Is this something Congress should do?
And what exactly is fake news? While President Trump may complain about "fake" news, he continues to make demonstrably false statements at a rate that far exceeds anything in the "fake" news. In fact, those false statement are all tallied here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … 0ca67cd118
So who is actually "fake" in this scenario?
No. If the people are gullible enough to swallow fake news then so be it.
Trump wants all American to listen to him most importantally for big news first. What a fascist!!!
Newspapers are "investigated" all of the time by lawyers when they are sued.
They often get sued for libel (falsehoods) but rarely lose. People who file lawsuits almost always lose because newspapers use fact checking and multiple sources for important stories.
People like Trump and his supporters want revenge because they hate it when a newspaper reports the truth about them. And because it's the truth, they can't do anything about it other than claim all media lies.
You mean "truth" like Trump has connections to Putin? That he worked with Russia to fix the election? That he was never wiretapped during the election?
"True" things like that they make sure they have fact checked...but refuse to provide the proof the investigation is desperately seeking. Right?
It seems to me like you're confusing somebody's interpretation of what is being said with what is actually being said. I've seen people in the media, who are frequently irresponsible with their words, say things about investigations implying things like collusion, but nobody has said that anyone has actually proven collusion. Those are very different things.
Please relax. Breathe deeply. Consider that I have explained how newspapers work and why they rarely lose libel suits.
That you did. "People who file lawsuits almost always lose because newspapers use fact checking and multiple sources for important stories."
Sure wish they would publish the proof they found on those "facts", though.
They use attribution: "he said", "she said", "according to", etc. They also take notes and recordings that they must produce in court.
Lawyers require both reporters and editors to testify in court about their states of mind, any potential biases and anything else that might indicate hostile intentions. They have to explain the entire process of publishing a story from beginning to end.
But it's an entirely different situation with TV. That's not real journalism, whether we are talking about Fox News or MSNBC.
Promisem, you are correct, and that's a pity. TV is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, or at least it was in my day, while newspaper has always claimed they were exempt under 1st Amendment. Today with deregulation nobody is looking over the shoulder of TV "journalism". Newspapers even went so far that, at one time, to try to claim that putting sales tax on a newspaper violated their right to free speech. Nobody regulates the internet. It's virtually impossible. How much of this BS is coming from the Dark Web?
Yeah, I get that - it's a good way to get out of a slander suit. And they don't have to cough up their "sources", either, so there is never anything to prove.
Media trust is actually going up while trust in Trump is going down. Other surveys show that people who don't trust "media", which is a massive hodge podge, are mostly Republicans.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/0 … lls-243516
I am a Conservative and I do not believe Congress has any power to investigate the media. Our first Amendament protects the press and it is one of the checks on our government...
However, the fake news by some in the media especially with regard to the Trump admin. needs to be addressed. Perhaps, an independent agency can be created by the news media as an oversight. The rampant abuses by some media in creating news or distorting the news is not healthy for our country and our republic. We cannot have a media that sides with one party and distort the news to favor one over the other.
I'm surprised when you say "media that sides with one party". Fox News, Breitbart, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, thousands of blogs and a long list of newspapers only support Republicans.
It applied to all media. But the media I was talking about is CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and the NYT..
LOL, Jack. Fox is the worst as far as fake news is concerned. Most of their "reporters" are simply opinion people, not true journalists.
Jack, I have a hard time understanding why it's OK for a conservative to embrace conservative media and then claim that all other media that's not conservative is biased.
In effect, you are demanding an end to independent journalism and supporting only the media that supports your personal beliefs.
You are not reading my post correctly.
I said I don't support a Congressional investigation of media.
I do believe their is a bias in main street media. Do you deny it?
We can have that debate if you want to.
It is clear to everyone that the media is supporting the democrats, even to the point of helping one candidate, Hillary, with questions before the debate...
They have conspired and colluded against Bernie Sanders and Trump trying to elect Clinton...
They are the one driving this Russia connection when there is no case from the start...
It was started by a faked dossier created by DNC...
The media has lost all credibility and have even stopped pretending.
Thst is what TDS has accomplished.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people...
All talking points from Faux News, Jack. You can't see the forest for the trees....
A link to actual proof of the DNC creating the dossier would be nice, Jack
I am reading it quite clearly. You specifically listed all of the media outlets that Trump and other conservatives (including yourself) constantly attack and call liberal but did not list Fox News, Breitbart, etc.
Your other comments defy all of the investigations of Trump by Republicans and buy the Fox and Breitbart line all the way.
"It is clear to everyone that the media is supporting the democrats." I don't see Breitbart and Fox News supporting any Democrats ...
Fake news, like the 2000 ads Russia bought on Facebook and targeted people in Wisconsin and Michigan to help Trump get elected. Like that fake news?
According to what I saw, they've decided that the intent of Russian "interference" was to divide the nation, not help either Trump or Clinton get elected.
So yes, much like the fake news that Russia fixed the election for Trump.
Valeant, I live in Michigan, I voted for Trump. I actually made my decision on the agenda he offered, and feeling the country needed to try someone other than a politician type that talked did well in college in speech class. I can honestly say, I never read any fake news on the internet. In fact I stayed away from most media outlets. I found the rhetoric over powering, and felt like the bashing of both candidates an insult to my intelligence. It seems to me it's time to stop analyzing each and every news story. It might be time to consider how and why some news outlets only post negative stories on the president? Does this not send up a red flag?
fake news = lies. Yes, should be investigated. Fake news / lies is abuse of freedom of speech.
This abuse of freedom of speech needs to be stopped as soon as possible … if possible!!!!
(The problem has been around since newspapers have been printed and circulated, however.)
So once again, here's an annotated list of all of President Trump's false statements:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … 602f7209a6
Should he be investigated for making false statements and abusing freedom of speech?
Crank, why not? The whole things a farce from a blithering idiot. He inflames the media then he gets all hot and bothered by their reaction. I find it hilarious. Kind of like a bully slapping somebody then yelling "foul" when he gets hit back.
LOL Investigated for making false statements? Abuse of freedom of speech? What are you looking for - a kangaroo court of libs?
If we convicted every politician that lied there wouldn't be one in the country. And we could start the abuse convictions with the NFL.
Surely you see my point. There's a group calling for the fake media to be investigated based on, presumably, false statements. Isn't that a two-way street? I'm asking those who support Trump and think the media needs to be investigated. I've provided a link to all his false statements. Isn't he the fake news he talks about?
Trump lies by stating incorrect facts and, mostly, gross exaggerations. Mainstream media lies by making an extensive and conscious effort to convince a listener that a falsehood is true, generally using true statements or at least half truths and half stories.
Of the two I prefer Trumps lies, they're much easier to spot, but neither one is a criminal offense, not they way it's being done. And certainly "abuse of free speech" isn't criminal either.
In an interview with Bill Moyers concerning the Goldwater Rule, Psychologist Robert Jay Lifton agrees with you. He says this about people who lie and whether they believe what they say:
"In my investigations, I’ve found that people can believe and not believe something at the same time, and in his case, he (Trump) could be very manipulative and be quite gifted at his manipulations....In order to make your falsehoods powerful, you have to believe in them in some extent. And that’s why we simplify things if we say that Trump either believes nothing in his falsehoods and is just manipulating us like a fox or he completely believes them. Neither is true."
http://billmoyers.com/story/dangerous-c … i0Es.email
I can't get this to link, so one may have to cut and paste it to read the article. The title is The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: Robert Jay Lifton and Bill Moyers on ‘A Duty to Warn’
The first two paragraphs from the article:
"Bill Moyers: This book is a withering exploration of Donald Trump’s mental state. Aren’t you and the 26 other mental health experts who contribute to it in effect violating the Goldwater Rule? Section 7.3 of the American Psychiatrist Association’s code of ethics flatly says: “It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion [on a public figure] unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization.” Are you putting your profession’s reputation at risk?
Robert Jay Lifton: I don’t think so. I think the Goldwater Rule is a little ambiguous. We adhere to that portion of the Goldwater Rule that says we don’t see ourselves as making a definitive diagnosis in a formal way and we don’t believe that should be done, except by hands-on interviewing and studying of a person. But we take issue with the idea that therefore we can say nothing about Trump or any other public figure. We have a perfect right to offer our opinion, and that’s where “duty to warn” comes in."
IMO, the reply is nothing but waffling; he is most definitely offering a "professional opinion" without ever examining the patient. I have a real problem with this: I don't believe any true professional would do such a thing and I don't believe any true professional would give an opinion about a patient, or anyone else. Offer an opinion on Trumps politics, on his morals, on anything but his mental capabilities or quirks.
Trump signed a law that could help the mentally ill get guns:
You mean like people at @MSNBC?
He should be careful what he asks for. A legitimate investigation might not be pleasant for his media buddies.
Trump is just continuing his assault on a legitimate democratic institution. There is a reason why the Founding Fathers wanted the press to be free: so we could find the "truth."
Now, truth, as we know it, is in the eye of the beholder, but shutting us up is the goal of the media attacks.
I've never known a president who feared the media half as much. Congress will not investigate the media because the media helps them get elected. Likewise, they need the media to help them look good. Unlike Trump, they don't want to shoot themselves in the foot.
Freedom of speech and the press scares those who would prefer we had neither.
"I've never known a president who feared the media half as much. "
Feared it or is angered by it? Considering the constant spin and sly digs, considering the almost total lack of anything good to say, I'd have to conclude that there is at least as much anger as fear.
CNN fake news can't even get their graphics right when showing a bump stock on a rifle. Just so happens they forgot the bump stock. But dang, CNN's congressional correspondent has a grenade launcher and silencer on it. They work hard at keeping people dumbed down!
The clown news network!
Should have included Elmer shooting Bugs Bunny. If you're going to go with cartoons and imagination, go all the way! Heck, put a flame thrower and a SAM launcher on it, too - Elmer can burn him out of the hole he lives in and catch him mid bounce with a SAM, then shoot 10 more at a half mile range without missing once.
Hillary, for a lifetime, complained that any negative news reports about her or her husband were conspiracies. Fake news. It's all fake news to all politicians when it doesn't pander to their ideal of what people should hear about them.
Not to say there isn't a lot of fake news out there. And, it's sad. I find myself cross checking all sources available to attempt to determine truth from propaganda.
It all depends on whether or not you are grieving or your life is threatened. Fear is more primitive, triggering the fight or flight response in the medula oblongata. It's why we hid in caves or wrapped fig leaves around our bums. In any case, depending on what you believe, fear came first. Truth can be that way.
Anger requires a higher cognitive response and processing.
Trump has a lot to be angry about, for sure. But so do we.
It will be wonderful when the final analysis says, Yes, there is fake news. DJT is the main perpetrator!"
Yes, colorful still fears Hillary.
Immediately following the election, Hillary Clinton shied away from the spotlight. But over the past few weeks, we've come to learn just how the former Democratic nominee for president is coping with her her lost. She is not running for office and avoiding Trump.
Yes, anger is very inefficient. Remember that when next time we vote. Anger begetting anger only leads to more anger and destruction for the angriest of all. Darkest only gives rise to darkness.
Trump didn't mind "fake news" when they were giving him free airtime, covering his every antic, and churning up the masses to think voting for him would fall into the category of rolling the principal's house.
America is very forgiving. If negativity begets negativity, then a red flag is what we are looking at here. USSR, alive and well. (That's humor; O.K.)
Or isn't Red Flag a bug repellent - I'm just sayin'.
by Scott Belford 22 months ago
Here are the FACTS as we know them:Jan 27, 2017: Trump has dinner with Comey and, according to Comey, Trump asked Comey for a loyalty oath' but Comey only promised Trump honesty. Trump says he didn't but thought it would have been a good idea.Jan 30, 2017: Trump fires Deputy Attorney General...
by Randy Godwin 14 months ago
As the Mueller investigation homes in on Donald Trump and his alleged collusion with our longtime adversary, namely Russia, it's come to light only Trump's advisor prevented him from firing Robert Mueller. Among the reasons Donnie cited for firing Mueller was his failing to pay a fee or penalty at...
by Credence2 2 years ago
To refer to the "press as the enemy of the American people' in the terms he did was the epitome of stupid. This was attacked by many GOP as attacking the very foundation of America Democracy, the Fourth Estate. So many people think that I am picking on Trump, but I am not Charlie McCarthy,...
by JOC 11 months ago
Ohio State recently conducted a story about the possible impact targeted fake news stories might have had on the election. Thoughts?http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180507/o … mp-in-2016
by ahorseback 2 years ago
Fake is fake and everybody knows the difference except the mainstream media .Any takers ? Even liberals must recognize the futility of the news media maintaining the plague of falsehoods.
by Sanket Chavan 2 years ago
Policy of restricting people from expressing themselves freely has been widely implemented by the developing countries of the world but has USA begun walking on that path?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|