Don’t laugh, but the same journalists who have been writing about our booming economy, our amazing progress against ISIS (make that ISIL), Hillary’s dedication to her country and the coming end of the world due to climate change are now claiming that “alt-right” news sites are making things up.
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who has never written a negative word about any Democrat or a positive word about any Republican, says “cynics” writing on sites like Facebook, Reddit, Infowars and Inquisitr “concocted ‘news’ stories out of whole cloth during the campaign in an attempt to destroy Hillary Clinton and those closest to her.”
As if Hillary didn’t do enough to destroy Hillary.
Conspiracy theorists came up with a crazy story about alleged sex trafficking out of a pizza parlor frequented by Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta and it led to an attempted shooting. Now Robinson has come up with a conspiracy theory about the conspiracy theorists he criticizes. No doubt Hillary Clinton would have been elected president, if people just reported the truth (except about her, of course).
If Robinson’s column isn’t “fake news,” what is?
Don’t Believe Everything You Read Online
Yes, there are wacky fake news sites that report things that aren’t true. The veracity of the Internet has been suspect since email was invented; how many times have Nigerian princes offered to send you millions … if you just send a check their way first? So anyone who gets their news online should consider the source before taking it too seriously.
What’s bothersome is that mainstream news media have been concocting news stories that are as fake as those on the fake news sites.
Given his sometimes crazy public comments and tweets, it’s understandable that some are concerned about having Donald Trump as our president. But there’s a clear double standard when judging Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and others of the far left. They and their causes, policies, regulations and public pronouncements are rarely criticized or even analyzed.
While there was significant fact checking during the presidential debate, what is written on a daily basis and passed off as news is either not fact checked or is presented in a slanted way.
Consider just a few examples of what passes for factual news today.
President Obama saved our economy! So-called economists, pundits, journalists, academics and assorted know-it-alls claim that the economy is doing just fine. If we only spent more money on more government programs that don’t work, the rate of economic growth would be off the charts!
As just one example, read CNBC’s, “Obama’s biggest parting gift to Trump may be the economy,” which notes that the unemployment rate has dropped to a nine-year low of 4.6%. And yet, the article says, “American voters’ widespread anxiety about the economy played a major role in the 2016 election. Trump’s broad promises to restore widely shared prosperity, with little (sic) policy details spelled out, helped him win what many saw as an upset victory.”
Why the “widespread anxiety about the economy” if President Obama is leaving the economy in such great shape? And while you can argue that the president-elect has not “spelled out” many policy details, he’s not even president yet. After eight years of President Obama, can you describe his economic policy?
Meanwhile, Gallup has just published a comprehensive study of the U.S. economy, which was requested by the U.S. Council on Competitiveness. Gallup Chairman and CEO Jim Clifton wrote in the foreword, “Conventional wisdom—as reported in many major newspapers and media—tells us the U.S. economy is ‘recovering.’ Well-meaning economists, academics and government officials use the term ‘recovery’ when discussing the economy, implying that growth is getting stronger.
“The study finds there is no recovery. Since 2007, U.S. GDP per capita growth has been 1%.
“The Great Recession may be over, but America is dangerously running on empty.”
The study says the rising costs of healthcare, housing and education are creating a drain on the economy, leaving many consumers with little to spend on anything else. In 1980, the three sectors accounted for 25% of total national spending and today, according to Gallop, they account for more than 36% of spending.
“They also account for most of the total measured inflation over this period,” the report says. “And without inflation in these sectors, real annual productivity—defined as GDP per capita growth—would have been an estimated 3.9% instead of 1.7%.”
So why have costs increased in these three areas? Largely because of government regulation, according to Gallup. Meanwhile, the study concludes that the economy has deteriorated in many ways.
“For decades,” it concludes, “the nation’s income, measured as GDP, has barely grown overall; on a per capita basis, median household income peaked in 1999; the subjective general health status of Americans has declined, even adjusting for the aging population; disability rates are higher; learning has stagnated; fewer new businesses are being launched; more workers are involuntarily stuck in part-time jobs or out of the labor force entirely; and the income ranks of grown children are no less tied to the income ranks of their parents.”
From “Total Meltdown” to “Man of the Year.” Before the election, Time magazine ran cover stories about Donald Trump’s “total meltdown,” but after he won, he was named “Man of the Year.”
Yet the article announcing his accolade describes Donald Trump as a “huckster” and “demagogue,” while an accompanying piece on Hillary Clinton calls her “an American Moses.” According to Zero Hedge, “The opening paragraph reads more like the prologue of St. John’s Gospel than an essay on a presidential runner-up, saying of Clinton: ‘she became a symbol in a fight that was about much more than symbolism.’ ”
Now that’s deep! And traditional journalists are wondering why Americans are looking to fake news sites for real news.
Fake News about Fake News. And then there’s the Washington Post story about a Russian propaganda effort to spread fake news during the presidential campaign. While Russian hacking and its impact on the election is being investigated, the Post story turns out to be fake. The following note is now posted at the top of the story:
Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.
The Washingtonian reported that the editor’s note followed “intense and rising criticism” of the article. Intercept reporters Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton claimed that the article was “rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations.”
Adrian Chen wrote in The New Yorker that verification of information about Russian propaganda included in the article was nearly impossible and concluded that “the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier.”
Last week the Naked Capitalism blog threatened to sue The Post, and demanded a retraction.
You can read more about it on Zero Hedge … one of the sites The Washington Post cited as running fake news.