Awards" was. Do you realize that these 11 examples are out of HUNDREDS of "mistakes". They purposefully have posted false/misleading news or posted assumptions/conclusions without having key details. After the article is published is when it gets the most hits, it's then pushed on every social media platform. Only when the network is called out on their false and incorrect "reporting", they redacted and edit it truthfully, most of the time. By the point they do that, everyone has already read the original articles and tweets, not caring to re-read an article they have already read, as there is no disclaimer that is pushed that the article was incorrect, only posted on the article itself. The only difference is when people get fired for it and it makes news. But that is only a handful of cases.
  4. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from itsybitsy
    If the media had anything on Trump, then why is he still President? It's just that simple.
    Oh, dear itsy-bitsy, you clearly don't remember Watergate or Irancontra, do you?

    First, the media can't remove a president from office.

    Secondly, the removal of Trump is the job of Mr. Mueller, and investigations take time (i.e. Watergate) and Irancontra.

    Thirdly, shouldn't you be chasing after Hezbollah?

    Hezbollah!!!!
  5. by   macawake
    Quote from heron
    Speaking of fake news, I was listening to a podcast a couple of weeks ago that was discussing a particular incident involving a paid Russian troll.
    Quote from heron
    Every time I read the same old memes with the same old debunked arguments sourced from the same old radical right sources, I gotta wonder.
    I'm sure we had them right here, both before the 2016 election and after/still. The massive amounts of cut-and-paste we saw is designed for speed and multi-tasking


    Quote from itsybitsy
    If the media had anything on Trump, then why is he still President? It's just that simple.
    That's actually quite amusing. Simple? Not even close.

    1. First of all, the media doesn't impeach or indict Presidents.

    2. The Special Counsel's investigation is still ongoing. We haven't seen the final result yet. Have a little faith

    3. Even if we were presented with an abundance of evidence of criminal malfeasance, you guys unfortunately seem to have a majority in Congress who seems to have forgotten that they are supposed to be a check on the President's power.

    Hardly simple.


    Flynn, Trump's former National Security Adviser.

    Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman.

    Papadopolous, former Trump campaign adviser.

    Gates, one of Manafort's business partners.

    So we have several people connected to Trump's campaign and in some cases also transition and presidency have either already pled guilty or be been indicted.

    The entire purpose of the disgraceful, unpresidential and dangerous Fake News Awards ridiculousness is an attempt to deflect and undermine the credibility of the media.

    OP, why have you started this thread?

    This is to draw our attention away from the fact that this Presidency is unique, and not in a good way. Less than a year after he took office, several people closely connected to him have been processed by the criminal justice system.

    If it wasn't such a serious matter, this whole Fake News Awards thing would be hilarious. I mean, the man who for many years without presenting a shred of evidence lied about his predecessor and accused him of not being born in the U.S. and who after becoming President made wild, unsubstantiated allegations that his predecessor committed a SERIOUS crime; the "bugging" of Trump Tower.... Now he's all hurt and upset about.... KOI FOOD!! Bleepin' fish food in a bleepin' pond! The same man who has said far worse about other people?

    By the way OP, have you noticed that the serious media outlets actually retract stories when they find out that they misreported something? Can you say the same for the President?

    You have a President who seems hellbent on emulating the likes of Putin, Duterte and Erdogan. The constant tweets denigrating your law enforcement agencies, the intelligence community and his demonization of the media, calling them the enemy of the people, is an attack on your democratic institutions. Also, he's failed to make it clear to Russia that meddling in your election was and is unacceptable. The integrity of elections and the public's faith in it, is another vital cornerstone in a democracy.

    Whether he is simply doing it because his psyche can't handle negative press coverage or whether he's doing it for self-serving purposes, trying to inoculate himself from the result of the Special Counsel's investigation and sow doubt and numb the public or if he has even darker motivations; ie purposefully trying to weaken your democracy and pave the way for a more authoritarian rule isn't for me to say. But whatever it is, it is a threat to your democracy.

    This Fake News Awards thing, is just NOISE. DEFLECTION.
    Last edit by macawake on Jan 22
  6. by   Lil Nel
    Oh, macawake, you must have the patience of I don't know what!!!!
  7. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    And here's the full article: Trump feeds fish, then winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond - CNNPolitics

    Title: Trump feeds fish, then winds up pouring entire box of food into the koi pond

    In the article, it highlights that "Trump's move was met with laughter".

    The first sentence, that Trump took time

    The 4th paragraph,


    And the very last sentence about the exchange...


    The article, four times, tried to point that Trump made the initial dump, but does say other wise at the very end.

    The article is accompanied by a Twitter post, by the author of the article, with a VIDEO with the caption, "President Trump feeds fish with PM Shinzo Abe in Japan, then pours the entire box of food into the koi pond." A FIFTH attempt to portray Trump made the initial dump. Really, they needed to say it FIVE times. Yea, there's no agenda...

    FWIW, the original article is the first link when searching "Trump koi fish". So how long did it take you to find your link to "prove" the author didn't purposefully try to portray that Trump did it first?

    Lastly, seriously?! This is what CNN lies about! And you still think they have any real evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump?
    The "Award" was for the video, which supposedly showed Trump dumping his food first, even though as you can see it clearly did not, it even includes the caption "Trump followed Abe's lead and quickly poured his entire box.." Maybe you could specify at what point in the video it seems to show that Trump dumped his first?

    The article makes no claim that Trump dumped his box of food before Abe, the only mention of what ordered it occurred in clarified that Abe was the first to dump his box.

    If the reported order of fish feeding is really one of the 11 most severe examples of supposed media misconduct then that's a pretty pathetic list.
  8. by   itsybitsy
    If you're having trouble understanding, this poster said:

    Quote from Lil Nel
    If Trump didn't have something to hide, he wouldn't be so worried about the media. It is just that simple.
    Meaning, that if Trump had anything to hide, the media would report on it, if they knew. So Trump is trying to discredit the media in case they do find something on Trump. Isn't that what they are saying?

    So my response was that if the media had anything on Trump, he wouldn't be President, since you believe that Trump is trying to discredit the media, because the media would "out" him. If the media "outs" him on something serious, then it could cause impeachment, if investigated and found true with proof. But as you can see, nothing the media has said about Trump would cause him to be impeached because they have nothing. All they have are these useless little stories that attempt to portray a false reality.

    I'm all for investigating real issues until they are resolved. But at what point do they conclude that they won't find anything? Watergate and Contragate both took about 2 years from opening investigations to either resignation or apology. So are we allowing 2 years for the Russia investigation? If so, we have about 5 months. Do you really think if there was anything related to Trump, they wouldn't have found it by now?

    There is no massive amount of direct evidence with anything related to Trump and Russia, in regards to actual collusion to hijack the election.

    Flynn plead guilty to things he lied about in what he said to the Russian Ambassador about Russian retaliation for sanctions and Israel building resolutions.

    Papadopoulos, likewise, pled guild for lying, about contact he had with a professor who had contacts with Russians.

    Manafort and Gates were indicted for money laundering and tax evasion that occurred between 2008 and 2015.

    And where does in point to election fraud?
  9. by   itsybitsy
    If you really can't understand what video it's referring you, maybe you aren't best equip to discuss.

    Trump feeds fish, then winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond - CNNPolitics

    Go to article. Look for twitter post by Veronica Rocha. Watch video. Read twitter description.

    Video is intentionally edited to illustrate that Trump poured food, not showing Abe doing so first. Twitter description reads, "President Trump feeds fish with PM Shinzo Abe in Japan, then pours the entire box of food into the koi pond."

    Why not post the full video? Why add, "then pours the entire box of food into the koi pond".

    Again, if you can't understand this, better to opt yourselves out.
  10. by   toomuchbaloney
    Quote from itsybitsy
    If you're having trouble understanding, this poster said:



    Meaning, that if Trump had anything to hide, the media would report on it, if they knew. So Trump is trying to discredit the media in case they do find something on Trump. Isn't that what they are saying?

    So my response was that if the media had anything on Trump, he wouldn't be President, since you believe that Trump is trying to discredit the media, because the media would "out" him. If the media "outs" him on something serious, then it could cause impeachment, if investigated and found true with proof. But as you can see, nothing the media has said about Trump would cause him to be impeached because they have nothing. All they have are these useless little stories that attempt to portray a false reality.

    I'm all for investigating real issues until they are resolved. But at what point do they conclude that they won't find anything? Watergate and Contragate both took about 2 years from opening investigations to either resignation or apology. So are we allowing 2 years for the Russia investigation? If so, we have about 5 months. Do you really think if there was anything related to Trump, they wouldn't have found it by now?

    There is no massive amount of direct evidence with anything related to Trump and Russia, in regards to actual collusion to hijack the election.

    Flynn plead guilty to things he lied about in what he said to the Russian Ambassador about Russian retaliation for sanctions and Israel building resolutions.

    Papadopoulos, likewise, pled guild for lying, about contact he had with a professor who had contacts with Russians.

    Manafort and Gates were indicted for money laundering and tax evasion that occurred between 2008 and 2015.

    And where does in point to election fraud?
    Just because you don't read any of the investigative reporting that is adjacent to the Mueller investigation, doesn't mean that is not available or credible. The lack of leaks from Mueller's team does not mean that there is nothing of substance being found. Be patient and the Trump involvement with Russian money laundering will become as clear as you will allow.

    Rather than worrying about the charges that will result from the process, we could review the Nunes compilation and have a good laugh.

    #releasethememo

    That is one of the newest mantras of Russian bots and Trump trolls.
  11. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    If you really can't understand what video it's referring you, maybe you aren't best equip to discuss.

    Trump feeds fish, then winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond - CNNPolitics

    Go to article. Look for twitter post by Veronica Rocha. Watch video. Read twitter description.

    Video is intentionally edited to illustrate that Trump poured food, not showing Abe doing so first. Twitter description reads, "President Trump feeds fish with PM Shinzo Abe in Japan, then pours the entire box of food into the koi pond."

    Why not post the full video? Why add, "then pours the entire box of food into the koi pond".

    Again, if you can't understand this, better to opt yourselves out.
    The video show Abe tossing in the food from his box at 0:32 of the video and Trump doing so at 0:35. Where are you getting that 35 seconds comes before 32 seconds?
  12. by   toomuchbaloney
    Quote from MunoRN
    The video show Abe tossing in the food from his box at 0:32 of the video and Trump doing so at 0:35. Where are you getting that 35 seconds comes before 32 seconds?
    It seems to me that the intent is to get you to look at some other edited version of the video. A narrow view requires a narrow focus.
  13. by   elkpark
    Quote from itsybitsy
    I'm all for investigating real issues until they are resolved. But at what point do they conclude that they won't find anything? Watergate and Contragate both took about 2 years from opening investigations to either resignation or apology. So are we allowing 2 years for the Russia investigation? If so, we have about 5 months. Do you really think if there was anything related to Trump, they wouldn't have found it by now?
    The Whitewater investigation went on for five years, until Clinton was eventually impeached for something that had absolutely nothing to do with the original focus of the investigation. Just sayin' ...

close