mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Fake News and False Consciousness
Getting Beyond the Blame Game
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Disappeared4x

    “A healthy politics” first requires the elites of the Party in power to acknowledge the other Parties have a right to exist. What is the cure for Pavlovian-Deplorable name-calling; the insidious ‘we need a conversation’ tactic; or laws that fine you $250,000 if someone is offended by the wrong pronoun?

    PM Rutte must have noticed putting Geert Wilders on trial for ‘inciting discrimination’ did not destroy his Party of Freedom. Perhaps Wilders used all the correct pronouns to merit such insights from Rutte.

    • Jim__L

      Actually, the Left is all in favor of cutting off conversation. Jon Stewart is to blame in at least one case…

      http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/11/how-jon-stewart-and-the-daily-show-elected-donald-trump/

      Shows like Crossfire meant that Conservative voices were heard on major news networks. (Ending them meant that Jon Stewart, a specialist in Fake News, was listened to more, but that’s another story…)

      More importantly, it was a severe blow to viewpoint diversity on CNN, hastening the partisan segregation of the country.

      I think it is useful to search for root causes here — activist journalism (like Jon Stewart’s) is the cause of a great deal of trouble. The fact is that people tend to tune out those who obviously disagree with them. When activist journalists (which seems to be most of them, now) get on a tear about the new trendy delusion we’re supposed to embrace, *most of America tunes them out*. This is why, while activist journalism exerts a strong peer-pressure element on those that don’t really care one way or another about the delusions they propagandize, in the end they destroy the credibility of their own polarized institutions.

      Trump’s anti-PC stance is actually a way to solve the problem and heal the hurts of our country.

      • Disappeared4x

        “the Left is all in favor of cutting off conversation” was supposed to be my point – when they say “we need a conversation”, they mean they’ll talk until you agree, or else, umm, racist, homophobe, whatnot (no deplorable label – yet – for climate change heretics)
        Not sure what DJT’s cure is for ten years of brainwashing the whatnots in their sanctuary campuses.

        • Jim__L

          William F. Buckley— ‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.’

  • Frank Natoli

    Asserting that a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 0.038% to 0.040% is (a) predominantly man-made, and (b) will cause catastrophic flooding and loss of life is “fake news”.
    Yet only today, with respect to why Americans voted Donald Trump into office, are all Democrats tearing their hair over “fake news”.
    Do they take us for fools?

    • M Snow

      Yes.

    • M Snow

      And evil fools at that.

    • LarryD

      500 mya ,the carbon dioxide level was 0.3% That is the bottom of the error bar, not the center (GEOCARB III). That is six times the “tripping point” supposed to lead to run-away global warming. Today’s levels are abnormally low, compared to the pre-historical record.

      • Frank Natoli

        Please excuse if I’ve posted this on TAI before, but roughly 10,000 years ago, some truly catastrophic warming and flooding occurred, which of course had NOTHING to do with h-sapiens. It seems that the Black Sea was once fresh water, at a much lower level than present, the Bosphorus being a dam. But one winter, there was severe snowfall on the Alps, which was followed the next spring by equally severe melt off, which raised the level of the Mediterranean enough to breach the Bosphorus, flooding the Black Sea and drowning all coastal inhabitants. In a remarkable coincidence, this flooding occurred more or less in the time and place of Noah’s flood.
        All of that happened “naturally”. If it happened today, what’s the probability Al Gore et al would characterize it as “natural”?

  • QET

    Alternative theory: “fake news” is what has been purveyed for years/by the mainstream left-inclining media. We are routinely treated to such bald-faced lies as “1 in 5,” “hand up don’t shoot,” “_____is a ____ist,” “99/98/97% of all scientists agree CAGW will make the planet uninhabitable by 2015” [Frank Natoli’s example], police shootings of more white suspects than black each year still manage to prove that “society is pursuing black genocide,” using the bathroom of your pretended gender is a “fundamental human right.”

    And so on and so on. Oh, you want economic news? How about “the unemployment rate dropped sharply”? No mention of (a) the 90 million unemployed who aren’t even counted in the statistic, or (2) 99.9% of the new “jobs” were retail clerk/fast food/Uber driver etc.

    Even the little people yearn for truth, and even we–only we, it seems–have learned that truth is not what the Democrat Party-allied mainstream media delivers. So we search. And whenever we discover any fact the mainstream media has elected to suppress or ignore for conflict with its politics, it now calls it “fake news.” From the MSM’s standpoint, of course, they are right to call it so.

  • Jim__L

    How about Facebook bans talking about politics? That would improve things, I think.

    • Andrew Allison

      1st Amendment?

      • Jim__L

        Facebook is a walled garden, not a public utility.

        • Andrew Allison

          . . . or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, . . . I also think you might get some argument as to whether Facebook is a public utility. It is certainly public and has utility. It’s also an assembly. And, frankly, I doubt that there’s anything on Facebook that’s different from the fake news with which we are bombarded by the MSM which, like the Democratic Party (but I repeat myself) is doing everything in its power to make itself laughable.

  • FriendlyGoat

    There is no “Getting Beyond the Blame Game”. We just noticed that slightly less than half of our voters have gone batsh*t crazy and we don’t have a decent country until it is analyzed and corrected. Start with church because that’s where it’s REALLY crazy. How do you know? They believed fake news about a mythical Obamacare replacement where insurers supposedly will “compete” to the point of losing money on policies so you will get something “fantastic” for cheap. It is the biggest fairy tale ever told. Not a single Republican in the country told the truth about the future of health insurance and the pew-warmers ate it up as though it was Harry Potter. The “fake news” on the Internet is one thing. What people have been sucked into by a lying presidential candidate and a whole lying Republican Party is another—and it’s a serious matter.

    • Tom

      Because the alternative was Hillary Clinton, who, among other things, promised to repeal the Hyde Amendment and condemned a quarter of the country as racists, sexist, homophobic, and irredeemable deplorables, and they knew good and well that they were included in that basket.

      Get over yourself, buddy. The crazy is not all on one side of the spectrum.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Absolutely not, Tommie Boy. The lies are the lies and plenty of us will be calling them out for years to come. You won by a tenth of a percent. You won by fibs to your own flocks. You’re in the gloat seat and if you had any sense you’d be gracious instead of over-bearing at all times—–as you have been since I met you.

        • Tom

          You think I’M overbearing? That’s rich.
          I didn’t vote for the Toupee, genius–as I’ve told you time and again, but you seem to willfully forget that in your desperate attempts to persuade yourself that the only reason anyone would think badly of Clinton is because they’re one of those horrid Trump supporters. Furthermore, you seem unable to comprehend that people’s motivations for voting do not bend themselves to your whims and desires. I realize that you want to believe that churchgoers voted because they believed the lies of Trump in order to lullaby yourself to sleep with the idea that the problem is not the Democratic party but the American voter, but that’s how we got into this fix.
          You want to win in 2020? Fix your own party’s problems.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, people who call those they despise “buddy” are overbearing. People who cheer a result but seek to excuse themselves from its real consequences by claiming not to have voted for it are as “deplorable” as ever described by anyone. People who will dwell to the ends of the earth on candidate characteristics while ignoring or misrepresenting the real issues of our country are worse. Indeed you are in the “basket” until you decide to be something more in actual character.

          • Tom

            “People who cheer a result”

            I love how not engaging in hysterics and hand-wringing is now “cheering.” I’m sorry, I had to put up with enough guff from rightists who thought I wanted Clinton to win because I wouldn’t vote for Trump to have approximately zero patience with that argument. Try again.

            “People who will dwell to the ends of the earth on candidate characteristics while ignoring or misrepresenting the real issues of our country are worse.”

            If you’re not willing to understand why people voted the way they did that’s really not my problem. That’s yours.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I do understand why many people from church voted for Trump. One way I know is because you and Jim have told me repeatedly. It all comes across as misinformed, cavalier and petty when compared to real issues and direction for our country. About 25,000,000 people are trying to blame Hillary when they should be looking at their own gullibility in a mirror. The ones not already rich-getting-richer are going to have hundreds of different little opportunities for introspection in the coming years to ask why they allowed themselves to be used. Stay Tuned.

          • Tom

            Gullibility being defined as “We’re voting for the person who hasn’t promised to destroy everything we hold dear.”

            That makes literally all the sense.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service