Fake news and its effect on the community

Michelle Obama's Mom to Receive Lifetime Pension

captkirk
9:44a, 10/20/16


Quote:
Washington D.C. First Grandma Marian Robinson, 79, will receive a lifetime 160K government pension when she leaves the White House next year, according to congressional budget statements.

According to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Mrs. Robinson earned the lifetime pension for "services rendered as full-time/in-home caregiver" for granddaughters Malia, 18, and Sasha, 15, during President Obama's two terms in office.

In January of 2009, it was reported that Mrs. Robinson was living in the White House full-time to tend to her granddaughters. She was the first live-in grandmother at the White House since Elivera M. Doud, the mother of Mamie Eisenhower, during the Eisenhower Administration.

Critics say Mrs. Robinson should not profit from something as simple as taking care of family. Sally Kellner, volunteer/activist for the National Taxpayers Union, says this is a prime example of needless spending. "I think it's ridiculous that taxpayers must pay this woman a lifetime salary for something everyday Americans do for free. We take care of our families because we love them, not for profit."

When asked if Mrs. Robinson's lifetime pension was justified, Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, declined to comment but said a special oversight committee would review all post-Obama Administration budgetary obligations

http://thebostontribune.com/first-grandma-marian-robinson-receive-lifetime-160k-government-pension/

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2795987
______________________________________________________
Ok . So that's fine isn't it? The Boston Tribune does some research to uncover a rather unsavoury element of President Obamas (mal)administration.
Really ???

Check it out folks.

If a certain person was still posting here he would have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

SirRumpole said:

If a certain person was still posting here he would have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Click to expand...

Really ? Well think about it please.
1) It certainly reads like a genuine news story. It's not inflammatory. It quotes sources. They clearly researched the article
2) The story is carried by hundreds of different different web sites. Surely they can't all be wrong or untruthful?
3) Yep there are some sites that offer a different view but they have always been fellow travellers for President Obama. What would you expect ?
4) It's just the sort of thing you'd expect from a guy who is always looking to feather his families nest.

So Rumpy don't be so quick to dismiss this article. I reckon there would many millions people who would agree with it and echo the sentiments enthusiastically.

And after all we live in a freedom loving country and we have a right to free speech

Well, what more can l say...

What you could sayDB008 is that James O'Keefe who produced that video is master manipulator. In essence he has a mission to destroy any person or institution to the left of Genghis Khan (or these days Donald Trump) . To that end he sets up video stings and then carefully edits the resulting material to ensure the person/organisation is show in the worst possible light.

How much form has he got ? Acres of it. His whole website is a tribute to selective editing and misleading headlines.
It works because by and large people don't go past headlines and the first couple of minutes. In this day and age it also works because of the polarisation that has been created by people like James O'Keefe.

Want to see how he reconstructs a story to put people in the worst possible light ? A Time magazine reporter did an analysis of one of James O'Keefe most infamous stings. You can't read it in 30 seconds. In fact that is the point the journalist makes at the end of his article. This guy gets away with his deception because he's not checked out properly and in the end the people who want to believe his BS aren't interested in facts just confirmation.

If anyone else is interested in understanding why James O'Keefe and anything he has produced should be treated with great care check out this analysis.

News Media
The Twisty, Bent Truth of the NPR-Sting Video
By James Poniewozik @poniewozik March 13,
Follow @TIMECulture

Vodpod videos no longer available.
James O’Keefe, the controversial conservative activist and undercover-video maker, brought down NPR’s CEO this week after releasing a “sting” video of an NPR fundraiser meeting with fake Muslim “donors.” Now a video editor, having reviewed the full, two-hour film that O’Keefe also posted online, has done a close analysis showing that several key scenes were edited misleadingly, and quotes taken out of context, in the more-publicized short form of the video. Interestingly, the critique came from The Blaze—an online outlet from none other than conservative host Glenn Beck.

The close-up look doesn’t let the executive, Ron Schiller, off the hook. But it shows O’Keefe edited the short version of his video to fit his anti-NPR agenda. Explaining why both things can be true at once requires, well, a lot of context.

Blaze video editor Pam Key (the writeup is credited to The Blaze’s Scott Baker) said that several of the most embarrassing moments were cobbled together or left out context, apparently in order to make Schiller look as bad as possible. You can read the full post, with video clips, at The Blaze, but the highlights include:

* A quote in which Schiller seems to respond amusedly to a reference on the fake group’s website to promoting Sharia law–“Really? That’s what they said?”–is lifted from an entirely unrelated part of the lunch

* The edited video includes Schiller saying that liberals “might be more educated, fair and balanced” than conservatives; but it omits his saying that he used to be a Republican–and is proud of it–and a fellow NPR fundraiser defending conservatives, saying that she knows and went to school with highly educated conservatives

* A one-minute stretch where the audio goes into a loop while the video keeps playing unaltered may be intentional, perhaps to omit dialogue; says Blaze, it “could be an actual glitch, though not one I’ve seen like this in 25 years of working with video editing”

* The edited video quotes Schiller saying that the Republican party has been “hijacked” by Tea Party conservatives, who he seems to describe as “racist”; the full video shows that–at least at the beginning of his quote–he is explicitly describing the views of wealthy Republican friends who voted for Obama

I want to look at that last scene, because it was the most incendiary, so I went back to the full video. Does it let Schiller off the hook? Not in my viewing, but it does change his comments, introduces room for interpretation–and suggests that O’Keefe left the context out so as to make the quote sound as bad as possible.

........ As of this paragraph, I’m at about 1650 words—thank you if you’ve stuck it out this far!—and I’ve left plenty out, partly because, frankly, I have other stuff to do. I’m thinking about writing my TIME column about this subject this week. I get about 700 words for that, I can’t embed explanatory video, and I’ll need to include much more background about NPR, O’Keefe and the week’s controversy than I did here. Good luck!

That’s the dilemma of any journalist, as well as, well, whatever O’Keefe is: reality takes forever. You condense, you edit, you quote; you try to get a full sense of the actual story and relate it as best you can in the space you have available–whether limited by actual word count, minutes on air, or your audience’s attention span. You cut a lot of nuances and hope for the best.

You can do that with a mind toward presenting the fullest, fairest picture you can and earning your readers’ trust on the rest. (And you don’t have to be a nonideological, MSM outlet to do it—kudos to Beck’s The Blaze for calling O’Keefe out.)

Or you can, like O’Keefe, do it with a mind toward making sure your side wins and you present the worst possible picture of your adversaries. You can trust that unpacking all of your slanting will take too long to matter, that the casual news audience will remember your version and that your fans won’t believe your critics anyway.


That trust may well be rewarded. The biggest advantage that a video propagandist has is that reality, as they say in the blog comments, is tl; dr. Too long; didn’t read.

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/03/13/the-twisty-bent-truth-of-the-npr-sting-video/

SirRumpole said:

If a certain person was still posting here he would have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Click to expand...

Bill Shorten's fault and his band of LUG stamped Fabian Commo working class.

And now for more real Fake News.

The Leader of The Free World, Saviour of Humanity, the ultimate Bigly One has graced the Illustrious Cover of Time Magazine.

Plain for All to See at the Wondrous Trump Golf Courses.

Trump has a fake Time Magazine cover framed on the walls of his golf clubs

By Jen Hayden
Wednesday Jun 28, 2017 · 4:52 AM AUSEST
86 Comments (86 New)
114


RSS
REBLOGGED BY

• Recommended

TAGS
Share this article

Ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump literally has “fake news” hanging on the walls of his golf clubs. The Washington Post discovered at least four Trump-owned properties feature a framed “Time Magazine” cover featuring The Donald. The problem? They are completely phony:

This cover — dated March 1, 2009 — looks like an impressive memento from Trump’s pre-presidential career. To club members eating lunch, or golfers waiting for a pro-shop purchase, it seemed to be a signal that Trump had always been a man who mattered. Even when he was just a reality-TV star, Trump was the kind of star who got a cover story in Time.

But that wasn’t true.

The Time cover is a fake.


There was no March 1, 2009, issue of Time Magazine. And there was no issue at all in 2009 that had Trump on the cover.

Watch this video and see David Farenthold of the Washington Post break down the patently fake cover and how it might have gotten there to begin with!

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...e-cover-framed-on-the-walls-of-his-golf-clubs

PS Time Magazine has told the Wanker In Chief to pull down the Fake Covers.

How long has Trump been President?
Still no evidence of Russian hacking? DNC Lie

basilio said:

And after all we live in a freedom loving country and we have a right to free speech

Click to expand...

The right to free speech is fine, but don't confuse it with a made-up right to spread lies, hatred, and deceit. None of your freedoms extend into an area where they reduce mine - or anybody else's, for that matter.
In other words, if any person peddles false allegations against me or Mrs Obama's grandmother, and in spite of being told it's fake, continues to fling mud, I exercise my "right to free speech" by calling that person a moron and damn liar.

I used sell newspapers as a kid.

And it's all fake news.

Always has , always will be.

I made a good quid out of it, which is what it's all all about.

It's not about News.

gg

Someone made a meme a few days ago
Trump tweeted it
CNN found out who made the meme - tracked them down somehow (called Doxxing)
CNN blackmailed the guy who made it
This is coercion and blackmail from CNN

Someone mentioned that the guy that did the meme is a 15 year old gay guy, and obvious Trump supporter


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html




Now...








The next few days will be very interesting....

My prediction - CNN CEO (Jeff Zucker) will depart.

Every wondered how and why there was such a flurry of hideous fake news stories spread through teh far right websites and Facebook ? Hilary Clinton and paedophilia and mass murders ?

All just an accident perhaps ? Maybe not..

Investigators explore if Russia colluded with pro-Trump sites during US election
Questions raised as to whether Trump supports coordinated with Moscow to spread bogus stories aimed at discrediting Hillary Clinton



Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, says there was evidence that fake news campaigns appeared to target voters in swing states. Photograph: Jay Laprete/AFP/Getty Images

Julian Borger in Washington

Wednesday 5 July 2017 20.30 AEST Last modified on Wednesday 5 July 2017 21.20 AEST

The spread of Russian-made fake news stories aimed at discrediting Hillary Clinton on social media is emerging as an important line of inquiry in multiple investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Investigators are looking into whether Trump supporters and far-right websites coordinated with Moscow over the release of fake news, including stories implicating Clinton in murder or paedophilia, or paid to boost those stories on Facebook.

The head of the Trump digital camp, Brad Parscale, has reportedly been summoned to appear before the House intelligence committee looking into Moscow’s interference in the 2016 US election. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee carrying out a parallel inquiry, has said that at least 1,000 “paid internet trolls working out of a facility in Russia” were pumping anti-Clinton fake news into social media sites during the campaign.

Warner said there was evidence that this campaign appeared to be focused on key voters in swing states, raising the question over whether there was coordination with US political operatives in directing the flow of bogus stories.

Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed by the justice department to oversee the investigation into the Russian role in the election, is thought to be looking into all these issues, as well as possible links between Russian fake news factories and far-right sites in the US.

It is a wide-ranging investigation that is examining the unusually large number of contacts between Trump associates and Russian officials during the campaign, as well as the possibility that the Kremlin has personal or financial leverage over members in the Trump camp, including the president himself according to his own remarks on Twitter.

The role of Russian generated fake news is a separate strand which has gained less attention up to now, but the part it played in depressing the Clinton vote in key states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in the critical last days of the 2016 campaign could have helped change the course of recent American history.

We set ourselves up to be victims of an international cyberwarfare campaign. We were very effective pawns

John Mattes
A huge wave of fake news stories originating from eastern Europe began washing over the presidential election months earlier, at the height of the primary campaign. John Mattes, who was helping run the outline campaign for the Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders from San Diego, said it really took off in March 2016.

“In a 30-day period, dozens of full-blown sites appeared overnight, running full level productions posts. It screamed out to me that something strange was going on,” Mattes said. Much of the material was untraceable, but he tracked 40% of the new postings back to eastern Europe.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ussia-investigation-fake-news-hillary-clinton

Tucker

Did you check out the story behind the tweet on the three different views on paid family leave expressed in CNN ?

If you had you would have realised that all the that smart alec tweet demonstrates is that the media in fact does offer a range of opinions on topics. They don't just parrot a "party line " (Briebart excepted.)
Check it out.

OPINION
Viral anti-CNN tweet doesn't make any sense

.....The problem with the tweet's flip-flop implication is that the three articles don't suggest anything of the sort. The stories were plucked from the reporting and commentary sections of CNN's website. The two op-eds were written by separate authors.

"Everyone should have a shot at paid family leave" was written by pro-paid family leave activists Heather Boushey and Katie Bethell.
"Trump's budget to include family leave" is a hard news story and doesn't contain an opinion at all.
The final article, "How paid family leave hurts women," was authored by Vanessa Brown Calder, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.
If anything, CNN is guilty of presenting a diversity of opinions. Shame on them?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/viral-anti-cnn-tweet-doesnt-make-any-sense/article/2624711

For most people the news from, MSM in the US and Australia, is true if it supports their view or political position.

But actually you should assume that all news distributed by them (MSM) is fake!!

“I think the press is in general a very toxic instrument.” - Julian Assange

“Julian Assange claims only 2 per cent of journalists from mainstream media organisations are “credible” while the rest have a corrosive effect because of selective reporting, fabrications, hype and hysteria.
(my bolds)

2% - that's being a bit generous.

Nice little Fake News story from Fox. (Yes I know. It is practically impossible to separate Fake from reality at Fox.. but this is better than that.)

Seems a couple of weeks ago on Oct 8th a "Vietnam war veteran" with a voluminious medal list and apparantly a retired Navy Seal to boot announced he was make a gigantic glass Presidential Seal (cute aye ?) for his hero Donald Trump.
Aw shucks. How sweet.
So naturally Fox ran this story up the flag pole with all guns blazing and as much hype as they could muster. Absolutely splendifourous interview of said hero.

Fast forward to October 19th and Fox totally retracted the story saying it was all a hoax. Meanwhile of course 1.5 million people had followed this hero on Fox's website.

The special twist to this story is :
Fox was told within 24 hours of the original story that it was a total hoax.
Despite that information it still took them another 10 days to fess up that they had been totally and completly lied too and that they clearly had done no checking of the bona fides of their hero.

Retired ‘Navy SEAL’ praising Trump on Fox News was a fake


By Travis M. Andrews October 20
Play Video 0:55
Fox News issues correction after retired ‘Navy SEAL’ turned out to be fake

John Garofalo appeared on Fox News claiming to be a retired Navy SEAL who served in the Vietnam War. The network published a correction Oct. 19 that said “all of Garofalo’s claims turned out to be untrue.” (Amber Ferguson/The Washington Post)

Fox News ran a story on Oct. 8 about a decorated Vietnam War Navy SEAL and glass artist who created an enormous presidential glass seal he hoped to give to President Trump. On Thursday, 11 days later, the network retracted the story after being told the Trump supporter never served in the SEALs or in Vietnam, much less earned commendations for his service.

In the segment, John Garofalo, 72, a resident of New York state, said he served in the Vietnam War with a U.S. Navy SEAL team. Fox News reported that he also received two Purple Hearts and about two dozen other medals for his service.

The man’s claimed record turned out to be a fabrication. It was first discovered by former Navy SEALs. Both these SEALs and family members of Garofalo contacted Fox News about the story, according to the Navy Times.

Don Shipley, a retired SEAL, told the Navy Times that he contacted Fox on Oct. 9, the day after the story ran.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-fox-news-was-a-fake/?utm_term=.aca0323f1f3f

We are starting to get to the bottom of how the Kremlin helped create the type of social environment that led to a creature like Donald Trump becoming Liar in Chief.

For example did you know that one of the sassiest on line Trump loving twitteratis... was in fact a fictious character created by the Kremlin? Pure creative fantasy.

And our created Trump loving Kremlin creation wasn't simply the darling of Twitter. The media followed and amplified her message.

Fake news. Fake people. Fake President.

Jenna Abrams: the Trump-loving Twitter star who never really existed
This darling of the alt-right gained 70,000 followers and was quoted by numerous media organisations – despite being the creation of a Russia-based troll farm

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-loving-twitter-star-who-never-really-existed