this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
360 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19172 readers
3425 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell laid into news outlets on his show Thursday night, comparing their collective failure to call out Donald Trump's falsehoods to 2016.

"It was 2016 all over again, today," he told his viewers. "Donald Trump spoke at his home in Florida for over an hour and all the major cable news networks, including this one, carried it live. Just like they all did repeatedly in 2016. It would be hard to find a sentence that Donald Trump said today that did not include at least one lie."

O'Donnell acknowledged that some networks attempted to fact-check the MAGA leader, but only after he finished his speech.

"That of course is way too late and utterly useless," he said. "No network tried to fact-check every lie Donald Trump told."

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I watched both the Trump conference and O'Donnell's take live and, yeah, he has a point.

The feed I had, you couldn't hear the reporters questions at all. So all you could hear was Trump and there was no way to know what the actual question was based on his answers.

But nobody follows up on ANY politician and it's been that way for a couple of decades now.

The classic example I always cite is one that happens all the time:

"Well, we're going to get rid of job-killing regulations."

The logical follow up question would be:

"Can you cite an example of a regulation you'd get rid of and in what way it's a job killer?"

But nobody ever asks that question.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I was initially disappointed in NABJ's decision to host drumpf, but happy to be wrong when I witnessed him facing a serious interview for the first fucking time. Massive respect to NABJ and the interviewers for tactfully exposing him publicly.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And even then they could (and arguably should) have pushed back way harder. Even in the NABJ interview he got to bulldoze the hosts with "nasty woman" rants and spew his usual tirade of bullshit lies unchallenged.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

The right has its persecution complex narrative. Better to not play into that and just get him unlimited rope to hang himself with. Which he promptly did and has continued to do. Republicans have been trying to crack the Black vote for decades and Trump lost any hope of that this cycle.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

But nobody follows up on ANY politician and it’s been that way for a couple of decades now.

Exactly. There was a time over the Obama years where PolitiFact and WaPo's Fact Checker were pretty popular. I'd frequent them often and they'd be in Digg and Reddit aggregators. I practically forgot about them in the last decade. I hate to say it but we are in the Post-truth era of fact-checking because it's all about what narrative everyone wants. People who care about truth versus falsehoods already know Trump is full of shit. Everyone else is largely convinced the fact-checkers themselves are lying or at least distorting reality.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Serious question, but couldn’t you get more ratings for being the aggressive and combative fact checker when addressing Trump vs the soft ball question lobber?

Is this just a matter of demographics watching and giving more advertising money to traditional media and therefore doing so is less profitable?

I would definitely put my eyeballs more towards any organization that would challenge all politicians vs those who are basically allowing them to advertise their talking points.

I’m ignorant on media and looking at this simply, if it isn’t obvious.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I think the unfortunate answer is you are in the minority. people watch what makes them feel good, not what challenges their beliefs. that's why we end up with highly partisan news outlets like Fox.

also, it's hard to fact check in real time (especially Gish galloping trump). of course it could be done by large media organizations but it would cost more money to do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah I hate read Fox News (webpage, there’s no way I could actually watch) every day for this very reason. What might I be missing? Honestly it’s more of a bad habit now than actually netting any honest insights, although I admit I do see stories/opinions not mentioned on other news sites. Even aggregators. I do enjoy challenging my own beliefs though. It’s a fun exercise.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Most reporters are afraid they will lose their access if they ask Traitorapist Trump real questions at his "news conferences".

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Who wants to risk offending the ratings bonanza.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

Journalistic integrity doesn't pay the yacht club dues, Lawrence.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Lawrence is still kicking out the jams

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Don't these networks have AI? Voice to text from the feed, send it through ChatGPT to summarize fact check, quickly verify the stats and add the result to graphics overlay.

I'm surprised a streamer hasn't done this yet.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Great idea, validate bullshit with the bullshit generator.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I did a quick sampling with copilot, it seems to lie less than trump. Good enough for me!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Copilot appears to even refuses to tell me that these are true, either when I encourage it by telling me to "correct thr statement" on the true statement, or when I explicitly tell it to tell me otherwise.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

you could tell an LLM to specifically lie and it would probably lie less than him. everything would be trustworthy if compared to the bullshit man

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Large language models (chatgpt etc, basically any of the AIs you've seen recent headlines about) aren't especially good at distinguishing true from false claims. It's one of the biggest weaknesses that AI researchers are actively trying to find solutions for.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

I knew that I didn't like Ed OKeefe of CBS news but after watching O'Donnell's footage of him at Biden's news conference I now can't stand the guy.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago

Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Raw Story:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.rawstory.com/2016-all-over-again-msnbc-host-unloads-on-media-for-failing-to-fact-check-trump/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support