The 4th Estate Thread Has Surrendered

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:12 pm

Fitzy wrote:
Kraken wrote:Let us observe a solemn moment of derision for Paul Horner, the writer of fake news, who was found dead of a probable accidental overdose.

Horner took on greater prominence during the presidential election when false stories were widely shared on social media during the race between Trump and Hillary Clinton.

In an interview with The Washington Post in 2016, Horner said he thought Trump won the White House because of him. Horner said Trump's supporters didn't fact-check his stories before posting them.

"My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don't fact-check anything — they'll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist," he told The Washington Post in November.
Thanks, dude; you made a difference.
Shouldn't this be in the Clinton thread?

Sometimes I think we should only have one "clusterfuck" thread to rule them all. Global warming? We're fucked. Healthcare policy? We're fucked. Fake news? We're fucked. Russia? We're fucked. The Trump presidency? We're fucked. And so on.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:44 pm

Kraken wrote:Let us observe a solemn moment of derision for Paul Horner, the writer of fake news, who was found dead of a probable accidental overdose.

Horner took on greater prominence during the presidential election when false stories were widely shared on social media during the race between Trump and Hillary Clinton.

In an interview with The Washington Post in 2016, Horner said he thought Trump won the White House because of him. Horner said Trump's supporters didn't fact-check his stories before posting them.

"My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don't fact-check anything — they'll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist," he told The Washington Post in November.
Thanks, dude; you made a difference.

From that article:

J.J., Horner's brother, said Paul considered his work satire and explained that his brother's unique eye for hoaxes and hypocrisy at a young age later worked as clickbait in the internet world.

He wanted to be The Onion; instead, he helped break America.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:56 am

Truth

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:46 am

With one hand you get the excellent Opioid report by WaPo/60-minutes and with the other hand you get this tweet

JUST IN: President Obama did not call Gen. John Kelly when his son was killed in Afghanistan in 2010, White House official tells NBC News

One: IS THIS EVEN TRUE? NBC you just ran off and tweeted what the WH told you - you know from a bunch of liars.

Two: Even if true - what was the context?

Three: This has nothing to do with what Trump said yesterday or his general shittiness. Bush and Obama were well known to regularly visit and communicate with soldiers and family members impacted by our wars.

For pete's sake this is amazingly irresponsible water muddying. Good work NBC News.

Freyland · Post by **Freyland** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:02 pm

Perhaps because he wants to jeopardize their licence? Perhaps not...

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:06 pm

Freyland wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:02 pm Perhaps because he wants to jeopardize their licence? Perhaps not...

Good point - I didn't even think of that angle - ugly as hell.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:07 pm

Yeah, this is part of how Trump gamed the media during the election. He gets accused of something bad, so he spouts off the same accusation against his opponent(s). The media (especially cable news) reports it as "Trump and Clinton accuse each other of racism" or what have you, and the fact that the accusations against Trump are way more serious and credible gets watered down. On top of that usually some time later something vaguely related happens (e.g., Trump accuses Obama of spying on him, then the 'unmasking' fake scandal happens later), and there's a second wave of stories around "was Trump right?"

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:08 pm

By the way, I bet you $1 million that Chris Cillizza is as we speak writing a terrible column about how lots of presidents have been accused of not calling soldiers' families, relying heavily on this Kelly thing.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:13 pm

I wouldn't take that bet - he is *awful*. I agree. He has insight that is neat about 5% of the time. The other 95% confuses. His hire did not improve the dim view I had on CNN. Not saying much considering Jeffrey Lord and Corey Lewandowski but all the same...not the best couple of years for CNN personnel-wise. Though it is debatable if credibility is a key performance metric at CNN.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:21 pm

Wherein Slate runs some garbage about how Trump is technically right while accusing everyone else of missing the point.

I recommend you skip the piece since the battle was won in the comments for once. An epic take down of the piece lies there.

Commentor: The Tick (Unindicted Co-Conspirator) wrote: Wow. Just wow. I hope Slate reconsiders running your next piece, because wow.

1. Contrary to the outraged hot takes of former White House staffers, Trump is right that presidents generally don’t call or visit the family of every U.S. service member killed in action.

Wrong! Here's the exact quote (that was in your piece, strangely):

“If you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls. A lot of them didn’t make calls. I like to call when it’s appropriate, when I think I am able to do it.”

That is Don Trump saying the others didn't do it. Period. Then saying he does.

Moving on.

2. Why are we there and what are they doing there:

Counter terrorism. You should really research this. This article is lazy and unresearched. Not badly researched, unresearched. Al Shabab and remnants of Boko haram along with other Daesh-affiliated insurgencies are in that region trying to destabilize governments and re-establish a caliphate.

3. Why are operators in the field?

Jeebus. That's what they do! You cannot train people in a base and expect results. You cannot stay in the base and report their progress accurately or that they aren't committing atrocities with US backing.

This is disgraceful.

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:09 pm

One: IS THIS EVEN TRUE? NBC you just ran off and tweeted what the WH told you - you know from a bunch of liars.

It is absolutely true, Obama didn't call General Kelly... but he was invited to the White House and sat at the table with the First Lady.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ary-tweets

A White House official later told Politico that Kelly didn’t receive a call from Obama after his son was killed in Afghanistan in 2010. That’s misleading, though: The White House hosted a breakfast for the families of fallen troops in May 2011, and Kelly — then a serving general — and his wife sat at the same table as First Lady Michelle Obama.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:20 pm

Why do I feel like this is going to end with parents of dead soldiers being trotted out to declare that Trump called them in 2017 and Hillary Clinton didn't?

Freyland · Post by **Freyland** » Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:51 am

Holman wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:20 pm Why do I feel like this is going to end with parents of dead soldiers being trotted out to declare that Trump called them in 2017 and Hillary Clinton didn't?

That doesn't seem too off for this administration, but with Sara Huckabee I am more expecting ouiga boards and reports of deceased soldiers confirming that Trump did indeed call their parents.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:02 am

Interesting look at why Trump gets away with creating alternate realities. (Could have gone in almost any thread, but since the alt-press is a large actor I put it here.)

Putin’s approval rating shot up 20 percentage points among Republicans during the presidential campaign, after Trump praised the authoritarian leader. Wikileaks, once cast by conservatives as a threat to national security, experienced a 74 percentage point popularity swing among Republican voters after Trump applauded the group’s hacks targeting Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s attacks on the so-called mainstream media as “fake news” have also moved opinion. Forty-six percent of Americans, and about 76 percent of Republicans, believe the news media make up stories about the president, according to an October poll from Politico/Morning Consult.

The phenomenon revealed itself again recently on another highly charged issue. Trump received criticism for reportedly telling the family of slain Sergeant La David Johnson that the soldier “knew what he was signing up for” in his role with American troops in Niger. But the majority of Republicans polled by the Huffington Post, 56 percent, refused to believe the president ever said those words, even after they were confirmed in a press conference by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.

“It’s about loyalty,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a New York University professor who has studied Trump’s connection with voters. “It’s an allegiance based on loyalty to a person — not a party and not to a set of principles.”

Trump voters “feel like their country has been stolen from them. And they’ll stand by Trump because they feel he’s going to bring their country back,” said Christopher Parker, a politics professor at the University of Washington who gained national fame for predicting a Trump presidential victory early in the election process.

“These are people who see themselves as losing and who are willing to do anything to recover those perceived losses,” Parker said. “Trump is their guy, come hell or high water.”

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:17 am

Leaders of cults of personality are usually flim flam men but I don't know if there has been one so openly terrible as a human being. You have to overlook *a lot* there.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:08 pm

I believe the main stream media makes up a LOT of crap regarding Trump. I mean, FOX is still considered main stream isn't it?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:15 pm

The linked column lumped Fox News in with Breitbart and other "alt-media."

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:28 pm

Kraken wrote:The linked column lumped Fox News in with Breitbart and other "alt-media."

They kind of did start the alt-facts movement, and their opinion shows perpetuate it.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:35 pm

Fox's news organization is much more reliable than Breitbart. Their sourcing is vetted, they publish later versus sooner, etc. The opinion side of the house is very much in the Breitbart vein.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:06 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:35 pm Fox's news organization is much more reliable than Breitbart. Their sourcing is vetted, they publish later versus sooner, etc. The opinion side of the house is very much in the Breitbart vein.

Tough to tell the difference when the only thing they push is the opinion side.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 pm

In which Business Insider questions the sanity of the WSJ editorial board.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:34 pm

malchior wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 pm In which Business Insider questions the sanity of the WSJ editorial board.

WSJ has always been two papers: the actual reporters and the right-leaning editorial page.

In fact the reporters have done very solid work in uncovering various Trump/Russia connections this year. It's a shame to see the crazies on the opinion page shitting on them like this.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:01 pm

Believe it or not - Clinton lost support with her base after *losing* to Trump and not campaigning.

12 months later, Trump would probably still win the 2016 election

Sarcasm aside this is bad, bad, bad use of data. Due to its flaws this result explains nothing and predicts nothing. WaPo usually does better. Sad!

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:05 pm

I disagree, it explains they should pick a better candidate next election.

It also predicts if they run Hillary again they will lose.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:12 pm

I don't think anyone in their right mind is seriously thinking of running Hillary for anything any time soon. Her political career is dead. She'll make bank doing speeches and writing books, but she's got a snowball's chance in hell of getting a party nomination...unless she creates her own.

The Dems and the GOP need to take a long hard look at themselves and each other. They're screwing over their own supporters at an ever increasing pace. They're also doing very little to dispel the popular views that Dems are elitists who hate everyone else, or that the GOP is the party of white supremacy.

Trump needs to go, Hillary needs to go, everyone involved with the utterly disgraceful 2016 election needs to just pack it up and leave town for good. Then both parties need to clean house.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:19 pm

hepcat wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:12 pm I don't think anyone in their right mind is seriously thinking of running Hillary for anything any time soon. Her political career is dead. She'll make bank doing speeches and writing books, but she's got a snowball's chance in hell of getting a party nomination...unless she creates her own.

Totally but more importantly in the void of any campaigning or being a candidate for anything declaring she'd lose again is idiotic. It feels like someone is getting paid by the tweet here.

The Dems and the GOP need to take a long hard look at themselves and each other. They're screwing over their own supporters at an ever increasing pace. They're also doing very little to dispel the popular views that Dems are elitists who look down on everyone else, or that the GOP is the party of white supremacy *and Plutocracy*.

Mortoned

Trump needs to go, Hillary needs to go, everyone involved with the utterly disgraceful 2016 election needs to just pack it up and leave town for good. Then both parties need to clean house.

Here, here stupid poll aside.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:39 pm

What do I do if I'm an elitist who merely hates everyone else and has no political affiliation?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:40 pm

I've got news for you, you're a libertarian.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:46 pm

hepcat wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:40 pm I've got news for you, you're a libertarian.

I'm more of a librarian.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:11 pm

Pyperkub wrote: Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:28 pm
Kraken wrote:The linked column lumped Fox News in with Breitbart and other "alt-media."
They kind of did start the alt-facts movement, and their opinion shows perpetuate it.

the Hill wrote: A British media regulator found that Fox News programs broke the United Kingdom's TV impartiality rules.

Media regulator Ofcom ruled that Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson's shows on the network broke the impartiality rules for British broadcasting in coverage of the Manchester bombing and President Trump's travel ban executive order in January, the Guardian reported.

Ofcom found that an episode of Carlson's show in May violated rules regarding the representation of differing viewpoints and impartiality on issues that have to do with major political or industrial controversy following the Manchester terrorist attack, the Guardian reported.

Note that the UK does not have free speech laws as robust as the USA's, or even Canada's.

Fox pulled their shows from the UK market prior to this report, citing lack of viewership.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:10 pm

The Wrap

The National Society of Film Critics joined the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the New York Film Critics Circle and the Boston Society of Film Critics in denouncing the Walt Disney Company’s media blackout of the Los Angeles Times announced last week in retaliation for critical stories by the paper.

In addition, all four groups voted to disqualify Disney’s films from year-end awards consideration until the blackout is publicly lifted.

On Nov. 3, the L.A. Times announced that its writers and editors had been blocked from attending advance screenings of Disney films in response to The Times’ news coverage of Disney’s business dealings with the city of Anaheim.

According to a joint statement by the four critics groups, “Disney’s actions, which include an indefinite ban on any interaction with The Times, are antithetical to the principles of a free press and set a dangerous precedent in a time of already heightened hostility toward journalists.”

The statement concluded, “Disney’s response should gravely concern all who believe in the importance of a free press, artists included.”

On Monday, the A.V. Club website and Washington Post critic at large Alyssa Rosenberg announced they would boycott Disney screenings until the L.A. Times was allowed to attend them as well.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:57 pm

Disney already backed down according to reports this afternoon. It is sort of crazy or incredibly stupid to think they thought they could get away with it at all.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:59 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:57 pm Disney already backed down according to reports this afternoon. It is sort of crazy or incredibly stupid to think they thought they could get away with it at all.

NYT

Amid a growing backlash, the Walt Disney Company on Tuesday reversed its decision to bar The Los Angeles Times from press screenings of its movies following an investigation by the newspaper into the media giant’s business dealings in Anaheim.

“We’ve had productive discussions with the newly installed leadership at The Los Angeles Times regarding our specific concerns, and as a result, we’ve agreed to restore access to advance screenings for their film critics,” Disney said in a statement.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:28 pm

....said the new Director of Marketing and Advanced Screenings

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:21 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:57 pm Disney already backed down according to reports this afternoon. It is sort of crazy or incredibly stupid to think they thought they could get away with it at all.

If the media continues to crater, it will become commonplace. Think gaming review sites, etc.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:01 am

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:23 am

For pete's sake - this profile is completely irresponsible. They are quasi-normalizing a member of a hate group as just a normal guy.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:12 am

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:59 pm

Meredith nears Koch-backed deal to buy U.S. publisher Time: sources

U.S. media company Meredith Corp (MDP.N) is nearing a deal backed by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch to buy Time Inc (TIME.N), publisher of Sports Illustrated and Fortune magazines, for about $2 billion, people familiar with the matter said on Sunday.

The deal would be a coup for Meredith, which held unsuccessful talks to buy Time earlier this year and in 2013.

It would give news, business and sports brands to the Des Moines, Iowa-based publisher and broadcaster, which owns lifestyle magazines such as Better Homes & Gardens and Family Circle. Analysts have said that bulking up on publishing assets could give Meredith the scale required to spin off its broadcasting arm into a standalone company.

A unit of Koch Industries has been backing Meredith’s bid with $600 million in financing, sources previously told Reuters. It is not clear how much influence the Koch brothers would have over the company. The Koch brothers are two of the world’s richest men through their ownership of Koch Industries, a sprawling industrial empire that manufactures such products as Brawny paper towels, Dixie Cups and Lycra.

The Kochs, known for their advocacy of conservative policies and influence on some quarters of the Republican Party, had previously expressed interest in buying media properties such as the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune in 2013.

Meredith may announce an agreement to acquire Time as early as this week, the sources said. If the companies can finalize arrangements overnight, the announcement could come on Monday, one of the sources added.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter is confidential, cautioned that the talks could collapse at the last minute without a deal. Meredith, Time and a representative for Koch Industries did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:23 pm

James O'Keefe and his "Project Veritas" sent someone to the Washington Post to sell them a false story about Roy Moore.

O'Keefe's teasing tweet suggests that he thought he had stung them:

Instead, WaPo was way ahead of him, posting this story:

A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.

In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore’s candidacy if she went public.

The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.

But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups. The organization sets up undercover “stings” that involve using false cover stories and covert video recordings meant to expose what the group says is media bias.

The ugly thing here is that O'Keefe isn't merely trying to sting the Post; his job here is to sow distrust of the women who have come forward on their own to accuse Roy Moore.

EDIT: already mentioned in the Political Randomness thread with the rest of the Moore discussion.