Sean Spicer excluding media outlets from briefing (NYT, CNN, WAPO, Politico)

[outriding]

How can trash CNN and not trash fox..

Fox's accuracy is soo bad

At Fox and Fox News, 10 percent of the claims we’ve rated have been True, 11 percent Mostly True, 18 percent Half True, 21 percent Mostly False, 31 percent False and nine percent Pants on Fire.

That means about 60 percent of the claims we’ve checked have been rated Mostly False or worse.


And as for CNN? It has the best record among the cable networks, as 80 percent of of the claims we’ve rated are Half True or better.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/

 

[brycejones]

How can trash CNN and not trash fox..

Fox's accuracy is soo bad

At Fox and Fox News, 10 percent of the claims we’ve rated have been True, 11 percent Mostly True, 18 percent Half True, 21 percent Mostly False, 31 percent False and nine percent Pants on Fire.

That means about 60 percent of the claims we’ve checked have been rated Mostly False or worse.


And as for CNN? It has the best record among the cable networks, as 80 percent of of the claims we’ve rated are Half True or better.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/

The simple minded conservative reply is politifact is another liberal org that lies.

 

[UglyCasanova]

So CNN is a joke, so which news outlet is not? This answer should be interesting.

Umm read the sentence right above the one about CNN. I gave you one literally in your quote

 

[emperus]

Umm read the sentence right above the one about CNN. I gave you one literally in your quote

I meant network news.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I meant network news.

PBS or BBC? Both of those are quality, do they count?

 

[emperus]

PBS or BBC? Both of those are quality, do they count?

You know what I mean. Of msnbc, fox news and CNN which do you consider not a joke. And besides the sensationalism of CNN and that then to harp on the inane (Hilaries emails, etc.). I don't see a difference between the actual News reporting between CNN and PBS.

 

[norseamd]

You know what I mean. Of msnbc, fox news and CNN which do you consider not a joke. And besides the sensationalism of CNN and that then to harp on the inane (Hilaries emails, etc.). I don't see a difference between the actual News reporting between CNN and PBS.

None, really. They are all shit, Fox is even worse than the rest, but they all suck shit.

And no, there is a major difference between CNN and PBS.

 

[emperus]

None, really. They are all shit, Fox is even worse than the rest, but they all suck shit.

And no, there is a major difference between CNN and PBS.

I was talking about in terms of just actual news. CNN and PBS have different financial models, so of course there is a big difference.

 

[Sea Ray]

Again. He was talking about Canadian entities in general. Granted the statement about Fox is incorrect. Everything else he stated is in fact true. The only channel that is like Fox that tried to establish in Canada failed out of existence for multiple violations of standards and, just simply, shitty viewership.

So now we're saying any channel that's "like Fox"? Since when does "like Fox" count?

The only reason Fox can do no more than operate in Canada is because of laws that prohibit foreign ownership. It has nothing to do with Fox being fake news. It's important to point that out

 

[Ackmed]

How can trash CNN and not trash fox..

Fox's accuracy is soo bad

At Fox and Fox News, 10 percent of the claims we’ve rated have been True, 11 percent Mostly True, 18 percent Half True, 21 percent Mostly False, 31 percent False and nine percent Pants on Fire.

That means about 60 percent of the claims we’ve checked have been rated Mostly False or worse.


And as for CNN? It has the best record among the cable networks, as 80 percent of of the claims we’ve rated are Half True or better.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/

http://www.politifactbias.com/

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8215/politifact-denies-its-own-left-wing-bias-robert-kraychik

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ts-are-subjective-and-based-party-affiliation

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

I could go on and on. There are plenty of websites that fact check, the fact checkers and show bias and outright double standards when comments about the same thing are made. The second link in particular shows a problem with how they rate things with their "mostly false", "half true" and others. I don't suppose you'll read any of the link, just claim that your website is more right than my websites instead.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.politifactbias.com/

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8215/politifact-denies-its-own-left-wing-bias-robert-kraychik

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ts-are-subjective-and-based-party-affiliation

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

I could go on and on. There are plenty of websites that fact check, the fact checkers and show bias and outright double standards when comments about the same thing are made. The second link in particular shows a problem with how they rate things with their "mostly false", "half true" and others. I don't suppose you'll read any of the link, just claim that your website is more right than my websites instead.

I mean in all fairness you quoted an opinion piece and a bunch of articles from proudly ultra right wing websites and the finance equivalent of Infowars. If you're trying to show that a source is biased the first step is to not use obviously biased sources to do so. Also, no one smart should use zerohedge for..well...anything.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Here lies the reason "claims we’ve rated..........." "claims we’ve checked..................."
All they have to do is be judicious of which claims they check and which claims they don't. Rigging the numbers is easy for Politifuct.

How can trash CNN and not trash fox..

Fox's accuracy is soo bad

At Fox and Fox News, 10 percent of the claims we’ve rated have been True, 11 percent Mostly True, 18 percent Half True, 21 percent Mostly False, 31 percent False and nine percent Pants on Fire.

That means about 60 percent of the claims we’ve checked have been rated Mostly False or worse.


And as for CNN? It has the best record among the cable networks, as 80 percent of of the claims we’ve rated are Half True or better.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/

 

[emperus]

http://www.politifactbias.com/

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8215/politifact-denies-its-own-left-wing-bias-robert-kraychik

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ts-are-subjective-and-based-party-affiliation

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

I could go on and on. There are plenty of websites that fact check, the fact checkers and show bias and outright double standards when comments about the same thing are made. The second link in particular shows a problem with how they rate things with their "mostly false", "half true" and others. I don't suppose you'll read any of the link, just claim that your website is more right than my websites instead.

I'll play. I've read (quickly) the majority(all except zerohedge; feel like I'll get viruses if I click on that link) of them. (My head still heards trying to make logical sense of what they wrote). Why don't you distill their arguments down to a couple of lines so we can understand why you think these sources you've cited prove politifact is biased (and I'm not arguing it is or it isn't).

btw. That last one is just terrible. I'm still trying to figure out what he thought he was accomplishing writing that piece.

 

[UglyCasanova]

None, really. They are all shit, Fox is even worse than the rest, but they all suck shit.

And no, there is a major difference between CNN and PBS.

This, except I wouldn't put Fox below the rest. They all sit on an even playing field of crappiness, each in their own unique way but they are still all shite. And yeah there is worlds of difference between PBS and CNN in terms of the quality of reporting.

 

[outriding]

http://www.politifactbias.com/

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/




http://www.dailywire.com/news/8215/politifact-denies-its-own-left-wing-bias-robert-kraychik

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ts-are-subjective-and-based-party-affiliation

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

I could go on and on. There are plenty of websites that fact check, the fact checkers and show bias and outright double standards when comments about the same thing are made. The second link in particular shows a problem with how they rate things with their "mostly false", "half true" and others. I don't suppose you'll read any of the link, just claim that your website is more right than my websites instead.

Are you fucking kidding me..

I clicked on the first link and one of the on the front page (the one about) waterboarding was factually inaccurate.

My guess is some people have an issue with separating facts from opinion.

 

[outriding]

Here lies the reason "claims we’ve rated..........." "claims we’ve checked..................."
All they have to do is be judicious of which claims they check and which claims they don't. Rigging the numbers is easy for Politifuct.

Not sure where u got those quotes from.. this was from the article..


We last looked at our network scorecards, which examine all the claims made by pundits on air, in September.

 

[Commodus]

What's funny is something that people are glossing over. You know how one of our resident Trump fans cited BBC as one of the few outlets he saw as relatively impartial? Well, it was excluded from the same press briefing.

The exclusion isn't due to "fake news" -- sorry to disappoint, but that's not what CNN, the NYT and others are pushing. I trust their anonymous sources far more than an administration that tells easily disproven lies on a near-daily basis. It's all about trying to control the narrative, to turn the media into a propaganda machine that echoes what Trump wants to hear. Thankfully, the outlets willing to serve as mindless repeaters (Breitbart, Washington Times, One America, etc.) are relatively tiny.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Not sure where u got those quotes from.. this was from the article..


We last looked at our network scorecards, which examine all the claims made by pundits on air, in September.

They are quotes from your post. #201

 

[tweaker2]

This effort by the Trump Ministry of Disinformation really is quite like the model FOX and the GOP has been exploiting for years. Although Trump and FOX both preach to the same choir, the distinct advantage Trump has over FOX is his ability to broadcast to a much wider audience but at the expense of it being a double edged sword, as it were.

Too bad though that his "campaign forever" game is at best keeping "the faithful, faithful" or at worst exposing just what is so wrong with his style of "leadership" if one could ever survive that leap of logic. He is not leading the nation by example as he well should, he is leading the nation by uplifting and promoting what is worst about us, what is fatally destructive about us, what is tragically divisive about us. In the long run, it simply won't work.

The more Trump tries to force his will, his dialogue, his dogma on the populace the more he will realize how futile it is to reach out and brutalize the nation into surrendering to his charming way of redefining where the nation should get their information about him when to get it from him is being constantly revised and sanitized by his gaggle of lawyers and apologists.

On the one hand, he has proven beyond doubt that he really is the chronic pathological liar in the most blatant way possible. On the other, when he is flatly called out on those obviously (and at this point we delve into the world of fakery that Trump has conjured in his defense of his fake "fake news" accusations) false statements that he makes, he turns it right back on his accusers by branding them as the dispensers of fake news of the obvious falsehoods he makes on a regular basis.

If this is his rather lame attempt at excusing himself from himself then well yeah, it works for the faithful who only want to hear what comes directly out of his mouth or from those sources that painfully attempts to justify and legitimize his scatologically infected dialogue, but it has the precise opposite effect on anyone else who possesses an ounce of common sense.

Trump is by his own words, convicting himself of what he is accusing the media of. That the media accurately reports what comes directly out of his mouth and what direct actions he takes that habitually backfires in his face is not the problem of the media, it's Trump's problem and by his dealing with this problem of his own making the way he has, it just compounds the problem for himself.

He really is his own worst enemy after all.

 

[flexy]

It is *interesting* (to say the least) that the term "fake news" was actually coined back and used during the campaign. "Fake news" applied to the heaps of fake news crafted by the Right (with big help by the Russians who spread them all over social media, orchestrated from sby the way).

Now "Fake News" is mostly associated with so called "fake news" by so called "enemies of America" (ie. ABC, CNN, NYT, WSJ, CBS, basically the entire free press in the US), it "magically" has become a term that is now applied to news from "liberal" and left media. (NOT the original, actual fake news by the Trump campaign). BECAUSE...BECAUSE WELL THE ORANGE RETARD USES THE WORD ON TWITTER...and the idiotic sheep without a brain echo everything he says.

Do you even realize how massively you're manipulated?

(Of course this goes even further, FAR further...the next keyword would be "voter fraud", same thing happened here, but that's a different story.)

 

[MrSquished]

I think we need to spend more time supporting any of these media outlets that the regressive Trump administration banned. I mean read them every day, subscribe if you like, etc...

If Trump chose them to ban that simply means they are actually doing the best job out of the lot - reporting truthful things about Trump that he can't take.

At the end of the day, this list of banned media outlets is something we should rally around.

 

[Commodus]

I think we need to spend more time supporting any of these media outlets that the regressive Trump administration banned. I mean read them every day, subscribe if you like, etc...

If Trump chose them to ban that simply means they are actually doing the best job out of the lot - reporting truthful things about Trump that he can't take.

At the end of the day, this list of banned media outlets is something we should rally around.

Thankfully, people have been rallying around them... the NYT and WaPo reported surges in subscriptions following the election, for example. Meanwhile, advertisers have been pulling support from Trump propaganda outlets like Breitbart.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's press briefings eventually dwindle to the point where he's addressing InfoWars, the Washington Times and some angry Wordpress blogger. He can't wage a war against the press, insisting that it swallow his lies whole, and expect outlets to simply give in. In a sense, this is heartening news: either Trump loses more and more control of the narrative, or he capitulates and starts treating the press with respect. He can't censor negative press like he so desperately wants to, so he's stuck.

 

[UglyCasanova]

What's funny is something that people are glossing over. You know how one of our resident Trump fans cited BBC as one of the few outlets he saw as relatively impartial? Well, it was excluded from the same press briefing.

The exclusion isn't due to "fake news" -- sorry to disappoint, but that's not what CNN, the NYT and others are pushing. I trust their anonymous sources far more than an administration that tells easily disproven lies on a near-daily basis. It's all about trying to control the narrative, to turn the media into a propaganda machine that echoes what Trump wants to hear. Thankfully, the outlets willing to serve as mindless repeaters (Breitbart, Washington Times, One America, etc.) are relatively tiny.

If you're referring to me I wouldn't call myself a Trump fan and I listed two news sources that I read/watch that were included in the ban, both the NYT and BBC. The BBC has been much more impartial and fair over the past year in their political reporting admittedly. And I've said in this very thread that attack in the press is a bad move by Trump, just as it was by Obama.

 

[raildogg]

You guys should be more aware of the situation.

This is another stunt to further divide this country. The media is corporate owned and controlled. They don't care about the truth anyway, really. Conservative or liberal - it's the same.

Trump is a puppet doing his part to divide this country. He is creating chaos by issues various decrees. This is one example.

If we take everything he does and give so much energy to it, it's going to be very tiresome. He is doing his job of Commander of Division. He's pitting half of the country against the other half. I guess most people fall into one side or another, unfortunately.

Trump's job is to only divide, create chaos, fear, animosity and distract the people. He is doing that wonderfully in every way.

 

[Commodus]

If you're referring to me I wouldn't call myself a Trump fan and I listed two news sources that I read/watch that were included in the ban, both the NYT and BBC. The BBC has been much more impartial and fair over the past year in their political reporting admittedly. And I've said in this very thread that attack in the press is a bad move by Trump, just as it was by Obama.

I wasn't referring to you; sorry if I caught you up in that dragnet. I was thinking more those people who clearly read/watch conservative cheerleader sources almost exclusively, and who are treating a broader attempt to stifle the press as somehow justifiable because of one thing Obama kinda-sorta did once.