ABC News Presenters and Reporters

[Firetorch]

@pelican

The context of the poll was clearly political, done in the context of fake news being an election issue, and mentions political fake news explicitly. Further, do you seriously think that those same voters you called “dopey right wing voters” wouldn’t believe fake news? So which are they: dopey or not?

Mate, you were spinning what that poll actually found. Don’t try and worm out of it. We know it was about political fake news explicitly because, well, I quoted that exact passage:
about a quarter (23%) of U.S. adults say they have ever shared a fake political news story online

My four points above still stand in relation to how this poll does not support your argument.

The statement where I referred to “dopey right wing voters” was clearly a caricature of a liberal news media executive. See below. Don’t pull things out of context. You can’t even claim you misunderstood because I included a sarcastic emoji too.

Derr. That’s because Trump was elected. He was elected because dopey right wing citizens were fooled by fake news. These dopey citizens have to be schooled as to what real news is.

@pelican

Nitpicking technicalities endlessly to dispute the widely established fact that fake news was a major driver of the election is akin to denying the existence of gravity.

Wow, you’re doing it again. You’re actually changing your statement each time. What you actually said:

after fake news emerged as a significant influencer in the US election

And I’m sorry, but stating that fake news significantly influenced the US election is probably the biggest accusation you can throw out there - and you then say addressing this statement methodically is nitpicking?

[Firetorch]

@pelican

It’s a fair and reasonable line of argument, but I don’t particularly agree because there’s an important value in establishing a baseline consensus across society. Look at America if you want to see the future where both sides cannot agree on the most trivial of shit.

There will be instances when slipups happen. I’m sure someone will take it upon themselves to factcheck the factcheckers and catch the 1% error rate (hello Murdoch). Just because an idea isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t worth pursuing. Just like how the possibility of a car crash don’t stop us from driving. And how the mandatory need to wear seatbelts doesn’t prevent all car related deaths etc.

No, I wasn’t even referring to slip-ups. I didn’t say that the ABC will make “slip-ups”/“errors” at all. You need to tighten your debating skills - they’re erratic.

[Firetorch]

@Zacgb

I think the term Fake News applies to when News gets misinterpreted and makes out to be something completely different. Trump was a victim currently and during the campaign

Yes exactly, that is what the term has come to mean. Matlock is still stuck on the initial use of the term, which was so ridiculous as to be easily hijacked by the other side and used in a now mocking manner.

[Firetorch]

Trump’s most improbable wins were in the battleground states - mid-western states in particular. The states he visited repeatedly. The states he held major political rallies in. The states where he addressed voter concerns regarding city degradation and employment. The states which Hillary failed to campaign in.

To suggest THESE states, the states that delivered Trump the Presidency, actually voted for him, not because of the reasons above, but because all the Facebook users in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan shared truenews.com articles about the Pope and Beyonce supporting Donald Trump, is just the most insane thing I’ve ever heard. And I’ve debated alot of stuff on this site. Matlock…matlock…modecko. You’re not modecko are you? He was famous for debating blindingly false left-wing propaganda.

[pelican]

@Firetorch

Matlock is still stuck on the initial use of the term

So you’re telling me fake news doesn’t mean fake news, but rather “politically inconvenient reporting for Trump”?

I’ll happily admit tonight wasn’t my best work, but this is ridiculous.

[Firetorch]

@pelican

So you’re telling me fake news doesn’t mean fake news, but rather “politically inconvenient reporting for Trump”?

I’ll happily admit tonight wasn’t my best work, but this is ridiculous.

It is a term now mostly used mockingly when a mainstream media outlet reports something without proper sources, or that is later identified as being false. And nothing to do with Trump in particular either - see Corbyn accusing the BBC of fake news on the weekend.

[Brad]

@Brad

And the stretched backdrop is back

So they’ve replaced the dodgy backdrop of Melbourne with the Perth skyline tonight… I’m sure no one in Melbourne will notice.

[JohnsonTV]

Tamara Oudyn presenting tonight’s Victorian bulletin from Perth, but with Perth skyline in the background.
Edit: the Melbourne background returned at 7.20pm. So it must have been a technical problem.

[Salty]

@JohnsonTV Tamara Oudyn is presenting tonight not Frances.

[Firetorch]

Subsequent to our discussion about the ABC wanting to collaborate on a fact-checking unit, here’s NYT’s latest attempt at a ‘fact-check’. Bolded are Trump’s claims, and in italics below are NYT’s ‘facts’.

Mr. Trump claimed that Americans are optimistic about the future.
In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Trump’s election, the majority of voters expressed optimism about the next four years in several respected polls.
(of course not to mention the share market at record highs…).

Mr. Trump extolled an increase in jobs.
The economy added 227,000 jobs in January 2017, a healthy but less than record increase

Mr. Trump alluded to high crime in Chicago and the country at large.
Chicago did experience a surge in homicides last year,

These are 3 of the 4 items the NYT thought Trump needed to be pulled up on. This is just ridiculous nitpicking.

Trump claimed Americans are optimistic. So did Obama when he offered ‘hope’. It’s sales puffery. It’s basic political campaigning. The NYT admits that some polls have shown as much since the election.

Trump claimed he had brought back jobs to the US. Apart from the individual deals we know about, the NYT gives us the job data which backs this up.

Trump alluded to high crime in Chicago. The facts? A surge in homicides.

Now, there’s two ways of viewing this. One person, like matlock, views this as a vital public service. The other side, like myself, who has a nose for bullshit, sees it as an attempt to paint Trump as a serial liar that must be fact-checked at every instance.

Setting up a fact-checking unit for one politician and fact-checking to a ridiculous obsessive degree basic spoken statements, is bias.

[pelican]

@Firetorch

The other side, like myself, who has a nose for bullshit,

Only when it suits your narrative. You’ll turn a blind eye to Trump’s Russian connections though, because you just swim in partisan soup.

If one if Obama’s picks had any slip up whatsoever with communication with the Russians like Flynn did, well fuck, I don’t want to imagine the essay you’d write in one of these threads.

[Firetorch]

@pelican

Only when it suits your narrative. You’ll turn a blind eye to Trump’s Russian connections though, because you just swim in partisan soup.

If one if Obama’s picks had any slip up whatsoever with communication with the Russians like Flynn did, well fuck, I don’t want to imagine the essay you’d write in one of these threads.

Dude, sometimes I wonder if you confuse this forum with where-ever else you rant online. No one is a blind partisan idiot here. No one. Your characterisation of me is frankly weird.

Two points:

1. I’ve been a member of these forums in some way now for over 12 years. I truly can’t remember posting about Obama even once. Not in 8 years. I pay little regard to American culture and politics these days. Americans are now so far removed from the rest of western society; both politically (on the left and right, both crazies) and culturally (where there is a tendency to speak in corny cliches).
   So, when you ask about one of “Obama’s picks” - I didn’t spend a second thinking about it.
2. Whether one of Trump’s staff talked to the Russian Ambassador or not, does not affect my life in the slightest. Ironically, you’re the one throwing yourself into a partisan soup by frothing over this issue.

See, that’s the issue with many on the far-left. They love to characterise normal people as being deranged and obsessed. The reality is the complete opposite. I comment occasionally these days on Trump because, well, the whole world is. I’m not emotionally invested in him like you are.

[pelican]

@Firetorch

Americans are now so far removed from the rest of western society; both politically (on the left and right, both crazies) and culturally (where there is a tendency to speak in corny cliches).

Which is why you brought up factchecking Trump in the context of the AustralianBC Factcheck? If there is such a cultural and political difference between the countries, why is Trump relevant?

Further, ABC isn’t setting up a factcheck unit for one politician. It’s being set up in response to a large amount of fake news being shared online (pls just let this one thru to the keeper and agree to disagree), as well as because its former role as a factchecker was genuinely a popular and appreciated service.

[Firetorch]

@pelican

Which is why you brought up factchecking Trump in the context of the AustralianBC Factcheck? If there is such a cultural and political difference between the countries, why is Trump relevant?

But the only reason it’s re-emerging is because of Trump and the emphasis American media is placing on it…

[pelican]

It was only axed last year. It could be that the ABC always planned to relaunch the service but didn’t have the funds until RMIT was ready.

[Firetorch]

Perhaps. And perhaps not. I’m not really interested in an analysis of RMIT’s funding. This site is MediaSpy and as such I am concerned primarily with the media - in either case, the NYT example displays perfectly the shortfalls of this sort of approach to news. And remember, that’s what the ABC is providing - news. To me, that NYT fact-check undermines their credibility. It is actually embarrassingly petty coming from a supposedly reputable outlet.

[Salty]

Roster for 7pm Victorian bulletin this week-

Monday- Wednesday- Tamara Oudyn
Ian Henderson presenting from Thursday 23rd February until Thursday 2nd March.

[Newsviewer]

Why is Ian not reading M-F? Is there a transition underway, or is he on annual leave?

To the best of my knowledge he’s still the primary Vic reader, correct?

[JohnsonTV]

I think the Melbourne newsroom is still under renovation and Ian may be reluctant to fly to Perth to present the Victorian bulletin.

[MelbTV]

Ben Knight presenting in Victoria tonight