Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
WASHINGTON — The C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the White House may all agree that Russia was behind the hacking that interfered with the election. But that was of no import to the website Breitbart News, which dismissed reports on the intelligence assessment as “left-wing fake news.”
Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem. “The fake news is the everyday news” in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. “They just make it up.”...
Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/us...am-media-.html
This is exactly the point I made way back in post #16 of this thread in full recognition that Whell is carrying the water of those like Limbaugh who want to portray real news that is unfavorable to the conservative agenda as "fake news."
|
I'm stunned that the NY Times is defending their product by dissing those who question their reporting! Stunned!
Meanwhile, the NY Times is still trying to figure out why their subscribers are down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us...ve-editor.html
Artie promised to:
"...rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences…” Yeah, Artie, that might be a good start. They might also want to take the DNC off the speed dial of all of their editors phones.
So, Finn, you might want to wait until the NY Times and others figure out how to clean up their acts before trash their detractors. Even some of your fellow lefties want the NY Times to clean up with act:
WHAT struck me most as I spoke with readers is how much, to a person, they had something to say that was smart and reasonable. They weren’t randomly selected — I chose them from an inbox of complaints — but they had reactions that were well worth hearing. I found myself wishing someone from the newsroom was on the line with me, especially to hear how many of the more liberal voters wanted more balanced coverage. Not an echo chamber of liberal intellectualism, but an honest reflection of reality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/pu...as-needed.html
The NY Times reporting of the "Russian interference in the election" is an example of the same old same old. Just a parroting of the party line without any curiosity about the details, some of which remained unexplored / unexplained.