Talk:Real News Update

Trump news channel

I wondered when this would appear. It's made it onto BBC News as well as Politico, although the scenario seems to be mostly speculation at present. This is Paul (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Page move

2017NewYearNewMe, what is the basis for moving this article from Trump TV to Real News Update? Where are these videos called "Real News Update?" And please review our article naming policy, which says that article titles should follow common usage in independent reliable sources. In this case I believe that means we should title the article Trump TV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"Trump TV" has been used as more of a speculative name on what Trump may do if he were to create his own new program. "Real News Update" is the name used on the shows title card as shown in the article. 2017NewYearNewMe (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What do the independent reliable sources use? Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't base our decision on them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed portion

"Mainstream media outlets state that most of what Trump TV reports is untrue and has been labeled as propaganda."

"BuzzFeed noted that the stories that Lara Trump claimed were unreported, such as the plans of Foxconn to build a factory in Wisconsin and the donation of President's Trump's salary to the Department for Education, had in fact previously been reported by broadcasters and publications sometimes described as "mainstream media". Snopes and CNN contacted the White House for a comment on the videos yet received no reply."

*Reasoning*

The independent link is just a video of laura and the CNN is disingenuous, but it doesn't call her show propaganda. The Buzzfeed article is just as disingenuous as the CNN article, but it does not call the show propaganda either.

Furthermore, Laura never claims that MSM ignored or failed to report on anything. She just says "in case you missed it" as a result of too much fake news or fake news overload. Her point of view is that the MSM is letting overwhelmingly negative, non-newsworthy stories take precedent over more newsworthy ones.

Coverage of Trump has been disproportionately negative, compared to other presidents, that has been demonstrated in this harvard study https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ Summarized very well in this tribune article http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html

Blob Blobbed (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

References

This content was very poorly written and you were right to object to it in my view. That said, the cited sources are reliable and if content is written that reflects them, then it should remain. The Independent link was more than a video; it also included a Washington Post article. The Buzzfeed and CNN sources are reliable. Regarding your comment that coverage of Trump has been disproportionately negative, it isn't our job to compensate for that. The principle behind our core policies is that we reflect what the reliable sources say, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

watch the video provided in those stories. She never says 5he story was ignored. It is patently false. Cnn and buzzfeed cant refute a.claim.she never made

Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I only added those citations as an example of what she is talking about btw. either way, she never said anyone failed to report on anything in that video, it doesnt matter if you cite a CNN article that says she said that when she never said it. Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The CNN and Buzzfeed sources are explicit in the basis for their stories. Lara Trump said, "I bet you haven't heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week..." and then followed with, "Watch here for REAL news!" It is quite reasonable to interpret those words, as CNN and Buzzfeed did, as saying that the stories she followed with were unreported or underreported by the news media. (Feel free to keep discussing, but please don't remove the content again without consensus.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:You're misquoting. "Watch here for real news!" is the header the video was tagged with when it was posted.

Laura's full remark is ( https://youtu. be/dXZfY0JzGkw):

"Hey everybody, lara Trump here, I bet you haven't heard about all the accomplishments the president has had this week because there's so much fake news out there! We wanted to give you a glimpse into his week"

Her tone when saying "so much fake news out there," is patronising and facetious, which is the tone "fake news" has been co-opted under. it is a facetious slight, not a literal accusation.

Trump has made countless remarks (and tweets) referencing fake news and the two narratives he avoids are the two most subject to plausible deniability. He never (or at least very rarely has) said they lied, and he never says they failed to report on something. CNN and most other mainstream outlets for that matter, publish articles deliberately miscategorized and/or buried in the abyss of the front page, or even off the front page, they run 3 minute segments on whatever may be adverse to ther agenda in arbitrary time slots.

The most common theme in Trump's tweets using the term "fake news" is the demonstrably disproportionate amount of negative coverage of him and his administration.

With all of its phony unnamed sources & highly slanted & even fraudulent reporting, #Fake News is DISTORTING DEMOCRACY in our country!

Wow, more than 90% of Fake News Media coverage of me is negative, with numerous forced retractions of untrue stories. Hence my use of Social Media, the only way to get the truth out. Much of Mainstream ...

I win an election easily, a great "movement" is verified, and crooked opponents try to belittle our victory with FAKE NEWS. A sorry state! 4:44 AM - 11 Jan 2017. 28,076 Retweets;

The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister! 5:59 PM - 18 Jul 2017. 26,966 Retweets; 106,503

FAKE NEWS media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country. The failing @nytimes has become a joke. Likewise @CNN. Sad! 7:09 PM - 24 Feb 2017. 25,774 Retweets; 105,939 Likes;

The Fake News Is going all out in order to demean and denigrate! Such hatred! 5:45 AM - 12 Oct 2017. 16,833 Retweets; 79,960

· The Fake News Awards, those going to the most corrupt & biased of the Mainstream Media, will be presented to the losers on Wednesday , January 17th, rather than this coming Monday.

While on FAKE NEWS @CNN, Bernie Sanders was cut off for using the term fake news to describe the network. They said technical difficulties! 4:14 AM - 12 Feb 2017.

(And yes that did happen to Bernie https://youtu. be/tcTlM-EHXt4)

The term "Fake news" employs plausible deniability as a catch-all to address plausible deniability. In Trump's case, like I said before, it is primarily utilized to address the histotically disproportionate amount of negative coverage him and his administration have been receiving.This is why every news station was tripping over itself at the beginning of 2017 to re-establish the colloquial meaning of the term as it became more popular.

this politifact article (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/ oct/18/deciding-whats-fake-medias-definition-fake-news-vs/) assumes to reveal that Donald Trump is out of touch with reality by breaking down which situations Trump is most likely to employ the term with out even considering the possibility that the word "fake" in "fake news" does not literally mean "fake," When Donald Trump says it.

Going to such great pangs as the aforementioned politifact piece to say "No, donald.its real," is just ridicous at this point. Clearly demonstrated by by the essencs of shit that emodies ths politifact piece. A glistening pillar of fake news, indeed.

The situation we are facing with this CNN and Buzzfeed article ventures outside the scope of Trumpian fake news, and into the realm of objective bullshit. What they are asserting is patently false, and what you are rebutting is that since they are reliable sources, it is not false. Suggesting a reliable source is impervious to correction, and ignoring the vindictive spirit with which these two pieces were obviously written to begin with.

In no way did lara imply that anyone failed to report on anything with her remark. It was a patronizing slight.

And the gatekeeper who never saw the original video to begin with is giving me a hard time now for removing false claims, because apparently if CNN and Buzzfeed said so, lara must have technically implied what she obviously never did implied.Blob Blobbed (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me. I don't understand why we're talking about Trump's views about the fake news media. Can you please summarize your argument in, say, no more than 5 sentences? Meanwhile, please stop edit warring. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Lara is doing the show as a surrogate of Trump, she is obviously employing the term as an extension of him. Could you explain how anything lara trump says in that video could be reasonably interpreted to imply "CNN did not report on this story," Blob Blobbed (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand your question. Who interpreted Lara Trump as saying that CNN did not report on the story? CNN didn’t say that, and neither did I. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I puzzled over your comments here some more and I think I understand what you're getting at. Your interpretation is plausible. The problem, however, is that you're interpreting Lara Trump's words just as CNN and Buzzfeed did. They came to a different understanding than you. Fine. But the thing is--here at Wikipedia, CNN and Buzzfeed are reliable sources, whereas your own independent analysis is not. It's original research, which i disallowed. If you have a problem with how CNN and Buzzfeed interpreted Lara Trump then you should write to their editors or write a blog or something. But here, verifiability is king. It's not insane; it's just how our community standards work. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've made my case perfectly clear, Fleischman. All of the rules you're citing pertain to content left on Wikipedia and make no case for the outright removal of content. They describe how to appropriately cite material on a Wikipedia page.

WP:Editing policy states "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information."

Also this "explanatory supplement" of original research,entitled WP:NOTOR:These are not original research

Section 9 Removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors states:

In many cases, the best solution is to remove minor incorrect claims. This streamlines articles by letting them present only true facts. Making this determination is a core editing activity, and is not original research if the contradiction is obvious, unlikely to be challenged, or is supported by reliable sources that either directly address the inaccuracy or firmly establish that academic consensus contradicts the claim. Incorrect claims can be simply removed by editors who notice they are incorrect, or after consensus is reached on the talk page that the claim is incorrect. It is always helpful to explain why a claim is believed to be incorrect, since at least two people (the cited author and the editor who added the claim) believed it to be correct, and to cite sources in the edit summary or talk page when removing.

I'm removing the claimBlob Blobbed (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What you're doing is edit warring. I tagged the disputed content. Please leave it be until this dispute is resolved. You are mistaken about how our community standards work. WP:OR is absolutely about outright removal of content. I have lost patience in this discussion so I'm going to start a Request for Comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Created Criticisms section

Added criticms to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blob Blobbed (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC: claims of news stories ignored by the media

Should the following sentence be kept or removed?

Some stories that Lara Trump claimed were ignored by the media, such as the plans of Foxconn to build a factory in Wisconsin and the donation of President's Trump's salary to the Department for Education, had in fact previously been reported by news outlets.

The cited source is:

• Dylan Byers (August 2, 2017). "Trump launches 'real news' Facebook series to combat mainstream media". CNN. Retrieved August 2, 2017.

Please !vote with either Keep or Remove. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep Reliably sourced. Perhaps we don't need to include both the examples, but we have no reason to remove the whole sentence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Statement is false therefore does not belong Blob Blobbed (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Our standard is verifiability, not truth. We could go round and round about what Lara Trump really meant, but while that might be worthy of a personal blog post or a letter to CNN's editor, it doesn't matter here at Wikipedia. CNN published this reliable source in rebuttal. You can believe it was a straw man, you can know in your heart what Lara Trump really meant, but that doesn't affect the reliability of the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Please note that the dispute here stems from my assertion that the followinhg claims are false. This CNN article is discussing a video featuring Lara Trump. Laea never says or even implied fhat the media igbored anything in the video Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, please note that Dr.Fleischmann never informed me of his intent to withhold my concerns from the RfC entirely Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, at the top of this Talk Page, you can see that Dr.Fleischmann also objected when someone moved the article to this page (which is the official name of the show) from TrumpTV (which is the name Vox Magazine dubbed the show mockingly.). Dr.Fleischmann made the same appeal to reliable sources regarding an objective falsehood in that case as well

Furthermore, in a case unrelated to this one. In a section of the Affordable care Act page, Fleischmann, citing non-neutrality, removed a users addition of information ragarding an Executive Order signed by Trump in Oct 2017 that directly effected the affordable care act, including a quote from Trump. The user inquired, disputing the claim of non-neutrality, FLeischmann's eventually ended the conversation saying ":Here at Wikipedia, neutrality generally means following the reliable sources. And last I checked Donald Trump was not a reliable source. I hope that answers your question. If not, we should probablgt continue the conversation at Talk:PPACA"

this revert Special:Diff/820712395

Theres the corresponding edit and talk page.

Fleischmann harbors an anti-trump bias that has now led to the removal of factual information on at least one Wikipedia page and the inability to remove a blatant falsehood from this one, not to mention his attempt to have it intentionally mislabelled. Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC) Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not use the word "probablgt." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)