Donald Trump

Fake News, Misleading News, Click-Bait and the Media's Biases

The media rarely fabricate anything, but they are blind to their biases.

|

"Fake News!" shouts our president, calling out CNN, The New York Times and others.

I love it.

Although it's not really true—not the way President Donald Trump means it. The media rarely "fake" anything. Over time, they generally get the facts correct.

But the president makes a good point: The smug lamestream media spin left but won't admit it.

At ABC News, my colleagues acted as if I was the only guy in the building with an opinion. Everyone else was "in the middle." This was nonsense. Almost all were leftists.

They constantly pushed big government. Their bias was revealed in questions they asked, the "experts" they chose to interview and their endless calls for political correctness and new regulation.

Unfortunately, Trump is now just as ridiculous, claiming that "crime is reaching record levels" when it's half what it was 25 years ago. He claimed, "We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban," and that he had "the biggest electoral college win since Reagan," and so on.

This is absurd. Facts are facts. Trump shouldn't make things up.

But I still love his "Fake!" tweets because much of what media spew is misleading.

I did it myself. On 20/20, my consumer reports covered exploding coffee pots and risks posed by pesticides used on lawns. ("Danger in the Grass!")

These weren't lies. A few personal injury lawyers did have clients injured by coffee pots. One man's skin peeled off after he played golf on a freshly sprayed course. The injuries were horrible.

But in terms of consumer protection, this "news" was irrelevant and misleading. It's a big country. Rare and horrible things happen. I wised up eventually, realizing that those threats distract people from real threats, like driving in the rain, drinking too much, smoking, etc.

But my peers continue to terrify people about trivial or nonexistent threats from power lines, hair dye, saccharin, NutraSweet, Teflon pans, electric blankets, computer terminals, cellphones, "killer" bees and more. They win awards for it.

In 1999, the media said planes would crash because computers couldn't handle the switch to the year 2000. Now they claim global warming will drown us if we don't honor meaningless climate treaties. They imply that polar bears are vanishing, although scientists studying 13 polar bear populations found "12 stable/increasing and one declining."

Friday, Trump varied his attack, calling The New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN "the enemy of the American people."

Enemy?

Maybe Trump said that because he's a narcissist who thinks he is "the American people" and the media run antagonistic headlines like:

  • "Doomsday Clock Ticks 30 Seconds Closer to Global Annihilation Thanks to Trump, Scientists Say"—NBCNews.com
  • "…Trump will Destroy the Environment…"—The Intercept
  • "Trump Will Destroy Public Education If We Let Him"—Huffington Post op-ed
  • "Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?"—New York Times
  • "How Trump's Speech to the CIA Endangered America"—The Atlantic

These claims are a mix of opinion and click-bait. All are possible. Trump could be the infantile, petulant authoritarian some of us fear. Terrible things may happen. But they haven't yet, and much of what's written deserves the label "fake news."

The press is depressingly shallow. They blow up little things, speculate about conspiracies and constantly obsess about "who's winning?" Offensive remarks are taken out of context and amplified. Days later, it's forgotten and the media move on to the next sensational accusation. They rarely explain the policies at stake, what those policies cost, past success or failure or the laws of economics.

As a result, we miss the real news: the big, important changes that happen slowly. Remember the coverage of the beginning of the women's movement, the invention of the computer chip, Google, Facebook, etc.? No? That's because there wasn't any. But the growth of Facebook alone changed lives more than the election of any politician.

Wages rise—inflation-adjusted household income rose $7,000 over the last 30 years. But the media claim that the middle class and the poor get poorer.

We live longer than ever. Crime is down. But Americans are fearful and pessimistic because what they read and see on TV makes them believe life's getting worse. When the media do that, they are indeed enemies of the people.

COPYRIGHT 2017 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

Advertisement

NEXT: Right to try, right to buy, right to test

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A good and fair article. Stossel’s one of the few here that still gets it and Reason would do well to listen to him and lay off the histrionics and ridiculous spin.

    1. ^^This. Reason has its own fake news streak.

      But is this the natural evolution of media in a capitalist society? A race to the bottom, a pandering to the lowest instincts of the public? We’ve always had the scandal sheets and pulp papers, but it seems that the ‘better’ papers have gone a long way down that rathole recently. Is there a way to regain some balance, some respectable news reporting?

      1. It’s not going to improve because people seek out news that confirms their preconceptions and they hide from information that challenges those beliefs. Even if people wanted the truth and nothing but the truth a lot of them are not intellectually capable of separating fact from fiction. All one need to do is examine the endurance of religious superstition to understand the hopelessness of expecting anything to change. Any honest and rational person has to admit that these ancient stories are fabrications and yet these lies have endured for centuries. It’s hopeless man. I personally think the human race is doomed to destroy itself.

        1. I disagree.

          News media in the US has moved to a business model where viewer / readership is irrelevant as their income stream is not reliant on such. Instead, they are increasing reliant on donors seeking an outlet for their own personal biases. For example, the recent shift at Reason, was driven by a large donation, not an attempt to,increase traffic to the cite (although that will be the specious justification for the shift).

          1. And BTW, does anyone still believe that operation mockingbird ended decades ago? Seeing the media move in lockstep to defend ‘the honor’ of the CIA last month reeks to hell of wide spread corruption.

            1. I seem to recall an article suggesting that the CIA had given a lot of money to Jeff Bezos, which would help explain why WaPo is so pro-deep-state (though simple partisanship accounts for a lot of it, I’m sure).

          2. a business model where viewer / readership is irrelevant as their income stream is not reliant on such. Instead, they are increasing reliant on donors seeking an outlet for their own personal biases

            He who has the gold makes the rules. And now it’s a variety of billionaires who can subsidize their own propaganda machines.

            I agree, in part. Some news outlets follow that model, and their decline is evident. But there are many who have no sugar daddy and must compete for eyeballs and clicks. Hence the race to the intellectual bottom appealing to our basest instincts.

          3. “News media in the US has moved to a business model where viewer / readership is irrelevant as their income stream is not reliant on such.”

            No, that’s not the case except for a few outliers. Most U.S. news outlets – broadcast and cable networks, major papers, websites – are for-profit businesses that are trying to make money from advertising (and subscriptions in some cases). Reason is one of the small number of outliers in being a non-profit that raises money from donors.

            1. That’s what I like about WFMU: a non-profit that doesn’t depend on large donors, run by a benevolent dictator who pisses people off as all successful leaders of non-profits do. It’s inherent in the job, & the love comes thru all the pissing-off.

              1. non-profit does not mean non-income. Money pays the salaries, keeps the lights on, etc. Maybe this dictator you like is pissing off “the right people” so the donations keep coming, but few words are as misleading as non-profit.

          4. Who donated what for what?

        2. Even if people wanted the truth and nothing but the truth a lot of them are not intellectually capable of separating fact from fiction

          Rather elitist from a bleeting sheep.

        3. “…people seek out news that confirms their preconceptions and they hide from information that challenges those beliefs.”

          Or people reject news sources that immediately set off their bullshit detectors because of obvious bias, and they look elsewhere for better depth into that which they know. That they end up at sources that share their personal bias is a side effect, but the main result is they get a better product for themselves.

      2. ^^This. Reason has its own fake news streak.

        Get anywhere near their holy of holies, Open Borders, and you’ll find a deluge of their propaganda.

        Shikha, when the walls fell!

  2. The Borderlands series is one of the best in the lot of action gaming. Now the third installment of the series is about to release with the addition of two new varieties of items including the laser gun and I am waiting for this game to release to check it out myself. Hope it lives up to our expectations.You can check out Borderlands 3

    1. Seems legit.

  3. Yeah well Fox News perfected the dissemination of fake news and the right wing sympathizes eat that shit up more than anyone around. Trump ran a campaign underpinned by fake news and was elected because he embraced the worst fake news lies I’ve ever seen so he’s the last motherfucker on this planet who should be whining about biased news.

      1. See Breitbart and Infowars.

        1. Those are breitbart and infowars. Not fox

          1. I didn’t know if you were asking for examples of Trump lies or Fox News lies.

          2. That “Fair and Balanced” mantra is a one of their great enduring lies. It’s never been balanced or fair. It doesn’t even try to be balanced. You’d have to be insane to believe that motto or dishonest as fuck to push it the way they push.

            1. Polling of the general public shows that they believe Fox News is more balanced than other news outlets.

              That would seem to contradict your histrionics.

              1. The fact that many people are misled by propaganda doesn’t transform propaganda into fact.

                1. Doesnt mean it is propaganda cause you say so johnny

                2. Or you’re feeding your 2nd row, Jonny Scrum-half. Actually you may be right; I just wanted an excuse to use a great metaphor to go w your handle.

            2. It’s balanced against the rest of the news media, opposite pans of the scale. Which seems fair to me.

              1. “It’s balanced against the rest of the news media, opposite pans of the scale. Which seems fair to me.”

                Exactly. I’ve always taken the motto “fair and balanced” as a deliberate attempt to balance the scales from the Left wing tilt of every other major TV news source.

                1. Then their claim of being fair and balance is a lie. They should openly say that they distort news in the other direction. Why can’t we have one single network that simply tells the truth, explaining both (mainstream) sides? Or better yet; at least 3 sides of opinion?

            3. Can you provide and example of this unbalanced-ness?

    1. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that Fox News is any worse than CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or NBC when it comes to blatantly partisan misleading half-truths.

      1. Agree. I do see fox news as blatantly partisan but they are the new kid on the block. The NY Times and their ilk have been twisting lying and misrepresenting for decades.

        1. The NYT/WaPo/etc have gotten much worse in recent times. I think the financial pressure brought about by the internet and FOX news have driven this way.

          1. Cnn has become really bad as well

            1. CNN gave up any pretense of being a legitimate news organization in the last election cycle. Much the same way NBC News went completely in the tank for Obama in 2008. I guess the concept of professional dignity and ethics has completely eroded.

          2. Nah, they were always this bad, it’s just that before Fox there was no widespread counterpoint, and more importantly, the American left has gone collectively insane in the last decade, so the media pandering to them is easier to spot.

            1. “Nah, they were this bad, it’s just that before Fox there was no widespread counterpoint, ”

              Agreed. Dan Rather was the most important anchor on CBS starting in 1981 for the next 15 years and one of the largest till 2004. He was obviously very biased and wasn’t canned until he was caught generating fake news based upon obviously faked documents. You could routinely tune in and watch his nightly news cast and he was clearly a Democrat and was clearly hostile to Republicans.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather

      2. In all fairness, at least Fox News has allowed programs that do not always follow their conservative agenda. A number of “Libertarians” have had shows on FOX; Stossel, Judge Nap, Kennedy. I cannot name another mainstream news outlet that allows differing opinion, no matter how negligible the difference.

        1. their hard news programs are hardly examples of right wing propaganda either. Given that they are hosted by the likes of Chris Wallace, and Shepard Smith. Neither of whom I would come close to calling conservative.

      3. I saw on CNN yesterday an analyst commenting on the anti-Trump protests, pointing out that what we’re seeing now is no different that what we saw when Obama was elected and so many people opposed him. My first instinct was to throw something at the TV because the anchor just sat there nodding instead of asking her what the hell she was talking about with these anti-Obama protests.

        But then I stopped for a second and wondered if she was actually lying. I don’t recall any wide-spread anti-Obama protests being reported on the news – but does that mean they didn’t happen or just that the media didn’t cover them because they wouldn’t tolerate reports of any dissent from their Chocolate Jesus’ holy mission?

        1. Instead of throwing something at your TV, try Googling “Tea Party Protests.”

          1. TEA party protests were quite different in tone and topic, if not intensity. The TEA party (Taxed Enough Already) was issue-focused and peaceful, well-behaved. The current mass hysteria is not issue focused but personality focused. And they are disrespectful, uncivilized, and sometimes violent. They are essentially ‘ad hominem’ riots. But that’s the way leftists roll.

            1. Yea false equivalence by johnny

              Tea party protests had a distinct message, smaller, less numerous and not really violent that i recall like burning limos are throwing rocks thru windos

              Anti trump on the other hand

          2. Oh, you mean those peaceful protests where the protesters cleaned up after themselves and nothing violent occurred? You mean those protests?

            1. “Instead of throwing something at your TV, try Googling “Tea Party Protests.””

              You make a great point, but it’s probably 180 degrees from your intended direction.

          3. Because there were so many riots associated with the tea party.

            1. The comment to which I responded said that he didn’t recall any widespread anti-Obama protests being reported. In fact, there were numerous such protests, and they were widely reported.

              The fact that the Tea Party protests weren’t identical in every way with the current anti-Trump protests doesn’t mean that there weren’t protests against Obama back in 2009. And the further fact that a small number of assholes use the occasion to engage in violent acts doesn’t mean that the vast majority of protesters have been perfectly peaceful.

              1. “And the further fact that a small number of assholes use the occasion to engage in violent acts doesn’t mean that the vast majority of protesters have been perfectly peaceful.”

                Jesus, what color is the sky in your world…?

              2. Jonny, a large minority of anti-Trump protesters are violent, or calling for violence (Madonna). There is no equivalence. Especially since the TEA party protests were not anti Obama. They were based on opposition to very specific policies that Obama, among others supported. The anti-Trump people are against Trump, period. He could come out out tomorrow with an executive order enacting free ice cream day for orphans and they would still lose their shit and riot.

      4. This.

        CNN, in fact, is probably the worst of them all.

      5. Try reading The Daily Howler by Bob Somerby. He exhaustively documents media half-truths, falsehoods and other failures, but it might surprise you to learn that much of the time those media mis-statements operate to the benefit of conservatives, not liberals.

        1. That would surprise me. Mainly because it is completely fucking untrue and a fantasy of the left. But keep on keepin’ on, dipshit….

          1. Thanks for the response. Instead of just insulting me, maybe you should at least look at the site.

            1. No, I generally just insult the trolls. And you have done nothing but troll. And you’re trolling isn’t even good….really just average at best. I’m sorry you can’t hang out at Gawker anymore, but take that shit up with the Hulkster….

            2. You are making unsubstantiated claims

              1. What “unsubstantiated claim” did I make?

      6. Fox is not as bad as the MSM, just as Christians are nowhere near as theocratic as Progressives.

    2. Replace ‘Memory’ with ‘Ass’

    3. Fox News perfected the dissemination of fake news

      William Randolph Hearst disagrees.

      You are an idiot with no historical perspective and zero insight.

      1. This can be stated about 99% of today’s commentariat.

        1. “You are an idiot with no historical perspective and zero insight. … This can be stated about 99% of today’s commentariat.”

          Hey, I strive hard to have at least 5% insight, and some days I break the big 1 – 0 (10%).

      2. Fox News perfected the televised dissemination of fake news but I’m not blind and I can see the leftwing bias in other news outlets it’s just that Fox News is on another level in my opinion.

        1. Can you cite some examples? More than 1 would be good

          Perhaps that sweden thing may be good

          1. There you go big boy you found one on your own.

            1. Yea present others please. Cite your work

        2. Walter Cronkite convinced the American Public that the Vietcong ‘won’ the TET offensive in 1968. Which was 180? from the truth. It was a military disaster for the Vietcong, not the South.

        3. No they’re not.

          MSNBC and CNN are worse.

      3. +1 Spanish American War.

  4. Straightforward unbiased news is boring.
    The News Business is a business.
    Hyperbole sells.

    Compare the crowds attending High School wrestling vs. WWF.

  5. But my peers continue to terrify people about trivial or nonexistent threats from power lines, hair dye, saccharin, NutraSweet….

    Ever read one of his stories, Mr. Stossel?

  6. White House
    The media rarely fabricate anything

    Hhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahahhhahahhaha

  7. Wanna see ‘fake news’?

    The media rarely “fake” anything

    That right there, that’s the fakiest of fake news.

    Shame on you, Stossel.

  8. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law wiz like actually making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twenty months and at present cleared the dept on there apartment and bout a great new Citroen CV . look here……
    ================= http://www.4dayjobs.com

  9. These claims are a mix of opinion and click-bait.

    Ultimately, it’s all opinion and click-bait. The media doesn’t exist to inform the public, it exists to sell eyeballs to advertisers. The first bias filter is what constitutes “news” – if it can’t be easily explained in an interesting way, it ain’t news. If China and Russia enter into talks on a strategic alliance and Kim Kardashian is found drunk and naked wandering down Hollywood Boulevard at high noon by a TV news crew, which story do you suppose you’re going to see 800 times on the TV news?

  10. Great article. And I love his straightforward pretension-free style.

  11. at Drudge is a timely article.

    Apparently Project Veritas has a long-time mole at CNN who has hundreds of hours of behind the scenes “stuff”. Interesting to see what these folks say in private.

    1. Oh, wait til the trolls here hear you mention Project Veritas. Now, you’re in for it. All selective editing – James Okeefe is worse than Goebbels, blah blah blah….
      They seem to believe that when Dem operatives and pols are caught BLATANTLY admitting to fraud, it must be editing….

    2. “Interesting to see what these folks say in private.”

      Hasn’t the ubiquitous presence of reporters on Twitter already sort of done that for us? To be clear, I’m not talking about opinion writers or commentators, where ideological and partisan viewpoints are accepted as par for the course. I’m talking about the degree of ideological leanings and partisanship that come through even from journalists who are supposed to be reporting “straight news” with an objective perspective.

  12. Sorry John but fake news does exist.
    Dan Rather’s fake documents about Bush military experience
    Brian Williams helicopter being shot at
    Editing 911 calls to change the story into a racist one
    Putting explosives in old chevy pickups to prove another false story
    Charlie Rose guest claiming that Trump is not going to security meetings even after security community said he was, BTW the intelligence community complained that Obama was no longer going to those same meetings and only taking an abridged pdf on his ipad and they didn’t know if he was reading them. But that was okay because Obama is smarter than everyone

    If I had time I’m sure I can think of a lot more

    1. Brian Williams wanted the world to think he as the Forrest Gump of the journalism world….

  13. Mr. Stossel,

    I do not think anyone should be cheering for the use of the term “fake news”.

    As an adjective, “fake” implies that something is meant to look real or genuine but is not. For instance, one can use a lot of different adjectives for a car – big car, cheap car – and the object retains the basic identity of being a car. However, a fake car indicates that it is not really a car. As you stated “the media rarely “fake” anything. Over time, they generally get the facts correct.”

    You point out that “Facts are facts. Trump shouldn’t make things up.” So some of Trumps claims are actually false, but “because much of what media spew is misleading” they are the same thing – fake news? So by that logic I can say John Stossel is fake news, since even though “these weren’t lies” you admit that stories you have covered in the past were “irrelevant and misleading”.

    Finally, you note a few of the misleading click-bait headlines from the left leaning media, but you failed to mention any examples from Brietbart or Fox News. Tucker Carlson allegedly had an “actor” on the other night “pretend” to be an organizer for the recent “Not My President’s Day” protests. If true, than that really is FAKE news. Why did you not mention that the bias skews both ways?

    As a journalist you should know and appreciate that words matter, and the use of the wrong terms can mislead and distort. And frankly, I expect better from you.

    1. For tucker carlson you are peddling an alleged (not verified) notion that it was an actor yet expect your post to be taken seriously when you say that was fake?

    2. Did he say it doesnt skew both ways?

    3. “Tucker Carlson allegedly had an “actor” on the other night “pretend” to be an organizer for the recent “Not My President’s Day” protests. If true, than that really is FAKE news.”

      LOL, so you post a speculative comment as evidence of Fake News. Wow, I’m not sure that you pegged the irony meter, but you certainly made a good effort towards it.

    4. american socailist, JWatts,

      1) I concede that the Tucker Carlson example was ill advised, but as you quoted and as I said, “allegedly”, and “if true”, I never stated it is true.

      2) I was calling out Mr. Stossel for equating a story about exploding coffee pots as being the same thing as Pizza Gate, which only serves to dampen critical thinking.

      3) No, Mr. Stossel, did not say that the bias did not skew both ways, but he left the impression that it only happens to the left. I was attempting to call him out on not also mentioning Breitbart or Fox news. As he has a program on Fox, not mentioning them feels intellectually dishonest.

      4) My original draft was in excess of 1800 characters, so I had to trim more than 15% – some of these points got watered-down in the parsing.

    5. You seem to be straining to come up with any criticisms you can. You take attacks on the media personally for some reason? The story was about Trump attacking the media. The “other side” was well represented by his criticisms of Trump, in calling him narcissist and pointing out examples of how Trump made things up.

      And Stossel was quite clear at the beginning that the term “fake news” was incorrect and not completely fair, but that there was partial truth in it because of bias, with stories being “misleading”. In fact it was his entire fucking thesis. Look at the subtitle.

  14. This is extremely timely:

    “MSNBC’s Brzezinski: Trump Thinks He Can “Control Exactly What People Think,” But That’s “Our Job“”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..r_job.html

    1. Oh, the Freudian slip of the ELITES… good job, Mika. Good job….

    2. If I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt, which I do NOT, I could say: “what a poor choice of words, what she really meant was…” blah blah blah.

      In her case though, I think she did mean what she said.

  15. OBAMA claimed “I’m pleased that my administration had no major scandals.” (paraphrased). And NOBODY called him on that, nor any of dozens of other blatantly fictitious statements. From Fast to IRS not processing Tea Party applications, and on to the Benghazi web of lies, VA false reporting, distorting the Iran deal, and the Hillary cover-ups… just cannot list all of them. So, Trump wants to make up his own facts? Nothing new!

  16. Is it just me, or does everyone else read Stossel’s articles with Stossel’s voice in your head? He may be the only journalist that I do this with.

  17. A lie of omission is still a lie. The media is full of those, also relevant background on sources, failure to confirm facts and purposefully not asking questions they don’t want troublesome answers to. I hold Reason to a higher standard because you aren’t supposed to be hacks, rather thinkers. Reason prepares too much to do ‘off the cuff’ idiocies. Without a deadline chewing at you, you are able to get it right.

    Reason should not jump into the car with the MSM and start printing bald faced lies, the MLK bust being removed for example. There are websites that log the biases and false news reports. One pointed out the MSM and cable networks have in excess of 1 apology for mistakes and the like for DJT’s first 30 days. CNN has become synonymous for Fake News. NBC is still being sued by Zimmerman for the 911 call. Every news story on Stand Your Ground implies he used that defense, and even Reason doesn’t correct the record. These are all things Reason ran stories about if I remember correctly, but Ron above did a good job.

    Please do not become just another anti-TrumpFirst site. We need anchors in the storm we can count on.

  18. Wasn’t going to read, but it’s the Stoss, so I’m in.

  19. With the FBI and CIA having infiltrated many major news organizations, how can the media “check their biases”?

  20. I see them making stuff up on the clickbait sites
    and I’m like, “Fake News!”
    I guess the facts in evidence weren’t enough
    so I’m like “Fake News, and Fake Twitter too.”
    If they had ethics, I’d still be with it
    Now ain’t that some shit? (Ain’t that some shit!)
    And though there’s spam in my feed, I still just feel no need
    for the “Fake News”, oh oh oh oh…

  21. A type of fake nx that bothers me a lot is non-news presented as news. In other words, something unremarkable or old hat is presented as if it deserved new att’n.

  22. “The press is depressingly shallow. They blow up little things, speculate about conspiracies and constantly obsess about “who’s winning?” Offensive remarks are taken out of context and amplified. Days later, it’s forgotten and the media move on to the next sensational accusation. They rarely explain the policies at stake, what those policies cost, past success or failure or the laws of economics.”

    Same could be said about the politicians. I agree the press are more to blame, but it’s like they (politicians and press) are in pissing contest to see who can out do the other.

  23. The New York Times, September 7, 2002 by Judith Miller – Saddam has a nuculur bomb up his ass and we must invade ASAP!!

  24. Friday, Trump varied his attack, calling The New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN “the enemy of the American people.”

    Enemy?

    Of course they’re the enemy.
    Thrilled that we have a President that realizes it, and fights back.

  25. It is the way the media intentionally takes Trump’s statements out of context or selectively edits them into something they never were. The media seems to think the 60 million of us who voted for Trump are just stupid and condescend their self righteous opinions upon us as if we were particularly slow children. It makes me want to slap the smirk off of the reporters face. Let us consider the crime quote. Yes crime has decreased every year for 25 years in a row up until 2015. This was in spite of tens of millions of new firearms purchased by the public. Another detail the media omits. Anyway the jump in the crime rate from 2014 to 2015, much of which can be traced to Black Lives Matter and Ferguson protesters was the largest increase since the early 70’s. Then there is the affirmative claim the media doesn’t make up fake stories. How about NBC and their edit of George Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him look racist? It was aired five times before another media outlet called them on it. At that point they gave a lame excuse and ignored their intentional smear of a mans reputation. The MSM has an agenda that is decidedly left wing. It is far more important to push that agenda than report facts. Did anyone ask Obama tough questions consistently while he was president? Yes one group did. But it was the watchdog group Judicial Watch rather than any journalists.

  26. I do love me some Stossel. I’m completely heterosexual, but sometimes I feel like I could just kiss that man and his outrageous mustache. He’s one of those people that reminds me that there are some sane folks out there in the world. He’s a libertarian, hence has legit reasons to be not so stoked about some aspects of Trump, but he still has the sense to look at THE BIG PICTURE and react appropriately.

    Reason has generally started going off about Trump calling stuff “fake news” as if he’s insane, and as if they don’t understand what he means by “fake news.” I agree that it’s a bad phrase to describe what’s going on, but Stossel stated it correctly and with its intended meaning. If only the other Reason writers would jump off the intentional misinterpretation train and start using their heads again… Maybe even start trying to be more objective again. Trump is an off the cuff sort of guy, so intentionally misinterpreting what he says when there is a pretty clear intended meaning is disingenuous.

  27. So, with entire “alleged” fact checking departments, they still manage to get it wrong,……..a lot.

  28. In an article about truth I suggest you stick to evidence-based claims.

    The IUCN, using this stuff called data, has determined that only one polar bear population is increasing; there are insufficient data for many of the others. I don’t know where you got your data, as there is no link, and even the The Daily Caller article does not make such a claim. Granted – the fact that some polar bear populations are declining does not mean global climate issues are going to kill us all – but you should really try to find data-based sources for your assertions.

    I’m a lefty and appreciate Reason for its generally rationalist perspective, but to sow fake news into your article about fake news is poor form.

  29. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to websit========= http://www.net.pro70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.