Fake News Defined (Addended)

George Rebane

Fake News – Assertions in the media (including blogosphere) disguised as news items which are purposely meant to mislead.  This includes assertions of data (facts and beliefs about the real world), information (various formatting of data to promote certain types of decisions/conclusions), and outright lies of the various types (more here).  Most, but not all, propaganda (“information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”) is delivered as fake news.

In the spirit of promoting operational definitions on RR, ‘fake news’ has been used in this sense in my commentaries, and will continue to be so used.  Commenters who do not subscribe to this definition are welcome to offer their own in order to clarify their remarks, else the reader is invited to interpret such uses in these postings according to above definition (now added to Download RR Glossary&Semantics_v181124).

[Addendum]  Perusing the comment stream of this commentary brought to mind that we may have another important learning moment here along with another revealing peek into the working of liberal minds.  I draw your attention to Steven Frisch’s 819am comment from which we abstract the following -

“… when a new vocabulary has to be invented and the meaning of existing words interpreted or changed to fit the message....that is a pretty good indication it is propaganda.....as evidenced by George's ridiculous glossay(sic).”  (I believe he meant ‘glossary’)

The quick response to Mr Frisch’s latest contribution to the conservetarion/collectivist exchange (dare I call it debate?) in these pages came in my 1048am comment (here).  In this addendum to a new term defined, I’ll expand on my view of the century-long ‘weaponization’ (another new term) of language(s) by the global Left, and attempt a basis for how modern language grows to support the communication of ever more complex and diverse ideas.

Mr Frisch serves as a good exemplar or even a template for 21^st century progressive thought, and therefor deserves an introduction to the new reader in addition to that available in these pages by simply searching ‘Frisch’.  Steven Frisch is the chief executive of Sierra Business Council (here), a carefully chosen name that instantly misinforms the casual reader about an organization that is really a strongly leftwing regional NGO which engages in the propagandizing and politicizing of progressive causes.  As such, Mr Frisch may also be considered to be among, or better yet, the leading local leftwing intellectual.  He most certainly deports himself as such, and there is nothing I want to say that diminishes his well-positioned prominence among his constituency.

In contrast, my own background – including bio, credo, and glossary (about which more later) - has always been available to the reader of these pages through the ‘About’ link and right panel.  Apropos to this addendum, I should add that as a research scientist and engineer I was privileged to spend my career in a field that over the last century has vastly expanded English (both technical and lay), along with other languages, and I have also had the opportunity to teach the tools of critical thinking to both technicians and journalists at the university graduate school level.  From such experiences many people like me have assembled a number of linguistic principles that guide and facilitate the facile and reliable communication of complex ideas.

A basic starting point is that when we communicate, we are all free to interpret words any way we wish, including their use in the currently understood vernacular.  The only thing to note is how some interpret certain critical words explicitly by openly telling all what they mean in the current context.  This, as opposed to how some others interpret words sub rosa and post hoc, inducing others to think that the interpretation of the word(s) initially used is the one commonly held.  The Left have been masters of the latter approach for over a century, and today continue that practice on steroids.

Another equally basic concept is that the utility of a language depends not only on the size of its lexicon, but also how much information each word (i.e. lexicographical string) can carry/convey.  Good languages have lots of words with very distinct meaning, preferably using the fewest characters.  In the military we are taught the three-Cs of communicating a message – it should be clear, complete, and concise.  More primitive languages have small lexicons and require lots of additional modifying words to constrain the meaning to that desired.  A broadly used language in Africa surprisingly did not have the word ‘green’ in its lexicon of colors, but did have ‘blue’.  Hence green was expressed as ‘the blue of the grass’.

One more fundamental tenet of language and thought is brought together in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (we have visited before in these pages) – “the structure of a language determines a native speaker's perception and categorization of experience.” – in short, you can’t think thoughts that your language does not support.  The impact of such a deficit on the advancement of a culture should be obvious, as should be the persistence of such a deficit if custom or tradition in the culture makes expanding language a taboo.

Since Sapir-Whorf has become a basic stave of modern linguistics and semantics, modern dictators ranging from Orwell’s fictional Big Brother to China’s Mao Zedong have put in practice linguistic strictures that limited their populations to form, develop, and communicate ideas detrimental to the stability of the state – e.g. expressing kinds of dissatisfaction, organizing/planning revolt, … .  Supporting such policies is the strong version of S-W which states that, in addition to determining thought, a language’s linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories available to the speaker.

With these basics under our belt, we can understand why a new vocabulary has always been needed and subsequently invented (by enlightened cultures) when it was required to communicate new thoughts and experiences, or to describe something more precisely or correctly to further understanding.  To do otherwise would create the Tower of Babel, that we have now managed to visit on our country, which hobbles communication and continues to promote polarization of ideologies without hope of finding a ‘common ground’ (i.e. where we start by speaking the same language) upon which we can build roads to somewhere that is acceptable to both sides.

Polarization is sustained by our speaking past each other.  RR’s attempt over the years has been to suggest means of alleviating this through more precise uses of language and reasoning, hence the availability of the host’s credo, bio, glossary.  Such communications are anathema to the progressive elites since it promises to reveal the dismal attributes of their bankrupt collectivist ideology, no matter under which variant of it they invite people to assemble.  Hence, true to the Alinsky playbook, they denigrate and attack such attempts, accusing their opposites of exactly the confusion they sow daily into the public forums.

Mr Frisch happens to be a posterchild of such a progressive elite.  Is it not hyper-hubristic to denigrate another’s good-faith attempt to communicate clearly instead of using words with malleable meanings that can later be claimed to be something other than what was heard?  What kind of a person attempts to make a mockery of someone openly revealing his belief system (ontology) and clearly defining his use of potentially confusing and already confused terms in the explication of his ideas?  I don’t want to imply here that Mr Frisch is somehow unique as an apologist and spear chucker for the progressive cause; the liberal mainstream media (aka ‘lamestream’ in these pages) overflows with commentators and ‘journalists’ who daily dispense a similar worldview in their labors to bring us all compliantly to their brave new world.

I want to conclude this little missive by giving the reader some specific examples of how the new politically correct era has mangled and continues to mangle our language.  And also illustrate how conversations between the two sides become derailed and wind up with each looking at the other over an ever wider chasm of misunderstanding.

Hero used to be a label that identified someone who has knowingly gone above and beyond the accepted norm of behavior for some recognized beneficent purpose and altruistically risk his life, limb, treasure, or honor.  In this new age of ‘self-esteem above all’, people who do an ever-wider range of things which are not above and beyond anything – i.e. non-heroic -, they get gratuitously hailed as a ‘hero’ in the press and/or public gatherings.  So when someone is later referred to as a hero, the listener has no idea what manner of ‘heroism’, if any, was required to earn that appellation.  We should understand that in the classic sense an athlete with an exemplary performance record is not a hero; nor is a firefighter on a ladder bringing down a kitten from a tree, and most certainly not a father who rushes into a burning building to save his child.  All of those behaviors would be considered normative.  In the latter case, the father was simply brave in doing what he was expected to do – in that case he might also have saved himself being known as a craven coward for letting his child perish.

But I think you get the idea, today we have no unique word for a classic hero since we have confused and diluted the term by gathering so many different meanings under its mantle.  Should our society still have a unique word that describes someone who has knowingly gone above and beyond the accepted norm of behavior for some recognized beneficent purpose to altruistically risk his life, limb, treasure, or honor?  To differentiate what we may recall as a ‘true hero’, we have to embellish the term with a story; we have to resort to the linguistic equivalence of ‘the blue of the grass’.

Climate change has also become a label used to befuddle the ill-read listener.  Climate change is now the well-used code word for ‘preventable man-made catastrophic global warming’ – all modifying terms here are necessary, since they are the foundation and raison d’etre of the politicized public image of impinging disaster, and the subsequently necessary political and economic remedies/sacrifices needed to save humanity.  Therefore, discussions in which the question ‘Do you believe in climate change?’ and ‘Are you a climate change denier?’ don’t go anywhere productive.  Why have we buried ‘preventable man-made catastrophic global warming’ under ‘climate change’, a perennial dynamic of earth’s atmosphere?  Doesn’t such an important component of public discourse deserve its own unambiguous label?  Both sides of the ‘debate’ know the same answer – it is to bamboozle the light-thinking share of the public into supporting policies that will demonstrably enlarge pro-globalist government, and weaken America (in the hegemonic sense) within the community of sovereign nation-states.

Such a politically motivated confounding also adorns the new and expanded meanings of ‘immigrant’.  We no longer have a term that uniquely can identify a person who seeks to follow American laws in his application to enter our country and join us as its citizens – in short, to participate in a lawful two-party process.  In America’s public consciousness immigrant used to evoke images of Ellis Island where stood people, fresh off the boat, in long lines waiting to be processed for entry and life in the US on the path to citizenship.  We all know that America is an exceptional nation that has and continues to benefit from such an influx of people from all over the world.  The Statue of Liberty and its appended poem then made sense of an orderly and assimilating increase of our population.  Today no more.

To illustrate how dismally and destructively politicized ‘immigrant’ has become, we are now daily being told that a person planning to illegally enter the US becomes an immigrant while still in his own dysfunctional (aka shithole) country.  How come?  Well, it turns out it’s our fault that the country is dysfunctional – we should have done something to save it – and the fact that the emigrating individual has declared the US as his destination, then automatically makes him a ward of the American taxpayer no matter how near or far he is from our border.  That being so, it is further our responsibility to ease his passage from his homeland to and through our border, our immigration laws be damned in the process.  And if in this process such people suffer any level of insufficient succor, it is again America’s fault, and doubly so if we deign to secure our border with either infrastructure (including, yes, ‘the Wall’) or appropriate personnel to repel, restrict, or repatriate the illegal entrants.  For after all, are we not a nation of immigrants?  And are they not seeking to immigrate by whatever means available?

And the semantics game is literally over once they are successful in setting foot in our land – they are then anointed as legal immigrants, pure and simple, with an abundant set of rights and benefices that far exceed those who stand and wait after following our immigration laws in their application for entry.  This is the dastardly game played by our Left as part of their larger anti-American agenda as they daily distort our history of immigration with their constant drumming of the term ‘immigrant’ in their continuing coverage of migrant and border security issues.  The sad part of this linguistic jiu-jitsu is that lame-brained conservatives and Republicans have fallen in line with this usage, having even dropped the formerly clarifying ‘illegal’ or ‘undocumented’ when referring to such people in our country.  Calling them by the proper label ‘illegal alien’ is politically incorrect and out of the question in the lamestream media and even left-migrating outlets like Fox News.  In our minds, these pre-registered Democrats belong right there in the Ellis Island photo with the other huddled masses yearning to be free.

A couple of more points – does anyone know an accepted definition of ‘social justice’ or is able to identify what is socially just?  Google it and find out.  And remember when ‘discriminate’ meant to be able to tell the difference between things, ideas, …, and when you were known as a discriminating individual, that was a social plus on your resume?  No more, today to discriminate only means to exclude and/or reject an individual on the basis of his race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, and maybe even propensity for flatulence, all of which is manifestly politically incorrect and will invite more pejorative descriptors to be heaped on your head.  The classical definition of discriminate and discriminating have been stricken from our language, as have many others (more every day) including words like ‘niggardly’ (ungenerous, stingy) which are now prohibited as code words used by wrong-thinkers to elicit forbidden thoughts.  And in the leftist lexicon, to ‘embellish’ something is now to tell a pernicious lie.

An antidote for all this is for people in such discussions to clearly define their use of terms that may be misunderstood or terms that have already had their semantics compromised.  But as we have seen from the introduction to this dissertation, such clarity is strongly dunned by the Left as being a “pretty good indication of propaganda” - which, BTW, has also had half of its definition amputated so that now it only means “information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”

Comments

[The Estonian Fox]

There was an article in yesterday’s Investor’s Business Daily (Nov 23, 2018) about contributions to the Clinton Foundation plummeting in 2017. I regularly refer to Charity Navigator for checking the viability & efficiency of various charities. The latest 990-form for the Clinton Foundation on Charity Nav’s website is from 2016. Evidently the 2017 form was just released & IBD picked up on it.

The article says that in 2017, donations went on an express elevator to hell, (I stole that line from Bill Paxton in the movie “Aliens”) going from $216 million in 2016, to $26.5M in 2017. That's nearly a 90% reduction.

Quoting from IBD: "If the Clinton Foundation was as good as defenders claimed, why did all its big-time donors suddenly lose interest? The only reasonable explanation is that donors weren't interested in what the foundation supposedly did for humanity. They were interested in the political favors they knew their money would buy." This lack of caring for humanity was dismissed as fake news at the time of course.

Maybe this IBD article will give some counterpoint to the negative press that Mr. Trump gets every day. His Foundation is under attack now in New York. People don’t seem to realize how bad off the U.S. would be now, had Hillary Clinton been elected in 2016, and beholding to so many foreign 'charitable investors'.

Note that this turned out to be an actual Economics experiment, in which a behavior change is made and real supply of money changes in response. It's extremely rare that American economists even know how to design an experiment and get any results. So I have to conclude this experiment was designed by Russian economists to help Mr. Trump. Oh, where was Wassily Leontief when we needed him?

[***M***]

,,, to the Fake News definition.

What Trump does on a daily basis is called ‘gaslighting’. Trump wants us to question our faith in the news organizations by constantly repeating ‘fake news’.

[George Rebane]

M 1259pm - Thanks for that expansion Mr M. When I search for the definition of the verb 'gaslight', I get definitions similar to - "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."

While I think we do need a new verb that means "inducing doubt in established news organizations through the constant repetition of fake news", I just wonder if Trump is really causing Americans to individually question their own sanity through his psychological manipulations. I'm not aware of anyone so afflicted. That seems to indicate that 'gaslighting' is both a bit strong and off the mark. Thoughts?

[Paul Emery]

George

Do you think Trump goes through the intellectual process of understanding what his definition of "fake news" means like you do?

Is it "fake news" when the media spreads government propaganda without researching the source and motivations behind the stories?

[Todd Juvinall]

You mean like LBJ and the democrats and Tonkin Bay?

Having been the recipient of fake news myself I can tell you that all stories become suspect. That is human nature. What is the old saying? "Fool me once your fault, fool me twice my fault"?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 305pm - I don't think you have to go through any "intellectual process" to generate and dispense fake news - it is what it is.

But regarding your question; what about my definition of fake news was confusing?

[Paul Emery]

Todd writes

"You mean like LBJ and the democrats and Tonkin Bay"

Yes Todd I agree with you on this one.

[Russ]

Fake news in Sac Bee real estate section. GV has 150 high tech companies that no one knows about. And GV has great schools?

[Don Bessee]

Then there is the suppression of information that does not fit the pc narrative -

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/11/24/report-half-billion-christians-facing-global-persecution/

;-)

[Scott O]

from Paul - "Is it "fake news" when the media spreads government propaganda without researching the source and motivations behind the stories?"
Are you talking about the Obama admin or the Bush or Trump admin, Paul?
Careful with your answer, now. We recall very, very little complaint from Paul when the Obama admin and the Clinton SOS office fed outright lies to the news media about incidents like Benghazi.
Or are you talking about the fabricated BS about Trump colluding with Putin to throw the election?
You bought that one hook, line and sinker.

[Scott O]

Oh Don - you know the drill. The Crusades! The Inquisition! Anyway, those kinds of Christians in the article don't control the oil fields or anything important.
Heck the Coptic Christians in Egypt have been getting slaughtered for decades and no one gives a rip. The 'Religion Of Peace' is now driving down into sub-equatorial Africa and murdering thousands every year. The girls are taken captive as sex slaves. You might think over paid cry-babies from the NFL or the NBA that claim to care about fellow blacks would say or do something but alas it appears even they don't give a rip either.
Right now only a Muslim reporter for the WaPo is important. The rest can go hang. They aren't 'important' people.

[Bonnie McGuire]

Estonian Fox...Your observation is encouraging. Watching and reading over the years it becomes pretty obvious how we the people are fooled and manipulated by some of those in government. During Bill Clinton's administration when it was announced that China was our most favored nation I was shocked, but sort of understood, because years earlier I noticed Califs Diane Feinstein's husband had gone to China to invest in what she was shutting down here. Now, with the latest gossip about her Chinese limo driver...this interesting story is the latest.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/08/sen-dianne-feinsteins-ties-china-go-way-deeper-alleged-office-spy/
And today the latest attempt by some to make it look like our President look like he lied by saying he closed down our border when he really hadn't. He signed the order to be ready. President Donald Trump said Thursday that he’s signed an order to close the U.S. border with Mexico, adding that he’s authorized troops to use lethal force against migrants who attempt to enter the U.S. "I’ve already shutdown parts of the border.” He warned that the entire border may be closed if conflict with migrants escalates. "If we find that its uncontrollable,” he said, “if we find that it gets to a level where we are going to lose control, or people are going to start getting hurt, we will close entry into the country for a period of time until we can get it under control.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-22/trump-says-he-closed-mexican-border-and-authorized-lethal-force

[Bill Tozer]

“The science is settled” is fakenews. Why? Because no true scientist would ever ascribe to the notion anything in science is ever settled. Was the science settled after Issac Newton? If so, we would not have needed nor learned from Einstein’s theories.

The operative word above is “true” scientist.

[Bonnie McGuire]

Hahaha! "Fool me once your fault, fool me twice my fault"? So true Todd. You reminded me of a long departed friend who used to say that in some of her articles.

[Gregory]

"Do you think Trump goes through the intellectual process of understanding what his definition of "fake news" means like you do?"

More than you do, Punch.

[Bonnie McGuire]

Yay Bill! You're so right about real science. Real scientists acknowledge they're continually learning, but really don't know, so they say things like "we believe." Anyone who pays attention to what's in our universe and constant discoveries of what's on earth, and new inventions...realize that the more we learn the more we realize how little we know.

[Paul Emery]

George

Do you consider Hannity a legitimate news source?

[Paul Emery]

Oh Gregory you're still fretting that your4 beloved Rasmussen Polls were way off the mark in the election. Get over it.

[Bill Tozer]

I wish this was fakenews. Yo humans, please don’t dim the sun.

https://mobile.twitter.com/cnn/status/1065993396395880448

[George Rebane]

PaulE 705pm - Yes, to the extent that he reports news. Do you - if not, why not? Recall that Hannity is primarily a commentator.

[Scott O]

Ask Paul a question and he just asks more questions.
Typical. Pathetic.
Too stoned today, are you Paul?
Can't find a poll or a bumper sticker to give you a clue as to how to think?
Just asking.

[Don Bessee]

How apropos -

The head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency has said that a proposed Russian mission to the moon will be tasked with verifying that the American moon landings were real, though he appeared to be making a joke.
“We have set this objective to fly and verify whether they’ve been there or not,” said Dmitry Rogozin in a video posted Saturday on Twitter.
Rogozin was responding to a question about whether or not NASA actually landed on the moon nearly 50 years ago. He appeared to be joking, as he smirked and shrugged while answering. But conspiracies surrounding NASA’s moon missions are common in Russia.
The Soviet Union abandoned its lunar program in the mid-1970s after four experimental moon rockets exploded.

https://www.apnews.com/1966a07c5a63419fb825ed7a92cec8de

;-)

[Bill Tozer]

“Is it "fake news" when the media spreads government propaganda without researching the source and motivations behind the stories?”

Ok, if the President calls the caravan an invasion and the media reports “The President called the caravan an invasion,” that is quite true. Nothing fake about that. The people are informed what the President said. Now, here comes the tricky part: “the motivations behind the story.” Ascribing motives to any action is a rather subjective and bias endeavor. For example, Trump decided not to torpedo our entire foreign policy strategy in the Middle East after that Muslim Brotherhood reporter Saudi citizen got whacked in Turkey. Some assigned the motives of Trump was to protect his personal financial interests. Hmmm. Assigning nefarious motives to strategic foreign policy is where fakenews comes it.

Another example is the Russians in their embassy in the US cheered when Hillary lost. No reason to doubt those reports. But, for “journalists” to assign the motives of the cheering to Trump colluding with the Russians to STEAL an election is a bit of a leap of faith. Research by journalists should have noted the Russians neither liked nor respected Hillary (or Obama) as the Snowden cables revealed Hillary’s explicit mocking and destain of Putin, not to mention her (our) involvement with overthrowing the Russian friendly President of the Ukraine. Putin did not take kindly to the insults or election interference in Ukraine. But that was not reported as a possible motivation for the cheering, not even once.

Another example from when Trump announced he was throwing his hat in the ring in 2015. The facts are Trump declared giving it a go. That is quite true and accurate reporting. The rest are reporters and comentators’ opinions. In fact, the headline on the link below is not fakenews. The journalists indeed mocked Trump’s enterance into the race.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/01/19/flashback-journalists-mocked-trumps-announcement-joke

Which brings us full circle to an interesting part of RR’s definition of fakenews.

“Most, but not all, propaganda (“information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”) is delivered as fake news.”. Hmmm. It’s what Lamestream Media does best. Now Jim, back to Cher, our esteemed expert on Climate Change.

[Gregory]

Don't flatter yourself, Punch and I'm not worried about Rasmussen.

I did detect a hint of your thinking your powers of reasoning were greater than Trump's... which is why I wrote what I wrote.

[Don Bessee]

Check out this new speak from the socialist with mommy issues who is aspiring to bring in the new world order of greater franco/german hegemony -

“The challenge that is ours is to invent a new grammar,” Macron said at one point in his remarks.

President Emmanuel Macron admitted Saturday that France is experiencing a “moral crisis” as “Yellow Jacket” protesters — a collective of working-class people across the political spectrum — have taken to the streets of Paris and other cities across the country to protest rising fuel taxes, with some demanding he resign.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/24/macron-france-in-moral-crisis-as-protesters-demand-resignation-over-fuel-taxes/

;-)

[Scott O]

Don B - really loved this quote: "“The challenge that is ours is to invent a new grammar,” Macron said at one point in his remarks."
Oh, Brave New World!

[***M***]

,,,Bill914pm,,,“Is it "fake news" when the media spreads government propaganda without researching the source and motivations behind the stories?”

No it is not. The media is only reporting the ‘’’fake news’’’coming out of the government orfices.

[Steven Frisch]

I have waited years to say this Don B and Scott....you are correct, when a new vocabulary has to be invented and the meaning of existing words interpreted or changed to fit the message....that is a pretty good indication it is propaganda.....as evidenced by George's ridiculous glossay.

https://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/files/rr-glossarysemantics_v181124.pdf

[scenes]

re: Steven Frisch@8:19AM

So what do you think of all the new gender pronouns?

[Bill Tozer]

Interesting article. I like the author because of his judicial temperment.

Who is the enemy of the people?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/trump-media-criticism-enemy-of-the-people-charge/

[Gregory]

Toes, I read that yesterday and it's worth quoting ...
"As Power Line’s John Hinderaker relates, recent polling by The Economist and YouGov found that nearly half of American women (48 percent) and fully two-thirds of Democrats (67 percent) actually believe that “Russia tampered with the vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President” — notwithstanding that investigators have never even suspected Russia of tampering with vote tallies, for Trump or anyone else. (The investigation involves allegations that Russia hacked Democratic email accounts.)"

In other words, two-thirds of Democrats are blithering idiots... if the Powerline article is accurately sourced and edited.

[Gregory]

Looks like Power line got it right.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/11/the-ultimate-fake-news.php
https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2018/11/DsUB88XU4AAkqrF.jpg-large.jpeg?ssl=1

[Bill Tozer]

I am more concerned with emotional, biased, and even condemnation news than false news, all in all. Of course that blanket statement allows for exceptions when damage is done, such as in the Alar Scare in 1991 that wiped out apple farmers in Wa State.
I am also concerned for the lost of neutral news where today there is much less “we report, you decide” than being told what we SHOULD think about news story. Guess fakenews could be called misleading news.

Us grownups here know the difference between opinion pieces and news stories. It’s when opinion filters into news and the two become one is troubling. I know the difference between a Huff-n-Puff news article and the Huff-n-Puff blog. I know the difference between a reporter’s tweet and a reporter’s news story, albeit the tweets and blogs reveal the biases of journalists...and often the two become one.

Donald Trump has not jailed one reporter and his barbs at fakenews is not a threat to our democracy. Lincoln jailed a reporter, lol. The first WH press conference was around 1914 in the Wilson Administration. Surely we do not want to go back to the days of FDR and have that kind of literal arm twisting on the press or a press what was a willing accomplice to propaganda.

Anyway, another writer with a judicial “fact based” temperment. Notice how often he uses “we”, so it’s not all finger pointing. Take it away, John. Short article.

“With rare exception, the wise elders of the profession have not spoken up forcefully enough to denounce this creeping cancer of POV journalism, nor stem the demise of the profession’s core values of fairness, accuracy, precision and neutrality. In fact, some are gleefully cheering on some of the bad-boy behaviors.

“Bob Woodward, my former colleague at The Washington Post, is one of the rare voices of consternation. He quickly recognized that President Trump’s double-down battle with the media risked evoking emotional responses from a profession that requires neutrality under fire.

“His wise assessment of the Acosta dispute hearkened to the golden values of the journalism era just past.

“If you are angry as a journalist, he suggested, don’t sue, opinionate or denigrate. Instead, strap on a camera or a notebook and break some meaningful news that illuminates what is wrong without tainting it with the soapbox.

“I can put it another way, in the words of my first real mentor in journalism, George Reedy. He used to say, “You don’t use a bullhorn filled with opinion and emotion when a flashlight’s illumination of facts will do.”

“Show dignity and neutrality as a journalist in the face of adversity, and ditch the swagger and attitude, he preached.

“My old Irish aunt once admonished me in a slightly different, but equally effective, way. She used to say, “If you want to have people listen to your opinion, become a politician. Otherwise, just stick to some damn facts, Mr. Reporter.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/417921-the-greatest-threat-to-american-journalism-the-loss-of-neutral-reporting

[George Rebane]

BillT 1026am - You have introduced a new term - "false news". How do you define it, and how does it differ from fake news as I have defined it?

re StevenF 819am - I draw your attention to how a socialist imbued in politically correct newspeak 1) refuses to define his own terms, 2) rejects any rigor in semantics ('the words mean exactly what I want them to mean when I speak them'), 3) is a strong proponent of reducing the information content of English (i.e. assigning additional semantic to words that formerly had narrow precise meanings.), 4) with prejudice purging correctly defined words from public speech, ... . I'd invite the gentleman to give a single example of "when a new vocabulary has to be invented and the meaning of existing words interpreted or changed to fit the message." From where Mr Frisch hails, the duty to precisely define your terms is not taken kindly, for then your message exposes its true meaning, which for the Left has always been a no-no since the days of Lenin.

Oh yes, and one last observation - over the years of his comments on RR have made it clear to the critical reader that he has not understood any of my commentaries, my credo, nor the function and contents of RR's Glossary & Semantics. He only knows that they are in stark disagreement with his collectivist worldview.

[Bill Tozer]

@ 10:46 am
False news? Oh crap. CYA time. I just revealed they are darned near synonymous in my psyche. Ok, fake it til you make it time. If you can’t woe them with your brilliance, then dazzle ‘em with your Bull Pucky. How’s that for transparency. :)

False news does not contain a kernel of truth in it. Fake news skewers the kernel (or many kernels) of truth in a story to deliberately lead the reader to the ‘publisher’s’ subjective conclusion....the conclusion the reader must make as well.

Example of false news. After the election, reports everywhere of want ads in newspapers about hiring protestors to demonstrate against Trump. Yes, some were legit ads. But, I saw a story about want ads in Missouri and Oklahoma papers with unequivocally worded smoking guns. Not bad pay, hiring 6-20,000 or something with paid training and travel costs covered. Food and get out of jail money covered.

Well, in my rush I saw it was from the Denver Journal or Denver Examiner or some Denver something I never heard of. Made to look like a print newspaper for sure. I knew better, but posted it anyway. jon smith or one of ‘those’ jumped in and said that story is not real. As soon as I went to the FB page where I got it, new posts were coming in saying the Denver Chronicle (forget the name) does not exist and there are no ads for protesting jobs in any OK papers or the Missouri paper mentioned. Oppps. False news.

At least the Onion has a kernel of truth to it, as all good humor and satire contains. The problem with the example of the Denver Times is that I got caught up at that moment in hysteria. First reports from some Philly or Virginia papers were accurate. But, the fake news and false news ensured in that post election Pussy Hat ‘organized spontaneous’ marches planned chaos. The disputing airport mob demonstrators (Muslim Ban) was up and running in just two hours. But, I got snookered....and knew better. And I have posted short articles in the past I did not even read or contained contents that had nothing to do with the headline I loved. Click bait....that may be fake news and it’s been around longer than the National Enquirer or yellow journalism. Mars attacks or Spanish Sinks US Warship!
Anyway, I don’t post articles solely cause of the catchy headline anymore.

Again, how’s that for transparency? Oh, I both humble and charitable, which makes me feel superior.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: George Rebane | 25 November 2018 at 10:48 AM

Quite the contrary George I understand them all...your vocabulary...your credo...your commentary...it is the language of your youth.

[Gregory]

Up too, Frisch wrote,
"when a new vocabulary has to be invented and the meaning of existing words interpreted or changed to fit the message....that is a pretty good indication it is propaganda.....as evidenced by George's ridiculous glossay(sic)."

But moments ago, he wrote "Quite the contrary George I understand them all...your vocabulary...your credo...your commentary...it is the language of your youth."

...meaning he recognises gr's language and vocabulary does not meet Stevies' requirement for a summary judgement as propaganda. It is unchanged enough to fail his propaganda test.

[Gregory]

Damn autocheck, that should have started "up top".

[The Estonian Fox]

I have a resource using a slightly different way of looking at fake news - Wassily Leontief, Economics Nobel Prize winner in 1973 for proposing the input-output matrix. He is quoted by Herb Simon (Econ Nobelist 1978 for decision making) who said of Leontief – “Throughout his life, Leontief campaigned against ‘theoretical assumptions and non-observed facts’.”

Non-observed-facts (NOF). Now that's a way you get to use the word 'facts' in a definition of fake news.

[George Rebane]

StevenF 1248pm - Your claim is hollow because you have given no evidence of comprehension, only naked unfounded assertions laced with vitriol, with your summa always reverting to 'I know what you are really thinking.' Try some actual quotes, ideas, or beliefs that you extract from these pages and make your case. I and other RR readers would dearly like to take a measure of your intellect and ideology.

That is what this blog is all about. But you (very welcome) stalwarts of the Left know that, else you wouldn't be blunting your picks in these pages.

[Todd Juvinall]

He has no clue from the halls of whitey Truckee.

[Todd Juvinall]

Checked on Frisch's FB page and I must say he is truly loony. He thinks he is god! LOL!

https://www.facebook.com/steven.frisch

[Paul Emery]

Thanks for raising our knowledge about fake news George. Here's another example

"The $110 billion arms deal touted by President Donald Trump as the basis for his strong ties to Saudi Arabia was inflated at the direction of his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Two U.S. officials and three former White House officials confirmed that Kushner had pushed the State Department and Defense Department to use figures that were aspirational but unlikely"

Fake news from the Trump administration.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/jared-kushner-vastly-overstated-saudi-arms-deal-amateur-quality-document-report/

[Todd Juvinall]

Looks like Hyde-Smith is up 10 points over Espy(D). I watched the debate between them last week and thought is this the best we can do? She is a Republican.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 958am - I thought we all knew that the Saudi arms deal was "aspirational". The "unlikely" part is someone's assessment of its potential amount. But that it's not a 'done deal' was known to anyone who's aware of how these negotiations proceed. Trump's point was that the ongoing negotiations were going to tank if we went after MBS, the Saudi with the pencil. I don't see such hopeful statements as being made to mislead. I guess the level of one's TDS can see it in another light.

[Paul Emery]

George

Hmmm

Here's Trumps direct quote. It is clearly stated as fact. Show me where this is "aspiration" as you claim.

"Saudi Arabia has ordered $450 billion, "$110 billion of which is a military order," producing "over a million jobs."

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1040am - Agreed, that sure sounds like it means to convey a 'done deal', and goes beyond what has been previously reported and what I seen him say on the tube. Now to make sure that you're not passing on fake news, can you give us citation for that quote? BTW, even 'done deals', especially of that size, all have backout clauses in them for everything from what is ordered to the schedule of payments - it's the realworld. So even that gives a rationale for Trump's treatment of the Khashoggi murder.

[Paul Emery]

Two sources George. You need to scroll down to find it in this one.

https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-press-gaggle-air-force-one-departure-october-20-2018

and this:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/23/donald-trump/donald-trump-touts-nonexistent-450-billion-saudi-o/

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1124am - Thanks Paul, that was very illuminating, but none of it changes my 1014am. The first link gives nothing but a quote of what Trump says which, for the sake of argument, we can accept at face value. The second attempts a brave explanation of the sequence of how such deals are negotiated, how the resulting orders get placed, and finally how much is really sold. This the kind process my 1014am referenced. We're not selling a someone a lawn chair here that gets selected, paid for, and taken home - end of story.

These deals for such amounts are multi-year affairs that have a lot escape clauses and also lots of opportunity to up-sell the customer. It appears, that given the status of the negotiations and orders, Trump, the salesman, gave an appropriate, albeit upside, summary description of the trading now in play. To fit something more into a mic-in-the-face report, one that is to be consumed by an audience with an average attention span of a housefly and almost zero knowledge base, would be a challenge indeed.

Given a careful reading of the realities reported in your second citation, I think dunning Trump on this is another instantiation of TDS. Things would be different if MBS had jumped in and denied the whole thing, or even corrected our president. And who knows, maybe Trump thinks he has MBS over a barrel now, and is already doing some upselling while giving the Arabs the price tag for continued US support.

[Paul Emery]

George

So then in your view it's OK for the President to make assumptions about the capabilities of citizens to absorb information and alter facts as necessary. That's how I see it since not one Administration person other that Trump has supported his assumptions.

Would you subscribe the same verdict to, lets say Obama or Bill Clinton if they would have used the power of the Presidency in this manner to influence public opinion? I recall your repetitive harshness about Obama re Obama care.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 133pm - Paul, you are again putting the wrong words in my mouth - please reread my 111pm. Trump put a hopeful spin on a complex international trade deal that may well turn out to be true. Obama told purposeful lies about Obamacare that he already knew would directly affect EVERY American in the pocketbook - recall, Obama is my champion liar of the 21st century. I think the two types of statements are very different in almost every dimension.

But should presidents be expected/allowed to put such spins on their public pronouncements - hell yes, they have done so from the beginning of our Republic. The most recent champion liar (of the 20th century) was FDR, the public knew his 'altering of facts as necessary', and they loved him, because he sold hope during a difficult time (which he foolishly but unintentionally extended).

[Paul Emery]

So to summarize, in your view Trumps false announcement about the economic impacts of the possible disruption of trade with the Saudis was not a "purposeful lie" and did fuel Fake News. The opposite is true of Obama and his Obamacare announcement.

Would you have given Obama the same latitude as trump if it was he that claimed the economic impacts of the Saudi situation?

[Paul Emery]

Also George, in your opinion is Obama is more of a liar than Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon?

"Obama is my champion liar of the 21st century"
Rebane 1:50

[George Rebane]

PaulE 213pm - ?? you meant "... and did NOT fuel Fake News."?? Obama would not only have gotten the same pass from me, but he would have received plaudits for showing his understanding of such trade deals and promoting them with our allies instead of enemies.

I think what Nixon did re Watergate was criminal, and what Obama did implementing his "fundamental transformation" was anti-American. But I don't have a metric to compare (rank or rate) their abilities to lie. Most certainly Obama's lies were more impactive on the people than were Nixon's.

[Paul Emery]

Hmmm

The unnecessary expansion of the Viet Nam War into Cambodia certainly
did impact all the soldiers that died in the extended warfare that resulted. that was all fed by lies of course.

[Paul Emery]

Georege

Would this be an appropriate extension of the defination of Fake News

False information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread through Govenmnment propoganda to help harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation,or to influence public opinion as it relates to government policy or actions.

[***M***]

,,,lies, alternative facts or fake news,,,you decide

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kushner-pushed-inflate-saudi-arms-deal-110-billion/story?id=59418244

[Paul Emery]

All three M

Good ol Pretty Boy Kushner getting in on the action. The truth will come out soon as to his business deals with the Saudis while on the public payroll.

[Bill Tozer]

More fakenews.....or new normal news.

https://www.facebook.com/theblaze/photos/a.207933762577305/2132469043457091/?type=3&theater&ifg=1

Inerview goes wrong on MSNBC

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2018/11/26/disastrous-msnbc-caravan-interview-mostly-men-interviewee-not

Interview goes wrong on CNN

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR24y8aQkYVxLvnbHbRRufpS5RH9YNuP75ucnUN1jh9tzo3M2cKfECF7j5A&v=T5AIpuAeAps&feature=player_embedded

[Paul Emery]

link

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-kushner-money-ties-saudi-205541965.html

[Scott O]

BT - the last link to the CNN clip clearly showed the bias and lack of knowledge and awareness on the part of the jackass from CNN.
If he had listened to the border patrol official, he wouldn't have kept asking if the 'process' was quicker and smoother then the border patrol's job would be easier. He was told most of the rioters at the border wouldn't qualify for asylum (as if they cared) and they would still just try to breach our borders anyway. I would love to have just one single left wing loony explain what part of illegal they fail to comprehend.
Maybe the jackass from CNN can leave the studio and start throwing rocks at the police and see what happens.

[Scott O]

Paul - RM admitted that 'we' don't know what Trump's motives are. She established no quid pro quo of any kind. She asserted facts she provided no documentation for. Smirking and shrugging are not arguments nor are they facts. Try again, little boy.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 425pm - You have presented a special case for fake news. Making that a necessary part of the definition narrows its meaning - e.g. what would we then call it if we substitute 'NGO' for 'Government'? The overarching definition above already includes all the sins; all you've done here is to identify a specific source for the fake news which itself can come from anyplace. The information you're trying to convey can simply be stated as 'government's fake news' or 'fake news from the government' (of which there is plenty).

[Gregory]

"Good ol Pretty Boy Kushner getting in on the action. The truth will come out soon as to his business deals with the Saudis while on the public payroll.

Posted by: Paul Emery | 26 November 2018 at 04:44 PM"

Punchy, if you think he's a "Pretty Boy", perhaps that's your Greek Heritage speaking. It just sounds silly to me. A denigration that is unbecoming a serious news person, not that anyone could confuse you with a serious news person.

And your guess that "the truth will come out soon" seems to be a Carnac the Magnificent parlor trick... BS. Fake News. A big guess by you that tells us more about you than anything about Trump and Trump's extended family.

[Don Bessee]

G @742 - There are a lot of psychological layers there.

;-)

[Paul Emery]

Sure George

No problem with that extended definition. It means that the word "news" is more broad than information just coming from media "news" sources. they may however report on fakd news by reporting what was said by a government entity or whatever. Such as "President Trump today said that he won the electorial college by the greatest margin in history" and they are not guilty of fake news since they were reporting what someone or something else claims,

[Paul Emery]

What does that tell you about me Gregory? Mueller will conclude his investigation and reveal much information. do you dispute that?

[Don Bessee]

Spin, damage control, paid advocates, spin doctors, crisis management, advertising all can have a truth but overlay perspectives with a goal to convince. Unfortunately what used to be news now is all filtered by urban agendas. Lets not forget that as soon as there was a printing press it was so. Now its the masters of the universe who can throttle anything on the internet that does not fit the approved PC line that the po' ol' fankenewmen parrot endlessly.

News -

newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events.

RR is a forum where News flows freely, news you may not otherwise have heard about and then there's the trolls.

;-)

[Gregory]

Punchy 818pm, do you deny you don't have a bloody clue what information Mueller will reveal?

You're making stuff up.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 756pm - I think you're totally missing the crisp semantic of 'fake news' with your casual narrowing it with "government or whatever". My definition for fake news stands for my use of the term. You may do with yours as you will, but your current tack on the definition is heading toward a semantic haze - no one will know what exactly you mean with that term.

[Todd Juvinall]

Trunmp job approval three up on the day. Way to go and now another R for the Senate.

[Paul Emery]

George

Who do you believe in this situation?

"President Donald Trump told the White House press pool Monday that three Border Patrol agents were hurt by migrants throwing rocks and stones at them — just as the agency’s commissioner denied that anyone had been injured."

“Three border patrol people yesterday were very badly hurt, getting hit with rocks and stones,” the president reportedly said.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/border-patrol-commissioner-contradicts-trumps-claim-agents-badly-hurt-rock-throwing-migrants/

Also in the article

“Yesterday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and officers in San Diego effectively managed an extremely dangerous situation involving over 1,000 individuals who sought to enter the U.S. unlawfully in large groups,” McAleenan wrote.

“They did so safely and without any reported serious injuries on either side of the border,”

So who do you believe George? Is the President guilty of lying about the incident to further his cause or is the report incomplete or not credible?

[Paul Emery]

I said Mueller will reveal his information Gregory. Do you have a clue what Mueller will reveal Gregory?

[Gregory]

Punchy 818pm, do you deny you don't have a bloody clue what information Mueller will reveal?

You're making stuff up.

[Gregory]

One of the things Paul made up:
"The truth will come out soon as to his business deals with the Saudis while ["pretty boy Kushner" was] on the public payroll."

[Gregory]

Punchy 818pm,
Do you deny you don't have a bloody clue what information Mueller will reveal?

[Paul Emery]

Gregory

I believe we have a den of crooks and thieves in the White House and time will bear witness to my accusation. No need for me to prove anything. I could care less if you believe me. You still support the Rasmussen poll which shows how deluded you are.

[Gregory]

Punchy 818pm, do you deny you don't have a bloody clue what information Mueller will reveal?

Answer the question.

[Bill Tozer]

I report, you decide:

“Mueller will conclude his investigation and reveal much information. do you dispute that?”

Hmmm. Much information. Much information. Much information. Much information.

“I said Mueller will reveal his information Gregory”
———————————————————————————————+++++
Had to check this out for myself and rewatch the Acosta-Trump sparring at the presser. Yes, Acosta did say the migrants would not be climbing over the border fences, lol. In fact, in earlier accounts, the press said that the ‘caravan’ was just a figment of Trump’s imagination. There is no caravan! Trump made it up. There is NO caravan, lol

Fakenews? Hume nails it.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5971846744001/?fbclid=IwAR2VYKSMOhzGY4W-6SzVlUWFBt9QqXLK4x3f_UchJ6UNwt6e1wHdA_JB7Qg#sp=show-clips

Yep, and there are no “no go zones” in France or Sweden either. Just another figment of Trump’s imagination.

[Gregory]

"You still support the Rasmussen poll which shows how deluded you are."

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight still lists them seriously... yes or no, Punch? Yes or no?

Your purely partisan delusions blind you.

[Paul Emery]

Yes as does RCP polls. Do you accept they were way of the mark in the midterms, yes or no.

[scenes]

As a break from today's edition of Paul's Ruminations, I thought I'd mention one of my favorite 'fake news' examples. The memory hole.

Back when you had a print edition of a newspaper, it was darned hard to change your mind in an invisible way. Now, modern media sources find it easy to go to press early with some incendiary story, be proven utterly wrong, pull or change the story as if nothing happened.

Some have go so far as to block web archiving from trawling their sites claiming that evil alt-right people are 'misusing' the history you can dig out there.

It wouldn't surprise me if Paul's good friends, the 17 intelligence agencies, are thinking about ways to filter the internet in more subtle ways. It isn't like monkeying with the contents of a data center is the only way to feed the people a desired message.

As I might have mentioned before, like Julian Assange sez, speaking openly is not a measure of the amount of free speech in a society, but only shows the degree that the elite feels confident in their position. It'll go away in a moment if they feel threatened.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 921pm - I haven't a clue who's telling the truth about the extent of injuries. But I'd bet that the President is putting the max spin on it to justify the use of tear gas. BTW, I think the use of tear gas was totally justified as soon as they started throwing rocks, etc at our border guards - no injuries required.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 26 November 2018 at 10:01 PM

I could care less if you believe me……..

Then why the constant flow of Punchy brand gibbering? I mean if you thought you could convince anybody here or change a mind or two I'd get it…but really…..?

[Bill Tozer]

More fakenews, aka The Wall Of Falsehoods. I report, you decide.

Short story:

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/cable-news-erects-wall-falsehoods-around-caravan?fbclid=IwAR3AkV1v3cbUKn0TGh_VgLuqAbApiJT80XKggkeLztaIB1Z3HQ_NWxzAA10

A wee bit longer story:

Mexican Interior Minister Navarrete Prida in an October 30 interview on Radio Enfoque (Focus) 100.1 FM substantiated DHS’s assertion of gang members in the caravan: “I have videos from Guatemala that show men dressed in identical clothing, sporting the same haircuts, handing out money to women to persuade them to move to the front of the caravan… we have images showing many of them preparing Molotov cocktails.”

Mexican Ambassador to the U.S. Gerónimo Gutiérrez recently confirmed the presence of a criminal element in the caravan. As of November 1, DHS had identified at least 270 individuals in the caravan with criminal backgrounds, according to a press release from the department.

There have been reports of migrants committing crime against fellow caravan members. As reported by numerous news outlets – including the Washington Post – on October 29, a man in the caravan attempted to abduct a child who was also making the trip north. That same piece from the Post also describes cocaine and marijuana being sold openly.
The ranks of those burying this information includes not just frequent panelists, but CNN and MSNBC employees as well. CNN chief political analyst Jeff Toobin on New Day November 3 complained of President Trump: “He’s got this fantasy of this caravan.”

On November 1, CNN political commentator Symone Sanders shouted over former McCain presidential campaign adviser Adolfo Franco when he claimed (accurately) that the caravan was being supported by an NGO called Pueblo Sin Fronteras: “This is — stop, stop, this a conspiracy theory. This is a lie, Jake. This is a conspiracy theory.”

Liberal cable media are hellbent on maintaining as positive an image of the caravan as possible, as demonstrated by their refusal to acknowledge any evidence that might conflict with their sympathetic reporting. At best, this narrative-weaving on CNN and MSNBC betrays a reckless ignorance of the facts; at worst, it constitutes deliberate mendacity.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2018/11/26/cable-news-erects-wall-falsehoods-around-caravan

Favorite quote: “This is Trump’s Reichstag theory. It is a lie.”

[Paul Emery]

So George is it ok for a President to use " max spin " on a news story to influence public support and when does that
cross the threshold and become a lie and spreading Fake News? there must be some point that it crosses over.

[Paul Emery]

Here's the deal Fish. there are many other people who read this blog upon occasion and it's incredibly boring to just read Georges topical rant and then hear the predictable chest thumping's from the usual Circle of Jerks that add nothing new to the conversation. There is no intent on my part to change any of your minds but a sparing session is still fun for an ol boxer like me. By tyhe way Gregory I kinda like being called Punchy. It's cute...thanks.

Thanks for the diversion.

[Bill Tozer]

Don B @ 8:26 pm 11/26/2018

Perhaps one of Don’s best posts. It’s all spin and it’s been all spin all the time for quite a long time, at least for the last two hundred years.

“Spin, damage control, paid advocates, spin doctors, crisis management, advertising all can have a truth but overlay perspectives with a goal to convince. Unfortunately what used to be news now is all filtered by urban agendas. Lets not forget that as soon as there was a printing press it was so. Now its the masters of the universe who can throttle anything on the Internet.....”

Ben Rhodes telling the press that we are working with the moderate faction in the Iranian therocacy. There are no moderate elements in the Iranian Government.

It is human nature to paint oneself in the best possible light by downplaying one’s own flaws, exaggerate one’s good points, and simultaneously exaggerating the faults of one’s oppentents...as well as overlooking one’s adversaries’ good points.

If I would change just one word of Don’s post above, I would change the word ‘urban’ to the more current word ‘cosmopolitan’:

“Unfortunately what used to be news now is all filtered by cosmopolitan agendas.” Or virtue signaling.

[***M***]

Posted by: fish | 27 November 2018 at 08:52 AM

,,,if you thought you could convince anybody here or change a mind or two I'd get it,,,

yes Paul,,,fishbrain is happy inspecting diapers,,,it gives him a warm feeling,,,don't try to change his mind,,,he lives for fake news and BS from the dotard in chief

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/us/politics/farmers-aid-trade-war.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/business/gm-oshawa-plant/index.html
https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/22/news/companies/gm-chevy-blazer-mexico/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/11/26/trump-is-failing-miserably-on-his-biggest-issue-and-hes-covering-it-up-with-lies/?utm_term=.a30488d3c64e

[fish]

Posted by: ***M*** | 27 November 2018 at 09:42 AM

Well I'll tell you Diaper Man between you and Punchinello its like shooting dairy cattle with a high powered rifle…..there's no sport in it!

It must hurt to be your degree of idiotic!

[Paul Emery]

Fish

You've already lost the argument so give it up. Jeez, what an idiot.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 27 November 2018 at 09:53 AM

You've already lost the argument so give it up. Jeez, what an idiot.

Thanks Punch…..never stop being you! ;-)

[Gregory]

Punch 833am

"Sparing session"?

adj.
Given to or marked by prudence and restraint in the use of material resources.
adj.
Deficient or limited in quantity, fullness, or extent.
adj.
Forbearing; lenient.

Or did you mean "sparring"?

Your nickname, Punchy, was inspired by your obvious punching for punching's sake. In other words, sparring. That's all you do. You're just as bad as Todd J. Maybe worse.

Regarding Rasmussen, their result for the "generic Congressional ballot" was off, and even they admit that. Go back to my comment where I quoted their response and you'll have what you asked for. Again.

[Paul Emery]

Oh so now you're reverting to being a grammar instructor. Now THATS really boring. Come one, Give us a break I'm truing to help my friend draw George a crowd

All for now

[Gregory]

Grammar? That was vocabulary. The wrong word.

Bad punching.

[fish]

Posted by: Gregory | 27 November 2018 at 10:02 AM

Your nickname, Punchy, was inspired by your obvious punching for punching's sake.

I was under the assumption that "Punchy" was chosen due to the quality of his argument and general level of discourse.

"Punchy" as in taken too many blows to the head!

[Gregory]

Not really, fish. That kind of brain damaged former boxer is more prevalent with the heavier weight classes. The little guys just can't hit as hard.

[Paul Emery]

Gregory

boring boring wanna be school teacher

[George Rebane]

PaulE 913am - Presidents (and all politicians) have been using 'max spin' for as long as there has been a presidency. I hope you knew that. If not, well, another benefit of visiting these pages.

And BTW, I do very much appreciate your contributions, especially since as you observe, "it's incredibly boring to just read Georges topical rants". I been wondering what has contributed to the size of my readership over the years. Now I know; thanks again.