Stigall: Fake News Isn't a New Concept - Just a New Term
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) -- Hillary Clinton surfaced for a rare post-election appearance last week in Washington, D.C., to pay tribute to outgoing Nevada Sen. Harry Reid. She said the nice things about him you'd expect to hear from a Democrat saluting another. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Mrs. Clinton began decrying "fake news."
"The epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year — it's now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences."
Um, ok. Where'd this come from? Why now? Is she in total denial about the election outcome and blaming "fake news" for her loss? One of the six stages of grief, maybe?
No, the answer is more calculated. It's not delusional or a denial. It's a purposeful messaging strategy in an era of Democrat loss.
Let's not kid ourselves into thinking a party who just selected Nancy Pelosi to lead them in the House of Representatives for another term is repentant about their massive election casualties.
Consider two thirds of Democrats who remain in Congress today represent exclusively West coast and Northeastern states and districts. Of those, a full third represents just three states: California, New York, and Massachusetts.
Even President Obama chuckles and boasts to this day about how popular he is. "Just look at my approval polls," he'll crow. Of course, people personally fond of Obama the man versus supporting the policies he and his party represent are an entirely different matter.
Anyone open his or her private health insurance bills in the last year?
Still, just a couple of weeks after Donald Trump's victory – President Obama reflected not a bit on why his party and candidate for President were defeated. Nope. He said the same thing Mrs. Clinton did last week.
"In an age where there's so much active misinformation — and it's packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television ... if everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect," Obama said. "We won't know what to fight for."
Sounds a lot like Mrs. Clinton a month later, no?
Then consider the world of social media. Two days after President Obama called Facebook out by name, their CEO Mark Zuckerberg addressed what he'd be doing to combat "fake news."
"We need to be careful not to discourage sharing of opinions or mistakenly restricting accurate content. We do not want to be arbiters of truth ourselves, but instead rely on our community and trusted third parties," he said.
And there's the rub. The punch line. The REAL issue at hand. The "trusted third party." "Just who are they," I ask myself. We should all ask ourselves.
That's where this is going. Truth sheriffs. Ombudsmen of accountability. Accuracy watchmen. It's rooted in two simple concepts.
Step One: If the information is coming from a liberal Democrat – they're telling the truth. They have the facts. You can believe what they're saying and concluding about everything.
Step Two: If it's bad or negative information regarding Democrats or the policy they're advocating – it's a lie. If the information is coming from talk radio, certain conservative bloggers and websites, or any declared conservative/libertarian outlet generally – it's suspect.
This isn't a new tactic. It's just never been given a name like "fake news" before. Take the word "denier" for example. It was coined a few years ago to define those of us who don't believe there's conclusive evidence our mere existence on Earth is destroying it.
In fact, it was uncovered some time ago there were some in the scientific community who were falsifying data to reach certain conclusions financial and political backers sought.
Never mind there's plenty of readily available climate data in direct contradiction of certain conclusions folks like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio preach as gospel today.
What do they shout when confronted with opposing points of view? "DENIER!" (Shouted in their best Salem witch trial outrage.)
How about the WikiLeaks document dumps of just a few months ago? Within them was direct evidence through Democrats' private emails of media collusion, intra-party back stabbing of primary challengers, and contemptuous, cynical descriptions of certain voting demographics.
Did Democrats - caught red-handed - in their own words - admit to what they'd done? No way! They blamed Russian hackers for stealing the information to help Trump. Further, they'd claim - we don't know that the Russians didn't alter these emails to say things we didn't actually say.
That's some chutzpah, no?
Finally, the comics – yes, COMICS - who've become the revered and trusted newsmen of today's left. Guys like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert who began as self-declared fake newsmen themselves are now ironically elevated by an entire party as the source of real truth in news.
Their nightly ridicule of conservatives, Republicans, and a general opposition worldview became a powerful tool to further President Obama's 8-year agenda. President Obama met with Stewart privately many times, and has publicly called him one of the best journalists of the modern era. Stewart was once even considered as a permanent host of "Meet the Press." I long ago branded this concept of liberal comic-turned-journalist "court jester journalism."
No, "fake news" is not a new concept. It's just a new term. Simply put, until our minds all get right with Democrats and their policy prescriptions for our lives – opposition needs an easily understood name.
Liberals need to marginalize competitive thought with derision in an attempt to delegitimize the challenger or those who stray from accepted groupthink. That includes talk radio hosts like me.
I've said too much. Hide me.
