This has been a rallying cry for the "insurgent" politicians. Tar every single other news source with the brush of being full of lies. "Fake News" had a specific meaning; there are websites out there that realised that made up (literally made up) news received more clicks than real, fact-checked news. Fake meant fake, made up, lying, untrue. Here's one example: US police arrested a man wielding an assault rifle who entered a pizza restaurant that was the target of fake news reports it was operating a child abuse ring led by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her top campaign aide. That piece of news was utterly fabricated. I chose this story as the first one I could find. There were also fake news stories about Trump, but it's meant to illustrate the point. Now, however, "Fake News" is being bandied about by the US President, no less, to refer to anything he doesn't want to hear. Fewer people at his inauguration? Fake news. Lowest approval ratings for a new president? Fake news. Weird one now, polls were wrong before the election. Fake News. So, discredit all news sources but quietly guide people to websites that reflects your agenda, possibly run by your advisers. Let people know that those outlets don't peddle liberal lies. Then you've got them. You're telling the truth. This is today's equivalent of 1930s propaganda. And people are falling for it. Vin
Nope. Unfortunately I get my news from the same places as you. I just mentally syphon out the bias either way and ignore the ridiculous attacks on either side. The TV media is less biased than ANY of the mainstream traditional printed press which are all just ranty about their perceived view of the world (yes I know you'll say I am as well.) I might moan about the BBC and Channel 4 a lot (I don't watch Sky) but they do at least report the story. You just have to ignore half the opinion that they present with their reporting. I like the Spectator because it has lefties and righties and yes it has its share of ranters on either side but at least there are writers on there that in the same publication challenge each other's articles. I've never read Breitbart or RT for any reason other than to see what some are saying. Some of their articles are on the money but many are completely OTT and others are very misrepresentative of reasonable concerns making some real concerns into much bigger problems than they actually are. That is not even going into some of their "creative" reporting which is MSM on a grand scale.
There's been a great deal of mention of executive orders, so here's a good guide as to how they are created: Vin
Newspapers are all up against it these days. The fact we can all get the news within seconds of things happening on our computer has all but, in some ways, made news papers mostly redundant. (Although excepted not all have access to computers) As a consequence most papers these days look at the negative side of things and tend to make things more speculative than is possibly needed to attract our attention. Most certainly with their headlines.......nearly all are doom and gloom about something or other.
It needs abolishing. It's ridiculous that a bunch of political cronies and sycophants who are put in their position by virtue of brown nosing the political party in charge at the time have such legislative power. Well except for the heredity peers of course. And yes, I have read the Guardian. But in fairness all papers are biased... However it some incredulous to me that people just accept bias as a natural fact. The Mail has right wing bias, the Guardian and Independent have left-wing bias... but surely ALL media should be completely impartial and objective?! The point of the media isn't or shouldn't be to tell us what to think but simply give us the facts without spin to allow us to form our own opinion. Psssh, it's like that quote by Kane in Command and Conquer: "The people believe what the media tells them believe, and I tell the media what to believe. It's really quite simple".
It amazes me that our media and politicians call out (and make fun of) countries where their television and print media is state controlled when our "independent" media and Indie/Guardian do it "of their own freewill." I know they don't do it anywhere near the extent of those state run countries but they have their agenda and narrative and they are opinions of the neo-liberal section of society for the neo-liberal section of society presented as fact rather than opinion. Same stories in different papers with differing opinions and we are left to decide at which point in the middle is the true story. All the while those who are neo-liberal/con or left wing think that right wingers believe the Mail hook line and sinker while those who are right wing can see that the Guardian is quite representative of the neo-liberal/con thoughts anyway or at least I assume so because they are vehemently protected by normal folk that aren't hard line lefties. Not many right wingers defend the Mail or Express or Sun and are quite honest about them being pretty skewed right wing views. On the flip (as we see on here) the Guardian, BBC, CH4 and Indie are held up as "only slightly" biased or as bastions of the truth by some. Maybe some on here don't mention Sky thinking "Murdoch = right wing" but Sky are even worse than the BBC! And the Neo liberal /Con is the machine hiding behind the terms "liberal", "centrist" "progressive" using these labels as a defence tactic. How can you attack people for being liberal or centrist or progressive? Surely that means they are open minded, tolerant and have an all enveloping viewpoint! Doesn't matter that the Neo-Liberal/Con utilise people's good intentions to drive forward their uber-capitalist policies under the cloak of being "liberal." And France is falling for their own Blair! Just when the rest of the Western world has seen through the "centrist" fraud, France looks like they are about to fall for it. It is a real pity that Fillon has seemingly fallen on his sword but we can but hope he can sneak through.
Motion of no confidence table against speaker John Bercow. Not surprising: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...confidence-in-john-bercow-over-trump-comments
Bercow will survive quite comfortably. It's just a warning shot across the bows to remind him he said he would leave after 9 years.........which means next year. Will probably be north of 150 MPs that will sign up though. Shows how little chance of the top jobs your guy has. Always the outsiders not in the clique that are used to table these sort of things. Used to be Carswell. Probably why he jumped out to get some fame a different way.
Odds are good that he loses in SCOTUS. Even if he delays enough to get Gorsuch on the court, it's an uphill battle. But what he does if he gets knocked back at every step and has no further recourse...that's where the real fun begins.
