# Fake News - what it is, what it isn't....



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.

All of the above are part and parcel of the media business.

Fake news is a story that is completely false.

What is interesting isn't that it's something new, it isn't, but social media has given it an engine and the mainstream public doesn't seem to have the tools to untangle truth from fiction yet.  The media is also behind the ball in taking responsibility, fact checking before a story is passed on and also - taking fake news to task and dissecting the story.  The reason fake news has become such a player recently may be as simple as economics (earning money through ad click revenue) combined with the rather lawless playing field of social media and the lack of will to factcheck material that confirms with one's own preconceptions or bias.

What's interesting about fake news however, is not the story itself but what lies beneath the surface....

Craig Silverman was interviewed on Fresh Air this evening.  
_Our guest, Craig Silverman, has spent much of his career as a journalist writing about issues of accuracy in media. He wrote a column for the Poynter Institute called Regret the Error and later a book of the same name on the harm done by erroneous reporting. He also launched a web-based startup called Emergent devoted to crowdsourcing the fact-checking of fake news.


He's now the media editor for the website BuzzFeed, and he *spent much of this year writing about fake news, rumors and conspiracy theories that gained currency in the presidential campaign - where they came from, why they got so much engagement on social media and what should be done to reduce their impact on public discourse*. 
_​Fascinating interview.  Some of the main points covered:

Fake election news outperformed real news sites in social media such as facebook - significantly so 3 months and closer to election.  9 months and 6 months prior to the election, real news sites performed better.   What is interesting is he provides the data: BuzzFeed News: Election content engagement and everyone of those fake news articles was a thread in Politics here on USMB.  Less then half of the real news articles were.


Here's How Fake Election News Outperformed Real Election News On Facebook
_Of the 20 top-performing false election stories identified in the analysis, *all but three were overtly pro-Donald Trump or anti-Hillary Clinton*. Two of the biggest false hits were a story claiming Clinton sold weapons to ISIS and a hoax claiming the pope endorsed Trump, which the site removed after publication of this article. The only viral false stories during the final three months that were arguably against Trump’s interests were a false quote from Mike Pence about Michelle Obama, a false report that Ireland was accepting American “refugees” fleeing Trump, and a hoax claiming RuPaul said he was groped by Trump._​

_...These developments follow a study by BuzzFeed News that revealed hyperpartisan Facebook pages and their websites were publishing false or misleading content at an alarming rate — and generating significant Facebook engagement in the process. The same was true for the more than 100 US politics websites BuzzFeed News found being run out of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

...All the false news stories identified in BuzzFeed News’ analysis came from either fake news websites that only publish hoaxes or from hyperpartisan websites that present themselves as publishing real news. *The research turned up only one viral false election story from a hyperpartisan left-wing site. *The story from Winning Democrats claimed Ireland was accepting anti-Trump “refugees” from the US. It received over 810,000 Facebook engagements, and was debunked by an Irish publication. (There was also one post from an LGBTQ site that used a false quote from Trump in its headline.)_​

Now, that leads to another point - WTF - Macedonia?  The other point it found was these sites were overwelmingly pro-Trump.  What interest or knowledge does a small town in Macedonia (and a large number of those sites are run out of one town) have in American Politics?  

Back to the Silverman interview on Fresh Air.  

_The Guardian months earlier had pointed to over a hundred websites about U.S. politics in this small town of Veles. So we did our own research and we turned up a number of 140 sites...And as I filled out the spreadsheet it became very clear that they were overwhelmingly pro-Trump. And as I visited the websites and read their content, I saw that a lot of the stuff that they were pushing was misleading, was to the extreme of partisanship and also occasionally was false. And so we dug in even more and realized that among the top shared articles from, you know, these range of sites, the majority of, like, the top five were actually completely false. So at that point, once we understood the content that they were publishing and how many there were, *we really wanted to understand so who are the people behind these sites?*_​
These sites came out of a Veles, a town in Macedonia.  The owners were mostly young people - teens and early twenties, and college students.  They weren't driven by ideology but by econonics.  They could earn money directing traffic to their sites through Google AdSense and they were "_using Facebook to drive the traffic to the websites where they had ads from Google and where they would earn money from that traffic_"  They don't create the content - they find it elsewhere, but they copy it and proliferate it.



The article goes into a lot more, including what should be done or shouldn't be done to combat it, but this statement was particularly compelling because we're all susceptable to it:

Silverman:  
_We shouldn't think of this as just being something for people who are very partisan. *We love to hear things that confirm what we think and what we feel and what we already believe*. It's - it makes us feel good to get information that aligns with what we already believe or what we want to hear.

And on the other side of that is when we're confronted with information that contradicts what we think and what we feel, the reaction isn't to kind of sit back and consider it. The reaction is often to double down on our existing beliefs. So if you're feeding people information that basically just tells them what they want to hear, they're probably going to react strongly to that. And the other layer that these pages are very good at is they bring in emotion into it, anger or hate or surprise or, you know, joy. And so if you combine information that aligns with their beliefs, if you can make it something that strikes an emotion in them, then that gets them to react._​


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 14, 2016)

You keep  parroting the same bullshit, and it keeps getting ridiculed and refuted.

Get a a new fucking record bed wetter.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Pete7469 said:


> View attachment 102119
> 
> You keep  parroting the same bullshit, and it keeps getting ridiculed and refuted.
> 
> Get a a new fucking record bed wetter.



Hasn't been refuted by you yet.  Now quit soaking the bed.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
> Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.
> 
> ...




Zackly - this is simple advertising psychology.  Emotional manipulation.  The Macedonians are doing the same thing TV has always done--- capture attention, rake in money for it.  Whatever collateral damage done is just --- somebody else's problem.  Advertising is inherently self-centred and dishonest.

As Rump University told its fraudsters, "You don't sell products, benefits or solutions — you sell _feelings_”.  And the gullible suck it up to such a degree that somebody actually posted the story of three million Amish mobilizing to vote for Rump, oblivious to how they were getting played.

It's hard to believe.  Critical thinking seems to be a lost art.


----------



## Tehon (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
> Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.


Depends on the intent I would think.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> ...



Intent is harder to judge objectively.


----------



## Tehon (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Exactly, how can you know the motivation of the author to say his/her intent was not to deceive?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Fake news is a story that is completely false.



Wrong.  The best lies contain a little truth.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 14, 2016)

Mmm. How do you label the media co ordinating with a political party to plant news items that turn out to be false such as the situation with Michelle Fields and the lie that Corey almost dragged her down?

Or Miss Universe aka Miss Piggy who's story was blown out of the water but Hillary used her in the campaign and the very next day Miss Universe was on every talk show going.

Or how about the fake groping stories that the media was all over. Everyone of those women got busted.

How about the lying story of the Trump raping the 13 year old girl?

Any retractions? Any apologies? Only one I know of was the Daily Mail retracting the story that Melania had acted as an escort and apologized.


----------



## Boss (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Fake news is a story that is completely false.



You mean like, "Hands in the air, don't shoot?"

How would you classify "The Daily Show?"  Because, the network itself calls it a "fake news show" and Jon Stewart is acclaimed as "America's Favorite Fake Newsman!" But a recent poll found that something like 12% of online Americans say they get their news from _The Daily Show_. 45% of Liberals say they trust _The Daily Show_.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



You can make some educated guesses, in some cases.  If they print retractions, then I would guess the intent wasn't to decieve. But I think it's better to just look the evidence - is a story completely false or majorly false?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fake news is a story that is completely false.
> ...



Possibly, but I'm not sure.  I haven't followed that story closely.  



> How would you classify "The Daily Show?"  Because, the network itself calls it a "fake news show" and Jon Stewart is acclaimed as "America's Favorite Fake Newsman!" But a recent poll found that something like 12% of online Americans say they get their news from _The Daily Show_. 45% of Liberals say they trust _The Daily Show_.



Can't give an opinion there either because I don't watch it.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

tinydancer said:


> Mmm. How do you label the media co ordinating with a political party to plant news items that turn out to be false such as the situation with Michelle Fields and the lie that Corey almost dragged her down?



WAS it a lie?  Evidence seems to support it.  I wouldn't call it "false news".  Contestable maybe, but  not false news.



> Or Miss Universe aka Miss Piggy who's story was blown out of the water but Hillary used her in the campaign and the very next day Miss Universe was on every talk show going.



Again, not false news.  Even if Miss Universe (and I don't know why you have to demean her with "Miss Piggy" simply because she had the audacity to speak out against the Donald) - falsified her claim, that would make HER a liar, but the news story about her claim isn't false.



> Or how about the fake groping stories that the media was all over. Everyone of those women got busted.


Who says they are fake?  Or got busted?  At this point - the best you can say is he said/she said.  I'll point out - you believed all of Clinton's accusers, right?



> How about the lying story of the Trump raping the 13 year old girl?



Still not a fake news story.  Whether or not it happened is unverified.  The lawsuit occurred.  Hasn't gone to court.  The events are true:  a girl "claimed" she was raped by Trump.  That is true.  Was she?  We don't know.



> Any retractions? Any apologies? Only one I know of was the Daily Mail retracting the story that Melania had acted as an escort and apologized.



At this point, nothing has been disproven in the above, that needs a retraction.  For example, the MSM stories usually make it clear that the women are claiming that Trump did X,Y and Z.  Not that he DID it.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fake news is a story that is completely false.
> ...



What "little truth" is in the Birther story?
Or the story that Megyn Kelly was fired after endorsing Clinton? (she wasn't, Fox news offered her over 20 million to remain with the network).
Or Elizabeth Warren endorses Bernie Sanders? (that one put egg on the face of NYT)


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Which of those came from the Republican Party?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 14, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fake news is a story that is completely false.
> ...



That's not news or purported news --- that's _satire_.

Duh.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 14, 2016)

tinydancer said:


> Or how about the fake groping stories that the media was all over. Everyone of those women got busted.



That ^^ is an example of fake news right there.

Or since we're on a message board, more correctly an internet myth.  There's a whole lotta wags on this site, and a couple in this thread already, who think they can just make it up.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



The issue isn't really whether it came from a party or not - I'm not sure any of them can be traced to "parties".  None of them came from the DNC either.

The Birther story:
No, Clinton didn't start the birther thing. This guy did.

The Megyn Kelly story:
BREAKING: Fox News Exposes Traitor Megyn Kelly, Kicks Her Out For Backing Hillary – Conservative 101

Elizabeth Warren story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/u...elizabeth-warren-endorsed-bernie-sanders.html


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

How to avoid getting conned by fake news sites


----------



## Boss (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



So you know nothing about the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, which dominated the news for several months? Following the shooting, the black community promoted a claim that he had his hands in the ear yelling "don't shoot" when he was shot by police. This sparked rioting and protests for weeks and major news outlets promoted the "hands in the air, don't shoot" narrative, going so far as to begin a symbolic gesturing that swept the liberal media like a wildfire. The US Dept of Justice eventually concluded his hands were not in the air and he never yelled "don't shoot," and that he was, in fact, killed in self defense. To this day, there are still people who believe the FAKE news. 

The Daily Show is intended to be political satire from a distinctly liberal viewpoint. Much like Saturday Night Live's segment "Weekend Update" where news items are parodied. Most non-retarded thinking adults understand it is parody and satire. Like _The Onion_.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
> Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.
> 
> ...


You know what is more troubling to me?

The fact that they are tracking who is reading what, who is sharing what, and the fact that the intellectual, cultural, and political elites think it is any of their business to manipulate what Americans choose to read or not read.

What this is, is actually a ploy to soften the weak minded up to accept government and crony corporate infringements on the first amendment.



Do any of you KNOW about H.R. 5181?  How about S. 2692?  Isn't it just possible that this whole election was a sham to get liberals pissed off enough to accept restrictions on the First Amendment, and to have conservatives accept government control of the internet?

Well, it's happening.  This stuff is all occurring right now, and the MSM propaganda is being rolled out to have folks believe this is a good idea.  They think none of us can make up our own minds.  CFR propaganda from the establishment is no better than independent journalists, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they have a nefarious agenda.

When independent journalists on the left, right, center and anarchists are all crying foul, you KNOW shit is getting real.

Either Coyote is in on their game, or he doesn't have two brain cells to rub together.

*Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act"*
Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" | Zero Hedge
"While we wait to see if and when the Senate will pass (and president will sign) Bill  "*H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017"*, which was passed by the House at the end of November with an overwhelming majority and which seeks to crack down on websites suspected of conducting Russian propaganda and calling for the US government to "counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in  coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly,” another, perhaps even more dangerous and limiting to civil rights and freedom of speech bill passed on December 8.


Recall that as we reported in early June, "a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own _de facto _Ministry of Truth has been quietly introduced in Congress. As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability.”

*War on ‘Fake News’ Part of a War on Free Speech *
War on ‘Fake News’ Part of a War on Free Speech

"The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First Amendment is the war on “fake news.” Those leading the war are using a few “viral” Internet hoaxes to justify increased government regulation — and even outright censorship — of Internet news sites. Some popular websites, such as Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force them to crack down on fake news.

Those calling for bans on “fake news” are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned "gatekeeper" (to use Hillary Clinton’s infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.

The war on “fake news” has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US government’s skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.

Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special committee, composed of key federal agencies, to counter foreign interference in US elections. There have also been calls for congressional investigations into Russian influence on the elections. Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is to discredit and silence those who question the mainstream media’s pro-welfare/warfare state propaganda?

The attempts to ban “fake news”; smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve, and other pro-liberty movements as Russian agents; and stop independent organizations from discussing a politician’s record before an election are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans, no matter their political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these efforts to limit free speech."


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes, I am aware of the Michael Brown shooting but not that the "don't shoot" was false.



> The Daily Show is intended to be political satire from a distinctly liberal viewpoint. Much like Saturday Night Live's segment "Weekend Update" where news items are parodied. Most non-retarded thinking adults understand it is parody and satire. Like _The Onion_.



Ok.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> ...



I think you're kind of mixing issues here.  The first is the issue of fake news.  The second is how to handle it.  You've jumped straight into the second - which I have not commented on at all, and made some huge assumptions.

My view in countering fake news is to educate people on how to critically think.  Not make things illegal or infringe on free speech.  How individual business' choose to deal with it is up to them.

Also....your claim: Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" - not something I was familiar with, so I looked it up.

Here is the actual act: Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA - Press Releases - Newsroom - Rob Portman  It doesn't seem to be calling for banning anything or creating new LAWS.  Seems to be a counter-propoganda propoganda thing.

Other than that - what is wrong with investigating Russian hacking and possible influencing of our electoral system?  Make more sense then spending more money investigating Benghazi.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Dec 14, 2016)

"Fake news is a story that is completely false". So the woman who claimed she was groped on the airplane, which turned out to be completely false and was constantly repeated by the media, along with 15 other women's stories, which was constantly repeated by the mainstream media, and which has disappeared completely off the radar since the election, is fake news. So that just blows up your op opening. Coyote, you're ok, but you have to come up with stuff that stands up to scrutiny better than this.

This is where I discount the whole interview
Fake election news outperformed real news sites in social media such as facebook 

I have never ever gotten ANY news from Facebook. Have you? Talk about an oxymoron.


----------



## Boss (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Yes... it was false. The US Justice Dept. did an extensive investigation and they concluded he was shot in self defense. Turns out, there were no eyewitnesses who saw hands in the air or heard "don't shoot." There WERE witnesses who saw him charging the officer who acted in self defense. 

But the point is, the "fake news story" circulated all across the country for weeks as if it were true. News reporters and journalists were symbolically holding their hands in the air. Congressmen were doing it. Celebrities were doing it. All of this was happening as emergency personnel in Ferguson were trying to keep protesters and rioters from burning their city to the ground. 

So if we're now going to get all uptight about the integrity and honesty of the news.... this kind of shit needs to be addressed FIRST!  Then, we need to deal with where we draw the line between satire and news and who gets to decide that. I'd hate to think liberals are about to ax 90% of their entertainment and perhaps 45% of their "trusted news sources."


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Shrimpbox said:


> "Fake news is a story that is completely false". So the woman who claimed she was groped on the airplane, which turned out to be completely false and was constantly repeated by the media, along with 15 other women's stories, which was constantly repeated by the mainstream media, and which has disappeared completely off the radar since the election, is fake news. So that just blows up your op opening. Coyote, you're ok, but you have to come up with stuff that stands up to scrutiny better than this.
> 
> This is where I discount the whole interview
> Fake election news outperformed real news sites in social media such as facebook
> ...



All those women's claims were "completely false"?  Do tell...

No, I don't get my news from FB, but apparently many people do.  Just not us.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Actually, I think this is the kind of shit that is being addressed - NOT satire.  We're not talking about satire.  The examples given in the articles I quoted were NOT satire but actual fake news.


----------



## Boss (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Other than that - what is wrong with investigating Russian hacking and possible influencing of our electoral system? Make more sense then spending more money investigating Benghazi.



Because ALL the Russians have done is to release emails that were hacked from unsecured servers. They did not hack voting machines and change Hillary votes to Trump votes. THAT is the "fake news" liberals want to imply and promote. Did their releasing emails have an influence? Possibly, but did Obama not have and influence on the elections in Israel or the Brexit vote? There is no law against outside sources_* influencing*_ elections and votes.


----------



## Boss (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Actually, I think this is the kind of shit that is being addressed - NOT satire. We're not talking about satire. The examples given in the articles I quoted were NOT satire but actual fake news.



Again... WHO gets to determine what is satire and what is "fake news"?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I think this is the kind of shit that is being addressed - NOT satire. We're not talking about satire. The examples given in the articles I quoted were NOT satire but actual fake news.
> ...



Seems satire is usually labeled as such.  For example, The Onion, states up front what it is.  It's up to the readers to do due diligence.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Mmm. How do you label the media co ordinating with a political party to plant news items that turn out to be false such as the situation with Michelle Fields and the lie that Corey almost dragged her down?
> ...



Thank you for proving what that Counter Punch article essentially was saying.  Unless the piece is satire, there is no such thing as fake news.

In your OP, I saw that Buzz Feed referred to a piece about Hillary "selling weapons" to ISIS. 

Well, depending on you POV, that could be taken as true.  That State department DID deliver weapons to ISIS, multiple times.  Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh PROVED that there was a concerted effort to move weapons from Libya to Syrian rebels.  Some rebels later formed ISIS. 

*The Red Line and the Rat Line*
*Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels*
*LRB · Seymour M. Hersh · The Red Line and the Rat Line: Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels*
A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding.

This squares with what Hillary said herself in Wikileaks emails to Podesta, which your "fake news" led readers to.
WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive
"At the same time, the fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commaders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies."

Also, there are reports that the US had air dropped weapons to ISIS.  Of course, there are official denials that these were meant for the Kurds. . . But, what ever, who are we kidding?  You are what you pretend to be as Vonnegut says.  Actions speak louder than words.


That MSM bullshit doesn't fool anyone.  What Buzzfeed says is as much fake news, or has their own perspective, as much as what you claim you have your own perspective.

So get a grip already.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Other than that - what is wrong with investigating Russian hacking and possible influencing of our electoral system? Make more sense then spending more money investigating Benghazi.
> ...



 I agree - claiming THAT would be a Conspiracy Theory and fake news.

But - it's totally appropriate for us to investigate what the Russians did and what their intent was.  There IS a law against hacking you know.  And we, as Americans should all - regardless of our ideologies - be rightfully pissed at foreign attempts to affect our election.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
> Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.
> 
> ...


Whomever gets their *cough* "news" off of FB is an idiot.  I also heard that interview.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Did Clinton sell weapons to ISIS?  Did the State Department sell weapons to ISIS?  What you are talking about is - at MOST - CIA activities selling arms to rebel groups that MIGHT eventually end up in ISIS hands.

Hillary Clinton Sold Weapons to ISIS-Fiction!
WikiLeaks Confirms Hillary Clinton Sold Weapons to ISIS?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 14, 2016)

Dot Com said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> ...



What did you think of it?


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


I thought it was more wasting time because of my previous comment- anyone who gets their news off of FB is an intellectual cripple. My local NPR is 88.5 FM. I listen to that or CSpan radio


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Why?

Why is it okay for us to do it, but when it is done to us, we have to be self-righteous and pissed?


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Again, it's a matter of perspective.  I'll take a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and Hillary's own words over those sources.  She knew what she was doing when she helped set up the Rat Line.  It was authorized in 2012, she stepped down in 2013, it was her baby, and her policy.

And if you don't think CFR journalism, and STATE media, aka, NPR is trying to soften up your malleable mind to be in favor of eliminating independent media, then you aren't using critical thought.  

This is a legitimate disagreement we should be able to have in a Democratic Republic.  The establishment would like for those on the other side of this debate to not have the story or POV we have. 

Don't you see?  Buzz Feed even labeled it, FAKE NEWS, and you agree with them, you don't even see it as a disagreement of POV.  Yet when Tiny dancer has a disagreement with you, you just tell her it is a matter of perspective.


I think you are being totalitarian.

I'm will to let you have your POV, you just want to label others POV "fake news."


Nice.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Dec 14, 2016)

Ok, let's all agree that foreign interference in the election, if true, is serious business, not fake news. So why did intel refuse to show up in congress today? Something stinks in Denmark.


----------



## Boss (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


The Onion

The ONLY disclaimer I see on their home page is:
The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.
© Copyright 2016 Onion Inc. All rights reserved

So, no sir... they most certainly do NOT state they are a satire site or that the stories are fake. Nor does The Daily Show or Saturday Night Live. That's why I am asking you... WHO gets to determine what is satire and what is "fake news?"  

So we have TWO fundamental problems here. First is the actual integrity and honesty in reporting factual information as news... a real problem because every news outlet has a biased editorial viewpoint and often gives a slanted or one-sided representation. And second, the issue of political satire which has a long-standing history as being a protected freedom of expression since Mark Twain. 

This is ONLY an issue because Hillary Clinton, reeling from an emotional loss in the election, blamed it on "fake news" instead of admitting she was just a crappy candidate. Never mind that Trump had just as many "fake news" stories about him. As soon as the words left her lips, the lefties went in meltdown mode with this idiotic knee-jerk reaction as if there is some sort of legislation or regulation we can pass to prevent "fake news" ...and the truth is, we can't!  

As you correctly stated-- it's up to citizens to do due diligence.


----------



## Boss (Dec 14, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I agree - claiming THAT would be a Conspiracy Theory and fake news.
> 
> But - it's totally appropriate for us to investigate what the Russians did and what their intent was. There IS a law against hacking you know. And we, as Americans should all - regardless of our ideologies - be rightfully pissed at foreign attempts to affect our election.



Oh, I have no problem investigating this. We need to hold accountable public officials who have classified information on unsecured private servers in violation of the Espionage Act. If that hadn't happened, there would have been no emails hacked. And yes, there IS a US law against hacking... US law doesn't apply to Russians living in Russia... our law has no jurisdiction there. 

I am rightfully pissed that we have laws in place to protect classified information and those laws were ignored. And you're right, it should go beyond our ideology, but apparently it doesn't.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Mmm. How do you label the media co ordinating with a political party to plant news items that turn out to be false such as the situation with Michelle Fields and the lie that Corey almost dragged her down?
> ...



Well it's obvious that you fall into the Mary Mapes category of journalism. We accuse and you defend.

I find that reprehensible. If journalists had any integrity at all every accusers story should be verified. Thoroughly checked out. Rolling Stone is paying out big bucks big time over their "fake news story about a rape on campus".

Yes the journalist reported the accusation. But without verifying the accusers story. Now they owe a ton of money for publishing the false story. 

Now lets go to that lying bitch Michelle Fields fairy tale. It was blown out of the water when the video was seen by the police and the Secret Service backed up Corey's side of events. The SS actually had warned Fields twice to back away from Trump as they were escorting him out of the rally. 

And Miss Universe. One more time. No one checked her claim. You can't just print a claim and not be responsible for its contents. The lawsuit against Rolling Stone and with them losing proves my point again.

Trump actually saved her crown. He gave her everything to lose the weight so she wouldn't lose her title. This was verified by the Pageant directors that they were going to replace Miss Venezuela with the runner up.

Daily Mail busted her big time. And this was a co ordinated effort between the Clinton campaign and the media. 

Here you go. Bitch was a yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge liar. 

*Alicia Machado adored 'famous publicity!' from her fat-shaming star turn as Trump paid for lavish wellness routine and said her weight was 'not unacceptable' as Miss Universe*

*Former Miss Universe who now bashes Donald Trump for fat-shaming her in 1997 beamed in the glow of fame at the time*


*Trump paid for a lavish 'wellness' regimen including personal chef, yoga, t'ai chi, shiatsu massage, and an elaborately tiled lap pool*


*He told reporters at the time that pageant officials found Machado's weight 'unacceptable' but 'it was not unacceptable to me'*


*That flies in the face of her claims that he berated her as 'Miss Piggy' for failing to maintain a perfect figure as Miss Universe *


*Trump himself agreed to shed 10 pounds in the month before the 1997 pageant, offering to submit to a weigh-in *
Trump paid for lavish wellness routine for fomer Miss Universe Alicia Machado | Daily Mail Online

As to the groping I already put up  threads on it. The woman who claimed she was groped on the plane for example didn't realize that the gentleman sitting right across from them on the plane would call her out as a liar after contacting the New York Post.

And the reason the woman who claimed she was raped as a thirteen year old was also dismissed for being a liar. Her first lawsuit was dismissed in California. The NY Judicial system wanted to keep the story out there front and center to smear Trump. Suit was withdrawn at the last minute.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 15, 2016)

A Rape on Campus. Perfect example of fake news. 

*Jury finds reporter, Rolling Stone responsible for defaming U-Va. dean with gang rape story*

Jury finds reporter, Rolling Stone responsible for defaming U-Va. dean with gang rape story


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 15, 2016)

Oh and let's not forget NBC setting up Zimmerman by editing the 911 call to make him appear as if he had racially profiled Trayvon Martin.


----------



## Decus (Dec 15, 2016)

The biggest problem is that journalism no longer exists. Reporters are are nothing more than cheerleaders for their "side" and the truth is whatever you want it to be.

Like Jonathan Gruber said: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, and basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass".

.


----------



## Tehon (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





Coyote said:


> If they print retractions, then I would guess the intent wasn't to decieve


I don't make that same connection. A "respected" news organization would have no choice but to print a retraction if they wanted to maintain their credibility, in spite of their true intentions to start. And the reality is that often readers will not see the retraction anyway, it may come days after the story was first released and the damage done.

I scrutinize every story, regardless of its provenance and I am just as critical of, if not more so, the "respected" news services. The danger from their false or misleading stories is insidious, even well meaning, intelligent people will be fooled by it. 

The more outlandish stories are just that and the people that fall for them want to be fooled anyway. They reside comfortably within their own echo chambers.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
> Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.
> 
> ...



  Fake news is having a liberal telling you what fake news is.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I'm not mixing any issues. 

I know exactly what is going on.  It is you that is being disingenuous and obtuse here.


Stop trying to limit the debate and lobby for your ministry of truth.


You are clearly in the minority here.  Go to the source of this video.  Look at the views, likes and dislikes, and realize, you are lobbying for the dictators and oligarchs.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 15, 2016)

Shrimpbox said:


> Ok, let's all agree that foreign interference in the election, if true, is serious business, not fake news. So why did intel refuse to show up in congress today? Something stinks in Denmark.


see the 1st paragraph of post #41


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That's not what "fake news"  is.  What you describe here is variant *circumstances *_within _an actual event.  The news here is that the man was shot -- that's true.  The circumstances around it may or may not include this or that aspect that did or did not happen, but that's a *circumstance*.  But the news is that this Michael Brown was shot by police, whatever the circumstances.  That's not negotiable -- the event _happened_.

Fake news is where the entire event is fabricated.


"Three Million Amish Mobilize to vote for Rump" 

"Yoko Had Affair with Hillary" 

"Bill Clinton Has Black Illegitmate Son" 

"Rump Wins Popular Vote" 

"Three Million 'Illegals' Voted" 

"CIA Agent Killed by Clintons"
"Hilary Has Parkinson's / Dementia / Senility / Cancer / Toothache / Heartbreak of Psoriasis

-- and obviously this is the nature of fake stories because ----- this is what sells to the gullible.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Shrimpbox said:


> So the woman who claimed she was groped on the airplane, which turned out to be completely false





Coyote said:


> All those women's claims were "completely false"?  Do tell...



Zackly --- here's a case where real news (the fact that the claim was made, which is true) is countered by fake news ("turned out to be completely false", which is not).

More correctly since this is a talking point on a message board rather than purporting to come from a "news" source we might call it an internet meme, mythology or revisionist history.  Into this bag fit the recurring stuff like "Democrats founded the Klan", "Hitler was a leftist", "FDR caused the Depression", "O'bama caused the 2008 Crash", etc etc. -- things that have no evidence yet are repeated in an Echobubble apparently in hope they stick to the wall like rhetorical pasta.

Ultimately they're close cousins of the same thing.  Along with the lost art of critical thinking, the maxim that the onus of proof is on the asserter seems to be "negotiable" to those who fuel on fables.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Other than that - what is wrong with investigating Russian hacking and possible influencing of our electoral system? Make more sense then spending more money investigating Benghazi.
> ...



Who claims that somebody hacked into voting machines over the internet?  That's not even possible.

It IS possible however to hack into voter registration databases.  That's how you would do it if you were going to hack an election.  Aside from planting/spreading fake news stories.

What you left out from the "all the Russians have done" sentence btw is exactly _when_ and _how_ they did it.  In terms of effect that's _at least_ as significant as the content, and in terms of intent --- it's a dead giveaway.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I think this is the kind of shit that is being addressed - NOT satire. We're not talking about satire. The examples given in the articles I quoted were NOT satire but actual fake news.
> ...



Easy.
Satire is intentional lampooning of real events and/or real people.  Fake news is entirely fabricated.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Stop right there.  Freeze.

WHO said it was "okay for us to do it"?  That's a blatant strawman argument.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

tinydancer said:


> Yes the journalist reported the accusation. But without verifying the accusers story. Now they owe a ton of money for publishing the false story.



This is where basic elementary grade-school simple reading comprehension comes in.

The story is NOT FAKE.  The story is that the woman made the accusation.  Well --- SHE DID make that accusation.  That's not in question.

You have to have the basic intelligence --- and it should take an IQ of about 50 --- to discriminate between "Event A happened" and "Person X *SAYS* event A happened".  *Says* is the active verb --- not "happened".  That's exactly why legitimate news always qualifies such an account with "allegedly".

You can't deny that the woman made the accusation.  That's on record.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> The Birther story:
> No, Clinton didn't start the birther thing. This guy did.



I had completely forgotten about this but there's yet another internet mytholgy/fake news meme that long predates the 2008 campaign related to Birferism.

It claimed, during a break in O'bama's Senate debate with rival Alan Keyes, that Keyes made some crack about O'bama not being born in the US and that O'bama purportedly replied "that doesn't matter, I'm not running for President".  The exchange never happened, but it did date to 2004.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)




----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Do you think it's ok for it to be done to us?

Do you think it's ok for us to do it to other states?

All you're doing is engaging in the "well they do it too" argument.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



NPR is "state media"?

I'm being "totalitarion"?  How exactly?  Where have I called for the ELIMINATION of ANY MEDIA?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I agree - claiming THAT would be a Conspiracy Theory and fake news.
> ...



None of the emails hacked were on public officials private servers.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 15, 2016)

Want to outlaw the Inquirer? 

Methinks OP wouldn't have started the thread had the DNC' s pre- selected candidate- HRH..... errr..... HRC had won


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Dot Com said:


> Want to outlaw the Inquirer?
> 
> Methinks OP wouldn't have started the thread had the DNC' s pre- selected candidate- HRH..... errr..... HRC had won



It's got zero to do with the concept of fake news and the attendant proliferation of mythology from the world of Nosebook.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


>



Cool map!
Dimbart, Whirled Nuts and Drudge must be so far off the lower right they don't even show up.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

tinydancer said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



You accuse yes.  AND you defend.  You defend Trump regardless of the information against him.  Perhaps you are a Mary Mapes clone.  I certainly didn't see you going on about "verifying" the accusations against Clinton or Obama.



> I find that reprehensible. If journalists had any integrity at all every accusers story should be verified. Thoroughly checked out. Rolling Stone is paying out big bucks big time over their "fake news story about a rape on campus".Yes the journalist reported the accusation. But without verifying the accusers story. Now they owe a ton of money for publishing the false story.



Oh I agree.  Just like the stories about Bill Clinton and pedophile island.  That sure was "verified" eh?




> Now lets go to that lying bitch Michelle Fields fairy tale. It was blown out of the water when the video was seen by the police and the Secret Service backed up Corey's side of events. The SS actually had warned Fields twice to back away from Trump as they were escorting him out of the rally.



Really?  Lying bitch?  Doesn't seem like she is the one lying: Donald Trump: Michelle Fields changed her story since first claiming campaign manager grabbed her

_Trump, conversely, said the footage "exonerates" Lewandowski "totally." It doesn’t; it looks from the video as if he did grab her — *and the police report says the video is consistent with what Fields alleged*_.​



> And Miss Universe. One more time. No one checked her claim. You can't just print a claim and not be responsible for its contents. The lawsuit against Rolling Stone and with them losing proves my point again.
> 
> 
> Trump actually saved her crown. He gave her everything to lose the weight so she wouldn't lose her title. This was verified by the Pageant directors that they were going to replace Miss Venezuela with the runner up.
> ...



None of that discounts her claims.  He still fat shamed her, and it's even on video and tape.
Former Miss Universe: Trump called me 'Miss Piggy'




> As to the groping I already put up  threads on it. The woman who claimed she was groped on the plane for example didn't realize that the gentleman sitting right across from them on the plane would call her out as a liar after contacting the New York Post.
> 
> And the reason the woman who claimed she was raped as a thirteen year old was also dismissed for being a liar. Her first lawsuit was dismissed in California. The NY Judicial system wanted to keep the story out there front and center to smear Trump. Suit was withdrawn at the last minute.



The 13 yr old's claims may or may not be true.  As I recall the dismissal had to do with some kind of legal technicality, not the merits of the case itself.  If it was withdrawn, then that pretty much answers the concerns (although I'm willing to bed if it were against Bill Clinton the claim would be made that Clintons threatened them).

As to the various groping incidents, the list of accusers is quite long: Donald Trump Sexual Assault Accusations: Timeline And List Of Women With Lawsuits, Including A 13-Year-Old Girl and Trump has also been sued by some of them - long before his candidacy, and those suits were settled out of court.[/quote][/quote]


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Dot Com said:


> Want to outlaw the Inquirer?
> 
> Methinks OP wouldn't have started the thread had the DNC' s pre- selected candidate- HRH..... errr..... HRC had won



Who's talking about outlawing ANY media?  My guess is you would have been screaming if the false news had tarred Trump.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



How am I trying to limit the debate?  I'm not calling for banning anything.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Hasn't been refuted by you yet.  Now quit soaking the bed.



How many times does it have to be done before you STFU?

Never mind, you turds always move the goal posts and change the rules anyway. 

Waste the electrons.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Pete7469 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Hasn't been refuted by you yet.  Now quit soaking the bed.
> ...



Ok, so you can't refute it.  At least you're upfront about that.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Ok, so you can't refute it.  At least you're upfront about that.



I should have known better than to fall for that....

So yeah, you're right... whatever. 

It's been done regardless.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Fair enough Pogo.

Have the Russians admitted to any election interference?  


I still haven't seen any concrete proof, only partisan allegations.  

And the partisans want so badly to believe.  Doesn't that in itself, qualify as "fake news?"

I've seen reports from both sides saying it was, and it wasn't the Russians.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Why on earth would the Russians admit to anything?  Thus far, all the intelligence organizations agree the Russians were behind the hacking.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



YOU haven't, but this is just the first step in a three part process. 






NPR is state media because it is run by the political and cultural elites, and it uses 28 to 35% tax payer funding.

The Hegelian dialectic, it is the first stage of a predetermined outcome.  Like I said before, I don't know if you are consciously playing a part, or just parroting the MSM which is a CFR cartel in conjunction with the government (that includes NPR,) but it is an effort to strip away freedoms.  The first stage is to convince people that there is a problem.  I'm telling you, there isn't a compelling problem, it's noise.  PROBLEM=>REACTION=>SOLUTION.  Like I noted before, this legislation is already in the works, our freedoms are already under siege.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Irrelevant.  It's a strawman argument, Russians or no Russians.  So your argument isn't one.





MisterBeale said:


> I still haven't seen any concrete proof, only partisan allegations.
> 
> And the partisans want so badly to believe.  Doesn't that in itself, qualify as "fake news?"
> 
> I've seen reports from both sides saying it was, and it wasn't the Russians.



Again, as in so many other examples, the story in this case is that the intelligence indicates that.  Once again there's a crucial distinction between the news that "X happened" and the news that "Entity A *says *X happened" or in this case "entity A says it has seen indications that this happened".  I don't know what it is that's elusive about that distinction.

Extreme example: Son of Sam told police he was taking orders from a dog.  That doesn't mean Son of Sam was actually _taking _orders from a dog --- it means exactly what it says, that Son of Sam *said *he was taking orders from a dog.  A dog giving orders is not a fact.  That Son of Sam _made the claim_, IS.

In this case if intelligence indicates Russian hacking. the desire to not-believe it is not sufficient grounds to suppress it as "fake news".  If definitive evidence of the hacking itself is not present, then that's in the future if the hacking itself is to become a real event.  But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".

Again "fake news" is completely contrived, like the three million Amish.  Doesn't apply here.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Agreed.

There probably should be a treaty where we all agree not to do it.

That said, unless they admit to it, or unless hard proof it shown, this seems to be a smoke screen to strip away our freedom


Ask yourself a question.   . . .  do you really want our media to resemble Russia's and China's?  That is the upshot of this whole debate.  The CFR cartel, from which NPR is a part of, that is what they are trying to brainwash you to support, to have the government control which sources of media will be allowed.  

That is what you are basically saying you want, you want our media to resemble that of Russia and China.


Nice, real nice.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> NPR is state media because it is run by the political and cultural elites, and it uses 28 to 35% tax payer funding.



Bullshit.  NPR has nothing to do wth the State, nor does the vice versa apply.  There is no such thing as "the political and cultural élites" as a quantifiable entity.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Intelligence indicates it_ could be_ the Russians. . . but then, it _could be_ a myriad of any others as well.

Precisely, and that is what the corporate news, including NPR is doing.  They are claiming Entity A says X happened when they say that Russians have spread fake stories or hacked the election.  They won't offer solid proof.  Nobody in the intelligence agencies will.

Nobody tells you who entity A is.  Gee, I wonder why?


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > NPR is state media because it is run by the political and cultural elites, and it uses 28 to 35% tax payer funding.
> ...



I think we are done here.

You are in denial.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



No.  That isn't the upshot of this debate.  That is you making claims about what I say or want that I have not expressed.  That is you building strawmen and in the process stifling debate on this by claiming any debate can only lead to the banning of media so we shouldn't even be talking about this.

No media should be banned.  If it engages in slander, libel, defemation - there are legal avenues to address that.  But it behooves social media like FB, to take a close look at it's own role in the dissemination of this just as it behooves journalists to fact check for accuracy before rushing to press.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



US officials: Putin personally involved in US election hack


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> it behooves journalists to fact check for accuracy before rushing to press.



That would be nice.

The NYSlimes, Washington Compost, and MSLSD wouldn't exist.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



I worked in broadcasting for thirty years, including dealing with the governmental side, and I know exactly what I'm talking about.  A Googly Image is no more an argument than a strawman is.

Now if you've got some way to refute what I just said you would have posted it.  Instead we get a Googly Image.

Voilà.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Far as I know Entity A is the CIA in this case.  I didn't think that was a secret.
I simply used a generic to apply a general rule.


----------



## Tehon (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".


How can you possibly know that intelligence has those indicators is in fact, fact?


----------



## Boss (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Well, we know that Hillary's server was hacked, so that's a lie. Beyond that, this is a classified CIA investigation, the details of which have not been released to the general public. All that has been said is "there is a consensus" ...and that's it. No further details are available, yet YOU are making this assumption. This is exactly how fake news starts.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What "assumption" did she make?
And I have to say in light of the last thread you started with my name on it, such a charge is, shall we say, ironic.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".
> ...



You can't.  _But nobody asserted that._


----------



## Boss (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


>



What LIBERAL ass clown came up with this???  

See, this right here is why I have a serious problem with this "fake news" meme. You and your minions want to get rid of all those "outlier" sources so that our information is limited to your hand-picked liberal sources. No thank you... I think we'll stick to what we have.


----------



## Tehon (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


The point is that you can't emphatically say whether it is or isn't "fake news". We don't know the facts.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Once AGAIN ---- where does she say she "wants to get rid of outlier sources"?

See what I mean about the irony of you charging somebody else with assumptions?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



What part of "nobody asserted that" just flew over your head?

You just floated a strawman.  You introduced *a claim nobody made.  *It literally does not exist.


----------



## Boss (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Her assumption is what she said, stupid... "None of the emails hacked were on public official'e private servers."  First of all... Hillary's were... second, we don't know any of the details regarding the DNC email hacking. No one has this information but the CIA and they're not telling.


----------



## Boss (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Once AGAIN ---- where does she say she "wants to get rid of outlier sources"?
> 
> See what I mean about the irony of you charging somebody else with assumptions?



That's ALL this "fake news" meme is about! It's where this is headed because there is no other "reasonable" resolution. We have to do something about all these various sources of news who don't report the preordained "truth" according to the liberal left. 

And I don't give a flying fuck what you find ironic, assmunch. You can go to hell!


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No.  We don't "know" that.
If Trump moves to prosecute Clinton, what's known on emails?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




God.  How many times do I have to repeat the same effing thing?  I don't want to get rid of any media.  There.  Is that dumbed down enough?  Or, are you going to keep building strawmen?


----------



## Tehon (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


You made the claim that "intelligence has those indicators" is factual, therefore it isn't fake. Or am I reading it wrong.


Pogo said:


> But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".


----------



## Boss (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Excuse me, I don't see Politifact on your little fucking chart, nor did I see your previous link, IBTimes.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

....


Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Fake news.

It's a crap lie put out by partisans at the CIA, they even tell you that in the story.

Can't you read?

Here's the guy behind the partisan attack.

Get a clue.

A subtle takedown of Donald Trump by Homeland Security's Jeh Johnson

It's all bullshit, partisan motivated and FAKE NEWS.


----------



## Boss (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Then  kindly explain to me what the end-game is to this "fake news" meme?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> ....
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> ...





What evidence do you have that it's fake news?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Learn how to evaluate and question and critically think before just accepting it and defending it.  You can't censor media beyond libel/slander.  But you can learn to be a bit more critical.


----------



## Boss (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Learn how to evaluate and question and critically think before just accepting it and defending it. You can't censor media beyond libel/slander. But you can learn to be a bit more critical.



And I think this is something the left and right can both agree on. You need to be more critical in evaluating ANY news. Period!  However, the emphasis here is personal responsibility. It's not up to anyone else to do this for you. It's not up to government to protect you from "fake news" ...it's YOUR responsibility to disseminate information on your own. We are never going to agree on some Czar of News Truth. That's the rabbit hole the left wants to go down and I will reject that. 

Now you can certainly act like sugar won't melt in your mouth and claim,... no, no... that's not what I want at all... but those of us on the right are keen to your tactics... we're just not buying it. We know exactly where you're headed with this latest "cause" and we're nipping the fucker in the bud!


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Learn how to evaluate and question and critically think before just accepting it and defending it. You can't censor media beyond libel/slander. But you can learn to be a bit more critical.
> ...



I don't hear many leftists calling for banning media.  I think that's a bit of rightwing fake news.



> Now you can certainly act like sugar won't melt in your mouth and claim,... no, no... that's not what I want at all... but those of us on the right are keen to your tactics... we're just not buying it. We know exactly where you're headed with this latest "cause" and we're nipping the fucker in the bud!



I don't care what you think and what you will or will not buy.  You "know" exactly nothing.  You just assume.


----------



## Boss (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I don't hear many leftists calling for banning media.



Oh no, of course not... they don't want to ban media any more than they want to ban guns! That's just crazy talk! ...This is a classic example of how the left always plays.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I don't hear many leftists calling for banning media.
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Try this on for size.  The ACLU, which you guys always condemn as being leftist would certainly sue the shit out of anyone who started banning media.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 15, 2016)

Pete7469 said:


> View attachment 102119
> 
> You keep  parroting the same bullshit, and it keeps getting ridiculed and refuted.
> 
> Get a a new fucking record bed wetter.



No its not.  What you are doing is spreading more fake news.  Fake news won the election.  It was tweeted and shared more than real news.  And it overwhelmingly favored Trump and hurt Hillary.  Fake news.

Fake News Expert On How False Stories Spread And Why People Believe Them


----------



## Boss (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Try this on for size.  The ACLU, which you guys always condemn as being leftist would certainly sue the shit out of anyone who started banning media.



Sorry, I must've missed all the stories about the ACLU suing the shit out of YouTube and Facebook for removing content. 

I don't think you want to ban media and I didn't say that. The liberal left wants to control the information the media can report. I believe in the free press so I am opposed to this. Are there people who report outrageous and erroneous stories? Sure there are... always have been. This is not something new that started in the 2016 election. 

Just last week from Slate Magazine (one of your "trusted" news sources in your little graphic): 

*"Kellyanne Conway says working mothers shouldn't work in the White House."
*
This is a misrepresentation of what she actually said. She was speaking on her personal view as a mother, that she didn't feel it appropriate for HER.  Her comment was taken out of context deliberately and presented as if she was making some social statement she never made. THAT is FAKE NEWS!


----------



## Boss (Dec 15, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 102119
> ...



You are a fucking idiot. Fake news didn't win the election... Hillary being a corrupt piece of shit candidate is why she lost. Hillary failing to connect with working class Americans in flyover country is why she lost. It wasn't that most of America is sexist.... wasn't because of Russian hackers... wasn't because of fake news... She was a crappy candidate who didn't inspire people. 

I love how we now all of a sudden out of the clear fucking blue, have "Fake News Experts!" 

When the left is not in power, they are hilarious!


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



WHO in the CIA?

You know why I use "Googly images to respond to your posts?"

Because you have the intellectual acuity of a gnat sometimes.

I thought you had initially supported Sanders?  Then you have the audacity to sit there and tell me that there is no such thing as political, cultural, and financial elites.  You're acting like you are full of shit.  I know you are smarter than rdean, guno, et. al.

You know as well as I know, if it weren't for these self-same elites, Sanders would have won the nomination.  They controlled the press, they controlled the flow of information, they are the gatekeepers of the paradigm.

I would have thought you would've been familiar with Chomsky's "_Manufacturing Consent_" or Bernays' "_Propaganda._"

I don't know who you think you are discussing this with, but I am not some school kid.  I know what the hell I am talking about.  I had once thought you did.  Apparently not.

If you want an ally in opposing nefarious bullshit that this Trump administration is going to pull, cut this crap out now.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Well, I went to the twitter account of the person that made it.  She's just a Hollywood actress from the left coast, so there is your obvious bias.  Vanessa Otero - IMDb

To that point, you have it called out, clearly a neo-liberal.  That said, it can't be said that she doesn't have a sense of humor and isn't aware of her NWO bias.

Vanessa Otero on Twitter

"
*TinyTachyon* ‏@*tinytachyon*  Dec 14


@*vlotero*





 Bland 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Neoliberal 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Consensus 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Is 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Not 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 "Minimal 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Bias"

1 reply    0 retweets * 5 likes *





*Vanessa Otero* ‏@*vlotero* 
@*tinytachyon*





You. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Could. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Make. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Your. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Own. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Chart. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




It. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Would. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Be. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




So. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Woke.


Likes *4*
 
 
8:11 AM - 14 Dec 2016
1 reply    0 retweets    *4 likes *




*TinyTachyon* ‏@*tinytachyon*  22h22 hours ago


@*vlotero* i believe i have been owned, online

1 reply    0 retweets    *0 likes *





*Vanessa Otero* ‏@*vlotero*  20h20 hours ago
@*tinytachyon* All in good fun. Much love 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




0 replies    0 retweets    *1 like *


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The entire Congress is calling for a ban on media, not just the left, but the neo-cons as well.  I already posted, and you already remarked on the Senate and House Bills that will ferret out any media that has been influenced by the Russians.

SO, you think the government should have the right to shut down RT, is that it?

Even though that chart you posted had Al jazeera right smack in the middle of it, is that it?

smdh.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Try this on for size.  The ACLU, which you guys always condemn as being leftist would certainly sue the shit out of anyone who started banning media.


Only the media that they like. . .


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...


That's not how this works skipper.

You have to have evidence that this isn't some politically motivated attack upon American's freedom of Press, or on the legitimacy of the election.

Otherwise, it's a non-story.  I've already proved that the source for your aritcle that you posted from CNBC is partisan, and more than likely bunk.   I have kept repeating to you and Pogo ad nauseum, WHY won't any of these MSM sources reveal WHO is behind these accusations.   The only thing I get back from you two is "unnamed source in the CIA, or the CIA."

The reason they won't reveal the name of the accuser, is for this very reason.


That is not how we do things in the United States.  In this nation, you are supposed to know the name of the person leveling these accusations, and how they made this "assessment."  As of yet, we have gotten neither.

All we have gotten since October is the same thing, ad nauseum, like a skipping record.  If you are at all intellectually curious, this should make you curious, raise your hackles, and make you doubtful.

You don't care, you just swallow the bullshit they are feeding you b/c you hate Trump so much.


Listen, I don't trust him either.  What I don't trust more?  Folks trying to destroy the freedom in the Constitution.


----------



## skye (Dec 15, 2016)




----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Try this on for size.  The ACLU, which you guys always condemn as being leftist would certainly sue the shit out of anyone who started banning media.
> ...



Several things - I don't want to control the information that gets reported, beyond existing laws.  But let me point out something else here -  ALL media is biased, even YOUR "trusted" sites.  What determines how biased a site can be pretty subjective though usually the extremes are accurately defined, it's what's in the middle that is less so.    The graphic I posted is one of many, all showing somewhat differing interpretations.  I found it interesting - didn't agree with some of it's conclusions, thought some were more rightwing then presented.

Yes, that was a deliberate misrepresentation of what she said and what I WANT is people to be able to look at things like that, and track down the facts, question it.   Look for the actual transcript of what she said.  Now I wonder if you have the balls to do that with the rightwing spin on leftists?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...




"...You have to have evidence that this isn't some politically motivated attack upon American's freedom of Press, or on the legitimacy of the election...".  Umh no.  Skipper.

That's not how it works.  You don't prove negatives.  

YOU made a claim. (that it is false news) It's up to you to support your claim with evidence.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 15, 2016)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Wrong.  The best lies contain a little truth.



Horseshit.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So post another one then and we'll tear apart it's obvious bias


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 15, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Cool map!
> Dimbart, Whirled Nuts and Drudge must be so far off the lower right they don't even show up.



Dimbart's in there...


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Where in that bill does it call for banning?  I scanned the synopsis of one of the bills and didn't see anything about banning media.



> SO, you think the government should have the right to shut down RT, is that it?



What is "RT"?



> Even though that chart you posted had Al jazeera right smack in the middle of it, is that it?
> 
> smdh.



You're surprisingly wrong about Al jazeera.  Your assuming that simply because it's run out of the Middle East it can't a) be a reputable news source and b) run like a BUSINESS.  IE - responsive to it's customer base which for Al Jazeera US - is the US viewers.


----------



## Vigilante (Dec 15, 2016)

We have a nice graphic to explain it to the uninformed....


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)




----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
> Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.
> 
> ...


Anything on Face-Book is FAKE NEWS.

Zuckerberg should shut down his company and do the world a favor.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I already did.

You ignored it.
A subtle takedown of Donald Trump by Homeland Security's Jeh Johnson

Here, I'll try it again.

*Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources*
Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named."

<snip>

"In an angry letter sent to ODNI chief Clapper on Monday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said he was “dismayed” that the top U.S. intelligence official had not informed the panel of the CIA’s analysis and the difference between its judgment and the FBI’s assessment.

Noting that Clapper in November testified that intelligence agencies lacked strong evidence linking Russian cyber attacks to the WikiLeaks disclosures, Nunes asked that Clapper, together with CIA and FBI counterparts, brief the panel by Friday on the latest intelligence assessment of Russian hacking during the election campaign."

IOW, it seems the only thing the Russians may be guilty of, is letting the American voter know the truth about the corruption in their system. 

Oh gee, what terrible people they are.  Hmmm . . . how terrible.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Dec 15, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.  The best lies contain a little truth.
> ...



You sound grumpy.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> So post another one then and we'll tear apart it's obvious bias


Oh it's all in good fun.

I'm not the one posting a thread trying to convince folks that "fake news" exists.  It doesn't, not to any large degree to where it is a problem. (Not in the alternative press anyhow.)  A case might be made that the crony corporate press cartel that has made media so concentrated has cause people to lack the ability to grasp the reality of what is going on in the world.

I'm not so dumb to believe that any particular news source is guilty of creating and exclusively propagating and trading in false news, or thinking this is a problem which needs addressing, it isn't.



Did you ever learn about this in American History?

Did you know that Yellow Journalism was one of the major causes of both the Spanish American war, and the Iraq War?  That's all on the MSM buddy, not on "fake news" as defined by the establishment.

I don't fall for CFR establishment journalist's lies.  Apparently you're the sucker if you believe this chart you've posted.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


>



Why should it matter who published it?

That is a fallacy, you know that, right?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




You mean like you attack NPR as a source by calling it state media?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 15, 2016)

Not all sources are equal.  Junk is junk.  That doesn't mean bias or that you shouldn't try to read news from a variety of sources.  Should I take the National Enquirer seriously?  Occassionally, it's right.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


I'd say the same thing about RT.  Just because they are funded by the Russians, doesn't mean that the dissident American voices to the Anglo-American establishment which they commonly host aren't valuable to the functioning of our Democracy.  

Naturally RT is extremely biased, but not so much more than Al Jazeera or Western media that it isn't useful information outlet.  IMO, it's critical for balanced POV  if you really want to get a complete view of world events.  It is a crucial voice American should have a right to hear, and if the US government keeps the citizens of the US from hearing it, we risk moving that much closer to war by not understanding the Russian government and it's POV.


I watched an interview the other day between the Grand daughter of Eduard Shevardnadze, Journalist Sophie Sheverdnadze, and the Donald Trump of Germany, hard right AfD leader Frauke Petry.  It was rather interesting.  With out RT, who would do this?

*What Is Russia Today?*
*The Kremlin's propaganda outlet has an identity crisis*
What Is Russia Today?
“Maybe people watch us like a freak show,” Shevardnadze told me, “but I’ve never been even slightly embarrassed. This point of view has a right to exist. We don’t have the pretension of being like CNN, or being as good as bbc, because we’re not. You may totally disagree with what we’re doing, and it’s meant to be that way.” She adds, with a touch of exasperation, “It’s a job. They pay you for it.”

<snip>

"When there’s nothing for the propaganda channel to propagate, RT’s message becomes a slightly schizophrenic, ad hoc effort to push back against what comes out of the West. And if there’s nothing to push back against, other than the ghosts of a bygone era, then what, really, is left to say that others aren’t already saying, and saying better?"

It should be noted, I got a laugh over what partisan shill of an author of this piece recently found herself in hot water. 

Like she is one to criticize journalistic integrity.    Still, it's a good analysis of RT, and she is a good establishment left journalist.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 15, 2016)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...


Perfect example of how the public swallowed your bullshit narrative. Hillary wasn't even close to being a corrupt politician.

But if she met with Goldman Sachs and Exxon you'd go ape shit but trump appoints them to his cabinet.

Or that the economy was bad but in reality it's not.

You really are fucking dumb. You don't even know you got conned.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Actions are taken by the codes that are enacted by the administration.  When a law is passed, the bureaucracy enacts it by creating codes and regulations.  This is how administrative agencies enforce legislative edicts. 

Do you think Congress critters have actually decided how much everyone is going to receive in Social Security benefits every month, is that how you think this works?  Or that they are responsible for deciding what is safe for you to eat, or what environmental regulations are going to be enforced, etc.?



Once the government sets up a ministry of truth to tell the public what news is fake, and what news isn't, some dimwits will actually believe the government.  Seriously.

Did you know that there are people that actually believe that the FDA, EPA, SEC, etc. have the people's best interests in mind, rather than the industries they regulate, isn't that a hoot?    Most folks don't know that these agencies are staffed by the very insiders that once were in the industries that they are tasked to regulate. 

What does that mean?  What it means, is that once they set up this "Center," they will have folks like, oh, Brian "I was there" Williams, and maybe, Mary "fact check" Mapes to tell the public what is "fake news."  And you folks will believe them, because they are the government. 

Then you will tell us, in all our disagreements, when we source something, if it doesn't have "Center" approval, it isn't' reliable. 

Then I'll have to tell you that you don't know shit.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I listen to it every morning . . . . and when they aren't lying about something, I'll be the first to use them as a source.


It is my prerogative to call out their bias though.  YOU are the one the believes they don't have one.  I am simply making the case that they have extreme bias b/c they are establishment media.  I hell, I'll use everything, even the National Enquirer if I have to.     Do you?



You are the one telling us that we can dismiss out of hand w/o reading/watching/listening too anything the source even has to report.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Not all sources are equal.  Junk is junk.  That doesn't mean bias or that you shouldn't try to read news from a variety of sources.  Should I take the National Enquirer seriously?  Occassionally, it's right.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.



So Americans need a ministry of Truth to hold their hand huh?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 17, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I don't hear many leftists calling for banning media.
> ...



Got an example then?

Oh wait ----- look who I'm talking to...  
Never mind.



Boss said:


> The liberal left wants to control the information the media can report. I believe in the free press so I am opposed to this.



So is Liberalism.  By definition.  And btw Gummo "Liberal" and "left" are two different things --- you know that right?

Still looking for this evidence of --- whoever --- wanting to "control the information the media can report".  Still not seeing it.




MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Not all sources are equal.  Junk is junk.  That doesn't mean bias or that you shouldn't try to read news from a variety of sources.  Should I take the National Enquirer seriously?  Occassionally, it's right.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
> ...



Where does anyone suggest that?

aaaand STILL not seeing it.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 17, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Once AGAIN ---- where does she say she "wants to get rid of outlier sources"?
> ...



--- So you have no answer.  You just postulated your own strawman and the tagged on the end, "according to the liberal left" (which again is two different things).  No quote.  No link.  No nothin'.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 17, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Learn how to evaluate and question and critically think before just accepting it and defending it. You can't censor media beyond libel/slander. But you can learn to be a bit more critical.
> ...



All true, all sound reasoning, all agreed.  Now let's go to Fantasyland....




Boss said:


> .....That's the rabbit hole the left wants to go down and I will reject that.
> 
> Now you can certainly act like sugar won't melt in your mouth and claim,... no, no... that's not what I want at all... but those of us on the right are keen to your tactics... we're just not buying it. We know exactly where you're headed with this latest "cause" and we're nipping the fucker in the bud!



  The old "I know what you said but here's what you really mean" fallacy.  

I guess it's typical of fake news followers that they think they can just declare something exists, present no evidence whatsoever, and with the aid of magic Flooby Dust®   --- it becomes a real thing.

This is how Fake News finds its audience.  Targets people with a shaky hold on reality.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 20, 2016)

Five Arrested in Egypt for Staging Fake Aleppo Video

"Truth is the first casualty in war"....

>> Five people in Port Said allegedly making fake videos purporting to show the wreckage of air strikes in the Syrian city of Aleppo have been arrested, the Egyptian Interior Ministry has said.

The videographer, his assistants and the parents of two children who appear in the footage were detained after police managed to trail the would-be camera crew to a building site awaiting demolition, a statement on Monday said.

The team reportedly admitted they had planned to distribute their work on social media, pretending it showed scenes of the injured and destruction in Aleppo, the embattled northern Syrian city which has just fallen back under government control after four years of fighting between the regime and Sunni rebels.

.... The girl’s dress, covered in red paint, was what caught the attention of a police officer driving by, the ministry said.  <<​
Of course there's a great deal of fake news generated about the Middle East by propagandists, many of which find their way into their own thread topics here without the poster bothering to vet the story or its source.  This set of fake news long predates the recent election so there was plenty of knowledge base as to what would sell to the gullible.

This Nosebook post for example:.





In reality this is from a singing competition and the girl, clammed up with stage fright, is being consoled by the MC.  Nor is she even Christian.  Nothing more sinister than that.  But the propagandists insist on making shit up to foment hate.

The original even video:

​Many more debunks here.

Clearly fake news has a long and checkered history which spiked with the internet.  The difference between on the one hand internet blogs/Nosebook posts/fake news sites and on the other hand legitimate journalism is that there's no Editor on the internet to filter what's real and what's absolute bullshit.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 20, 2016)

Maybe we ought to use this thread to debunk fake news....


----------



## Pogo (Dec 20, 2016)

Another more well-known sort of fake news, this time in English....

​


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
> Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.
> 
> ...



1. You don't even believe in that definition though. And by you, I'm talking about liberals and the establishment. They're trying to label Info Wars, Breitbart, The Blaze, or any and all alternative media, etc as fake news across the board.

2. Fake News can have some grains of truth but be meant to mislead, often by omitting details or downplaying them. The media does it as standard procedure now. As a person who read articles since third grade, I can say this is very easy to spot.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 20, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> They're trying to label Info Wars, Breitbart, The Blaze, or any and all alternative media, etc as fake news across the board.



Link?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 20, 2016)

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > They're trying to label Info Wars, Breitbart, The Blaze, or any and all alternative media, etc as fake news across the board.
> ...



That's what the original paper that spurned the entire fake news narrative did, jackass.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Maybe we ought to use this thread to debunk fake news....



These days and on sites like this, we could make an entire forum for it.

Here's another tool I use --- besides obviously looking for credible corroborating and sourced information channels --- photography.  A great many images (such as the 7-year-old girl posted above) are real photos of --- something --- with a completely fabricated story attached, much like the fake quotes Google Image meme generators.  So when I see a suspicious story that carries a photo I have a plug-in where I can right-click the image and choose "search image on Google".  I think you maybe can dump it into the search bar too without the plug-in.  If your suspect story purports to show something that happened in Iraq yesterday, and your search returns the same image from Albania three years ago ----  Eureka, you've struck bullshit.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 20, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



So................................... no link.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 20, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> ...



InfoWars is a perfecty example of fake news.  All media has some level of bias that affects what they emphasize or downplay or omit and we as readers should learn how to recognize that.  But fake media does so to the point where it's almost entirely fictional imo.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 20, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe we ought to use this thread to debunk fake news....
> ...



That's really interesting - I've never been able to search images, I've always had to realy on the written word to find info.  Same with videos.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



That's not true though. In fact, I find them to be more honest of late than all the corporate broadcasters. Here's an hour program; watch it and tell me how this is so fictional....


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 20, 2016)

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Yup.

And I've told you this on a number of occasions now. I'm not your bitch link chaser. I told you the source, if you can refute it (which you can't b/c I told you the truth), then do so. But don't make this about some bull shit like you always do. It only reflects the fact that you're a little bitch.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 20, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I have a handy Firefox plug-in but anyone can use the Google Reverse Image Search.

You can bust a lot of bullshit this way.  Propagandists depend on their targets being too lazy to question what they propagate.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 20, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Cat Toy Meltdown in progress.

It does serve as a reminder of the basic tenet for good journalism and ferreting out fake news, that being:

*Burden of proof is always on the asserter.*

No exceptions.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 20, 2016)

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



That's where you're wrong. I have no burden to prove a damn thing to you. I told you what I understand to be true. I'm not your fucking glorified paralegal. If you're ignorant on a matter, then it's your burden, not mine.


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




You know what, asshole? I am really GLAD the liberal left has raised this meme! Those of us on the right can burn social media to the fucking ground with all the "fake news" churned out daily by your PR group (aka: the mainstream media). This is going to be one of those things that comes back to slap you in your goofy little faces repeatedly and you'll wish to the god you don't believe in that you had never opened your mouth about this. 

Now to answer your stupid little question... Facebook has already announced that it will partner with ABC News and Snopes to "vet" news items. YouTube is already removing content based on their own fascist policies. These aren't news organizations but it's just a matter of time... liberals are patient... they will push for something for a century if they need to, implementing it incrementally along the way.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2016)

You know, FB and Youtube are private companies.  They can make their own determination on content. So can Breitbart.  And InfoWars.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 21, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
> Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.
> 
> ...



So, about 90% of the political stories aired by CNN, MSNBC, or published by the NY Times, WaPO, LA Times, etc. are completely fake, fabricated to promote the party or slander the enemies of the party.

Wail and gnash your teeth, the fraudulent leftist media is washed up, no one believes your shit, no one.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 21, 2016)

Coyote said:


> You know, FB and Youtube are private companies.  They can make their own determination on content. So can Breitbart.  And InfoWars.



As can Carlos Slim's NY Times, the fakest news of all!


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2016)

Coyote said:


> You know, FB and Youtube are private companies.  They can make their own determination on content. So can Breitbart.  And InfoWars.



Oh, I completely understand... that's why I said they're not a news organization. But you know what else? In a free market, they can have competition who comes along and doesn't play into this liberal meme and their private company can fail. Does that sound crazy? Ask the guy who owns MySpace!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 21, 2016)

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > They're trying to label Info Wars, Breitbart, The Blaze, or any and all alternative media, etc as fake news across the board.
> ...



Simply lumping Brietbart and the Blaze IN with Infowars is dishonest and sleazy.

But what else can we expect from you of the Khmer Rouge?

Here is some NY Times fake news that should hit home with you, huffer.

{
In a December 19 article entitled "Time to End the Electoral College," the newspaper argues that the Electoral College is an “antiquated mechanism” for electing the president. And of course in support of its position, it makes the usual arguments, such as that Americans would prefer to elect the president by popular vote. “For most reasonable people, it’s hard to understand why the loser of the popular vote should wind up running the country,” the_ Times_ insists.

Taking that sentence apart, the writer insinuates that anyone who favors keeping the Electoral College is not a “reasonable” person. Second, the writer implies that Democrat Hillary Clinton, the _Times'_ preferred candidate, _won_ the popular vote. Considering that candidates — including Clinton — are not campaigning to win the popular vote, but rather the _Electoral College vote_, the “popular vote” is not necessarily indicative of what it would have been if the candidates were trying to win it. After all, a football game plan would be quite different if field goals counted four points instead of three, or if total yardage were the way a winner was determined, rather than touchdowns, field goals, and safeties. Besides all that, it takes a_ majority_ of the electoral vote to win the presidency, not just a plurality. Clinton did run first in the popular vote, but she did _not_ win a majority of the popular vote. If the country opted to go to a popular vote system, one would think that we would want a candidate who actually won a majority of that vote, that is, if the “will of the majority” is considered so important to detractors of the Electoral College, such as the _New York Times_.}

N.Y. Times' Fake News That Electoral College Was Created to Protect Slavery

You frauds threw out any HINT of journalistic integrity in the zeal to promote the party; now you are in a panic to try and discredit alternative sources, as if that will rebuild the trust in the bullshit put out by the DNC propaganda outlets.

Fuck the leftist press. Anyone who believes the shit they put out is a fool. Pravda under Stalin was more accurate than the DNC controlled MSM today.

And America knows it.

Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

No one believes your bullshit Huffer, no one.


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Taking that sentence apart, the writer insinuates that anyone who favors keeping the Electoral College is not a “reasonable” person. Second, the writer implies that Democrat Hillary Clinton, the _Times'_ preferred candidate, _won_ the popular vote.



Exactly! The leftist media does this ALL THE TIME! They constantly twist context and play games with semantics to infer and imply things that simply aren't true. That's just as bad as a totally made-up story, if not WORSE!  

Hillary didn't "WIN" a goddamn thing! I'm so fucking sick of hearing that she "won the popular vote!" She didn't "WIN" anything... she had more popular votes than Trump but her margin of victory in California alone was greater than her overall margin of the popular vote nationwide. 

The "antiquated" Electoral College was designed to do exactly what it did this year! It worked perfectly as the founders intended for it to. This election should be a required civics lesson for every high school student going forward to demonstrate how we are a republic and not a democracy.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 21, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I know a lot of people in CA who didn't vote for Trump b/c they knew it didn't matter. Also, articles like that ignore the power of states and that votes would be sold and bought in a popular vote system. And yea, they make broad insinuations that 'this is what enlightened people want and ignoramuses disagree.' They are fake as sh**. I think it was a huge mistake for them to push a fake news spotlight because that light is just being turned on them. Remember when Loretta Lynch had the press conference in Colorado about the Hillary investigation? That dude interviewing her, I just wondered where the fuck did they dig up that fool? I was shocked to learn that that amateur was a Washington Post reporter. He didn't give any heir of serious journalism whatsoever. They jumped the shark. They're but a propaganda arm of elitists now.


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2016)

In the spirit of the liberal mainstream media, let me present an example of how they FAKE the news everyday.... this is a right-wing version of what they do: 

*Michelle Obama Confesses to Oprah Her Husband's Presidency Was a Total Failure*

In a remarkably candid and open interview with Oprah Winfrey, First Lady Michelle Obama said today, "We are now getting to see what hopelessness feels like."  Her husband campaigned in 2008 on the message of "Hope and Change" and his wife's admission that her husband had failed at providing the hope he promised was a scathing indictment of his policies. 

"Barack used it as a campaign slogan to garner votes," the First Lady said. "But what else do we really have if we don't have hope?" As of this report, the President has been unavailable for comment as he is golfing in Hawaii.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 21, 2016)

Boss said:


> In the spirit of the liberal mainstream media, let me present an example of how they FAKE the news everyday.... this is a right-wing version of what they do:
> 
> *Michelle Obama Confesses to Oprah Her Husband's Presidency Was a Total Failure*
> 
> ...



I uh, don't think you quite grasp the concept here.

Twisting a mundane story around to imply something it doesn't say isn't "fake news".  It's still using a real event that really happened.  

Fake news is posting that three million Amish are marching to the ballot box to vote for Rump.  Fake news is making up a story that some CIA guy was killed by Hillary Clinton.  Fake news is digging up an old and thoroughly debunked myth about "Bill Clinton's illegitimate son" and reviving it.  Stuff that not only never happened but isn't remotely related to anything that ever happened.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 21, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> I know a lot of people in CA who didn't vote for Trump b/c they knew it didn't matter.



I don't doubt that, and the same is true in every locked-blue or locked-red state; that's the deleterious effect of the Electoral College system as it's practiced.  Unless your state is "in play" you have zero reason to go cast a vote for POTUS at all, unless you're going to cast a protest third party vote.  But nobody even notices. 

So no it doesn't matter, and the same is true for the Clinton voters in California --- everybody knew the state was going "blue", ergo no individual vote has an iota of any meaning.  That's why I've been on the EC's case for so long; among many other flaws it keeps our turnout abysmally low, because millions know their vote will be meaningless.

/offtopic




TheGreatGatsby said:


> Also, articles like that ignore the power of states and that votes would be sold and bought in a popular vote system.



Absurd.  If there be buying and selling of votes going on, why should there be more or less of it with a PV versus an EC?  Non sequitur.


/offtopic


----------



## Pogo (Dec 21, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...




If you can't prove your point, Lord Little Font-Leroy ------------------ you ain't got one.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Dec 21, 2016)

In a perverse way, I have come to appreciate fake news. Every time I see one of the RW nut jobs post a source like Breitbart, I instantly put them into the same category as those who buy the National Enquirer at the supermarket. Saves time trying to sort out thinkers from idiots.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 21, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sooooo .... no answer.  Slippery slope fallacy instead.
Care to try again?  Once again the question was, where does anyone suggest we need a Ministry of Truth?

That doesn't mean Nosebook or YouTube voluntarily dealing with situations that embarrass them.  It means by force.


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > In the spirit of the liberal mainstream media, let me present an example of how they FAKE the news everyday.... this is a right-wing version of what they do:
> ...



Oh, okay... like the story about George W. Bush being AWOL from the National Guard? Or how Trump raped a 13-year-old? Those kind of stories?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 21, 2016)

Boss said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > You know, FB and Youtube are private companies.  They can make their own determination on content. So can Breitbart.  And InfoWars.
> ...



I believe that's Rupert Murdoch.  While that particular model may have had its day, an example of Murdoch's fake news has already been posted here from one of his other venues.  He has more than a couple.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 21, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I don't know a story about Rump raping a 13-year-old.  I do however know of a story of a lawsuit _*claiming *_that.  And that lawsuit happened, so it's a real event.  Now why did you just morph it into a "story" that never existed?

Irony of ironies, we've moved from "fake news"  to "FAKE fake news".  

George Bush's AWOL was published in a book, titled "Fortunate Son".  It may have based on circumstantial evidence but AFAIK there's no evidence to the contrary; no records exist demonstrating Bush's participation in the USAF during the period in question.  So yes it too has a basis; it wasn't just made up like the examples I just gave.


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2016)

Pogo said:


> So no it doesn't matter, and the same is true for the Clinton voters in California --- everybody knew the state was going "blue", ergo no individual vote has an iota of any meaning. That's why I've been on the EC's case for so long; among many other flaws it keeps our turnout abysmally low, because millions know their vote will be meaningless.



Well your vote is never meaningless because it does mean something in your state. The EC just keeps your state from making my state meaningless or visa versa. You see, we are not a nation state, we are 50 individual states, plus a district and a few territories. We don't have a national election, we have state elections. There is no "flaw" in the EC, it ensures we are a republic of individual states and not a fucking nation state democracy. Learn some goddamn history and educate yourself, moron!


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Well no, it never happened... in both cases... there was no evidence to suggest it ever happened. We can claim LOTS of things MAY have happened because there's no evidence to suggest they didn't.... including ANY examples of "fake news" you can present.


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2016)

Pogo said:


> George Bush's AWOL was published in a book....I don't know a story about Rump raping a 13-year-old. I do however know of a story of a lawsuit _*claiming *_that. And that lawsuit happened



So if lawsuits happen and books are written that makes a story TRUE and not FAKE? Is that what you're claiming, dumbass?


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Sooooo .... no answer. Slippery slope fallacy instead.
> Care to try again? Once again the question was, where does anyone suggest we need a Ministry of Truth?
> 
> That doesn't mean Nosebook or YouTube voluntarily dealing with situations that embarrass them. It means by force.



Well it sounds like exactly what you're suggesting to me because you are defending totally bogus and fake news stories as "legitimate" because there was a book written or a lawsuit filed. So who the fuck is getting to decide what is really fake and what is really true? YOU? Fuck YOU!


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2016)

Pogo said:


> I believe that's Rupert Murdoch.



No, I don't believe Murdock owns MySpace, nor does he own MSNBC, CBS, NBC, HuffPo, DailyKos or any of the assorted liberal media that most of America now tunes out. In case you hadn't noticed, the liberals don't fucking control all the media outlets anymore... people get their news elsewhere. Your mainstream stalwarts are barely registering in the ratings these days. The free market is marginalizing them because people are tired of being fed the FAKE NEWS! 

It's the mother of all ironies you've decided to make this a fucking cause!


----------



## Pogo (Dec 21, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sooooo .... no answer. Slippery slope fallacy instead.
> ...



Once again for the slow kids ---- there never was a news story about Rump raping a 13-year-old.  You just made that up, because you're too dense to distinguish the difference between "X happened" and "Person A **SAYS** X happened"  And a book isn't a news story.

So no---- fuck_ YOU_.  Go learn how to think.  That's the bottom line for all of this.  Don't waddle around imagining all sorts of fake stories that never existed and then expect some fairy godmother to come down and whisk them away. Your tenuous grip on reality is nobody's problem but yours.

"Who decides what's fake and what's true"?  *YOU* do.  The reader.  The reader who engages brain to enough of a simple walking pace to be able to *vet* what he sees.and be ready to reject it if it can't be substantiated.  For instance this kid in the bee outfit who doesn't think he needs to back up his points.  For instance taking a story about a rape _lawsuit _and calling it a story about a rape.  You gotta be ready to call "bullshit" when it IS bullshit even if you'd like it to be true.  If you can't do that you're a dishonest hack.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 21, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that's Rupert Murdoch.
> ...



Sigh.... I don't pull this shit out of my ass.

>> In July 2005, in one of the company's first major Internet purchases, *Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation* (the parent company of Fox Broadcasting and other media enterprises) purchased Myspace for US$580 million.[18][26] News Corporation had beat out Viacom by offering a higher price for the website,[27] and the purchase was seen as a good investment at the time.[27] Of the $580 million purchase price, approximately $327 million has been attributed to the value of Myspace according to the financial adviser fairness opinion.[28] Within a year, Myspace had tripled in value from its purchase price.[27] News Corporation saw the purchase as a way to capitalize on Internet advertising, and drive traffic to other News Corporation properties.[26] 

... On June 29, 2011, Myspace announced to label partners and press via email that it had been acquired by Specific Media for an undisclosed sum, rumoured to be a figure as low as $35m.[60][61] CNN reported that Myspace sold for $35 million, and noted that it was "far less than the $580 million News Corp. paid for Myspace in 2005".[62] Rupert Murdoch went on to call the Myspace purchase a "huge mistake".[63] _Time Magazine_ compared News Corporation's purchase of Myspace to Time Warner's purchase of AOL – a conglomerate trying to stay ahead of the competition.[27]  <<   (Wiki)
...


----------



## Pogo (Dec 21, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > So no it doesn't matter, and the same is true for the Clinton voters in California --- everybody knew the state was going "blue", ergo no individual vote has an iota of any meaning. That's why I've been on the EC's case for so long; among many other flaws it keeps our turnout abysmally low, because millions know their vote will be meaningless.
> ...



Entirely bullshit, completely dismantled in the various EC threads, and not in any way the topic here anyway.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 21, 2016)

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I don't have anything to "prove". This is a fireside forum, not a college paper. I've said nothing incorrect and you can't say anything to the contrary. Now stop acting up, child.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 22, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm not familiar with the details of the rape suit so I don't know if there's evidence or not ---- but that's not at all the point.  The point is NO SUCH STORY EXISTS.  You just made it up.

A story does exist that there is a lawsuit to that effect.  You're apparently not intelligent enough to discern that that's a story about a lawsuit and not a rape.  The distinction is apparently over your head.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 22, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



You made an assertion.  And you can't demonstrate that assertion.  Therefore your assertion does not exist.
Simple as that.  You lied, and got caught.


----------



## Boss (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No... fuck YOU... YOU'RE the slow kid here, snowflake. Everyone who didn't have their heads up Hillary Clinton's fat ass heard the "story" about Trump raping a 13-year-old in the weeks leading up to the election, along with an assortment of other bogus and outrageous stories that weren't true. You can always "caveat" a story with "allegedly" and "supposedly" or "according to anonymous sources."  That is exactly why it's impossible to police "true" or "fake" news stories. Only a complete and utter dumb ass would think otherwise. 

What YOU want is to be able to control information. Plain and simple... like the little fascist commie bastard you are! You want a fucking Minister of Truth and you want it to be somebody like Micheal Moore with his little FAKE ASS "documentaries" telling us all what to believe as the truth.  Well, America is resoundingly going to tell you to go fuck yourself.


----------



## foggedinn (Dec 22, 2016)

40 years ago or more, I read a biography of Henry Luce, founder of the time/life publishing empire. It was a real eye opener. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source.


----------



## Boss (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Well no, retard... nothing has been dismantled anywhere. You're just a fucking idiot who doesn't understand the framer's intent of the EC or why it exists.


----------



## Boss (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



*JUST AS I STATED... MURDOCH DOES NOT OWN MYSPACE! *


----------



## Pogo (Dec 22, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



But he DID, until it flamed out.

As I said, it had its day.  I used to use it in music promotion.  Theoretically I may even still have an account.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 22, 2016)

Boss said:


> No... fuck YOU... YOU'RE the slow kid here, snowflake. Everyone who didn't have their heads up Hillary Clinton's fat ass heard the "story" about Trump raping a 13-year-old in the weeks leading up to the election, along with an assortment of other bogus and outrageous stories that weren't true.



Then it's funny you can't link such a story ------------------------------ isn't it.

Oopsie.




Boss said:


> You can always "caveat" a story with "allegedly" and "supposedly" or "according to anonymous sources." That is exactly why it's impossible to police "true" or "fake" news stories. Only a complete and utter dumb ass would think otherwise.



That's because sentient, breathing people who learned how to read actually know what the words "allegedly" and "lawsuit" mean.  Some of us have even learned what subjects and verbs are.  That's how we can tell the difference between "Rump raped a 13-year-old" and "lawsuit alleges Rump raped a 13-year-old".

But of course it's not so easy to figure this out if you're drowning in your own emotional bullshit, telling yourself there are "stories" that no one else knows about.  Do you know Brian Williams?





Boss said:


> What YOU want is to be able to control information. Plain and simple... like the little fascist commie bastard you are! You want a fucking Minister of Truth and you want it to be somebody like Micheal Moore with his little FAKE ASS "documentaries" telling us all what to believe as the truth.



Again  ...........................................................................................................................................  Link?

Again............. no apparently not.


----------



## Boss (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> But he DID, until it flamed out.
> 
> As I said, it had its day. I used to use it in music promotion. Theoretically I may even still have an account.



Hey moron... what was my fucking point of mentioning MySpace? It had nothing to do with who owned it. Like a typical birdbrained liberal idiot, you can't stay focused... maybe they need to up your dosages of Adderall? 

I was making the point that little fascist social media sites who think they can manipulate information could find themselves in the same boat as MySpace, without a fucking customer base because something better came along. Your ADHD caused you to pop off some smart ass comment about Rupert Murdoch. And thus, this little "side argument" ensued over who owns MySpace... and it fucking ISN'T Rupert Murdoch, genius. Yes, he owned it once, he doesn't anymore. I didn't say Murdoch NEVER owned it, so you aren't correct or right, even with the stupid little smart ass side argument you tried to make. 

Actually, this illustrates perfectly why you snowflakes think the big bad government needs to provide you a babysitter to tell you when something is fake or real... because you're all a bunch of mentally-deficient morons who can't focus on anything other than your personal gratification in the moment.


----------



## Boss (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Fake news is posting that three million Amish are marching to the ballot box to vote for Rump. Fake news is making up a story that some CIA guy was killed by Hillary Clinton. Fake news is digging up an old and thoroughly debunked myth about "Bill Clinton's illegitimate son" and reviving it.





Pogo said:


> That's how we can tell the difference between "Rump raped a 13-year-old" and "lawsuit alleges Rump raped a 13-year-old".



So it's fine to report 3 million Amish are allegedly marching to the ballot box to vote for Trump... A CIA guy was allegedly killed by Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton allegedly has an illegitimate son.... thanks for making my point, moron.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You're an idiot.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 22, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


I follow this stuff.


Here is a very interesting article that details how WaPo got burned on their shady source material.  Anyone familiar with Operation mockingbird should see what is going on here.

*PropOrNot: Evidence of a CIA Psychological Operation*
PropOrNot: Evidence of a CIA Psychological Operation

*Alternative Media- A Very Serious Threat to the Ruling Elite*

On November 24, The Washington Post published a story citing the anonymous group PropOrNot. The story accused the Russians of building a large propaganda operation that worked to defeat Hillary Clinton and elect “insurgent candidate” Donald Trump. It claimed a large number of alternative news websites are acting as Russian agents, dupes, and useful idiots.


Prior to this, in March 2015, the Voice of America insisted Russia has organized “a round-the-clock operation in which an army of trolls disseminated pro-Kremlin and anti-Western talking points on blogs and in the comments sections of news websites in Russia and abroad.”

<snip>

PropOrNot also collaborates with Polygraph Fact-Check, a purported fact-checking website produced by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America, in other words the CIA.







Another so-called fact-checking operation is listed, Politifact. It is a project of the Tampa Bay Times and the Poynter Institute and shares a donor with the Clinton Foundation, the Omidyar Network, created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. He is a major donor of Kiev-based Hromadske TV, “the symbol of the info wars between Moscow and the Western world,” according to Forbes. The effort is also supported by the US State Department, a number of European governments, and NGOs involved in Ukraine prior to and after the US-sponsored coup.


PropOrNot’s connections indicate the website and its effort to take down alternative media is a project initiated by the establishment and likely a psychological operation directed by the CIA either directly or through its circle of private contractors.


The defeat of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with the effectiveness of Russian propaganda. More accurately, Clinton’s election loss is a direct result of her corruption and deep insider status. The alternative media played an instrumental role in exposing Clinton’s criminality and her penchant for war and mass murder, primarily in Libya and Syria.


The alternative media has done an effective job of exposing the crimes of the elite and its political class and this news coverage did in fact have an impact on the election. Alternative media is a serious threat to the ruling elite. It no longer controls the flow of information and its propaganda is now directly challenged on a daily basis.


The Washington Post and the establishment media have latched on to the ludicrous PropOrNot campaign to denounce alternative media as some sort of nefarious Russian plot to undermine the political system in the United States. Despite this, millions of Americans continue to read alternative news and make their own informed decisions, a trend that has set off alarm bells in the deepest recesses of the establishment.


----------



## Boss (Dec 22, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




*[mic drop!] *


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> I uh, don't think you quite grasp the concept here.
> 
> Twisting a mundane story around to imply something it doesn't say isn't "fake news".  It's still using a real event that really happened.
> 
> Fake news is posting that three million Amish are marching to the ballot box to vote for Rump.  Fake news is making up a story that some CIA guy was killed by Hillary Clinton.  Fake news is digging up an old and thoroughly debunked myth about "Bill Clinton's illegitimate son" and reviving it.  Stuff that not only never happened but isn't remotely related to anything that ever happened.



Fake news is claiming the electoral college is racist. (NY Times), Fake news is claiming that Hillary has 370 EC votes locked up (La Times)  Fake news is claiming the Russians hacked voting machines (CNN).

We know fake news Huffer, and who the major perpetrators are.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> I don't know a story about Rump raping a 13-year-old.  I do however know of a story of a lawsuit _*
> claiming *_that.



ISN'T it rather amazing that this lawsuit was dismissed on November 9th as having no merit?

Almost as if the FAKE litigation had served it's purpose and was no longer needed? 

Will the corrupt judge who allowed this FARCE to go forward be impeached, Disbarred, or any way censured for so obviously seeking to influence a national election through the abuse of his position? Of course not, he was serving the party.



> And that lawsuit happened, so it's a real event.  Now why did you just morph it into a "story" that never existed?



The lawsuit did NOT happen. Once the election was over, the absurd FAKE litigation was thrown out. The ONLY reason it existed was to tamper with the election.



> Irony of ironies, we've moved from "fake news"  to "FAKE fake news".



The CLAIM that Trump had raped a 13 year old was fake news, slander cooked up by you demagogues. The suit had already been thrown out in radical leftist California and Florida. The Soros minions found a corrupt pile of shit in New York who was willing to try and pervert the election.



> George Bush's AWOL was published in a book, titled "Fortunate Son".  It may have based on circumstantial evidence but AFAIK there's no evidence to the contrary; no records exist demonstrating Bush's participation in the USAF during the period in question.  So yes it too has a basis; it wasn't just made up like the examples I just gave.



Slander and libel define your filthy party. As some fuckwad claimed yesterday, the onus to prove a claim is ALWAYS on the claimant (fucking hypocrite). No one need prove Bush was NOT AWOL Herr Goebbels, YOU  must prove he was, OR you are just spreading FAKE NEWS.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> [
> 
> Once again for the slow kids ---- there never was a news story about Rump raping a 13-year-old.



Why do you keep telling the same stupid lie, retard?

Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven't The Media Covered It? | The Huffington Post

Fake news from the party controlled HuffyPO

Quit lying, Hillary!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 22, 2016)

Boss said:


> In the spirit of the liberal mainstream media, let me present an example of how they FAKE the news everyday.... this is a right-wing version of what they do:
> 
> *Michelle Obama Confesses to Oprah Her Husband's Presidency Was a Total Failure*
> 
> ...



I made a thread satirically making this point.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 22, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know a story about Rump raping a 13-year-old.  I do however know of a story of a lawsuit
> ...



Sadly, the suit being dropped the day after the election was very predictable. The Dems just wanted their phony talking point. It was funny watching their minions spout it, too. The media would have did 24/7 coverage on this is there was merit to the story.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 22, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Whelp ---- I've never made an assertion I can't prove so .................. guess not.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 22, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Fake news is posting that three million Amish are marching to the ballot box to vote for Rump. Fake news is making up a story that some CIA guy was killed by Hillary Clinton. Fake news is digging up an old and thoroughly debunked myth about "Bill Clinton's illegitimate son" and reviving it.
> ...



Someday learn how to read.

When that happens, I'm guessing 2025, come back to this post and point out exactly where I said, implied, intimated, hinted, or in any way whatsoever indicated I said it was "fine to report".

Dumb shit.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 22, 2016)

Boss said:


> Hey moron... what was my fucking point of mentioning MySpace? It had nothing to do with who owned it. Like a typical birdbrained liberal idiot, you can't stay focused... maybe they need to up your dosages of Adderall?
> 
> I was making the point that little fascist social media sites who think they can manipulate information could find themselves in the same boat as MySpace, without a fucking customer base because something better came along.



MySpace, inane as it was, was eclipsed not by something "better" but by something even more inane:  Nosebook.  A blatant direct appeal to voyeurism (which Zuckerberg has a history of), narcissism and meaningless gossip.  MySpace didn't push such features; it actually had practicality.   If you're so naïve that you think a mob customer base equates to quality, you have a good gourmet mean waiting at Burger Thing.

What happened there is encapsulated, as are so many other things, in the old adage "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".




Boss said:


> Actually, this illustrates perfectly why you snowflakes think the big bad government needs to provide you a babysitter to tell you when something is fake or real...



Once again you're a bald-faced liar.  I've never made such a point.  Not in this thread, not in any thread, any time, anywhere.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong, lying hack.


(/offtopic)


----------



## Boss (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hey moron... what was my fucking point of mentioning MySpace? It had nothing to do with who owned it. Like a typical birdbrained liberal idiot, you can't stay focused... maybe they need to up your dosages of Adderall?
> ...



Well, Pogo... you fail at making ANY point because you're an ADHD basket case. However, that IS the point of Progressive liberals. This all goes back to the Fairness Doctrine. And of course they don't come right out and tell people they want to control the information.. "If you  like your health care, you can keep your health care!" ...THAT is what Progressives say! THAT is how they do it!  Just like you, they pretend that's "crazy talk" and the other side is being hysterical. But we'll all wake up one day with a government panel who determines what information is "real" and what information is "fake" and thus, prohibited. 

It always begins innocently enough, oh... we have to do something about all these fake news stories popping up and influencing elections... (most of which, we find, are perpetrated by the progressives themselves). They will start with the obvious "Hillary is Secretly an Alien" type stories and sources. Then next, it's the fringe elements... the Alex Jones/ Info Wars types... then it's Brietbart... Steven Crowder... Ben Shapiro... Milo... Finally, it's Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And then, FREE SPEECH is gone! 

So... NO!  We are NOT going down this rabbit hole with you! We will have to find some way, like we always have, to deal with "fake news" that doesn't involve censorship. Like maybe, oh-- I don't know-- PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? I know that seems to be a difficult thing for snowflakes like you to grasp... but that's the reality here. You're gonna keep your hands off our Constitutional rights.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Still an idiot.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 22, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > In the spirit of the liberal mainstream media, let me present an example of how they FAKE the news everyday.... this is a right-wing version of what they do:
> ...



I really wish they would both get DNA tests, inquiring minds want to know. . . .


----------



## Pogo (Dec 22, 2016)

Boss said:


> Well, Pogo... you fail at making ANY point because you're an ADHD basket case. However, that IS the point of Progressive liberals. This all goes back to the Fairness Doctrine. And of course they don't come right out and tell people they want to control the information.. "If you like your health care, you can keep your health care!" ...THAT is what Progressives say! THAT is how they do it! Just like you, they pretend that's "crazy talk" and the other side is being hysterical. But we'll all wake up one day with a government panel who determines what information is "real" and what information is "fake" and thus, prohibited.



Hm  ---- my guess for this one is some really bad LSD mixed with a steroid.  

Bring on the Fairness Doctrine.  Oh Please bring it.    Excuse me, gotta get my bib on.  I tend to drool at this level of low hanging fruit.  So please ---- connect that dot.  I can't wait.

"Progressives" by the way left the building about a century ago.  I don't know why you lunatics keep trying to flog that horse.  I really don't.

Once again ------ third time on this page --- you have no link.  No evidence.  No quote.  Zero.  Nothing.  Bupkis.  Sweet Fanny Adams.  Fuck-all.  You pulled a claim out of your ass and got nailed on it and all you have is speculation fallacies and references to social movements and FCC doctrines about which you know Nothing.  Zero.  Bupkis.  Etc etc etc.

Fuck off, troll.





Boss said:


> It always begins innocently enough, oh... we have to do something about all these fake news stories popping up and influencing elections... (most of which, we find, are perpetrated by the progressives themselves). They will start with the obvious "Hillary is Secretly an Alien" type stories and sources. Then next, it's the fringe elements... the Alex Jones/ Info Wars types... then it's Brietbart... Steven Crowder... Ben Shapiro... Milo... Finally, it's Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And then, FREE SPEECH is gone!









You can't even invent a good paranoia rant.
Here, I can help.  This isn't a speculation fallacy or an unhinged tinfoil theory  --- this really happened:

​



Boss said:


> So... NO! We are NOT going down this rabbit hole with you! We will have to find some way, like we always have, to deal with "fake news" that doesn't involve censorship. Like maybe, oh-- I don't know-- PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? I know that seems to be a difficult thing for snowflakes like you to grasp... but that's the reality here. You're gonna keep your hands off our Constitutional rights.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 22, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The essence of what you say is correct. Except, it doesn't ever begin innocently enough. These people pushing the fake news narrative don't have good motives. They're flat out lying fascists. They're the same people who subverted health care in the name of it's everyone's right and we'll take care of you. They're thieves in the night.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 22, 2016)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It won't exactly work that way, because we have a first amendment.

I think how it will work is more like the FDA and health supplement industry now work.

Basically, the government is in the process of making a new agency, composed of establishment elites, journalists composed of foundational connected to the major journalism schools, i.e. Columbia, Annenberg, USC, and the CFR, and they will put their seal of approval on what they consider to be "The gold standard of news," IOW, real news, or news citizens that have went through State Universities or compulsory government schools are supposed to operate their lives with and use.

Once this is done, other news will naturally be allowed, both in print and on the internet, but a certain type of person will no longer take it seriously at all.  The result of this, as the elites and establishment businesses, those who control the economy are hoping, will dry up advertising revenue for all other web traffic.

I'm not sure it will make much of a difference though.

Most of the alternative sites I visit are crowd source funded, or they use alternative product advertisers, those who find it hard to market their products to folks that are traditional consumers that are addicted to MSM as it is.


So, we shall see.  I have a feeling even when they do make this new level of bureaucracy, those who don't trust the media or government now, will just ignore it anyway.

As it is, I am more likely to pick up the National Enquirer while waiting in the check out line then I am a Newsweek or Time magazine.  Seriously.  I now know how this CFR propaganda shit works.  So really, who gives a fuck?  I'll never listen to what the government tell me what is best for me.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 23, 2016)

*Congress Just Quietly Passed a Bill Targeting “Russian Propaganda” Websites*
Congress Just Quietly Passed a Bill Targeting "Russian Propaganda" Websites

A quick skim of the bill reveals “Title V—Matters relating to foreign countries”,  whose Section 501 calls for the government to “*counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in  coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly.”*

The section lists the following definitions of media manipulation:

Establishment or funding of a front group.
Covert broadcasting.
Media manipulation.
Disinformation and forgeries.
Funding agents of influence.
Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.
Assassinations.
Terrorist acts.
 
As Kurt Nimmo correctly notes, it is easy to see how this law, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, could be used to target, threaten, or eliminate so-called “fake news” websites, a list which has been used to arbitrarily define any website, or blog, that does not share the mainstream media’s proclivity to serve as the Public Relations arm of a given administration.


Curiously, the bill which was passed on November 30, was introduced on November 22, two days _*before *_the Washington Post published its Nov. 24 article citing “experts” who claim Russian propaganda helped Donald Trump get elected.

As we reported last week, in an article that has been widely blasted, the WaPo wrote that “two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem.”

The newspaper cited PropOrNot, an anonymous website that posted a hit list of alternative media websites, including Zero Hedge, Drudge Report, Activist Post, Blacklisted News, the Ron Paul Report, and many others. Glenn Greenwald penned an appropriate response two days later in “Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group.”

PropOrNot has pushed a conspiratorial thesis, without any actual proof, that the listed websites have been either used directly or covertly by the Russians to spread propaganda.


----------



## Coyote (May 16, 2017)

Perfect example of fake news, from a source, Gatewaypundit that is known  for this: BREAKING: Seth Rich Family Detective Tells FOX 5 DC THERE IS EVIDENCE Seth was “Emailing” Wikileaks …UPDATED WITH REPORT

Family said no such thing, it's all coming from this "private investigator" that was funded by an anonymous individual to look into it.  All allegation, anonymous sources, and claims of police and FBI being somehow corrupted by powerful interests (red flag lingo)....


----------



## Pete7469 (May 16, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Perfect example of fake news, from a source, Gatewaypundit that is known  for this: BREAKING: Seth Rich Family Detective Tells FOX 5 DC THERE IS EVIDENCE Seth was “Emailing” Wikileaks …UPDATED WITH REPORT
> 
> Family said no such thing, it's all coming from this "private investigator" that was funded by an anonymous individual to look into it.  All allegation, anonymous sources, and claims of police and FBI being somehow corrupted by powerful interests (red flag lingo)....




Still a more credible source than Rachel madcow.


----------



## Marion Morrison (May 16, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
> Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.
> 
> ...



What's fake news is anything that starts out with "Anonymous inside sources say"

The liars need to be pimpsmacked into the 1800s, then hung because that's what would happen to them then.

I am so fed up with dishonest media it's not even funny.

Something changed during the tail end of the Clinton administration that needs to be changed back to how it was before. Clinton enabled Glenn Beck.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Perfect example of fake news, from a source, Gatewaypundit that is known  for this: BREAKING: Seth Rich Family Detective Tells FOX 5 DC THERE IS EVIDENCE Seth was “Emailing” Wikileaks …UPDATED WITH REPORT
> 
> Family said no such thing, it's all coming from this "private investigator" that was funded by an anonymous individual to look into it.  All allegation, anonymous sources, and claims of police and FBI being somehow corrupted by powerful interests (red flag lingo)....



That you can't read is part of why you are a fascist. The headline CLEARLY states "Seth Rich Family DETECTIVE."

As for actually fake;

{
Russia's foreign ministry spokesman has denied reports that President Trump revealed classified information to senior officials during the Russian minister's visit to the Oval Office last week.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that the revelation put a source of intelligence on the Islamic State at risk.

Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry, on Facebook on Tuesday described the reports as "yet another fake."}

Russia: Washington Post story 'yet another fake'

The Little Goebbels at WaPo fail to identify any actual source for their slander and libel; but.

{
One of the only named sources in _The Post_ article who actually attended the meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador was National Security Adviser, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.


McMaster blasted _The Post’s_ report as “false” and told media in a press conference that, “I was in the room, it didn’t happen.”}

Exclusive: Washington Post Paid to Run #FakeNews by Clinton CGI Donor

You fascists are waging a propaganda war against America.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> Fake news isn't making a mistake and printing a retraction.
> Fake news isn't making wrong predictions.
> 
> ...



I find it problematic that Fresh Air spent so much time finding a "fake news factory" in Macedonia, but didnt' seem to include any examples of its products that I or You might have consumed. I'm not AWARE of any fake news originating in Macedonia -- therefore I DOUBT it had the type of effect as what you see DAILY TODAY on CNN on the pages of the NYTimes... 

Overseas, fake news is a form of recreation and entertainment. Because the govt sources suck at anything objective. So I'm not surprised to find folks with that "hobby" in the Balkans or Russia, because there is a glorious history of trying to figure out what's REALLY happening when you are fed Govt propaganda for your entire life. 

We are in DANGER of that. If the juvenile behavior of the American press continues.  It's a true embarrassment.


----------



## Marion Morrison (May 17, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> ...



FCC needs to lay down the law. The integrity of journalism is circling the drain.

To put into perspective: I've run across 4 pieces of actual journalism within the past 6 months.

The most recent was on a C130 pilot that was supporting a Chinook full of Navy seals a few years back.


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fake news isn't the media "getting it wrong".
> ...



I'm not exactly sure what you mean...so I may be missing the point in attempting to answer this reply.

The problem with Macedonia is not so much that they create fake news - that it originates there - but they spread it massively.

The second thing is - where do people get most of their news?

According to Pew - 6 in 10 Americans get their news from social media with Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter being the main sources.

I am concerned about the lack of factchecking going on in mainstream news like CNN, NYT, Fox etc but there is more accountability there then there is on the internet.


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I agree, the integrity of journalism is going down but - I've seen a lot of good journalism also.  More then 4 pieces.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 17, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Not a fan of fact-checkers or govt intervention. If you cannot trust WH press corps or LEGACY media, you WILL eventually listen to other sources. Not so much because of "fake news", but simply because of the stories that the PARTISAN side of the media refuse to cover.  That's like "Negative News" or something different.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Why didn't the journalist point to SPECIFIC EXAMPLES coming out of this "fake news factory"?  It always concerns me when folks get all wound up about something and you have NO IDEA what wound them up.. Was this "fake news" tabloid quality? Was it IMPORTANT to the election? Was it based in ANY truth at all. 

My beef here is that Fresh Air DECIDED that FOR YOU and made it important enough to spend the majority of the interview on..  That's not REPORTING --- that's story-telling.  Which is what NPR is excellent at. Journalism is the Who, What, Why, When, and How of a story... So maybe this is fake in itself. I can't decide if they didn't commit journalism in telling the story...


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Agree on gov't intervention in news but fact-checking I like.  There is a need for it.

But I don't think people go to alternative sites because they trust them any more than other sites but because it's tailored to what they WANT to hear.  An echo chamber.


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Did you read the OP though?

Fresh Air was interviewing Silverman - about an article he wrote, where he tracked down all this stuff and analyzed it. So even if the interview didn't go into specific examples - I linked to Silverman's article that they were discussing and pulled some actual fake news examples.  The interview was less about electoral consequences then the effect and spread of fake news in general.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Were those examples from the "factory" in Macedonia? If not -- I fail to see the relevance of allowing Silverman to judge the importance of whateverthehell came out of a foreign country without providing examples that would be FAMILIAR  to folks who follow election news...


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News On Facebook
This new analysis of election content found two false election stories from a Macedonian sites that made the top-10 list in terms of Facebook engagement int he final three months. _Conservative State_ published a story that falsely quoted Hillary Clinton as saying, “I would like to see people like Donald Trump run for office; they’re honest and can’t be bought.” The story generated over 481,000 engagements on Facebook. A second false story from a Macedonia site falsely claimed that Clinton was about to be indicted. It received 149,000 engagements on Facebook.

How Teens In The Balkans Are Duping Trump Supporters With Fake News
Sample stories from US Politics sites run by Macedonians


----------



## flacaltenn (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



Those alt-sites are NOT raw principal journalism. MOST of what appears comes from other media. They serve simply as "librarians" to lead you to stories that the MAJORS fail to carry (or BURY deep in the back pages) because of their partisan bent. Face it, you're just as ill-informed if you are a CNN watcher or Fox Watcher. If you read Nat. Review but not Mother Jones.  BOTH of those magazines do an EXCELLENT job it what they choose to cover. But they severely limit the scope of *what *they cover to the priorities and predilections of their partisan readers.. 

Fact checkers SUCK. It often becomes a spin job just to reach a verdict. I'll use Snopes occasionally to check my self-derived fact-checking. But the closer it gets to PARTISAN issues, the less reliable they ALL become.. 

These alt-sites (on both sides) are typically DAYS or WEEKS ahead of the "news cycle". Because there is this other Media issue of BIAS in WHAT get the headlines and the time on air...


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Yes, I agree and in fact that was also pointed out in the OP articles - they don't usually generate their own content.  But I disagree on whether they serve as "librarians".  In some cases they serve more as sewers collecting run off from storm water, farm off, sewage, and litter and it's up to you, the reader, to determine the value and accuracy of the material that bobs to the surface or gets caught on your hook.

I don't consider Nat. Review and Mother Jones to be in those categories - yes, they have their particular slant or bias, but like you say they do an excellent job at covering what they choose to cover.  That's not the same as the sites referred to in these articles - sites like Brietbart for example, and their leftwing counterparts.

Some stuff isn't covered because it's bs, not because it's partisan.



> Fact checkers SUCK. It often becomes a spin job just to reach a verdict. I'll use Snopes occasionally to check my self-derived fact-checking. But the closer it gets to PARTISAN issues, the less reliable they ALL become..
> 
> These alt-sites (on both sides) are typically DAYS or WEEKS ahead of the "news cycle". Because there is this other Media issue of BIAS in WHAT get the headlines and the time on air...



I use fact checkers I trust - like Snopes - to begin my fact checking because they usually post sources that I can then work out from.  It's easier to sift the true BS out that way and then concentrate on more substantive stuff.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Don't get your news from Facebook.      Where ELSE did these Macedonia stories appear? Some of them are just laughable and fodder for morons. In fact, the upper left is a SPOOF of Fox News graphics. OBVIOUS fraud. 

Now if they got served on Google news or Yahoo feeds --- I might be concerned. 
Because I ASSUME they at least vet the source. 

You say they ripped from Macedonian "sites".  What are the LINKS to these? Are they still up? And what idiots would GO there? 

I'm much more concerned about the dishonest and unprofessional WEEKS of speculation about how Trump didn't pay any taxes that CONSUMED the main stream media during the election.  They speculated based on a HUGE write-off that he took that he paid no taxes for up to 12 YEARS!!!  And there were headlines and 1 hour panels on TV POUNDING this talking point. 

But anyone MILDLY familiar with the Tax Code and Alt Min Tax rules -- that this was COMPLETE Bullshit. As the newly found Rachel Maddow tax info points out.  Even WITH continuing deductions from a posted loss, the Alt Min Tax is an appreciable penalty preventing folks like Trump from "paying no taxes" for 12 years. THis is just inexcusable ignorance or dishonesty on the part of the media. It IS Fake News either way.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



From the BuzzFeed link you gave... 

*Their reasons for launching these sites are purely financial, according to the Macedonians with whom BuzzFeed News spoke.

"I started the site for a easy way to make money," said a 17-year-old who runs a site with four other people. "In Macedonia the economy is very weak and teenagers are not allowed to work, so we need to find creative ways to make some money. I'm a musician but I can't afford music gear. Here in Macedonia the revenue from a small site is enough to afford many things."

Most of the posts on these sites are aggregated, or completely plagiarized, from fringe and right-wing sites in the US. The Macedonians see a story elsewhere, write a sensationalized headline, and quickly post it to their site. Then they share it on Facebook to try and generate traffic. The more people who click through from Facebook, the more money they earn from ads on their website.
*
Teenage survival in the Balkans. Need that new game station. No political agenda. No shady sponsors. ALTHOUGH -- I wonder who's taking ADS on their site. Because that's where the 2nd World survival pocket change is coming from...

If we can't defend ourselves from juvenile scam artists in the Balkans -- perhaps we ought to stop RELYING on any particular news sources and defend ourselves from this awesome Macedonian threat to our freedom and liberty...


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I don't get my news from FB, but a lot of people apparently do get their news through social media feeds that are algorythmacally tailored to feed them what it thinks they want.  And - many of those stories are top performing in terms of engagement. People believe this stuff (evidence is right here in USMB )



> Now if they got served on Google news or Yahoo feeds --- I might be concerned.
> Because I ASSUME they at least vet the source.





A quick search would seem to indicate Google has the same problems and like FB, seeking to find ways of fighting it:
Facebook and Google Are Testing Tools to Fight Fake News – Adweek



> You say they ripped from Macedonian "sites".  What are the LINKS to these? Are they still up? And what idiots would GO there?



The impression I get is it is an automated harvesting process 



> I'm much more concerned about the dishonest and unprofessional WEEKS of speculation about how Trump didn't pay any taxes that CONSUMED the main stream media during the election.  They speculated based on a HUGE write-off that he took that he paid no taxes for up to 12 YEARS!!!  And there were headlines and 1 hour panels on TV POUNDING this talking point.
> 
> But anyone MILDLY familiar with the Tax Code and Alt Min Tax rules -- that this was COMPLETE Bullshit. As the newly found Rachel Maddow tax info points out.  Even WITH continuing deductions from a posted loss, the Alt Min Tax is an appreciable penalty preventing folks like Trump from "paying no taxes" for 12 years. THis is just inexcusable ignorance or dishonesty on the part of the media. It IS Fake News either way.



That pretty much summed up most of the pre-election coverage on both Trump and Clinton, with a pathetic amount on actual issues and policies.


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Yup, it's for a financial purpose -  not that they have any understanding or interest in American politics or even good English skills.    The point of the article though isn't that it's from Macedonia or that we need to defend ourselves against Macedonia - that isn't the point at all.  The point is how it's propogated and spread - it's actually a fascinating detective story, and pretty admirable journalism.


----------



## Marion Morrison (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Some links would be much appreciated if you have the time. I get tired of the sickeningly slanted stuff.


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



These are just some examples.  NPR WV has had some good local indepth coverage of issues that are important here.

1.  The struggle to keep young people from leaving the state - both from the stand point of those struggling to stay, and attracting professionals.
The Struggle to Stay

2.  Black Lung disease in WV 
Advanced Black Lung Cases Surge In Appalachia

3. WV's Opiod crisis
Drug firms poured 780M painkillers into WV amid rise of overdoses
A Pulitzer-Winning Journalist's Advice And Why He Does A Monthly Night Shift

There's good journalism out there - it just doesn't get "rewarded" with the degree of attention tabloid crap gets.

Some other examples:

On campaign coverage - NPR did an excellant job going around the country, interviewing people and following them in critical areas - in depth, and with respect over a long period of time.  Unlike some - they weren't seeking out the nuts and trying to present them as the norm, nor did they degrade anyone.  It's impossible to link to all of it but here's a synopsis: NPR's Election Coverage: A Review And Wrap Up

I do tend to listen to NPR because I drive a lot and have the radio on, so those are ready and quick examples.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you mean...so I may be missing the point in attempting to answer this reply.
> 
> The problem with Macedonia is not so much that they create fake news - that it originates there - but they spread it massively.
> 
> ...



You're not missing the point, you're just a hack. 

Macedonia if they create "fake news" is nowhere near DailyKOS, ThinkProgress, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, or MSNBC.


Post some examples of "fake news" that came out of Macedonia? 

I mean, you CAN do that, right?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"Journalistic Integrity" is an oxymoron.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 17, 2017)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




Here are some other stories from your oh so credible source site;






Talk about "fake news."

You fascist democrats have been doing this shit for decades. Even if Macedonia is doing it, they are way late to the party and nowhere as damaging as the fake news you fascists promote. 

Sadly, there are a few people who still trust the lying fucks of the Washington Post. I doubt anyone believes some Macedonian site.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 17, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not exactly sure what you mean...so I may be missing the point in attempting to answer this reply.
> ...



She gave examples in post #221.  All tabloid nonsense that only the most dense partisans would use on USMB..    Made up by teenagers who simply want money for band equipment. 

But she's correct -- We saw a LOT of this pure crap re-posted on USMB.  Not nearly as effective as the long list of women that Trump abused - that got picked up in EVERY main stream left media source..


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Sex always is far more effective for capturing the media.  Look at Billy Boy Clinton and the rightwing media


----------



## Coyote (May 17, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What "oh so credible" source site are you talking about?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



You linked to "Buzzfeed" to support your claims. At least you linked to SOMETHING, better than most of your fellow fascists do.

But it is the most sleazy of tabloid sites on the web. Buzzfeed almost makes DailyKOS or even CNN look credible by contrast.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

Latest Fake News ....


*REPORT: Driver in Virginia Car Attack Was Anti-Trump Protester – Joel Vangheluwe*

Jim Hoft Aug 12th, 2017 4:21 pm 12 Comments 

*WOW!*
*DUDE HIT THE WRONG CROWD!*​
This was a headline on Hateway Pundit --- which has since been taken down after being exposed as a hole so deep even Jim Hoft can't pull himself out of.  A search for the page returns a "404" error.

But Google has the page cached here.  

>> New development: Suspect in custody Joel VanGheluwe. Anti-Trump activist, may have confused Alt-Right with BLM/Antifa. #UniteTheRight pic.twitter.com/C04WaJnqI8  <<​
If that ain't fake news, there's no such thing.  And it demonstrates, as if we needed yet another example, what element is trying to drive it, and which way.

Oh and this goes with it.  Collect the whole set.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 15, 2017)

I used to think that shit like the above fake news was so blatantly ridiculous that even Trump supporters would shake their heads in dismay.

I have since learned that I had overestimated Trump supporters


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

Vandalshandle said:


> I used to think that shit like the above fake news was so blatantly ridiculous that even Trump supporters would shake their heads in dismay.
> 
> I have since learned that I had overestimated Trump supporters



Jim Hoft is a goldmine for this crapola ----




​--- so badly photoshopped you can still see a piece of the original Obama arm _in front of_ Melania. 



 
---- except of course CNN did no such thing since they ran no photo at all.



Then there was ...........




​--- except that's not a Rump event and it's not even Maine --- it's a Cleveland Cavaliers championship parade.


Of course Jim Hoft cannot and should not be considered a "news" source; the issue is that scores of Ignorami tragically born without critical thinking skills *think *it's news (and many of them trot it in here and present it as such).  Ultimately what we have here is not a failure of journalism but a failure of simple critical thought.

And btw that fake story mentioned in 237 ---  Jim Hoft is getting his ass sued for it.  About damn time.


----------

