If we're going to be interested in the truth, let's be nuanced about it. If one aspect of a story might be inaccurate, calling the whole story "fake news" is just dishonest. Journalists get things wrong from time to time, that's not some liberal conspiracy to take down the president, it's just how things go. Maybe Major Garrett's sources are right, who knows, but even if they are, the story isn't that much different. What's relevant is that Trump wanted to fire Mueller.

I'll never accept the Trump cult hijacking of the term "fake news". All inaccurate reporting is not fake news, it never has been. The REEE Trump cult will take any slip up by the news media as an indictment of the entire industry, because most of the stories coming out of the White House aren't positive, so it's easier psychologically to just pretend it's all fake.

Your last point makes no sense to me. I think Garrett is a real journalist who has a couple sources disputing the accuracy of part of the NYT story. I don't think news organizations always have some ulterior motive... he has a scoop, so they publish it. What does that have to do with publishing intentionally inaccurate stories?

This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 27 2018 10:11pm

If the critical and sensational central detail of a news story is inaccurate, the story is fake news. The story was that Trump didn't just want to fire Mueller- that's not a revelation. The story was that Trump actually 'moved' to fire Mueller, and that McGahn dramatically threatened to resign if Trump did, which is what stopped him. Yet those embellishments are unsupported in the former and contradicted in the latter by CBS's account. And frankly, I think they should be held to a higher standard than just the critical turning point of the story, if the context and details are wrong, I'd say its comparable to one apple spoiling the bunch..
I really don't care what the words are. If it was called 'fake news' or 'yellow journalism' or 'blibbering snitchbodgery', its all just semantics, words to describe a logical concept. The words don't change it

But as far as an indictment of the entire industry? Its rightly deserved. Its not some isolated instance or once-off mistake. We went decades and decades, a century after hearst really, with quality credible journalism in the united states, without anything approaching the torrent of falsehoods being lobbed as purported bombshells about Trump in the past year and a half. And now for a variety of identifiable factors- not merely political bias, but an obvious product of technological upheaval and cutthroat capitalism- we're stuck in an era of fake news clustering in headlines on a weekly basis. And I don't excuse the objectionable just because it has reasons for existing, everything has reasons.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/27/florida-democrat-removed-from-office-faces-corruption-charges-following-fbi-sting.html

chuckling.jpeg

wait, we're back to trusting the fbi now?

Hardly.

No, they are being run by the Illuminati.

Insert broken clocks sometimes being right saying

how does that go again? broken clocks are only right when i like the time they display?

Drumpf reeeeee

YUUUUUGE waste of time