Tag Archives: Fake news

Fake News in a Nutshell

By Jim O’Neill

Sources tell me rumors are circulating in Washington DC that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is involved in a heated menage a trois with Russian President Vladimir Putin and an anonymous transgender midget…sorry, little person.  They were purportedly videotaped romping on a pee-pee sodden bed in one of Moscow’s fancier hotels.

If true, these sordid, and sodden, allegations could well lead to impeachment proceedings for Speaker Pelosi, my sources say.  I have been tipped off that such news will be a huge bombshell if proven to be true.  For the sake of America, one hopes this is all just hearsay.

Jim O’Neill “Fake News in a Nutshell”

The above quote is, of course, fake news.  Welcome to “Trump World,” where the most ridiculous, unsubstantiated, nonsensical crapola is treated as holy writ by our duplicitous, dishonest media.  Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Once upon a time, journalism used to be a real profession, a respected profession, if you can believe it.  Now days, not so much — globalist anti-Trump propaganda rules.

All decent propaganda has an element of truth in it, but these days the media doesn’t even bother to put out good propaganda – it is often bogus garbage start to finish.  Our “news” outlets simply don’t care if what they report is based on the truth or not.  As long as it is anti-Trump it leads.

There are exceptions of course.  There is alternate internet media, radio, and (to give credit where it’s due) the lone TV outlier of “Fox News.”  While admittedly less than perfect, “Fox News” does sporadically serve as a unique platform for conservative (as opposed to RINO) opinions.  And God bless them for it.

Fake news is synonymous with propaganda.  Propaganda runs the gamut from mostly true to mostly, or totally, false.  It may be “good” propaganda with some element(s) of truth in it, or, as is more and more often the case, it may be “bad” propaganda totally devoid of truth.  Unnamed sources, unverified “facts,” and dubious, outlandish conclusions are all telltale signs of fake news.  Circular “proof” is another tell.

That is how the infamous anti-Trump “pee-pee dossier” got off the ground.  It was leaked to an internet blog, and then the fact that it had been published online was used as “proof” that it must be true.  Circular fake news – it has been published, therefore it has legitimacy and is worthy of being published.

We’ve learned NEW information suggesting our suspicions are true: FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press, and then used those same press stories as a separate source to justify FISA’s.

Ian Schwartz “Meadows: ‘Hard Evidence’ FBI Leaked Info To Press, Used Same Stories To Obtain FISA Warrants”

Observant readers will have noted that I used the same circular self-referring trick with my opening quote.  “OMG it must be true, he quoted from a published source!”  Never mind that the “published source” is me.

 

SECRETIVE TRUMP BASHING Op-Ed PUBLISHED BY NYT!!

by Rev. Austin Miles

The Gray Lady has become bald since, by a hair, the New York Times has scored its greatest triumph, so it thinks.  By publishing an elaborate thought out piece proclaiming that Trumps’ own administration officials hate him and want to force him out, stimulates public suspicion about him. (Why even his own cabinet sees what he is!! my my)

Yep, that’s the idea which is a typical Communist strategy to destroy those they wish to destroy: using suspicion, confusion and of course, downright lies. Again, typical communist strategy; This is what’s in their lunch boxes.

HOWEVER, this columnist is pushing for a defamation lawsuit to be filed against the writer of the piece, New York Times Op-Ed editor, JAMES DAO.  And the case is there. 

The writer of a news piece is identified with the story by his or her name being listed under the title. One cannot  publish a story without the writer’s name connected with it, even with the name ‘anonymous’ as the ‘source.’ This does not make if legit.

Didn’t anyone from the New York Times go to journalism school? A reporter cannot publish defaming-libel claims on someone and then state that the writer is anonymous, or in other words, secret, as a way to attribute dirt assault on someone they do not like.  However, that N.Y Times writer is not anonymous. He is the one who wrote it.

The person who writes the story is RESPONSIBLE for the story. And in this case, his employer, The New York Times, was the instrument of making these claims to the world, so they are responsible as well.

So who is the actual writer? Everyone of the administration officials denies writing and having that piece published. We know who the writer is, James Dao, since his own name is on the story.

It was not anyone in President Donald Trump’s Administration who was the traitor to publish that story as an ‘insider’ who wants Trump to be taken out of office as every Communist wishes.

The New York Times’ manufactured, created, wrote that story and published it in what was at one time America’s most respected newspaper.  Pity.

This is now a legal problem. A lawsuit is proper under these circumstances. Subpoena James Dao and The New York Times and charge them with slander. The intent was there by the very publishing of this false story in order to undermine our president.

The reason for such prattle is, according to the law, a reference to one who is engaged in trade or business. It is defamatory and actionable per se’. because a business man must have credit to succeed in his calling.

This would certainly apply to the President of The United States. Plus threatening the president is a serious crime which can bring stern punishment.

The law states: Defamatory statements actionable per se’. There are three classes of defamatory statements which are actionable per se’ in themselves; that is, without proof of special damages. These are: words imputing crime, words disparaging a person in his trade (running the country), business, OFFICE, or profession, and words imputing a loathsome disease.  Special damage is not required to be shown, probably because these are among the most serious charges that can be made; the law allows the plaintiff to sue at once without making sure that he can prove damage, and thus gives him better legal protection. (This is straight out of the law books.)

Read that carefully for this is the law. And this shows that James Dao and the New York Times itself can be sued and rightfully so. Let us insist that this happens.

We urge ALL NEWS SITES and readers to get on this and demand that these charges be filed without delay.

(Rev. Austin Miles attended Law School when much younger.)

JUST THE FACTS PLEASE

 

(From deep out of the Bunker Archive – understanding fake news 2004)

Don’t believe anything you hear and only about half of what you actually see. – My Dad (and other wise people)

Wise man, my Dad.

I’ve been doing some more research.  I know.  Stop yawning.  I intended to provide you with an extensive list of examples to support my argument but I won’t.  Instead, I’ll equip you with what’s needed to do your own brain exercise.  Besides, those of you inclined to agree with me will do so without references.  Those of you who aren’t so inclined have probably already switched the channel.  But, wait…  You may want to stick around for a few minutes.  If you do, I promise to give you something useful that’ll help you to dissect before digesting that which you hear and see each day.

I hauled out my dictionary.  I needed us to understand the actual definitions for propaganda and journalism.  Since we are busy rewriting definitions these days, I thought this was important for the discussion.

Propagandaideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.  Journalism –writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.

In our world of 24/7, instant worldwide news coverage, we have a problem separating propaganda from journalism. Is propaganda too harsh a word for you?  Hey, I didn’t write the definition for it, but if it makes it a little more palatable for you, we’ll discuss it as the difference between an opinion commentary and a newscast presentation of events or facts without interpretation.  Just remember what Willie Shakespeare said, “You can call manure a rose if you want to, but it’ll still stink…” or something like that.

I read and listen to quite a bit of news and listen to many of the popular radio and television commentators.  If I want the liberal slant to the actual news, I watch CNN, listen to NPR (your tax dollars at work) or one of the networks – ABC, NBC or CBS.  If I want the conservative perspective, I’ll tune in to Fox.  Although considered by most as conservative, the actual Fox newscasts (not the Fox talk shows) provide, in my opinion, more facts without interpretation than do the others.  But, that’s a judgment you can make for yourself once armed with my rules for news dissection.  When it comes to listening to commentators, I prefer the conservative perspective.  I listen to the liberal commentators too.  I like to hear both sides of the debate, but I do not like the extreme position on either the left or the right.  Considering both helps round out my perspective.  However, I’d as soon gouge my eye out with a stick as to listen to some of them.  James Carvel and Pat Buchanan come to mind.

Last year in April, I was out of the country for a while.  The only English speaking newscasts that I could get were CNN International and the BBC.  Al Jazeera has nothing over these guys.  Listening to what passed for actual news was interesting, but frightening.  The BBC for example, could always produce one American opposed to the war and present them as the representative voice for all Americans.  There wasn’t one single success to report according to their spin and America was clearly the bad guy bully.  Their opposition to America was obvious in how they presented (slanted) the news for world consumption.  Following two weeks of that, I too was concerned about how we were doing.   When I returned home, I was much more observant of what was presented to me as news by alleged newscasters.  What I discovered is that we have our own little BBCs and CNN Internationals filling America’s airwaves.  To get at the real news, I started mining the facts for myself.  In doing so, I developed three simple rules that have helped me see the world and the news, a little more clearly.  Here are my rules.  Feel free to use them, they’re free and they work.

  • Peel away the commentary.  Focus on the facts.

Example: “Job growth was a major disappointment this month with only 21,000 new jobs created.

The commentary: “Job growth was a major disappointment this month with only…

The fact:  …21,000 new jobs created.

Focus on the facts and form your own opinion about what’s good or bad.

  • Apply JD’s bovine scatology detection formula to all statements made by alleged newscasters.  If the number of descriptive terms in a statement from a newscaster equals or exceeds the number of facts in the statement, then it’s commentary and not a presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.

Our Example Again:  “Job growth was a major disappointment this month with only 21,000 new jobs created.

This statement activates the BS-ometer.  The opening statement, Job growth…disappointment is descriptive.  The words with only appearing just before the one fact, is the second descriptor.  Both have a purpose of telling us our opinion (or how we should think).  Two descriptive phrases used to present one fact.  Does this more closely fit the definition of propaganda or journalism?  Time to flip channels.

  • There is something positive that comes out of every story.

If you listen to a newscast and you never hear a positive point reported about (or as in our example positive facts consistently reported in a negative vein), for example, the economy, the government, the war… your BS-ometer should go off as well.  This also works in reverse, everything isn’t always rosy either.

Our quandary is this.  Too many of us focus on the commentary while skimming past the facts.  We do that, because our most prominent and trusted newscasters are actually commentators and because we are a bit lazy at times.  Our “newscasters” subtly infuse their opinions into the news giving us ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause more often than they give us direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.

There are only a couple of conclusions I can draw from this.

  • They believe that I (and you) am too stupid to consider facts and decide for myself their significance or:
  • They have a motive.  The only motive I can think of is to cause me (and you) to think a certain way – their way.

If the first is true, it tells me much about many of the people who claim to present the news.  If the second is true, that’s simply propaganda.

A truth that’s told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent. – William Blake, 1803

Copyright© JD Pendry, 2004