As I’ve been saying

Zuckerberg quickly apologized for his comments, but they did not occur in isolation. The previous day, The Wall Street Journal reported that roughly half the outlets present at a recent meeting between Facebook and publishing executives were conservative outlets, some of which regularly traffic in propaganda and “breathless, bad faith partisan hype,” as BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith told Neil Patel of The Daily Caller, which was represented at the meeting. What Smith and HuffPost’s Lydia Polgreen had objected to was that Facebook was treating legitimate news organizations as the liberal equivalents of conservative rags like The Daily Caller.

The war against fake news is really just “ban those bastards over there” isn’t it? I mean, seriously, HuffPo anything other than a liberal rag?

17 thoughts on “As I’ve been saying”

  1. “breathless, bad faith partisan hype” is a perfect description of BuzzFeeds business model.

  2. How dare them lot be allowed to use the telephone? Only us lot should be allowed to use the telephone/use the Royal Mail/vibrate our throat membranes.

  3. Delivering what how when where who, preferably with two independent sources, has become alien to the msm such is the rush to push narrative and demonstrate tribal loyalty.

    I’m so old that I believe I would like the facts first, in context, and be allowed to make up my own mind based on probability, human nature and scepticism, qualities which would have me pigeonholed, should I ever raise my objections to what is being peddled, as extreme right.

  4. preferably with two independent sources

    The BBC’s solution is to have two independent sources: one on the left and one on the extreme left.

  5. tl;dr:

    ” Going against the narrative is partisan hackery.”

    They’re just pissed off that they’re no longer the gatekeepers.

  6. ljh,

    “Delivering what how when where who, preferably with two independent sources, has become alien to the msm such is the rush to push narrative and demonstrate tribal loyalty.”

    The problem is that they really don’t have much business left in the facts department.

    There’s bloggers and tweeters writing stuff. Anyone can capture a video and post it on YouTube. There’s various websites supplying live stock prices, football results and restaurant reviews. Governments write press releases on their websites.

  7. @dearieme, July 22, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    That’s “liberal” in the Yankee sense of socialist, eh?

    Yes

    identitarian: don’t know, are they politically Left like so many allegedly “far-right” groups?

  8. Bloke on M4: it’s the other way round. My consumption of diverse commentaries online is a direct result of the paucity of good old fashioned facts in the msm. With the loss of credibility has come the loss of readership for especially the heritage media and with it, income.

    The beginning of the problem was caused by raising entry level to journalism to graduates rather than school leavers who could string a decent sentence. The latter endured a long underpaid servitude, while cowed by tyrannical subeditors with a Classics background, reporting dirty messy local affairs for the local rag before they could earn any stature. By the time they reached the national press, journalists had honed their craft to smelling out dodgy stuff and would routinely ask themselves, when interviewing the great and good, “Why is this lying bastard lying to me?” Such levels of cynicism, based in experience, requires a fair amount of alcohol to continue to report on the misdeeds of a fallen world.

    Graduates on the other hand believe they are professionals above digging for dirt unless motivated by the highest principles and having successfully churned out student essays, are eager to demonstrate that they have opinions! The rot became entrenched by dishing out bylines, previously hard won, to all and sundry, by the first lot of graduates, selfimportant, mostly sober and still possessed of their student ideals. Decreased revenue led also to economizing on subeditors who formerly intimidated newsgatherers into marshaling facts and a decent prose style.

  9. The article claims that a site *cannot* host conservative media without falling prey to Holocaust deniers or worse. Before Tony Berry was murdered the Telegraph was decent, honest and conservative – is there *no* comparable media site left in the world?

  10. The New Republic thinks that the right isn’t just wrong, they are evil. Anything to stop evil is acceptable.

  11. Pingback: That Problem With Facebook's Fake News Campaign | The Continental Telegraph

  12. Pingback: That Problem With Facebook’s Fake News Campaign | The Continental Telegraph

    Some people do think simple self-declaration – without say extensive hormonal treatment, or surgery – isn’t enough. Others think that to deny simple self-declaration as being enough is a terrible violation of the most basic human rights.

    “Some”. Alternatively “the vast majority”. Polite company. 🙂

  13. The war against fake news is really just “ban those bastards over there” isn’t it?

    Undermine, delegitimize, destroy.

  14. ““Some”. Alternatively “the vast majority”.”

    You have some nationally representative survey results? Or was that just an example to illustrate the concept of ‘fake news’?

  15. Not fake news – most of us have eyes and ears.

    You can argue (and hence counter to your heart’s content) over what you think “vast” is, but that’s (fairly obviously) a detail; most people understand it clearly enough.

  16. Bloke in Costa Rica

    At least half the country isn’t composed of screaming nose-ringed SJW filth or apologists for Stalinism so it stands to reason that at least half the representatives of publications in a balanced forum would be from the ones read by the Normals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *