If your argument has nothing to do with the news being factually fake, you should use more concise language in your criticisms of it. Your entire viewpoint is about the way information's presented and the impact that has on peoples opinions and feelings. You're complaining about biases in the way others present arguments and then turning around and repeatedly mis-using the word "corrupt" and insisting the news is fake regardless of whether or not what's reported is factually true. You're drawing tenuous (at best) connections and positing that the media and politicians are conspiring together to maintain the current power structure. You're not providing evidence for that beyond your feelings about how information's communicated and then turning around and using biased language in your own criticisms. In other words: pot meet kettle.

How arguments are made undoubtedly has an impact on how they're received. But I think finnOhio touches on the real issue here: too many people have stopped distinguishing between commentary and news and too many in the media present commentary as if it were news. The facts exist and are available; Americans need to learn to recognize them and not rely on the Sean Hannity's/Rachel Maddow's of the world to interpret and package those facts for them.

((((((((((Yes what FinnOhio says is exactly what’s happening. We can agree there, the problem comes when you say Americans need to learn to recognize the difference. It would be nice if everyone could learn that. Except they’re not and it shouldn’t be up to Americans to make that leap. The media needs to realize the problems they’re causing in society by presenting the news this way and they need to change and Improve. Why have these shows at all if all they’re doing is dividing us? Maybe the media needs to accept some responsibility in all this and change. Most importantly these cable companies, because that is the most accessible news source to the average American and because they host these presidential debates. If we’re picking a person based on who has the best policies, we should hear about their policies.)))))))))))

Cable news is poison. We agree there. But you should be able to distinguish between cable news and real, honest reporting and instead you've bought into the President's bullshit and willingly started propagating it. You've now devoted a few thousand words defending the President's attacks on legitimate news because you think Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow suck. You're welcome to think that; you're right, even. But the President attacks the New York Times and Washington Post because they report true facts that he doesn't like. Supporting that because you "don't like the format of cable news shows" makes very little logical sense.

((((((((Like I’ve said I haven’t bought into his arguments. My argument is completely different and I’m not saying news is literally fake. You say it doesn’t make logical sense to bring this up yet you fail to realize that the whole reason trump got elected is because of the flaws In the format I’m pointing out. You’re acting like these flaws in cable news are no big deal when in all reality they’re having huge impacts on our country. Many people watch cable. If a democracy can’t debate issues in a fair way then you don’t have a very effective democracy.))))))

This isn't wrong, exactly. It's just naive. Every news network in America is deploying every resource they have during every campaign season to get three hours of one on one access with a Presidential candidate. They would do basically anything to arrange that. The idea that the media's somehow complicit in this and PREFERS less access to more is silly.

((((((Yes how silly of me to think the media should be better at its job. Again this comes back to corruption. If a candidate is running on issues then why would they not want to sit down with the media for 3 hours? Wouldn’t they want Americans to have a detailed knowledge of the issues? Maybe that’s not what they want after all.......... how can we pretend that these are good canidates if they can’t take the time to talk about the issues for 3 hours. This is where this idea of elitist comes from. Am I as a citizen suppose to take the time to go online and read each persons policy or is there going to be a format where all Americans know I can tune into tv or computer at a certain time and they will tell it to me it in a detailed way. Average Americans are going to tune into the tv because many don’t have the time, knowledge or resources to find out another way. When they currently are tuning in the format is a mess and they come out of watching it with more hate for the other side and less knowledge of the issues. It’s up to the media to fix this. Hopefully we can get as many people as possible to stop learning about issues this way, but unfortunately while we’re waiting for them to do that our country is making bad political choices. If the media would just hold itself a little more responsible then maybe we wouldn’t have to wait for Americans to make the change and the way in which many people currently consume the news will get better.)))))))

The candidates themselves hold all of the leverage. Not only do they get to set the terms of their media appearances, but they also get to set the terms of the debates.

(((((((What great canidates. How are they are choices? Maybe because of corruption?))))))

“ The behavior of the voting public informs politicians far more than politicians inform the behavior of voters. If voters want campaigns to be more focused on policy they should vote that way.”

(((((That’s a huge problem and maybe they would vote that way if they had better choices. )))))))

Yes what FinnOhio says is exactly what’s happening. We can agree there, the problem comes when you say Americans need to learn to recognize the difference. It would be nice if everyone could learn that. Except they’re not and it shouldn’t be up to Americans to make that leap. The media needs to realize the problems they’re causing in society by presenting the news this way and they need to change and Improve. Why have these shows at all if all they’re doing is dividing us? Maybe the media needs to accept some responsibility in all this and change. Most importantly these cable companies, because that is the most accessible news source to the average American and because they host these presidential debates. If we’re picking a person based on who has the best policies, we should hear about their policies.
[/QUOTE]139 million people voted in 2016.

~600,000 people watch Sean Hannity each night.

Not only is cable news not the most accessible news source, it's not even particularly close.

The New York Times website, for instance, gets 95 million unique visitors a month.

Sean Hannity has about 12 million total viewers, but those viewers aren't unique. In other words, he likely has a loyal audience and is reaching a half a dozen million people a month.

ABC News nightly news, for comparison, gets about 8 millions viewers a night. NBC and CBS pull in about ~13 million combined.

You're overstating the problem and overstating the impact that problem has.

You haven't bought into Trump's arguments? You said:

Sounds like you kinda bought into his arguments.

Also, Trump's the disease but there are a few hundred symptoms that pre-dated the disease. Trying to chalk it all up to one particular cause is a fool's errand.

Yes.

[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
Average Americans are going to tune into the tv because many don’t have the time, knowledge or resources to find out another way.

incapable of accepting any flaws in our current media sphere because in your mind you think that vindicates trump and others on the right.
[/QUOTE]is stupid.

Our disagreement is with the extent of the problem the media causes, the reasoning of your arguments, and your sloppy thinking and imprecise use of language. Not everything is black and white. This issue is far more complex than you make it out to be and you're trying to turn it into a question of 'real' or 'fake.' And when I and others tried to get you to provide a tangible example centered around an actual news story with policy at it's core, you refused. It's almost as if, oh I dunno, your theory doesn't hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. And you, the proponent of fair and honest debate, refused to engage because what we were pointing out didn't support your existing biases.

This:

[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
The ability to debate ideas in a fair way is super super important for a democracy. You’re acting like it’s not and that’s why you’re wrong.

TBB: I agree with what you say about the current debate format. It’s deeply flawed. I’d like to go back to a 19th Century style where the candidates asked each other questions and each had extensive time to respond.

The Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debates in 1858 were of a modified form of this style. First candidate spoke for 60 minutes. Second candidate spoke for 90 minutes and the first candidate had a 30 minute rebuttal. Who was the first candidate alternated between debates. This format allowed enough time for in-depth treatment of the subject matter. Perhaps an adaptation of this format would work today. Maybe 15-30-15.

However, with today’s media, for the most part, having abandoned the grand experiment of objective reporting, and slipping back to the 19th Century norm of partisan reporting, I would expect something like the following excerpt from Wikipedia to recurr:

“Newspaper coverages of the debates were intense. Major papers from Chicago sent stenographers to create complete texts of each debate, which newspapers across the United States reprinted in full, with some partisan edits. Newspapers that supported Douglas edited his speeches to remove any errors made by the stenographers and to correct grammatical errors, while they left Lincoln's speeches in the rough form in which they had been transcribed. In the same way, pro-Lincoln papers edited Lincoln's speeches, but left the Douglas texts as reported.”

However, since many would have watched it live, the slanted reporting would have less effect than it may have had in 1858.

I think his point is that Fake News is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. Generally the same facts here as CNN, but the spin is completely different. I think it's too early to say which spin is the most accurate. You seem to jump the gun a lot when one of your favorite sources has a negative story about the current administration. Not saying they are always wrong, just saying you have definite bias, and it shows.

The issue is that "Fake News" has become a bumber sticker and default reaction to any news that one deems as unfavorable to ones side. No one debates that news/journalist can get the story wrong. But when one argues they (the news subject - e.g., Kellyanne Conway/Trump) are entitled to alternative facts and/or it is not the role of journalist to hold politicians to telling facts we have journalistically jumped the shark.

Are we really going to get into a discussion over whose source is shittier, Really. Fox Sucks, MSNBC sucks. End of discussion

[/QUOTE]I'd also throw in CNN

[QUOTE=cc-cat]

the media must call out the lies, the hypocrisy, the absurd. So many have abandoned their journalistic responsibility. Others like Hannity (and yes Maddow), try to present themselves as journalist when in fact they are hacks, carrying the water for their man and/or side.