CDZ What News Checker Would You Trust?

[Papageorgio]

So lefties get to decide what is and is not real? Remind me how you would feel if a right leaning group tried that?

No, the point of this thread is, what group would you trust? Do you trust any of the ones listed in the poll?

Why do we need to trust them?

Eliminating fake news sites is not about taking away free speech. If people continue to be allowed to build their own news websites and manufacture articles that are patently fake, if that is acceptable and allowed to continue, we are opening ourselves up to untold propaganda efforts by whatever opportunist decides to use them. I can understand people objecting to using "fact checkers" that they don't trust. So I'm asking, who do they trust? Make sense?

Eliminating them is eliminating free speech, I see a story and I go to lengths to prove it true or not. People need to research they stuff they read.

Can you explain how it eliminates free speech? Are we allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? To sell Cheetos as "organic?"

It's a first step, do you need the government to dictate what is real news and what is fake? We have had tabloids for decades, not sure why we have an unreasonable fear of fake news on the internet.

 

[Fenton Lum]

One at a time, person by person, one day at a time, one human to human interaction at a time. This shyte only works because we cooperate, participate, offer up our tacit approval, and blame others instead of taking responsibility.

Take the media everyone's always complaining about. Don't watch, don't participate.

Did you vote in the poll? Who would you trust, to back up the admittedly serious action of pulling an article as "fake?" from social media?
I feel we have to participate in catching up the truth in publishing laws that have not kept abreast with the advent of the internet. There is no protection for us except our wits. Ignoring does not help, imo.

For me it is an instance by instance kinda thing, try to absorb as many "sources" as you can. Over time you will come to know what to ignore. I would never pick one, and if I did, I would never stop examining and questioning that decision. I'm not so sure about your idea that social media is an outlet for anything, I avoid it personally, and I don't look for the laws to look out for us, the unsubstantial people.

I am personally quite glad to be able to read my local newspaper and believe what I read. Same with WaPo and NYT and The Atlantic. Etc. etc. Are you taking for granted that the sources you consult are, in fact, obligated to report actual news, not fake news?

They will fullfil their for profit urges first and foremost, that's what the triangulation is for. Of course track record and your own personal history with your own fact checking of them over time will factor into that. Sorry, I don't have an easy answer. This society runs on illusion and misinformation.

I don't agree it is too far gone to get back on track. Not everyone will actually take the trouble to determine if something is true; they'll just believe it. We should have SOME assurance that if the paper says Governor LePage threatened a fellow politician, he probably did. I don't live in Augusta and I don't have access to their voice mails, so there is only one way to determine the truth. I don't think it's easy--indeed, the overall reaction to this thread has been depressingly negative--but it's necessary to push the discussion. Might be the wrong board for that, though.

Well, you and I can, the rest of them here can do what they do.

"Not everyone will actually take the trouble to determine if something is true; they'll just believe it."

Undoubtedly, but I can't do anything about someone else's laziness. Sure, an open democratic society requires a free and accurate press, and one that cannot be bought up by a handful of corporate interests, but that’s what we have, and we have that because corporate power wants to control the thoughts of the masses, while pushing the notions that keep the masses quiescent while concentrated power and wealth continues to mine this society of all of its productivity, resources, and wealth. And to push magical thinking and denial in an economically declining society.

Your idea that we should have assurances as to information coming out of the media is something I agree with totally, but we, the american public, sat and watched all that disappear over our lifetimes, once labeled as “govt regulation”; we’re left with spectacle and illusion now. Many will not give it a second thought, you obviously think about it.

But what you’re going back to is something that has been driven out of the thought process in American society, the notion of “the commons”; by corporate state media and the concentrated power it serves. The power structure desperately needs for the public to see ourselves as totally alone, isolated, and on an utterly individual endeavor passing through life in this society, nevermind that concentrated power and wealth commune in opposition to “the people”.

The entire point of the corporate state media machine is to push spectacle, illusion, fear, confusion, anxiety and denial while utterly destroying any sense of societal cohesion and togetherness per the plight of the masses relative to the further concentration wealth and power by the substantial people.

And they've done the same with the political system. While we sat there and allowed it.

 

[Mac1958]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

 

[2aguy]

Let everyone post whatever they want...and let the people figure it out for themselves...since we can't trust the democrat controlled media outlets that actually, actively helped the democrats this campaign cycle.....

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****SMILE*****

 

[JFK_USA]

No, the point of this thread is, what group would you trust? Do you trust any of the ones listed in the poll?

Why do we need to trust them?

Eliminating fake news sites is not about taking away free speech. If people continue to be allowed to build their own news websites and manufacture articles that are patently fake, if that is acceptable and allowed to continue, we are opening ourselves up to untold propaganda efforts by whatever opportunist decides to use them. I can understand people objecting to using "fact checkers" that they don't trust. So I'm asking, who do they trust? Make sense?

Eliminating them is eliminating free speech, I see a story and I go to lengths to prove it true or not. People need to research they stuff they read.

Can you explain how it eliminates free speech? Are we allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? To sell Cheetos as "organic?"

It's a first step, do you need the government to dictate what is real news and what is fake? We have had tabloids for decades, not sure why we have an unreasonable fear of fake news on the internet.

But we didn't have the President-elect or his former campaign manager tweeting them out as fact. That's a problem. There are plenty of Trump supporters that believe the absolute worst in ANYONE who disagrees with them. Look at this board for proof.

How can we have a rational debate if we can't even agree on what's true? I mean Rush Limbaugh even said that Fact Checkers are liberal propaganda! Think about that, if anyone questions Rush on the veracity of his statements, then can Rush ever be wrong? No and that's scary. Many people believe that.

 

[andy753]

So lefties get to decide what is and is not real? Remind me how you would feel if a right leaning group tried that?

What they are doing is removing most of the "Obama has a secret getaway home he shares with Kim Jong-un" type of "news". It's amaaaaaazing what some people read and believe online. Yes, there's room for that type of garbage out there, but if you call it "news" it has to be based on facts. Example, Facebook is taking crap for not removing all the posts that said you can now vote for Hillary online, or via text messaging on your phone. Total blatant BS and they new it, but they didn't remove it. It may or may not have affected the election from people texting or going online to place thier vote and then not going out and actually voting.

Sometimes BS news has actual real life consequences, and they are trying to get rid of stuff like that.

 

[OldLady]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

I'm confused. If you agree it's not good that we can agree on what is real, why do you oppose some sort of reality-check that is like the truth in advertising laws, or the civil penalties against writing lies about someone?

 

[Mac1958]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

I'm confused. If you agree it's not good that we can agree on what is real, why do you oppose some sort of reality-check that is like the truth in advertising laws, or the civil penalties against writing lies about someone?

Because there is no way to know the agenda of the "fact checkers".

Let's say a "fact checker" is a registered Republican. Are you going to give them final authority?
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

I'm open to putting our heads together to establish what is and is not fact. You seem to have an idea, being that you are not a zealot from either side. Surely you can help lead this effort.

If you are amenable, I will work with you on a thread or forum here on USMB where we establish facts that are indisputable.

What do you say? We can develop an outline of subject areas and hash out what is fact and what is not. After we discuss each claim, we can establish a USMB indisputable fact.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Let's see if we can agree on a single statement of fact. I will make it a very simple one.

President Barack Obama was born in the State of Hawaii.

Is this a fact that is indisputable? Should a person who does not accept this as fact be considered a rational, clear thinking person?

 

[OldLady]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

I'm confused. If you agree it's not good that we can agree on what is real, why do you oppose some sort of reality-check that is like the truth in advertising laws, or the civil penalties against writing lies about someone?

Because there is no way to know the agenda of the "fact checkers".

Let's say a "fact checker" is a registered Republican. Are you going to give them final authority?
.

I have every faith that a registered Republican can determine a fact from a down and out lie. This needs to be taken out of the political realm and entered into plain old common sense reality.

 

[Papageorgio]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

I'm confused. If you agree it's not good that we can agree on what is real, why do you oppose some sort of reality-check that is like the truth in advertising laws, or the civil penalties against writing lies about someone?

Because there is no way to know the agenda of the "fact checkers".

Let's say a "fact checker" is a registered Republican. Are you going to give them final authority?
.

Yep, so the fact checkers are not to be trusted either. So, what you have is the government checking to see what is fact or what is not fact. That is pretty dangerous.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why do we need to trust them?

Eliminating fake news sites is not about taking away free speech. If people continue to be allowed to build their own news websites and manufacture articles that are patently fake, if that is acceptable and allowed to continue, we are opening ourselves up to untold propaganda efforts by whatever opportunist decides to use them. I can understand people objecting to using "fact checkers" that they don't trust. So I'm asking, who do they trust? Make sense?

Eliminating them is eliminating free speech, I see a story and I go to lengths to prove it true or not. People need to research they stuff they read.

Can you explain how it eliminates free speech? Are we allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? To sell Cheetos as "organic?"

It's a first step, do you need the government to dictate what is real news and what is fake? We have had tabloids for decades, not sure why we have an unreasonable fear of fake news on the internet.

But we didn't have the President-elect or his former campaign manager tweeting them out as fact. That's a problem. There are plenty of Trump supporters that believe the absolute worst in ANYONE who disagrees with them. Look at this board for proof.

How can we have a rational debate if we can't even agree on what's true? I mean Rush Limbaugh even said that Fact Checkers are liberal propaganda! Think about that, if anyone questions Rush on the veracity of his statements, then can Rush ever be wrong? No and that's scary. Many people believe that.

Why because you can't tell the difference? What is truth, sometimes truth is perspective. So, your interpretation may be correct or incorrect, who is to say what the real truth is?

 

[Mac1958]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

I'm confused. If you agree it's not good that we can agree on what is real, why do you oppose some sort of reality-check that is like the truth in advertising laws, or the civil penalties against writing lies about someone?

Because there is no way to know the agenda of the "fact checkers".

Let's say a "fact checker" is a registered Republican. Are you going to give them final authority?
.

Yep, so the fact checkers are not to be trusted either. So, what you have is the government checking to see what is fact or what is not fact. That is pretty dangerous.

Yes, "fact checkers" are pointless, because someone has to then fact-check THEM, and on an on.

This is a cultural issue, and can't be fixed with band-aids.
.

 

[Papageorgio]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

I'm confused. If you agree it's not good that we can agree on what is real, why do you oppose some sort of reality-check that is like the truth in advertising laws, or the civil penalties against writing lies about someone?

Because there is no way to know the agenda of the "fact checkers".

Let's say a "fact checker" is a registered Republican. Are you going to give them final authority?
.

Yep, so the fact checkers are not to be trusted either. So, what you have is the government checking to see what is fact or what is not fact. That is pretty dangerous.

Yes, "fact checkers" are pointless, because someone has to then fact-check THEM, and on an on.

This is a cultural issue, and can't be fixed with band-aids.
.

Or terminate free speech because people lie.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I trust myself to distinguish who the liars are......one only has to note how many times someone is wrong...pretty simple isnt it.......why do you need an official fact checker.........

 

[JFK_USA]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

I'm confused. If you agree it's not good that we can agree on what is real, why do you oppose some sort of reality-check that is like the truth in advertising laws, or the civil penalties against writing lies about someone?

Because there is no way to know the agenda of the "fact checkers".

Let's say a "fact checker" is a registered Republican. Are you going to give them final authority?
.

I have every faith that a registered Republican can determine a fact from a down and out lie. This needs to be taken out of the political realm and entered into plain old common sense reality.

Really? They bought the paid protester story hook, line and sinker which was completely false and the blogger even admitted to making the whole thing up!

 

[LoneLaugher]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

I'm open to putting our heads together to establish what is and is not fact. You seem to have an idea, being that you are not a zealot from either side. Surely you can help lead this effort.

If you are amenable, I will work with you on a thread or forum here on USMB where we establish facts that are indisputable.

What do you say? We can develop an outline of subject areas and hash out what is fact and what is not. After we discuss each claim, we can establish a USMB indisputable fact.

I'm very disappointed that Mac1958 has not taken me up on this offer.

 

[OldLady]

None of them.

We can no longer even agree on what a "fact" is -- the zealots on both ends regularly confuse fact with fantasy with conspiracy with opinion.

Not good, kids. You can't improve things when you can't even agree on what is real.
.

I'm confused. If you agree it's not good that we can agree on what is real, why do you oppose some sort of reality-check that is like the truth in advertising laws, or the civil penalties against writing lies about someone?

Because there is no way to know the agenda of the "fact checkers".

Let's say a "fact checker" is a registered Republican. Are you going to give them final authority?
.

I have every faith that a registered Republican can determine a fact from a down and out lie. This needs to be taken out of the political realm and entered into plain old common sense reality.

Really? They bought the paid protester story hook, line and sinker which was completely false and the blogger even admitted to making the whole thing up!

This shouldn't be about political affiliations. I know lots of sensible Republicans, and probably so do you.
I heard this morning that Google is considering putting a warning tag on patently false news articles, linking to the fact checker site that debunked the story. I guess that's as sensible as any, since the fact checker site explains why and gives the evidence countering the fake news.
I think it would be better to get rid of these freaks altogether, but apparently, like the old World Weekly News, tabloid bullshit IS sacrosanct.