More fake news

[Pogo]

The problem with that theory is they always benefit democrats and very, very rarely republicans or RWs, so no it's not just money.

Ronald Reagan.

Glad I could clear that up.

QUOTE the whole post

I quoted the only part I could make sense of.

 

[peabody]

We as viewers are the product, not the consumer. The MSM doesn't want your money, they want your viewership which improves ratings. It's the advertiser's money they want.

Same thing. The advertiser's money comes from the viewer/consumer. They're just a middleman.
The point was, and still is, it is that pursuit ---- of money/ratings ---- that drives what they do and what their content is. Every second. Not political ideologies, which pay nothing.

But they don't stop there. They want it all, including the ability to sway election results in favor of either establishment Democrats or establishment Republicans. Either party is fine (When lead by the establishment).

Definitely.

This time they couldn't pull it off. They got unexpected competition from social media and alternative news sites and their candidate lost.

Au contraire, if anything their candidate won. The candidate who's orange face alone guarantees ratings, are you shittin' me? They could have and would have scraped up whatever drivel they could come up with had Hillary won --- they have shitloads of practice at such scraping --- but now they don't have to. Their job (as they see it, i.e. ratings-whoring) just got WAAAAAY easier.

Now they're pissed and they want those sites censored. To do it, they are pushing a bogus narrative called "Fake news" and they are calling for sites that they deem "fake news" to be "filtered" from us.

Are they really.

Link?

The media is owned by corporations that have their claws dug into many other industries. The telecommunications act of 1996 lead to the consolidation of all major American media outlets into the hands of six different corporations. Those corporations have also bought politicians and they want a return on their investment. They are in the business of making money, yes. But they also have a political agenda and ideology that advocates for free trade, privatization, regime changes, deregulation and opposes government-protected monopolies and state ownership of productive industries and resources. They want politicians elected that will promote those ideas and Hillary was it.

Here's the link you asked for:

"To start, the social network should start removing the most popular false stories from the "News Feed" that fills users' home screens on the site, says Mantzarlis. He argues that kind of filtering would have far-reaching effects, because some of the most popular pure hoaxes are reposted and clicked on hundreds of thousands of times, sometimes circulating for years."

Fact checkers to Facebook: Fight fake news

"In her comments, Clinton called on the private and public sector to “step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives.”

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/95161136/?client=safari

 

[owebo]

The problem with that theory is they always benefit democrats and very, very rarely republicans or RWs, so no it's not just money.

Ronald Reagan.

Glad I could clear that up.

QUOTE the whole post

He wouldn't understand it if he did....

 

[P@triot]

More progressive fake news....

There’s just one issue: The Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t confirm these “nearly 900” incidents actually happened.

“The 867 hate incidents described here come from two sources—submissions to the #ReportHate page on the SPLC website and media accounts,” the SPLC report states. “We have excluded incidents that authorities have determined to be hoaxes; however, it was not possible to confirm the veracity of all reports.”

In other words, who has any idea if these incidents actually happened or not?

Yet, the fact that there was no verification of these incidents didn’t stop the media from covering this “study.”

Hate Crimes ‘Study’ Coverage Shows Media’s Fake News Problem

 

[buckeye45_73]

More progressive fake news....

There’s just one issue: The Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t confirm these “nearly 900” incidents actually happened.

“The 867 hate incidents described here come from two sources—submissions to the #ReportHate page on the SPLC website and media accounts,” the SPLC report states. “We have excluded incidents that authorities have determined to be hoaxes; however, it was not possible to confirm the veracity of all reports.”

In other words, who has any idea if these incidents actually happened or not?

Yet, the fact that there was no verification of these incidents didn’t stop the media from covering this “study.”

Hate Crimes ‘Study’ Coverage Shows Media’s Fake News Problem

yep, hate crimes is a fake crime category, it's just to punish whitey......

 

[buckeye45_73]

Fake news? Whats that? Like Fox?

hahah purple got hit by the doctored fake new post.....how gullible are you people. Do you not even do a quick google search to check the veracity of it?