Talk:Fake News - Revision history

RobSmith: /* Instructive */

2018-08-06T19:27:51Z

Instructive

RobSmith: /* Instructive */

2018-08-06T19:27:04Z

Instructive

RobSmith: /* Instructive */

2018-08-06T19:26:03Z

Instructive

RobSmith: /* Instructive */

2018-08-06T19:25:13Z

Instructive

RobSmith: /* Instructive */

2018-08-06T19:24:27Z

Instructive

RobSmith: /* Instructive */

2018-08-06T19:23:10Z

Instructive

RobSmith: /* Instructive */

2018-08-06T19:21:53Z

Instructive

RobSmith: /* Instructive */

2018-08-06T19:21:06Z

Instructive

RobSmith: /* Instructive */

2018-08-06T19:20:08Z

Instructive

RobSmith: /* Instructive */

2018-08-06T19:17:54Z

Instructive

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, August 6, 2018
Line 96:		Line 96:
	On the surface it looks like an unholy or unhealthy relationship between public officials who leak and journalists, but in reality they need each other and are dependent on each other.		On the surface it looks like an unholy or unhealthy relationship between public officials who leak and journalists, but in reality they need each other and are dependent on each other.

−	No article on fake news should ignore a discussion on leaks, else it risks being labled fake news itself. That's why we need a separate stand alone article on leaks, cause the two compliment each other ~~anf~~ give a much fuller understanding how to identify fake news. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:14, 6 August 2018 (EDT)	+	No article on fake news should ignore a discussion on leaks, else it risks being labled fake news itself. That's why we need a separate stand alone article on leaks, cause the two compliment each other and give a much fuller understanding how to identify fake news. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:14, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, August 6, 2018
Line 96:		Line 96:
	On the surface it looks like an unholy or unhealthy relationship between public officials who leak and journalists, but in reality they need each other and are dependent on each other.		On the surface it looks like an unholy or unhealthy relationship between public officials who leak and journalists, but in reality they need each other and are dependent on each other.

−	No article on fake news should ignore a discussion on leaks, else it risks being labled fake news itself. That's why we need a separate stand alone article on leaks, cause the two compliment each other a give a much fuller understanding how to identify fake news. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:14, 6 August 2018 (EDT)	+	No article on fake news should ignore a discussion on leaks, else it risks being labled fake news itself. That's why we need a separate stand alone article on leaks, cause the two compliment each other anf give a much fuller understanding how to identify fake news. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:14, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:26, August 6, 2018
Line 96:		Line 96:
	On the surface it looks like an unholy or unhealthy relationship between public officials who leak and journalists, but in reality they need each other and are dependent on each other.		On the surface it looks like an unholy or unhealthy relationship between public officials who leak and journalists, but in reality they need each other and are dependent on each other.

−	No article on fake news should ignore a discussion on leaks, else it risks ~~bring~~ labled fake news itself. That's why we need a separate stand alone article on leaks, cause the two compliment each other a give a much fuller understanding how to identify fake news. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:14, 6 August 2018 (EDT)	+	No article on fake news should ignore a discussion on leaks, else it risks being labled fake news itself. That's why we need a separate stand alone article on leaks, cause the two compliment each other a give a much fuller understanding how to identify fake news. [[User:RobSmith\|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith\|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:14, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 Leaking is a game played in Washington that the public doesn't really understand. While a journalists' job is to secure leaks and a flow of information to meet publishing or broadcast deadlines, his source risks their job and prison time to do it, in theory. But here we see powerful people, agency and department heads (even presidents) quoted anonymously in an effort to control the narrative and shape public opinion.
-On the surface it looks like an unholy or unhealthy relationship between public officials who leak and journalists, but in reality they need each other and see dependent on each other.
+On the surface it looks like an unholy or unhealthy relationship between public officials who leak and journalists, but in reality they need each other and are dependent on each other.
 No article on fake news should ignore a discussion on leaks, else it risks bring labled fake news itself. That's why we need a separate stand alone article on leaks, cause the two compliment each other a give a much fuller understanding how to identify fake news. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:14, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 "Leaking" actually serves a vital purpose, yet can also be damaging. We really need a good article on [[Leak]]s, present both sides throughout its history. How it serves a vital purpose in informing the public and Congress on what the Executive Branch is doing, while it can also be abused, risky to national security, or unnecessarily damaging to public perceptions simply out of partisanship.
-Leaking is a game played in Washington that the public doesn't really understand. While a journalists' job is to secure leaks and a flow of information to meet publishing or broadcast deadlines, his source risks their job and prison time to do it, in theory. But here we see powerful people, agency and department heads (even presidents) quoted anonymously in effort to control the narrative and shape public opinion.
+Leaking is a game played in Washington that the public doesn't really understand. While a journalists' job is to secure leaks and a flow of information to meet publishing or broadcast deadlines, his source risks their job and prison time to do it, in theory. But here we see powerful people, agency and department heads (even presidents) quoted anonymously in an effort to control the narrative and shape public opinion.
 On the surface it looks like an unholy or unhealthy relationship between public officials who leak and journalists, but in reality they need each other and see dependent on each other.
 No article on fake news should ignore a discussion on leaks, else it risks bring labled fake news itself. That's why we need a separate stand alone article on leaks, cause the two compliment each other a give a much fuller understanding how to identify fake news. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:14, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 So let's call it what is, a lack of transparency and incomplete information. Few news items are complete in themselves.
-"Leaking" actually serves a vital purpose, yet can also be damaging. We really need a good article on [[Leak]]s, present both sides throughout its history. How it serves a vital purpose in informing the public and Congress on what the Executive Branch is doing, while also risky to national security or unnecessarily damaging to public perceptions simply out of partisanship.
+"Leaking" actually serves a vital purpose, yet can also be damaging. We really need a good article on [[Leak]]s, present both sides throughout its history. How it serves a vital purpose in informing the public and Congress on what the Executive Branch is doing, while it can also be abused, risky to national security, or unnecessarily damaging to public perceptions simply out of partisanship.
 Leaking is a game played in Washington that public doesn't really understand. While a journalists job is to secure leaks and a flow of information to meet publishing deadlines, his source risks their job and prison time to do it, in theory. But here we see powerful people, agency and department heads (even presidents) quoted anonymously in effort to control the narrative and shape public opinion.

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 Numerous examples abound in recent years of selective leaks to generate false narratives, influence attitudes and perceptions, and gain public aquiescence or consent for objectives, that if all the facts were known, people would never consent to. Hillary's email server for example - if all the facts were dumped in public in 2013-2014 - she never would have been nominated in 2016. Hillary, the DOJ and FBI knew in 2013 that all the facts would be known at some point, so through selective leaking they get watered down. Same was true in the Benghazi investigation, or the "moderate rebel" narrative, etc.
-So let's call it what is, a lack of transparency and incomplete information. Few news items are complete in themselved.
+So let's call it what is, a lack of transparency and incomplete information. Few news items are complete in themselves.
 "Leaking" actually serves a vital purpose, yet can also be damaging. We really need a good article on [[Leak]]s, present both sides throughout its history. How it serves a vital purpose in informing the public and Congress on what the Executive Branch is doing, while also risky to national security or unnecessarily damaging to public perceptions simply out of partisanship.