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

[TheGreatGatsby]

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

Link?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

Link?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Vandalshandle]

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]

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.

Got an example then?

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

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.

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?

Where does anyone suggest that?

aaaand STILL not seeing it.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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!

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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!

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]

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!

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

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.