Home | About | Donate

The Fake News Food Chain


#1

The Fake News Food Chain

Jim Naureckas

Media Matters’ Brendan Karet (10/27/15) had a good catch today on how fake news enters the media food chain.


#2

Freedumb of the press has turned out to be a real bitch, especially when public education (read bark seal bark training [Google My Pet Goat - George W. Bush - September 11, 2001: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI, for example]) has been so eviscerated. Fortunately, there remains enough freedom for one to educate oneself, but for how long?


#3

I thought Sean Hannity was just another comedian on Comedy Central that does political satires. After all, who could take someone like him seriously?


#4

Fox news, fake news.

dog bites man...

It's kind of interesting to see that they do have sources. It's kind of strange that they can't see the difference between bullshit and real news.

Watching TV is watching other people make money. Don't do it anymore.


#6

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#7

Actually, Hannity quoted correctly from an AP story on the 20th September. A simple Google search brings it up. Written by Ken Dilanian.
The only difference is that it is Kerry quoting the numbers, not Obama. But effectively the same result. Don't know how FAIR missed this one. Doesn't do them any favors.


#8

Kerry said the US is prepared to increase its total refugee quota from the entire world in 2016 from the already planned 70,000 up to 85,000, and then in 2017 up further to 100,000. Hannity did not "quote correctly" from Dilanian's story or from any other source.


#9

"The U.S. will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, up from 70,000, and that total would rise to 100,000 in 2017, Kerry said ". My interpretation of that is that the US has committed to accepting 70,000 refugees in 2015, will accept 85,000 in 2016, and then 100,000 in 2017. The key phrase is "the US will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year", which should be allowed to stand alone as it has no qualifiers linking it to a different interpretation, followed by "up from 70,000", in which it is implied that this is the amount expected to be received "by the end of this year". The total would rise to 100,000 in 2017, which certainly could not mean that only 15,000 more refugees from 2015-2016 total would be admitted. One could not really call that a rise. That is the only way I can interpret this.


#10

Kerry never used the term "increase its total refugee quota from the entire world". . . . " up to 85,000" anywhere in that article.


#11

So aside from the fact that you agree with my interpretation...

How did you come up with "Hannity quoted correctly"? No he did not.


#12

Actually, what I have said is the opposite, I don't agree with your interpretation. Neither does Hannity, it would appear. Aside from this, the fact that the statements by Kerry collectively appear to need clarification, allows Hannity the liberty of making a reasonable interpretation, which he has. 250,000 migrants over a 3 year period is not outrageous. Look at Germany, a country a quarter the size of the US. They expect upwards of 800,000 migrants of all types over the next year alone.


#13

This brings to mind the political pranksters known as the "Yes Men"-
Make me wonder what mischief they presently have up their sleeves- I would love to see Fox fall into one of their Industry trickster comedic traps!!!


#14

No, you must be (purposely?) misreading my interpretation, since what i wrote agrees with what you wrote.

Aside from this, you're playing semantic games on behalf of a vicious twit like Hannity, who no matter how much you spin around, did not "quote correctly" anything. That's all i need to know about you. Bye now!