General Question

kritiper's avatar

Is this "fake news?"?

Asked by kritiper (13191points) 4 weeks ago

A customer of mine showed me a photo w/Email she received on Oct. 18, 2017, showing a member of the Seattle Seahawks burning an American flag in their locker room. The coach was present in the photo along with other supposed team members The “article” said the NFL was considering dumping the Seahawks from NFL. But I have not seen or heard any more about this on any television or newspaper resource. Have you?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

58 Answers

funkdaddy's avatar

This one?

Photoshopped and spread by those with an agenda.

kritiper's avatar

@funkdaddy Without trying to pull it up on my slow DUM, I’ll take that as a yes. But you haven’t seen it anywhere else on the TV or newspapers?
Thanks!

funkdaddy's avatar

I haven’t seen it from a legitimate news organization that I remember.

I’ve seen it a few times with posts along the lines of “Conservatives are upset about this photo, but it’s fake. Teehee, I’m so glad I’m smarter.”... but those are the same types of places that reel you in with a clickbait title, so I don’t consider that “news”.

flutherother's avatar

Well it is inflammatory but I wouldn’t trust any ‘news’ that appears on Facebook. Anyone can post almost anything and we know they often do.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You would think this sort of silliness incapable of duping anyone with the sense of a goat.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

The “people with an agenda” are hope they can sway people with a fourth grade education.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Dude. Snopes. PLEASE.

seawulf575's avatar

My guess is that it isn’t supposed to be actual news and that it is photoshopped.. Possibly a meme?

ragingloli's avatar

Even if it was real, the only bad thing about it would be the fire hazard and the toxic fumes.

johnpowell's avatar

There is a sprinkler system in the locker room. You can clearly see it in the photo.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Snopes.com, @seawulf575. Then you don’t have to guess.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I am skeptical of Snopes. This article is a good explanation of why:

https://ultratechlife.com/blog/ask-a-science-professor-is-snopes-com-unbiased-reliable-for-skeptics-or-journalists-to-use-for-research-no/

I have read too many Snopes articles that really try to justify something instead of actually evaluating it. They show a distinct bias in their decisions and they point their decisions based on it.
On a similar point, I don’t trust Wikipedia all that much either, though for a different reason. They don’t verify their items. Someone can put in an entry and Wiki doesn’t research the truth. I use Wiki as a starting point since they do ask for references. You can trace back to the sources to see if it is an honest evaluation.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 You can be sceptical of Snopes but let’s give them credit where it’s due. In this particular case Snopes showed the original photograph and told us where and by whom it was taken, There is no bias, they’ve just uncovered the truth.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I agree with @flutherother. In the interests of “research,” @seawulf575, read the actual Snopes article in question, that @flutherother posted in his comment above this one. There are links galore so you can verity for themselves.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother & @Dutchess_III I absolutely agree with you that the picture is photoshopped. I have stated so. And yes, Snopes identified who it was from. What I have not been able to ascertain was the reason for the photoshop. I don’t do Facebook so I have not been able to actually go to the Vets for Trump page to see their reasons. And I’m sorry, I have seen Snopes too many times offer their own opinions presented as facts. I did find a page from Politifact (which is just as biased as Snopes) that says the caption of the picture on the VFT page was ”#Seattleseahawks – no more NFL”. That is just a view of the Seahawks and their continued protests of the national anthem and doesn’t actually say this was a true picture (which is something Snopes claimed). Additionally it states that Facebook post is no longer available so even if I had Facebook, I couldn’t check it. From all the actual facts that are presented, I still don’t see a verified REASON for the photoshopped pic. I will remain skeptical. Additionally, based on the original question, as I previously stated and you have both confirmed, it was not “fake news”. Somebody’s pic on a Facebook page cannot even vaguely be construed as news to start with. So where we are at is that somebody posted a photoshopped picture on their Facebook page. Snopes, Politifact, and all the other liberal websites that cite them religiously all went nuts for it. If anyone was trying to make this news, it would be those groups, not the idiots that had the Facebook page. In fact, I cannot find a single conservative website out there that has even hinted that this was a true picture, nor that are supporting it in any way.
The more hypocritical view of all this is that the NFL players are protesting the flag and the national anthem at the beginning of the games. They are stoking hate and angering people and are hiding behind “their right to free speech and protest”. The liberal press is supporting them all the way. Yet as soon as someone posts a photoshopped pic on a Facebook page those same players and media outlets are all up in arms because they claim someone is spreading hate. Aren’t they just exercising their right to free speech and protest?

ragingloli's avatar

“Aren’t they just exercising their right to free speech and protest?”
As much as people yelling “Fire!” in a clearly not aflame Cinema.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli the fact that you want to try tying those two together is disturbing. And I guess I should thank you because you make my point about the liberal view point perfectly.

ragingloli's avatar

@seawulf575
Not a good comparison, true.

A better one would be if I took a photo of you and manipulated it in a way that it appears to show you punching a toddler, in an effort to convince others that you are a child abuser.

But, hey, that would just be me “exercising my free speech”.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli And my answer would be to tell you to go for it. But a better analogy would be to take any meme you have ever seen and compare it to this piece of photoshop art. How many memes are out there that have completely made fun of or voiced an opinion on some individual or issue? Pretty much every one of them. The Seahawks brought the ridicule down on themselves since they started with the childish, disrespectful “protests” that they continued even after their fans told them they were out of line. They opened themselves up to any and all reactions they get. I would not support someone taking shots at them with a gun, but photoshopped pictures? Yep…fair game.

Dutchess_III's avatar

The only REASON people do it is to yank people’s chains @seawulf575. Just to see how many likes and shares they get and see how much outrage they can create among the gullible. That’s it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Snopes never claimed it was a true picture! They said it wss “offered up” as true. All bulkshit like this is offered up as true by the people who create them and the fools who share them.
Maybe you’re just having a difficult time understanding what you read there.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III All of which brings me right back to the original statement that it cannot be “fake news” unless you go to all the reports the liberal outlets are producing. People “offer up” all sorts of silly stuff. It is incumbent on the rest of us to look at it and decide what we think of it. Personally I think Facebook is about the biggest waste of time and I have no desire to see what people are offering up for consideration. If you see something like that doctored picture and see hatred and racism or if you see it as a humorous production or see it as a complete waste of time is all up to the viewer, not the producer of the trash.
I proffered the idea that it might just be a meme. You seemed to take offense at that and gave a repeated sales pitch to go check out Snopes so I wouldn’t have to guess. I did check out Snopes and have commented on what I found there. You say Snopes said it was “offered up” as true. Yet they offered nothing that actually supported that claim. Further research into this picture has found that the tag line with the picture was an opinion of the Seahawks and the NFL. That isn’t someone saying something like “Hey look at this picture that was taken in the Seahawks locker room! My friend took it! I knew they burned flags there!” I have seen dozens of memes that did a similar thing…offer up a doctored up picture with a tag line that voiced an opinion or thought. But no one thought these memes were true. The only ones trying to make this news is the liberal outlets.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’m done. There is no rationality here.

Dutchess_III's avatar

According to your logic Snopes would declare that the rumor that Rump called the Republicans the dumbest group of voters is true, right?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Dutchess_III

You missed the “if it was from a liberal; IT must be fake news!”

Basic conservative thing; ignoring the truth because it is contrary to their way of thinking.

T.W. OUT !

stanleybmanly's avatar

It goes beyond ignoring the truth. It’s about fabricating a truth of your own.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Nope, Snopes wouldn’t start the declarations. What I propose is that if someone else claimed that Trump called the Republicans the dumbest group of voters, even if it weren’t true, Snopes would write up a lot of official sounding stuff and come up with the conclusion that it is PARTLY true or MOSTLY true.
@Tropical_Willie adding quotes doesn’t make it anywhere close to what I stated. What I stated was that on this story, the only actual “news” outlets that are running it are the liberal outlets: Huffington Post, Daily Kos, CNN, Buzzfeed, etc. Not a single conservative outlet that I can find has even addressed it. So you tell me…who’s making it news?
@stanleybmanly Typical for you, snipe in from the outside with a claim for which you have no proof. Where exactly did I fabricate the truth? Please…enlighten us all.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575

My point exactly; I said it so (I guess I’m liberal) therefore it can’t be true.

That includes any source not strongly to the Right.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575 Oops, Wrong again.. You should really double check your claims before you make them.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 How can I snipe in from the outside when I arrived at this thread ahead of YOU? You want some fabrications? Take a look at that paragraph beginning “The more hypocritical view of this…” then tell me if any sentence in that paragraph has anything in common with an established fact.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Yet you avoid the question of who is actually making this photoshopped pic news. Typical of liberal debate…avoid the tough questions.

@Dutchess_III I made no claims to double check. I offered an opinion. I understand how the line between the two blurs for liberals, though.

@stanleybmanly What established fact? That the players are spreading hate and discontent? They are. If they weren’t the entire kneel-for-the-national anthem wouldn’t have caused such an uproar. That they aren’t claiming their right to protest? They are…established fact. That the liberal media was supporting them? They were. I have yet to see a liberal outlet come out and voice an opinion against them. That the players and the liberal media went nuts about a photoshopped picture on a Facebook page? They did…that’s what this whole issue is about. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, you don’t see conservative sites even mentioning this issue. They recognize that a picture on someone’s Facebook page isn’t news. So you were blathering about what, exactly?

stanleybmanly's avatar

1.The players are protesting neither the flag nor the national anthem.

2. To claim that the players are hiding behind ANYTHING is ridiculous on its face.

3. If hatred and anger can be stoked through kneeling on a football field, it is NOT the folks kneeling who are doing the “stoking

4. Why is there such intense rattling from the right about labeling all credible journalism “liberal”? How and when did it come to pass that the New York Times, Scientific American, and Wall St. Journal are all liberal outfits?

5. Credible journalists may not be denouncing the protests, but neither are they endorsing them. This is why they are CREDIBLE.

6. The tragedy around all of this is that just as with every peaceful protest movement in this country, it is once again the flag waving donkeys who are last to catch on.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 Okay here’s my guess; it was done by a pimply face 15 year old whose father is a ranking member of the KKK, from South Shall Raise Again, CSA !~ ~ ~ ~

The group using your meme is the the far to the Right. The artist is not as important as WHO IS USING IT!

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575 Yes you did make a claim that you should have checked first. I asked if you thought Snopes, being the lying, liberal source that it is, would have claimed that Trump did, indeed, say that republicans are the dumbest group of voters there are.
Your response was “Snopes would write up a lot of official sounding stuff and come up with the conclusion that it is *PARTLY true or MOSTLY true.
You were wrong. You should have taken 2 seconds and checked it first. Which is a major shortcoming among conservatives. They can’t seem to do simple, basic research. If they do, and they don’t like what the research shows, they scream “FAKE NEWS!!!” Then they drop out of sight.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly 1. The players are protesting the national anthem as the representation of a country in which blacks are not treated equally. As usual, you tried to re-write my response. I never claimed they were protesting the flag or the national anthem. And as usual, you tried side-stepping the gist of the comment which was irrefutable….their actions have caused hate and discontent.
2. Your response is not a refute to ANYTHING I wrote. It is your opinion, presented in an effort to try making me look bad. Only those of the same liberal mindset you possess don’t see that.
3. Hatred and anger can be easily stoked through kneeling at a football game. It isn’t the act of kneeling…players kneel all the time throughout the game. It is the timing and the message they are trying to send. That is offensive to many who have risked their lives or lost loved ones for this country and who are proud to live here. And when the players are told their actions are offensive and they continue and, in fact, increase their efforts, that is indeed stoking hatred and anger.
4. I think your understanding of the word Credible needs some work. Let’s go back to when CNN and MSNBC doctored video to change the meaning and then presented it on prime time slots as being true. That’s credible? How about the NYT and their 17 intelligence agencies report? They eventually were forced to print a retraction because it was so bad. Credible? If you go to just about any of the liberal outlets and look at them with an honest eye, you will see that they are slanted, sometimes to the point of lunacy, with their reporting.
5. Again, look at your definition for credible. But the point you are purposely ignoring is that these liberal outlets are reporting anything at all on somebody’s Facebook post.
6. Yep, you are right. It is the flag waving donkeys that aren’t catching on. The donkey is the symbol of the Democratic party. We just aren’t sure what flag they are waving.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie I think you need to go back and re-read my last post to you. I stated you were avoiding the question of who was making this photoshopped picture news (the one we have been discussing of the Seahawks burning a flag). Again, you avoid actually answering that. instead you attempt to take a personal swipe at me. Typical liberal debate tactic again.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III If you go back to my statement and actually care to cite the ENTIRE thing, I started that with the statement “I propose that if…” That right there should be the clue to the idea that I was stating an opinion. Maybe from now on, just so I can be as clear as possible, when I interact with you and wish to state an opinion, I will put OPINION before my statement. That way you won’t be confused and it will be harder to cherry pick pieces of my statements. OPINION Which is, by the way, the typical liberal tactic. Look at my responses to @stanleybmanly and @Tropical_Willie. They have tried the same sort of thing.
What I find particularly funny in my discussion on this topic with you is that all I did was to state that I don’t trust Snopes blindly. OPINION That seems to be what set you off. Someone questions your beloved Snopes and you can’t deal with it? I even offered my reasons. I even gave examples of where I did extra research to try finding the truth. Oh, by the way, that is something you just accused me of not doing. So I guess you were wrong, eh? But apparently unless someone agrees with you all the way, they are just evil. Oops! That last should have been preceded by OPINION.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575
1. I haven’t rewritten or sidestepped anything. The direct quote from YOU above: “... the NFL players are protesting the flag and the national anthem at the beginning of the games.” The argument that the players are generating hatred is worse than wrong. It is an obtuse example of missing the point. Conservatives such as yourself ALWAYS miss the point and NEVER see the obvious. The hatred is there already. The people protesting injustice, or sitting in at segregated lunch counters, or being firehosed in front of segregated schools —these aren’t the people responsible for the hatred. Those who react with anger and hatred to anyone peacefully protesting anger and hatred don’t have an ethical leg to stand on.

2. It is not perfection that renders journalism credible. Mistakes and even bias are inevitable. The point you should consider in your own analysis is that word “retraction”.

3. I too am uncertain as to which flags Democrats are waving, and could frankly care less. On the other hand, you should consider the prospects for an ideology eagerly embracing flag pins and jingoism as viable substitutes for abstract thought.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I’m so sorry you hate so much of life, critical thinking is not require when hate leads the thinking process.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575 “Opinion” does not = fact. There are some crazy people who have the opinion that the earth is flat. A refusal to change an opinion to reflect the actual truth is a major short coming among the poorly educated.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie So….since you didn’t apply critical thinking when reading and responding to my statement, does that mean that hate leads your thinking process?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly 1. I have already explained that. They are indeed protesting the national anthem and the flag as representations of a country in which blacks are not being treated equally. I did indeed state they were protesting the national anthem and the flag. What I find amazing is that you had to go back about half a dozen posts to get that quote. You entirely ignored the one to which you were responding where I called you out. You know…the one where you out on the statement “Take a look at that paragraph beginning “The more hypocritical view of this…” then tell me if any sentence in that paragraph has anything in common with an established fact.” I did go back to that exact paragraph and showed you exactly where it had everything to do with established fact. And you tried sidestepping and ignoring that. Typical liberal tactic. You were called out. Either answer or prove you are useless.
2. So in your world, purposeful manipulation of video to change meaning and to have a bias in your reporting makes one credible. I got it. So lies and manipulation make one credible. I understand. But one other thing…the word retraction is once again a lame liberal attempt to try cherry picking things. If you go back, I stated that they were FORCED to retract. there is a huge leap from NYT seeing an error and saying “Oops! Our bad” and the NYT defending their story until it was debunked by even the staunchest of liberal supporters and having pressure brought to bear to break down and print a one paragraph correction on one of the back pages of the paper. The former would have gained them credibility. The latter shows they will go to almost any lengths to protect a fake story because it reads better to the liberal agenda.
3. You might want to review your statement. You don’t know what flag the Dems are flying and you don’t care. Wow. In other words, you will support them no matter what, regardless of their goals or actions. That is scary. How about if they decide that the three legs of our federal government are meaningless and we should just have a dictator that can do whatever he/she wants? Would that be okay? Because that is exactly what they were doing during the Obama years. Obama would violate the Constitution, make laws, rewrite laws, interpret laws, and the Dems would protect and support him. So I guess you would do well in Mainland China. That is, after all, the goal of the Democratic party…to have total control over every aspect of your life. Their own leaders can’t tell you the difference between a democrat and a socialist. Why? Because there is no difference. You are indeed a blind follower, my friend. Abstract thought? Either you can’t think beyond what the media tells you or you can and fully embrace a subjugated life.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III You are absolutely correct…opinion does not equal fact. That is what I have been saying all along. Yet it is you who fully embraces Snopes, a site that is notorious for slanting things. Does that mean you are poorly educated? You refuse to change your opinion to reflect the actual truth, so it must be.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I have yet to find Snopes to be incorrect. Its sources are right there for people to double chedk. It is your opinion that it is notoriously slanted. There is a reason that it seems that way to people like you, but it’s not true.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Dutchess_III Snopes is opinion and slanted when you agree with the original article and Snopes says it is FALSE!

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Get a grip. I didn’t have to go “back half a dozen posts” to get that quote. The quote is integral to the paragraph in question. And there is no need to sidestep or duck the thoughtless blather you ooze without reason. I have addressed EACH of the sentences in that paragraph and told you SPECIFICALLY why they amount to little more than frenetic distortions of the truth—fabrications. Which of your idiocies have I ignored? And I really do wish that you would take a breath and think before you post things here. It is almost painful to read them. Why do you equate my not caring about flags to proof positive that I am rabidly in league with the Democratic party. My comment is about FLAGS, period. I ask you to forgive my naive assumption that you would have the sense to understand that I meant “flags are meaningless substitutions for thinking.”

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You are a sad, sad person. You have dodged, avoided, cherry-picked words, and done everything except address the points. I know you can’t admit that because you have no answer for my posts other than that. I also know that is a mental disorder that I will never be able to address here.
As for the flags, you stated ” I too am uncertain as to which flags Democrats are waving, and could frankly care less.” Flags are not meaningless substitutions for thinking, they are total representations of a nation. They represent the nation and all it’s political views and actions. In other words, you don’t care what the Dems are waving. Your repeated defense of Democratic leaders shows you support them wholly. But you don’t care what they stand for. You absolutely hate Republicans, based on all the interactions you and I have had, but you can’t articulate a rational reason why. I stand by my original statement…that is a scary attitude.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I know you can’t seem to even accept the idea that Snopes could be biased or wrong about anything. Here is another couple of interesting article about Snopes and their “fact checking”. I doubt you’ll read them because they might actually make you think that Snopes might not be all the liberals say they are.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#52b4bafd227f

https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/

Dutchess_III's avatar

I couldn’t get into the first link. The second is just a bunch of vague, half baked musings. The only direct thing she offered up was that Monsanto was in cahoots with Snopes somehow, and Snopes is under pressure to say that GMO foods are perfectly safe to eat. The fact that they ARE perfectly safe to eat is beside the point. The hysterical people want to believe that there is a conspiracy between Snopes and Monsanto to kill us all and that’s all there is to it. Anything to the contrary is fake news

I want YOU to show me where Snopes made a claim that you can prove is verifiably wrong. It shouldn’t be that hard. They should be all over, right?

seawulf575's avatar

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/02/snopes-revised-misleading-fact-check-on-the-standing-ovation-for-carryn-owens/

Done. Anything else?

And I am amused that you first couldn’t check the link to Forbes. I click it and it takes me right there. Here’s another thought: go ahead and google “Daily Mail Snopes Forbes” and it should take you to that link right away. Of course your liberal computer might not go there or your liberal mind would just blank out anything that was there. And on the second link, the foodbabe goes into much, much more including screen shots of the before and after revisions of the snopes stories. Those revisions entirely change the meaning of the posts. And here’s an interesting thing I also noted…Snopes has a retraction page. It has two posts that I could find. Yet I have just shown two examples of where they go back and totally change the original posting yet don’t list it as a retraction or even a revision. Seems odd for a fine upstanding “fact checking” group, eh?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Okay—Now waiting for you to quote Fred Chase Koch or the John Birch Society.

BLAH blah blah

Dutchess_III's avatar

You forgot Rush Limbaugh…

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Rush is in Opioid withdrawal therapy.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, he should be able to make as much sense as he always has.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 Snopes usually does a pretty good job of fact checking. Is it fallible? Of course it is. Is it biased? I don’t think so. Just because some of its fact checkers vote Democrat doesn’t mean they don’t respect the truth. You have to look at the reports on Snopes on a case by case by case but it is a valuable resource in getting to grips with what is fake and what is not.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III & @Tropical_Willie the personal attacks have come so I will assume you have no response. I knew eventually we would get to this point.

@flutherother as far as I’m concerned, you can believe in Snopes or not. That is up to the reader to decide. As I stated previously, well at least as one of the articles I cited stated, Snopes is okay for basic urban legend stuff. Crocodiles in the sewers…that sort of thing. But my experience (and that of all of the articles I have cited) is that they most definitely have a bias when it comes to political type things. In many cases, someone makes a claim and they are sent to “fact check” it. If it is something on the liberal side of things, they will basically ask the claimant why they believe that and that is about it. The article from the foodbabe was an example. A claim made about GMO food. Monsanto is the big money in this debate and Snopes makes money off advertising, etc. So they write statements which shines a dim light on the Monsanto product, Roundup. Then, with no explanation, they change these statements to take away most if not all of the damaging statements about this product. Why? If there are valid reasons, state them. Make the statement that new evidence has come to light. Make the statement that further investigation showed different facts…but make sure to state the investigation. They didn’t do any of that.
Because of these sort of things, and because of several of their “fact checks” from Snopes I have read where I have specific questions that were pertinent and they almost purposely avoided asking those questions, I have true skepticism about their integrity.
I really am not hear to try swaying anyone into believing Snopes is biased. All I started doing was to offer an opinion about the photoshopped pic. Snopes was pushed repeatedly and I stated that I was skeptical of them and gave reasons why. From there it degraded into personal attacks on me and rabid support for Snopes. I’m okay with that, but I certainly don’t back down from these childish attacks.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575 Do you do any research before you come up with your claims? Go to Snopes, search “Monsanto, ” and see what you find.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther