The 'Fake News' narrative

streiff:
Ever since Donald Trump’s election we’ve been bombarded with stories about “fake news.” As best as I can tell, “fake news” is news or information that runs against the current cheerleading by the media for Democrats and progressive politics. For instance, no one called CBS a purveyor of “fake news” when Dan Rather used blatantly obvious bogus documents to try to torpedo George Bush in 2004. No one has called NBC a “fake news” source because of Brian Williams. No one has called Politico “fake news” even though one of their reporters, Josh Gerstein, regularly reported stuff on Clinton’s email travails that was obvious false and declared to be false by even the superficial FBI investigation. “Fake news” did not include the puffery on Obamacare nor does it cover the monthly news stories about job creation that are half-truths at best. Nope. None of that counts because none of that fits the narrative.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump met with New York Times reporters. During that meeting the subject of anthropogenic global warming came up. This is how the media reported the story.

The overall media take on the story was that Trump was backtracking on his campaign positions on climate change. In fact, based on the news coverage of the meeting, I followed suit. (You can find examples of how the meeting was spun here and here.) Now the transcript is out and it shows a remarkably different meeting than the one portrayed.
...

Why, then, if the news coverage of Trump’s interview differs markedly from what was actually said is it not treated as “fake news?” Simple reason. The news coverage supports the liberal orthodoxy and it serves a second purpose of trying to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters....
Check out the link at the top to see what was actually said in the interview.  The right is quickly turning the "fake news" charge around on the mainstream media as a description of their media bias.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more