That was not fake news / lies. Dozens of polls showed Hillary would win. The polls were FACT.
What matters is the lies coming out of the White House every single day - from Trump, Kelly-Anne, Sean Spicer etc. You’re not concerned about that?
CNN is bias.
Fox is bias.
CNN is not fake news - any more than Trump is Fake President. I guess it’s a fun term to throw around to discredit anyone.
This is a fake post
lol k this was fun but now it’s getting a little unhinged.
But was it “breaking news”… from what i recall it was a “dossier” that buzzfeed admitted was not verified and in parts known to not be correct. Technically is that “news”?
And I am the last person to defend Trump, I have no respect for the man and his conduct in such a powerful role, but in that particular case i think the media was not fair. The race for clickbait and social media activity I think sometimes overrides the desire for accurate news.
CNN didn’t report what Buzzfeed did, that’s the point. What has been verified now is there does exist a dossier.
Exactly. People got mixed up because Trump incorrectly alleged that CNN had reported the same as Buzzfeed.
Just like the other night, you’ve lost the art of defending your case with facts. Such a shame, I used to enjoy debating with you, but you’ve just turned into an alt-left shrieker now.
Let’s just run news stations with the latest Newspoll / Ipsos figures on them then - if the job of the news media is just to parrot poll numbers and nothing else.
“That Hillary was going to win the US Presidency.” constitutes fake news/lies?
Mate that’s the WORST example I’ve ever seen. I highly value CNN (especially their international arm) and would jump at the chance to work with them
Further, while the poll numbers were not manipulated, it was FAKE NEWS to suggest national polls (ie the dozens of polls you mention) showed that Hillary was going to win. The election was NEVER a national vote.
Oh I know, it really is. Imagine saying someone had a 98% chance of winning an election, and then the opposing candidate won in 13 out of 10 battleground states. That’s some Robert Mugabe type propaganda shit there!
Who said the sole job of News orgs was to report polls?
And can you explain how you come up with the theory of reporting polls that showed Hillary would win - that have been used for decades in the US -constitutes your label of fake news?
I still don’t follow?
And what do you mean it was not a national election?
What constitutes national to you?
I’m struggling to understand your definitions
Exactly. It isn’t. I’m suggesting there wasn’t adequate coverage from the numerous battleground states that captured the depth of feeling; the amount of hatred for Hillary in the electorate.
Because the polls showed that Hillary would win the national vote (distinct from the election itself)- unsurprising given the depth of feeling against Trump in a few, but very populous, liberal states such as NY and California.
It was a vote based on 50 different state contests - the electoral college. If this is you struggling, you need to get back to US Politics 101.
But, as I just said above and repost below (clearly labelled ‘for clarity’ for people wanting to follow, or understand my definitions):
Another point of view - what would it take for someone to raise a legitimate concern as to US mainstream media?
What would be the point at which you say, hey, this network is a little biased?
Where does that happen? Does it ever happen? Or do these networks forever and a day trade on previous reputation?
Just because Trump is a raving lunatic at times doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate issues as to coverage…
I lived in the US for 12 years. I assure you we all call this a national election.
What on earth are you talking about - I hate rabbit hole discussion like this when someone has nothing of merit to argue.
Most people who understand the US media would agree Fox News leans right and CNN leans left. To what degree is up for (endless) debate.
Your definition does not jive with the way Americans view the election. I’ve never heard any american define it as a non-national vote. Ever. So have your definition for you. As an American my 350 million fellow countryman disagree with you.
I’m going to leave you two to reconcile, haha.
Erm, so maybe this is how Americans debate things, lol. There is no national vote / popular vote across the nation, which is what the polls showing Hillary was going to win the election (in the region of 2-3%) were showing. Rather, the national election winner was determined by an electoral college, which is comprised of electors based on the vote in 50 individual states. I in fact totally agree with you that Americans probably don’t understand this very basic fundamental and thus would need to disagree. 