Fox News anchor Chris Wallace warns viewers: Trump crossed the line in latest attack on media

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone

Falsely reporting Trump was referring to a terror attack when he never said those words all the while leaving out part of his statement that placed what he said into context is in fact fake news and a lie that the media pushed for their own agenda.

To some extent, I agree. Though it is sensationalistic to call it false reporting and fake news. What it WAS, was reporting via shooting from the hip. Because two things were in place that made it such a circus. Trump brought no clarity during the speech and the media consequently did not ask for clarity of the statement. Neither was fake or false, just poor communication and poor journalism.

Calling the media out is justified.

Yep...over the years I have said this countless times on this site, a day doesn't go by that I believe dogma should ever reign supreme.

While the media likes to claim they are there to hold the President accountable does not mean the media itself cant be held accountable.

I agree, yet, the media doesn't make national policy..the media doesn't create executive orders..the media doesn't need to be viewed as a role model...the media doesn't decide to go to war...the media doesn't have their finger on a nuke button.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Trump is not telling the media what to report nor is he telling them not to report on his mistakes. He is telling them to report honestly instead of making stuff up... Like a terrorist attack in Sweden even though Trump never said those words.

I dont see how people cant understand that.

You're using one miscommunication at a rally to justify all the other fabrications and falsehoods that Trump and his allies have intentionally created.

I cant understand why you can't understand that.

Trump is right, and the only one with the guts to speak the truth. Todays corrupt mainstream media(CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC) are Americans enemies...no doubt about it, and I know I'm not the only one that agrees. They are the lowest lifeform on the planet, and have RUINED a once respected profession? They absolutely cannot be trusted with any news.....

My god people ... get real for a moment ... do some homework.

Every Administration since George Washington has been concerned about the impact of immigration and has warned of hidden dangers. Here's what Secrtary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamiliton had to say:

"The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”

National Review


Every Administration has had concerns about the power of free Press and there has been an relationship of conflict in this country, and yes, again from George Washington forward:

The popular press exploded from under fifty newspapers around 1776 to over 250 by 1800, encouraged by new federal laws that made it cheaper to send newspapers through the postal system.1 Newly aggressive newspaper editors spurned the old standard of impartiality, taking a stronger role in shaping the newspaper's message in support of, or in opposition to, the government.

However, by the end of the President's first term, hostile newspaper writers were attacking the administration's domestic and foreign policy. These attacks escalated in Washington's second term into personal attacks questioning his integrity, republican principles, and even military reputation.

mtvernon.org

originally posted by: underwerks
From reading this thread, it seems that people are just now finding out the press is biased in their reporting.

Its been that way for over 200 years.

And yes, biased doesn't mean fake.

I think this may be part of the disconnect here. People are being told by Trump that the news is "fake" when it's just biased the same way its been since the first newspaper opened in America. In fact, if you look at history, it used to be a lot worse.

Biased is just bias, but fake means an entirely different thing in its implications. That may not seem like a huge distinction to you, but just yesterday I woke up to a thread by a Trump supporter who actually believes after Trump made the comments about the fake news being an enemy of the people, that we should shut down any news media critical of Trump. And they should be punished.

That's right. A Trump supporter who now thinks "Making America Great Again" means making ourselves more like North Korea and China in limiting free speech, just because they don't agree with what's being said.

That's the power of the distinction between being called biased news coverage and fake news. A better example couldn't be right here in front of us.

The press here is as bad as before WW1...it is actually worse overall as it pummels people from all angles.

Only times they reach fever pitches like this is when the puppetmasters want a war...and they will get it too.

Don't ever question the Ministry of Truth.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Star and Flag.

I am only partially through your OP, but wanted to applaud you right away.

Chris Wallace is the son of Mike Wallace. I believe in him.

Alex Jones is a puffer-fish-humanoid who has no cred at all.

Jim Jefferies is a genius who tells us what is real:

BUMP...For a great video.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: marg6043

The 70's are before my time. I don't think it's subliminal warfare right now. It's an attempt to completely shut out the media by claiming everything is fake. Even the media themselves don't know what is and isn't true, the lies run too deep.

No need for subliminals when fools believe a "FREE PRESS" exists.

The media IS shutout...by its ownership and bias...and looks to be a cult as bad as anything ive seen.

One thing i do know...going to journalism school is an utter waste of time..and has been for at least 20 years.

I enjoy deprogramming people fresh out of college...luckily some of us have an inner glow that instantly overrides the panic..fear..and outright rage that most are feeling when they aren't able to medicate.

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

The press is stating that some criticisms have "crossed the line".

They are determining what anyone can say about them.

I can't even... this is EXACTLY what trump is doing... all negative polls are fake news? Come on man wake up. Sheep.

Biased polls...done on biased people programmed by biased news are real??

Well..this is indeed illuminating.

a reply to: ParasuvO

What polls do you trust?

What sources of information?

What is your means for determining what is true and what is fake?

Chris Wallace and the rest of these so-called journalists are peddling propaganda, plain and simple. For example, the recent fake "Trump's comments about Sweden's rising Muslim refugee crimes are crazy" meme the mainstream media keeps repeating....Guess what? Swedish police agree with Trump and there were riots in Sweden started by Muslim refugees in the last 2 days...

What's real news? That we have lost our free press to liberal ideologists with a very dark, elitist agenda.

As a former democrat and journalist, I completely agree. I became interested in journalism because I thought it was an honorable profession for writers...today it has transformed into a propaganda machine promoting a very disturbing and corrupt agenda that threatens our freedom.

Today, I rarely believe anything the media reports. And I consider journalists to be a few notches beneath used car salesman and arms dealers.

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Heaven forbid trump demonize the "people's media".

It seems only a few cult-like democrat worshipping slaves believe corporations that continually cover for corruption and pedophilla serve the interest of the general American.

They're worse than fake news, trumps being nice, they're enemy propaganda and it's treason.

Oh now Mr. Wallace. Freedom of speech should be held in the highest regard. But when you practice treasonous acts you forfeit those things. The MSM decided what bed they want to lie in. Nobody made them do that.

The MSM "decided" to play enemy of the people. They just did not expect to be exposed for it. Now that they have been exposed it's time to pay the piper.

a reply to: Zoyd23

Could you cite an example of the "Trump's comments about Sweden's rising Muslim refugee crimes are crazy" publication (or broadcast, webpage, etc.) you're talking about please?

Since you quoted it, it would seem that you have something specific in mind.

Also, your logic is flawed ... liberal Americans (although there is nothing like the monolithic sect you're suggesting) have the right to a free press as well.

Thanks for whatever response you wish to make.

a reply to: Apollumi

Could you list the treasonous acts you feel that Chris Wallace has been involved with?

The phrase that the "MSM decided to play the enemy of the people" is empty rhetoric; you're merely repeating what the Administration has said (unless you can give concrete examples, which honestly, I'd love to hear)

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

The leaks can't be real and the news fake at the same time. If the leaks are real and the reporters are accurately portraying the information they have been given, then by definition they are reporting truthful news stories.

Absolutely false.

Ever heard of a lie by omission? That's what the fake news media does about 40% of the time. They gin up outrage at something Trump (or any republican really) said or did, yet there is a stark example from the past that they ignored. Like when they downplayed things like this when obama did them. Or when they hid things on the 29th page of the paper.

If it belonged on page 29 under obama, it belongs on page 29 under trump. If it goes to page 1, it is fake news. It may be accurate and factual reporting, but how big of news it is, is fake.

originally posted by: TheFatefulDay

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

No amount of spin can make a true story false.

Spin=bias.

Spin masks the truth.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Yes, it's readily possible for facts to be used in a story that is false or fake.

If Chris Wallace doesn't like the reality that a sensationalist or over-dramatic media ... (meaning they're not reporting just the facts, they're pushing a narrative often based on falsified or alarmist opinions based loosely on some [not all] facts), ...

Spin provides an interpretative lens for complex subjects where the full truth is unknown.

Here are some steps you can go through to determine if the news is fake or not.

1. Collect all of the facts and assertions that are being presented in an article.
2. Identify the main core of the story.
3. Investigate the claims to see if they are truthful.
4. If the core of the story from 2 is false then the story is fake.
5. If the fringe details surrounding the story found in step 1 have inaccuracies (for example if a location or another trivial detail is wrong) this does NOT make the core story inaccurate. The periphery details needs to be corrected to improve the accuracy of the article.

ᴀsɪᴅᴇ: should you for some reason disagree with step 5, this means every word that has ever escaped Donald Trump's mouth is a heaping pile of dog excrement

6. Add up the number of inaccuracies. Are the inaccuracies overwhelming? If the core of the story is true (for example Bruce Lee broke his back due to a training exercise—not from an attack), but every other detail is verifiably false then we can say the NARRATIVE is mostly false but still based on a true story.

This is the key point that I spent considerable time belaboring in the opening post.

No amount of spin can make a true story false. News outlets can try to spin Trump's wall being a good thing or a bad thing, but the fundamentals that Trump proposed building a wall on the Mexican border is a fact no amount of BS will change. This gets to the very heart of the matter. Fake means false.

The STORY is true. The NARRATIVE about the story can be misleading, however.

This is how you should be reading the news. Politifact uses this model to show truthfulness as a sliding scale.

www.politifact.com...

If Politifact really wanted to go above and beyond they would have two axises. One axis showing how true the core story is and another to analyze the peripheral details to see how biased the narrative is from various news sources.



Remember, not a single fact has been contested by Trump.

Point A: Trump has gone on the record and said the Russian involvement is a nonstory -- you just have to take his word for it.

Point B: Yet following the election the intelligence agencies unanimously agreed there was Russian interference. In addition to this the very reason Lt. Gen. Flynn was forced to resign was due to his conversations with a Russian ambassador about lifting sanctions WITHOUT prior consent from our elected representatives.

Either Point A or Point B has to be false for the other to be true.

Do you understand that?

Trump then went so far as to say the leaks about Flynn are ACCURATE. This would suggest Trump is INTENTIONALLY gaslighting his audience.

Words matter. Accuracy matters. Half of the people who have replied to this thread are suffering from a basic inability to understand logical implications.

If this is what the conservative movement in America has come to I weep for our future. We will never succeed in downsizing the Federal government if people can be so easily duped into believing such obvious horses#it.

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Either Point A or Point B has to be false for the other to be true.

That's where you're going wrong. Something being a non-story doesn't mean it is inherently false. Russian interference = a PR campaign to keep hillary out of the whitehouse. Is anyone surprised that Russia would meddle in our election? Seriously, are they? And further, are they surprised they didn't like hillary who basically declared war on Russia during her campaign?

Here's what the fake news was: How Russia Hacked The Election That is an inherently false headline. Russia did not hack the election. That's not even the actual accusation! The accusation is that they smeared democrats using information they obtained from hacking. Even that is disputed

So who do we believe? The intelligence agencies that are actively trying to undermine the president or the publisher of the leaks who says the info didn't come from the Russians?

Now, only one of these stories can be true, either the Russians are responsible (directly or indirectly) for hacking and turning over Podesta's emails, or they're not responsible for it.

An unbiased news media would present these stories with headlines like: "Intelligence sources claim Russia plotted against Hillary Clinton" and "Wikileaks denies that Russia was the source of their leaks" and their stories would be full of factual information.

Instead we get headlines: "Russian Hacking in the US Election" and absolutely zero articles from the NYT about wikileaks denying that their source was Russia (I searched 'wikileaks denies nyt' and went through three pages). That headline is a statement and leaves zero room for doubt.

ETA:
Actually, it's quite possible that both stories are mostly true. If Russia hacked the information but never released it to anyone and another person hacked the information (from podesta or Russia) then gave it to Wikileaks both sides of the story can be pretty much factual. It's a logical jump to see Russia's fingerprints and say that they leaked it to Wikileaks so I'd let that slide by. It's not logical to say Russia hacks stuff therefore they hacked these emails and turned them over to wikileaks.

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Oh, and politifact doesn't ever go above and beyond. They really fail under peer review.