When was the first time you heard news casts called "fake news"?

Shortly after Trump was first elected. Had never heard the term until then.

It is President Trump’s terminology.

The word is new, but the act of lying isn’t. Lying started thousands of years ago probably.
Lying in journalism started immediately.

Trump.

Before this term that the Don Father gave the news channels that didn’t kiss his ass, did you trust what they were saying?
The Fright wing scream BIAS it’s all bias and fake, but they sure trust their right leaning news channels,are they not just as bias as the left leaning ones?

My dad used to call it horses_ _t.

Grandma called it propaganda.

My mom believed every word.

When SNL parodies seem more believable than what networks pump out, that should be a clue.

Earth, Hitler, 1938.

About 15 years ago, I posed this question here. https://www.fluther.com/4097/do-you-think-the-mainstream-media-is-doing-its-job/

I highly recommend checking out the documentary “Manufacturing Consent” from 1992. https://youtu.be/EuwmWnphqII

The term “fake news” was a term I started hearing during Trump’s tenure.

I first heard it from Drumph when he wanted to discredit or hide what actually happened. I think it was the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet.

Yes @LuckyGuy that is when first heard it.

I first heard something similar when people talked of Faux News but that was kind of funny and often justified. “Fake News” was an indiscriminate attack on reporters and reporting and coming from the President was quite shocking. It was part of Trump’s attacks on the institutions of American democracy and the integrity of the election process itself. If you want to know where it can end just look at Vladimir Putin in Russia.

I’m with @flutherother Faux News was started years ago, well before Trump was elected. But I differ with @flutherother on the impact of Trump using the term Fake News. He was accused of indiscriminately attacking reporters and stories that were coming out. He was accused of that all the time. But the part of that story that falls flat is that he was often right. He called the Russia Collusion story Fake News. It is later found out that it was. He called the claim he said White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis Fake News…and it was. It was a KNOWN lie the press was spreading. The list goes on and on of times he called something fake news, was ridiculed for it (usually by the same media outlets) and he was later proven to be correct.

The use of the term Fake News, and later Disinformation, is nefarious. If you call something fake news or disinformation and it IS, you are not trying to distract or create a narrative. If you call something fake news or disinformation and it ISN’T, or if you just don’t like the story or opinion you are addressing, you are trying to distract or create a narrative.

My memory is with Sarah Palin coming up with the term “gotcha journalism”, and evolved into “fake news” with Donald Trump.

@seawulf575 It isn’t the president’s job to oversee the press rather it is the job of the media to hold the president and the government to account. That’s why Trump’s attacks on the press are so disconcerting. They are un-American. The job of the president of the USA is to stand back and allow a free press to prosper and not to wade in and impress his views upon it. That way, as I said, ends up like Russia where there is no fake news because it is all fake news.

@flutherother You are partially right. It shouldn’t be the president’s job to oversee the press, and it should be the job of the media to hold the president and the government to account. However our media has lost their journalistic integrity. At that point they have given up their claim to the status you allot to them. They created lies. They spread lies. They have even gotten sued and lost the cases because of their lies. So in one aspect they are a threat to our national security. And it IS the president’s job to identify things like that and correct them.

As I said, they didn’t do any investigation into the Russia Collusion hoax. They just broadcast it as fact, pushed the lies of the Steele Dossier, never really questioned how that was paid for by the president’s political opponents, basically took whatever the Dems said and called it fact. They (the media) created the Charlottesville Lie. Someone asked Trump what he thought about the protesters that led to some moron driving his car into a crowd. He said that he felt there were very fine people on both sides of the original protests. He then stated that he was NOT talking about the Neo-Nazis or White Supremacists as they needed to be denounced entirely. He stated it twice in that conversation. So the media, trying to create hatred of Trump, claimed he said White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis were very fine people. It was a blatant lie. More recently they claimed the Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian Disinformation because that is what Biden said during one of the debates. The NY Post broke the story and they were censored by the big tech companies and ridiculed by the leftist media, being called fake news and a known disreputable outlet. Of course they knew it was true, just like the Post did, but they claimed it wasn’t. Now, after the election they finally start admitting it was a true story. But the damage was done. And STILL they don’t actually report on something that literally does impact national security. The list goes on and on. So no, they gave up their right to the moral high ground and gave that to Trump to call them out for their lies.

Propaganda has been used to create and support tyrannical regimes throughout the world’s history. Including exactly what you are stating as happens in Russia. The media is complicit in each and every lie from the government. They cover up the bad stuff and blow nothing out of proportion to make it something when it is against the political rivals of the desired regime. That sounds exactly like what is going on in today’s world and yet it isn’t the Republicans or Trump that are the bad guys here.

@seawulf575 I am not alone in believing a free press is necessary to a properly functioning democracy. A great many people believe it including the founders of the United States who wrote it into the Constitution. If a free press spreads lies it will be found out by a free press not by an autocratic ruler who wants no voice to be heard but his.

I don’t understand your sentence: “the media is complicit in each and every lie from the government”. It isn’t true of Russia which has no media as Putin has destroyed it. Any journalist who dared to speak his mind has been replaced by a stooge who speaks only Putin’s mind. That’s why I said there is no fake news in Russia because it is all fake news and Russians no longer know it, or, perhaps out of fear, pretend not to know it.

@flutherother I partially agree that a free press is necessary to a properly functioning democracy. What the more accurate statement is that a free and fair press is necessary to a properly functioning democracy. Much of what we have in this country is not fair. They have all turned into mouthpieces for one side or the other. And when they take to making lies and passing them as facts, they have turned into propaganda.

The media being complicit in each and every lie from the government describes the state news of Russia perfectly. And you went on to describe where it goes when the propagandists put a tyrant into power. The news becomes just the mouthpiece of the ruling power and all others are run out or arrested. Now…think about that as you think about the “Disinformation Bureau” or the new, no-name panel that is doing the same function. It is the government deciding what is and isn’t true. All other opinions are banned. Now tell me again how Trump is the autocratic ruler or how the Republicans are trying to kill the democracy?

Governments are always deciding what is true. Democratic governments get at the truth by assessing evidence, hearing expert witnesses and by discussion. It is done openly so the public can see how conclusions are arrived at. This is quite different to the autocrat who believes only his opinion counts and whose government is nothing but a bunch of stooges.

@flutherother But a free and fair press removes from the government the ability to decide what is true. If it didn’t, Nixon would never have resigned because he could have had the government decide what was true. But the press dug in and found the truth of things and brought it to the government. That is what allowed the impeachment proceedings to start and ultimately led to Nixon’s resignation.

And if democratic governments get at the truth by assessing evidence, hearing expert witnesses and by discussion, done openly so the public can see how the conclusions are arrived at, then the J6 committee is not representative of a democratic government. They did NOT get all the truth or facts or evidence, they did it in secrecy even going so far as compelling witnesses with NDAs and gag orders so they couldn’t talk about their testimony. So how is that different that an autocrat who believes only his opinion counts and whose government is nothing but a bunch of stooges?

And now we have had the same government try to create a “disinformation bureau” which was part of the DHS. That bureau was supposed to determine what was and wasn’t truth based on….well…their whim. That got ridiculed into extinction but now they are creating a panel to do the exact same thing. We saw that same thing for many years now. If you claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop was a legit thing, you were censored. It was deemed to be “disinformation”. Yeah…but it wasn’t. So how is the party that is in power now exhibiting any of the virtues you say are needed to avoid autocratic rule? They are trying to silence (through whole-of-government power) anyone who has an opinion they don’t like. They are trying to decide what is and isn’t truth. It isn’t the media anymore. If the media were doing their jobs, this behavior would be getting blasted 24/7. So there isn’t a free and fair press and you have a bunch of people doing exactly what you say autocrats and their stooges do.

@seawulf575 How do you know about these so called gag orders?

That Eastmen keeps pleading the fifth,is that a gag order?
Jan 6 wasn’t peaceful and that Barney video you posted about the officer telling those guys they could go by as long as they were peaceful, they broke in by force think that cop may have been trying to de escalate the situation?

@SQUEEKY2
And people wonder how holocaust denial happens.

VERY TRUE!^^^^^

@SQUEEKY2 I’ve seen interviews with some of the witnesses and they have stated they are not allowed to discuss their testimony because of NDAs/gag orders.

@SQUEEKY2 “Jan 6 wasn’t peaceful and that Barney video you posted about the officer telling those guys they could go by as long as they were peaceful, they broke in by force think that cop may have been trying to de escalate the situation?” No, I don’t. There were many cops there, the crowd was not rushing them, fighting them, they were absolutely willing to push peacefulness on the rest of the crowd. The entire thing speaks to the idea that the picture that all the protesters were violent is bunk. Besides, you have to ignore the other videos that show cops opening the doors and waving protesters in, escorting them as they walk through the building and look around…not a violent mob.

And to suggest the cops were allowing them in to deescalate the situation is fantasy. Ashlii Babbitt proved that. Pull out your gun and shoot unarmed protesters…nothing will happen to you. Admit it…99% of the Jan 6th protest was peaceful. There were a few that did get out of line and break things, but overall, there was no throwing of bricks or rocks, no molotov cocktails, no use of weapons (by the protesters), no beatings, no stabbings…basically a peaceful protest.

Learned about Lügenpresse in college.

Ya @raum that was during Hitler’s reign of Nazism.

Oh good grief @seawulf575 there wasn’t many police there at first hand they were majorly ill prepared for the so call “protesters” that were coming at them.
One of your love videos you posted showing them peaceful turned ugly very quickly do you even watch all of your own clips?
Just like you believe that woman was shot in cold blood type thing, @JLeslie posted a clip of her getting shot, climbing through a broken window on a door that was barricaded ,she was warned that there was a gun she was told to get back and kept going, but you refuse to see that, you make her out as some kind of hero.
Everyone in the Capital that day left their protester tag at the fence, and pinned on their rioter tag, a great deal pinned violent rioter tag.

I heard a comment after you asked this that the term pre-45 is that the phrase “Urban Legend” was the term used back in the 80’s & 90’s before “fake news” became the current terminology. In thinking about this, the phrase used back in the 60’s & 70’s was “Old Wives Tale”. Before that, I was too young to pick up on what most adults were saying…except my Gramps yelling BS at the TV!!!

@SQUEEKY2 I’ve watched all the clips I have posted. There were scenes of violence and scenes of peace. How is it that none of you can actually admit that?

As for Ashlii Babbitt (“that woman” has a name), imagine if it had been a black criminal getting shot by a white cop anywhere in the US. Think the reaction would be the same? After all, according to you she was warned, she knew she could get shot. But let’s look at the similarities to, say, Michael Brown and Ashlii Babbitt. Both were unarmed. Michael Brown was about twice as big as Ashlii. Michael actually attacked and beat a cop and then tried to do it again. All this after threatening a store clerk and stealing from the store. Darren Wilson shot Michael as he attacked for a second time. Darren Wilson had one person say he shot Brown as Brown was kneeling on the ground with his hands up saying “don’t shoot!” This witness was Brown’s buddy who just robbed the store with him. EVERY OTHER WITNESS (all black) supported Wilsons version. Yet because he shot a man that had just physically attacked him and tried to take his gun, his life was ruined. Even the DoJ was sent to investigate. His life was threatened, he was suspended pending the outcome of an investigation, even after he was acquitted of a bad shooting he was off the force, he cannot get a job as a police officer which was his chosen profession. His life is ruined.

Meanwhile we have Michael Byrd…the Capitol Police officer that shot Babbitt. He’s black where Wilson was white and she was white where Brown was black. He previously faced reprimand for leaving his loaded service gun in the Visitor Complex bathroom. Of course because he was black and a Lieutenant nothing happened to him. When he shot Babbitt, he shot into a crowd which had cops in it (directly behind Babbitt in fact) and he killed an unarmed woman. No warning, no call for her to decease, just BANG! you’re dead. He was not suspended, his investigation was cursory at best, he was not relieved of duty and his life goes on.

This is yet another question for the J6 committee. The only person actually killed on J6 was an unarmed protester and nothing happened to the cop that shot her. Racism at play? Seems like it!

@seawulf575 you really don’t understand what almost happened that day or you hoped Trump and his hoard of Nazi wannabees hung Pence and killed all the Democrats ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

The deflection is getting super fucking tiring wulfie, if you watched the video like you said you did, you had to see her(Ashlee Babbitt) going through a broken window on a door that was barricaded she was warned of the gun and kept going ,and to you she is a hero?
EVERYONE that breached the Capital fence that day traded in their protester title,for rioter some no a lot became violent rioters.
Keep comparing to BLM riots ,NOT the same.
Hey and any of those BLM rioters that became violent should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as well.

@SQUEEKY2 Sooo…no comment on the way the cops were treated differently in the two cases? Look at ANY cop shooting. This is a good explanation of the process. Cops are trained to use lethal force if they deem their life or the life of those they are supposed to protect are in imminent danger. Ashlii Babbitt was a small unarmed woman. None of the other cops deemed her an imminent threat. The cops behind her didn’t deem her an imminent threat. Byrd just shot. After a shooting, the cop is removed from the scene of the shooting (didn’t happen with Byrd) so that a flurry of investigators can take the scene to determine the truth of the shooting (didn’t happen with Byrd). The officer is removed from duty at least until he sees the psychologist and is released back to duty (didn’t happen with Byrd). If there are questions about the over use of force (as there seems to be with the response from all the other cops) then the cop is potentially brought up on charges and faces at least a suspension if not murder charges (didn’t happen with Byrd).

You keep wanting to try saying J6 was worse than every other riot we have had. Yet you ignore the parts where it is convenient for your narrative. Look at most of the BLM riots. They were because some cop shot a suspect. In every single one of those cases the cops were brought up on an investigation. Every. Single. One. Not Byrd. Their “investigation” was done in a few hours. It took that long to write up the paperwork.

You keep referring back to the videos that I and others have posted. Yet you ignore the parts you don’t like. Were there assholes among the protesters? Sure…no argument there. But the entire handling of the situation doesn’t support the narrative of “violent mob” or “insurrection”. It just doesn’t. And to claim otherwise means you, just like J6 Committee, have to ignore every fact and detail that doesn’t support what you want as an end point AND you have to avoid any questions that might open up a line to those facts and details.

I have brought up BLM riots as a perfect counterpoint since both were supposedly riots. Let’s just take the one in Kenosha Wisconsin as a comparison. The cost of the J6 action was $30M. The cost of the Kenosha action was $50M. Police on J6 resisted protesters at some points, invited them in at others. Police in Kenosha were supplemented by 2000 national guard troops and were actively resisting the protesters. Police on J6 used hand-held mace and one used a gun. Police in Kenosha used tear gas, rubber bullets, etc but no real guns. Protesters on J6 were armed mainly with signs and flags. Protesters in Kenosha were armed with rocks, clubs, some guns, and molotov cocktails. No arson on J6. Major arson in Kenosha. No beatings by J6 protesters. Many beatings by Kenosha protesters. J6 protesters that were arrested were treated as terrorists, being refused even basic human rights. Kenosha protesters were often let go without charges, had charges dropped, or were given the most minimal sentence that could be done.

These are all verifiable facts. So, given the picture of both riots, which one would you feel safer at if you were a by-stander? Which would you feel safer at if you were a protester?

@seawulf575 , You defending miss Babbitt shows you did not watch the clip where she was shot,then you go and bad mouth the cop that shot her.

Then compare Kenosha at 50million in damages
To the Capitol at 30million so there was 20 mil, less damage so that proves the Capitol was a love fest?

@SQUEEKY2 No he is saying she should be there and she was looking for Pence and Pelosi.

Oh that is why she was going through a broken window on a door that was barricaded, and even though she was warned of the gun kept going, she was simply asking for directions?

@SQUEEKY2 I compared the Babbitt shooting with the Brown shooting. Brown was bigger than the cop that shot him. Brown attacked the cop and tried to get his gun. When the cop got out of the car, Brown attacked again and got shot. He had already shown violence, he had already attacked the cop. Now we go to Babbitt. She is smaller (by far) than the cop. She did not attack the cop. She was not armed. He just shot her. On one hand, you have a black man that was physically assaulting a cop and on the other we have a small woman coming through a window. The one where the cop was first attacked resulted in the cop being suspended and his life was thoroughly ruined. The one with the small woman resulted in nothing happening to the cop at all.

Now let’s review some of the other heroes of the left and let’s look at how the cops were treated. Jacob Blake was attacking his ex wife with a knife and when the cop tried to stop him he turned on the cop with his knife. The cop shot him. That cop faced a suspension, an investigation from not only the city, but the state and the DoJ for civil rights violations. But hey, I guess when the bad guy is black and the cop is white, it’s always racist regardless of the circumstances. When the cop is black and the “bad guy” is white, anything goes. At least according to the left.

Oh you are a little conspiracy expert aint ya?
Because she was small you have a problem, she was coming through that window and being warned kept coming she had a back pack could have been a bomb for all they know.
And all you do is shout racist and compare a bunch of black guys getting shot and all justified ,shit if those guys were climbing through that window they would have been shot as well.
The deflection again is getting old.

@SQUEEKY2 Avoiding the point, ain’t ya? She was unarmed and had presented no threat to the cop or those he is protecting. There were cops behind her, there were other cops in front of her. None of them felt necessary to shoot.

By your logic, because she was warned, shooting her was okay. Compare that with any of the others I mentioned. Hell, take race out of the story. Michael Brown…repeatedly warned to cease and desist. Jacob Blake…warned repeatedly to cease and desist. By your logic, once the cop has warned them, shooting them is fair game because they might have a weapon the cops can’t see. So why all the outrage when they did get shot? Why were they taken off their jobs, why were investigations from several levels of our government done, why were their lives ruined? Hell, for that matter, by your logic, George Floyd deserved to die. He was struggling even after being told to stop. Ya never know…he might have something hidden so just kill him. Yes, he is handcuffed and isn’t really presenting an obvious threat, but hey, ya never know.

Frankly, the defenders should have set up machine gun emplacements, and just opened up on the insurrectionists and mowed them down like the Germans did on the beaches of Normandy.
Throw some frags into the crowd for good measure.
No mercy for that traitorous scum.

Yes, they should have acted like Nazi Germans. Guess you are the expert, eh?

They were patriots, true heroes, and the only legitimate defenders of white western civilisation.

@seawulf575 How did you come to the conclusion that Miss Babbitt was no threat?
It does prove to me you DID NOT watch the video of miss Babbitt getting shot.
And to say there were cops everywhere is a LIE and you know it the first 2 hours the Capitol police were ill equipped under maned .
You make it out that miss Babbitt was just a lost tourist looking for directions.
What makes me ill if it was reversed and it was democrats at this little love fest, you would be cheering that the cops shot her.
You and I are not cops ,I couldn’t tell you what I would do if this woman was coming through a broken window on a door that was barricaded, maybe they should have tackled her and handcuffed her, it was terrifying for the people at this RIOT with a mob chanting hang MIKE PENCE, is that code for we just want to give you a puppy?

@SQUEEKY2 We can vote the GOP out at all levels and send Trump to Moscow!

I hope you do @Tropical_Willie but I am afraid the mid terms will go to the Rep/cons,and your country will never be the same again.

@Tropical_Willie Too little, too late!!!