Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44

Thread: NBC's Fake News King Brian Williams Launches Crusade Against "Fake News"

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,883
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)

    NBC's Fake News King Brian Williams Launches Crusade Against "Fake News"

    Brian Williams, the disgraced ex-NBC journalist who was literally fired for falsely reporting that he was in a helicopter during the Iraq war that took on combatant fire, is now going on a crusade against "fake news."

    On his MSNBC show last night, Williams decided to attack retired General Flynn and Donald Trump for spreading "fake news" via their twitter accounts.



    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...inst-fake-news

    They've been beating the "fake-news" narrative against our heads, ever since the election (when the Wikileaks , Hillary, Podesta, and associates, "spirt cooking" and other possible sick shit came to light)......

    But, this one takes the cake......


    Brian Williams (who repeatedly, for 12 years, "misremembered" being on helo that was hit by an RPG in Iraq) is now back on the airwaves & attacking General Flynn.

    It appears their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    & Why in the hell is Comcast/NBC still giving this lying asshole a platform?
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 12-10-2016 at 02:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    The fake news narrative is real; exactly how pervasive it is a good question but dismissing the issue entirely ignores the facts.

    New (alt) news sources such as Brietbart and ImfoWars are excellent examples of sites that publish a story with on nugget of fact surrounded by extensive falsehood --MSNNBC, Fox, and more and more CNN are doing the same thing along with various print media. Pulling out that nugget from falsehood, speculation and opinion at times isn't difficult ... at other times it can be.

    "Theatricality and deception are powerful agents to the uninitiated, but we are initiated ... aren't we Bruce?"

    As far as Brian Williams, fuck that guy. But I imagine on some level they had to keep him due to a contract.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,883
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    The fake news narrative is real;
    The "fake news" narrative is exactly that. A fake narrative...... It goes something like this: "The Russian boogeyman interfered in the US election (by exposing the truth) to help Trump. #imwithher"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    exactly how pervasive it is a good question but dismissing the issue entirely ignores the facts.
    According to the FBI's official statement there are no confirmed links between Trump and Russia.

    So, Unless General Clapper perjurers himself in front of Congress again.... The BS "secret intelligence report" doesn't get to count.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    New (alt) news sources such as Brietbart and ImfoWars are excellent examples of sites that publish a story with on nugget of fact surrounded by extensive falsehood --MSNNBC, Fox, and more and more CNN are doing the same thing along with various print media.

    The difference is those other sites don't pretend to be something they're not.

    Breitbart bills itself as a "conservative news" and Infowars tagline is "You are the Resistance". Whereas CNN presents itself as being an objective news organization. (which has now been thoroughly discredited).

    Breitbart is a social media giant (300 Million hits, reaching 45 million people a month). The MSM is basically dead in the water. The country is moving right. This debacle is just a last ditch effort, to try and stay relevant by accusing anyone who doesn't drink the globalist koolaide, of being "fake news".


    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Pulling out that nugget from falsehood, speculation and opinion at times isn't difficult ... at other times it can be.
    The problem with using the term "fake", is that it's to loose a label.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 12-11-2016 at 01:14 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    One thing is why are they saying "we have an un-named source from an unknown org' saying this?? HOW in gods name do they expect us to take what they are SAYING at face value on this, especially when 99% of the proper named orgs are all saying "there are currently no links found"...

  5. #5
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    The "fake news" narrative is exactly that. A fake narrative...... It goes something like this: "The Russian boogeyman interfered in the US election (by exposing the truth) to help Trump. #imwithher"

    According to the FBI's official statement there are no confirmed links between Trump and Russia.

    So, Unless General Clapper perjurers himself in front of Congress again.... The BS "secret intelligence report" doesn't get to count.
    I don't know that it is a fake narrative. There is definitely false news out there that motivates people one way or another ...

    What isn't disputable is that someone got a hold of a lot of emails that were embarrassing for the DNC, initial indications are that it was a Russian actor. Does that mean the actor was working on behalf of the Russian Gov't? Depends on who it was ... some are merely hired guns, others are state sponsored.

    I have seen nothing that indicates that the actual voting / balloting was hacked, but there was definitely someone releasing data that could have swayed some people ... professionally this is interesting to see how it effects / impacts our cyber strategy and posture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    The difference is those other sites don't pretend to be something they're not.

    Breitbart bills itself as a "conservative news" and Infowars tagline is "You are the Resistance". Whereas CNN presents itself as being an objective news organization. (which has now been thoroughly discredited).

    Breitbart is a social media giant (300 Million hits, reaching 45 million people a month).
    I don't think 45 million people go to those sites every month because they think it is The Onion or another satire site. Some people take those type of sites as legitimate news, probably most of those 45 million. Again, they get some nuggets of truth, some supposition or editorial ... and some outright pants on fire type stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    The MSM is basically dead in the water. The country is moving right. This debacle is just a last ditch effort, to try and stay relevant by accusing anyone who doesn't drink the globalist koolaide, of being "fake news".
    I am waiting to say the country is moving right; it is definitely course correcting from the hard shift left in the last 8 years. DJT won the election, HRC won the popular vote by 2 million + votes (however, remove California and she lost the popular vote by around 2 million), the all important swing voter swung right instead of left ... many of those voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. The hard push left turned off a lot of the voters that the DNC needs, also the DNC was not helped by lower than expected minority voter turnout ... had Michigan (Detroit) and / Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) had minority turnout similar to 2008 & 2012 and they mostly voted per norms, HRC would have won those states and by consequence the election ... it easily could have gone the other way.

    Currently the GOP controls more governorships, more state legislatures, more seats in the House and Senate and will hold the White House in Jan, retaining that in 2018 is a definite sign that he course correction is more of a swing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    The problem with using the term "fake", is that it's to loose a label.
    Concur, mostly. The label is too lose, and this wasn't such a big deal when the fake news was about DJT, but there is plenty of irresponsible 'reporting' ... maybe we should use "mostly fake"... kind of like mostly dead

    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #6
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Its funny that now they are admitting to there being fake news, the left always tried to paint FNC as "faux news". They just realized after a year of pandering to HRC and the dems that they were shown to be the biggest purveyor of fake news through wikileaks and now they are trying to distract everyone by claiming fake news is coming from every where else, especially the right.

    BTW, speaking of fake news, yahoo had a story about Dylann Roof receiving $3 mil from whites to support his defense. CNN calls BLM a "peaceful protest". and so on.
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

  7. #7
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    BTW, speaking of fake news, yahoo had a story about Dylann Roof receiving $3 mil from whites to support his defense.
    I have heard / read that he received a lot of donations from groups that were white supremacists ... probably not fake news.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    CNN calls BLM a "peaceful protest". and so on.
    Hard to classify this one since BLM is so nebulous and has little 'official' organization. You probably get into definitions of "peachful protest" etc. Without argument, many BLM protests and activists have not been peaceful.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Its funny that now they are admitting to there being fake news, the left always tried to paint FNC as "faux news". They just realized after a year of pandering to HRC and the dems that they were shown to be the biggest purveyor of fake news through wikileaks and now they are trying to distract everyone by claiming fake news is coming from every where else, especially the right.

    BTW, speaking of fake news, yahoo had a story about Dylann Roof receiving $3 mil from whites to support his defense. CNN calls BLM a "peaceful protest". and so on.
    ALong with the whole hands up don't shoot mantra we got from BLM in the beginning for Garner, or "i can't breath' for that dude in NYC.. And they RAN with that false news, just to push ratings and the protests..

  9. #9
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,883
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    What isn't disputable is that someone got a hold of a lot of emails that were embarrassing for the DNC
    Does that make any of this stuff being reported "fake" news?

    The leaks were embarrassing for the DNC because (among other things) they revealed the collusion going on between Hillary Clinton, the so-called "legitimate" media and the DNC's efforts to rig the Democratic primary in Hillary's favor. It begs the question..... Where they also colluding to rig the general election in her favor, as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    initial indications are that it was a Russian actor.
    That is disputable. Even John Bolton's suggesting it's a false-flag. See? He's now a "conspiracy theorist"!

    FWIW Rainmaker's SWAG, is that it's more than likely insider-leaks.

    Either way, the IC needs an enema. They're too concerned with feathering their own nests or CYA . The quality of their product is largely shit.

    We'll see whether or not General Flynn is successful (this time) with cleaning up that bureaucratic shit-show.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    don't think 45 million people go to those sites every month because they think it is The Onion or another satire site.
    I think they're going to those sites because, It's billed as conservative news, opinion and commentary and they know that the legacy media is made up mostly of socialists shilling for the DNC, and they'd like to hear a differening perspective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Some people take those type of sites as legitimate news, probably most of those 45 million
    So, is your position then that Breitbart is not a "legitimate" news source and that 45 million people are all getting duped?

    If that's so, Then what sources would you consider to be legitimate?
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 12-12-2016 at 05:14 PM.

  10. #10
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Does that make any of this stuff being reported "fake" news?
    Not at all ... I do think there is a difference. Part of me liked the curtain being pulled back on some of the hypocrisy that it exposed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    The leaks were embarrassing for the DNC because (among other things) they revealed the collusion going on between Hillary Clinton, the so-called "legitimate" media and the DNC's efforts to rig the Democratic primary in Hillary's favor. Which begs the question..... Where they also colluding to rig the general election in her favor, as well?
    IMO ... the DNC did a true disservice to their members in how they ran their primaries and drove to tip the scales in HRC's favor. Despite their efforts, I feel that had Bernie Sanders taken a tougher stance on the HRC email issue, &/or her performance at State, he might have gained momentum before he did and beat her in spite of the DNC's efforts.

    The leaks also showed how many within the DNC really regard some of their key constituencies ... they aren't necessarily as truly accepting / inclusive as they would want people to think ... but they do like the votes from those constituencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Disputable. John Bolton's suggesting it's a false-flag. See? Even he's now a "conspiracy theorist"!
    Conspiracy theorist? No ... but he also is not receiving reports on it other than what is in the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    FWIW Rainmaker's SWAG, is that it's more than likely insider-leaks.
    That is possible, and I would imagine that is getting looked at. Tracing a cyber intrusion to point origin can be tricky, but I would say an insider-leak would likely involve a Snowden or Manning like copying of files from a server with a physical connection or legitimate credentials for system access; an insider wouldn't need to hop through several servers to do that ... could they to create a false flag, sure. Is it detectable? Yes. I can think that there may be an insider who is really good at that type of thing ... I also know first hand the people we have to do forensics on that type of thing are very good too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Either way, The IC needs an enema. They're more concerned with feathering their own nests or CYA . The quality of their product is largely shit.
    Agree, there are reforms in the IC that need to be done. Largely the last 8-years have seen the politization of intelligence product to meet a predetermined policy or goal (happened during the Bush Administration too ... but not like this.) The current administration has ignored radical Islamic movements around the world to avoid the appearance of Islamaphobia ... There are people of diverse backgrounds all around the world that wish to do us harm ... the fact remains that the largest portion of those people are radical Muslims ... not being able to use those facts is stifling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    We'll see whether or not General Flynn is successful this time, with cleaning up that bureaucratic shit-show.
    I don't see Flynn having too much impact unless Trump radically changes the role of the National Security Advisor ... some of which is limited because he is not confirmed by the Senate and won't have budgetary or policy authority over the IC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    I think they're going there because, It's billed as conservative news, opinion and commentary and they know that the legacy media is made up mostly of socialists shilling for the DNC.
    I think a lot of people go there because they find a news source that presents news in a manner that aligns with their generally predetermined ideology. Also, smaller percentages of people go there because they don't agree with that ideology but to 'keep tabs' on the 'opposition' ... (some of my very .... VERY liberal friends watch a lot of FOX and read Breitbart for this reason).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    So, is your position then that Breitbart is not "legitimate" news and that 45 million people are getting duped?
    Duped ... not quite. I think most people go to a conservative site wanting conservatively slanted news, same for people who go to liberal sites wanting liberally slanted news. I don't go to a seafood restaurant when I really have an appetite for Mexican food. I do think that too many people take what they get at face value and don't do research on what they are reading to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    What sources do you consider legitimate?
    Hard term to define, I consider most of them 'legitimate', but I tend to know what I am getting when I look at MSNBC, or FoxNews, or Breitbart. As I have said, I do consume mainstream media in many cases as a jumping off point to actually research things. Depending on the topic I get a lot of data from work, I do work in the IC so I get a lot of tactical & operational reporting before it is ran out at the strategic level (which is where I see more politization).

    The Hill: Conservative leaning, its writers and columnists are folks like Lanny Davis and James Carville but their style of writing there is much more non-partisan and generally more intelligently written than stuff on MSNBC or Fox etc.

    FactCheck.org: Good factual data.

    Congressional Budget Office: their reports are really good sources of non-partisan data as it is presented to Congress prior to the individual offices spinning it.

    Also, having worked on Capitol Hill, I regularly do read the text of legislation ... crazy thing ... reading the bills and laws that effect our country.

    I don't regularly peruse the National Enquirer unless I am in the check out line looking at the cover for a quick chuckle ... but it is also a fact that the National Enquirer was the first outlet to report that Sen. John Edwards had a mistress, a child with that mistress and had been stepping out on his wife for some time. They beat everyone to the punch on that ... and also report that Elvis was abducted by aliens to play a concert for JFK on their homeworld ...
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •