TGW wrote:gtn130 wrote:TGW wrote:"Fake News" is not a definitive term, zonkerthebrainless. The term is not objective, so your definition of it means diddly. As a matter of fact, you're confusing fake news with propaganda; they are NOT one and the same.
I view fake news as bull, real or imaginary. If Trump had bits of raisins in his stool this morning, and CNN reported on it, that's fake news.
Information of little to no value is not newsworthy. I don't care if Trump had sex with a hooker or a pornstar...he's a rich, powerful douchebag from New York. I expect that type of behavior from him.
jfc who do you think this broad definition of 'fake news' actually serves? Trump literally uses the term to roundly decry all news he doesn't like, and you're supporting him on this!
Fake news = stories not grounded in fact.
It's pretty damn simple, but you
still haven't figured out that Hillary > Trump, so I can see why this is difficult for you.
STFU. I know it's hard for you to take hillary's
unabridged dictionary out of your mouth, but try.
Come on TGW, you know where the line is.
You guys aren't going to agree on Clinton. Don't turn it into a bunch of name calling. At least try to be clever. We could use a little levity.
Re "fake news," all news isn't of equal importance, but in political opposition, it's all fair game. Somehow conservatives turned Obama's tan suit and taste for mustard into political issues. That's politics.
Trump's affairs, even if entirely consensual, are YUGE compared to a tan suit, and coverage of them 1) casts negatively on his Christian, evangelical, fundamentalist (or whatever self-righteously superior label they wrap themselves in) supporters, 2) these repeated sexual scandals more generally cast negatively on the republican/Conservative self-righteousness displayed in the Hunt for Bill Clinton, 3) the relentless march of Trump sex life factoids keeps making the Moscow Golden Showers story--once routinely offered as proof that the Steele Dossier had to be a hoax--seem more and more plausible, thus making the rest of the dossier seem increasingly plausible, and 4) there are allegations of campaign finance irregularities.
That's four different distinct angles I can think of to support the claim of "newsworthy." Maybe I'm missing some other reasons. I'm sure CNN or whichever broadcast (I didn't watch it, I can barely make time for Wizards games) was going for the titillation factor and ratings, counting on the same voyeuristic fascination that got Trump so much free publicity and coverage in the first place. He's good for ratings.
Maybe not as important as a host of other stories, but subjectively frivolous news must be distinguished from FAKE NEWS. FAKE NEWS is Emma Gonzalez ripping up the Constitution: not facts organized and presented in furtherance of an agenda, but facts fabricated in furtherance of an agenda.