CDZ What News Checker Would You Trust?

[OldLady]

It was 50/50 between Reuters and AP.

Are you sure about Reuters?

They routinely stage shots in war torn areas to try to heighten the emotional impact. During various skirmishes between Israel and Arab terrorists, they use props like children's teddy bears to insert into the photos they take after a terrorist firing position is targeted.

Dogmaphobe that was a pretty serious accusation. Where did you hear it?

I read it several years ago, but I can't remember where.

Reuters, like most of Britain, is notoriously antisemitic in their coverage of issues relating to Arabs and Jews. If you would like to do your own research, I might start you off with this:

. Google

Two of the most common fallacies for which people fall are the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity. The fact that so many news agencies are biased against Jews has led far too many people to become antisemitic, themselves. In a world where there are a thousand Islamic voices to every Jewish one, the entire discussion has become warped by the sheer domination of the Arab point of view. Reuters is British. Antisemitism is rampant in Britain, and the Islamic influence is huge. They are beholden to Arab oil and so have become extremely pro-Arab in their reporting.

You have forewarned us that Reuters has a bias. Interestingly, "I don't remember where I read it," now makes one think, was it one of those fake news sites, someone with a bone to pick against Reuters? Of course, it would be easy to move a child's teddy bear into a shot of rubble, and maybe some photographers would do that, or maybe they just make sure to take that shot when they see it. It is certainly a strong statement about war.

The coverage these days about Aleppo is heavy on sympathy for the rebels fighting Assad, but in some ways I wonder why, since NO ONE seems to want to get involved in a meaningful way. However, that coverage is not fake news. It reports real bombing, real deaths, real destruction of hospitals, etc.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It was 50/50 between Reuters and AP.

Are you sure about Reuters?

They routinely stage shots in war torn areas to try to heighten the emotional impact. During various skirmishes between Israel and Arab terrorists, they use props like children's teddy bears to insert into the photos they take after a terrorist firing position is targeted.

Dogmaphobe that was a pretty serious accusation. Where did you hear it?

I read it several years ago, but I can't remember where.

Reuters, like most of Britain, is notoriously antisemitic in their coverage of issues relating to Arabs and Jews. If you would like to do your own research, I might start you off with this:

. Google

Two of the most common fallacies for which people fall are the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity. The fact that so many news agencies are biased against Jews has led far too many people to become antisemitic, themselves. In a world where there are a thousand Islamic voices to every Jewish one, the entire discussion has become warped by the sheer domination of the Arab point of view. Reuters is British. Antisemitism is rampant in Britain, and the Islamic influence is huge. They are beholden to Arab oil and so have become extremely pro-Arab in their reporting.

You have forewarned us that Reuters has a bias. Interestingly, "I don't remember where I read it," now makes one think, was it one of those fake news sites, someone with a bone to pick against Reuters? Of course, it would be easy to move a child's teddy bear into a shot of rubble, and maybe some photographers would do that, or maybe they just make sure to take that shot when they see it. It is certainly a strong statement about war.

The coverage these days about Aleppo is heavy on sympathy for the rebels fighting Assad, but in some ways I wonder why, since NO ONE seems to want to get involved in a meaningful way. However, that coverage is not fake news. It reports real bombing, real deaths, real destruction of hospitals, etc.

I see you had no interest in following any of the links I provided. Is it just easier for you to consider something fake if it does not confirm your preconceptions?

There were all sorts of leads indicating the various ways Reuters tries to influence perception on the subject, from the use of language that refuses to call terrorists terrorist, to the photoshopping of some pics and the intentional cropping of others to the selection of only that material that projects their antisemitic viewpoint.

Why do you think so many disparate sources are all faking these accounts, especially when Reuters was caught redhanded so many different times?

It appears to me that your own trust in Reuters is so great that you are not even willing to consider any evidence that does not conform such trust.

 

[OldLady]

It was 50/50 between Reuters and AP.

Are you sure about Reuters?

They routinely stage shots in war torn areas to try to heighten the emotional impact. During various skirmishes between Israel and Arab terrorists, they use props like children's teddy bears to insert into the photos they take after a terrorist firing position is targeted.

Dogmaphobe that was a pretty serious accusation. Where did you hear it?

I read it several years ago, but I can't remember where.

Reuters, like most of Britain, is notoriously antisemitic in their coverage of issues relating to Arabs and Jews. If you would like to do your own research, I might start you off with this:

. Google

Two of the most common fallacies for which people fall are the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity. The fact that so many news agencies are biased against Jews has led far too many people to become antisemitic, themselves. In a world where there are a thousand Islamic voices to every Jewish one, the entire discussion has become warped by the sheer domination of the Arab point of view. Reuters is British. Antisemitism is rampant in Britain, and the Islamic influence is huge. They are beholden to Arab oil and so have become extremely pro-Arab in their reporting.

You have forewarned us that Reuters has a bias. Interestingly, "I don't remember where I read it," now makes one think, was it one of those fake news sites, someone with a bone to pick against Reuters? Of course, it would be easy to move a child's teddy bear into a shot of rubble, and maybe some photographers would do that, or maybe they just make sure to take that shot when they see it. It is certainly a strong statement about war.

The coverage these days about Aleppo is heavy on sympathy for the rebels fighting Assad, but in some ways I wonder why, since NO ONE seems to want to get involved in a meaningful way. However, that coverage is not fake news. It reports real bombing, real deaths, real destruction of hospitals, etc.

I see you had no interest in following any of the links I provided. Is it just easier for you to consider something fake if it does not confirm your preconceptions?

There were all sorts of leads indicating the various ways Reuters tries to influence perception on the subject, from the use of language that refuses to call terrorists terrorist, to the photoshopping of some pics and the intentional cropping of others to the selection of only that material that projects their antisemitic viewpoint.

Why do you think so many disparate sources are all faking these accounts, especially when Reuters was caught redhanded so many different times?

It appears to me that your own trust in Reuters is so great that you are not even willing to consider any evidence that does not conform such trust.

I did not look at the link you provided because I took your word for it that Reuters has a bias. Jewish/Arab relations are way outside my baliwick, and moreover, they are way outside the topic of this thread.
I keep hearing that news which is presented in a biased way is "fake." That is not what I mean by "fake." I mean MADE UP, not clever editing or word choices. You and I will never remove bias entirely from news. Maybe A.P. does a better job, I don't know. But we are all human and every human has a point of view. My concern is with people who think it is somehow acceptable to float stories that are completely untrue. Not biased, not exaggerated, but UNTRUE. And when you have fake "sites" that are designed specifically to fool people, it is even more concerning to me.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Are you sure about Reuters?

They routinely stage shots in war torn areas to try to heighten the emotional impact. During various skirmishes between Israel and Arab terrorists, they use props like children's teddy bears to insert into the photos they take after a terrorist firing position is targeted.

Dogmaphobe that was a pretty serious accusation. Where did you hear it?

I read it several years ago, but I can't remember where.

Reuters, like most of Britain, is notoriously antisemitic in their coverage of issues relating to Arabs and Jews. If you would like to do your own research, I might start you off with this:

. Google

Two of the most common fallacies for which people fall are the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity. The fact that so many news agencies are biased against Jews has led far too many people to become antisemitic, themselves. In a world where there are a thousand Islamic voices to every Jewish one, the entire discussion has become warped by the sheer domination of the Arab point of view. Reuters is British. Antisemitism is rampant in Britain, and the Islamic influence is huge. They are beholden to Arab oil and so have become extremely pro-Arab in their reporting.

You have forewarned us that Reuters has a bias. Interestingly, "I don't remember where I read it," now makes one think, was it one of those fake news sites, someone with a bone to pick against Reuters? Of course, it would be easy to move a child's teddy bear into a shot of rubble, and maybe some photographers would do that, or maybe they just make sure to take that shot when they see it. It is certainly a strong statement about war.

The coverage these days about Aleppo is heavy on sympathy for the rebels fighting Assad, but in some ways I wonder why, since NO ONE seems to want to get involved in a meaningful way. However, that coverage is not fake news. It reports real bombing, real deaths, real destruction of hospitals, etc.

I see you had no interest in following any of the links I provided. Is it just easier for you to consider something fake if it does not confirm your preconceptions?

There were all sorts of leads indicating the various ways Reuters tries to influence perception on the subject, from the use of language that refuses to call terrorists terrorist, to the photoshopping of some pics and the intentional cropping of others to the selection of only that material that projects their antisemitic viewpoint.

Why do you think so many disparate sources are all faking these accounts, especially when Reuters was caught redhanded so many different times?

It appears to me that your own trust in Reuters is so great that you are not even willing to consider any evidence that does not conform such trust.

I did not look at the link you provided because I took your word for it that Reuters has a bias. Jewish/Arab relations are way outside my baliwick, and moreover, they are way outside the topic of this thread.
I keep hearing that news which is presented in a biased way is "fake." That is not what I mean by "fake." I mean MADE UP, not clever editing or word choices. You and I will never remove bias entirely from news. Maybe A.P. does a better job, I don't know. But we are all human and every human has a point of view. My concern is with people who think it is somehow acceptable to float stories that are completely untrue. Not biased, not exaggerated, but UNTRUE. And when you have fake "sites" that are designed specifically to fool people, it is even more concerning to me.

Well, on one hand you have fabricated stories. On the other, you have manipulation of actual stories to achieve a desired poetical agenda. Which is more effective in the long run? I say the latter as the former is obviously false. In the prior, people are selecting some facts while ignoring others, framing real issues using dishonest language and altering real photos to make the real situation look different. I think that fools more people by far.

 

[Preacher]

This week, there has been talk about Google trying to slow down its "fake news" sites by not allowing them ad services. There has been a lot of screaming about that, that it is the left's attempt at shutting down conservative speech. I get it that Google made its liberal bias known during the election, but the election is over and it's time to come back to our senses. It is time to ensure that the "news" articles we receive on our phones and on social media are actually true. If you don't trust Google to say "not true," who will you trust?

This has been freaking me out pretty seriously, since defending the right to distribute "fake" news is well on the path to swallowing whatever propaganda comes down the pike, most often by government types and politicos.
It is against everything my generation was ever taught. It should be against everything the current generation is willing to accept, as well. It's so scary, I don't want to argue about it; I want to find an answer.

Below is an article listing 6 fact checking sites that seem to be valid. You may know of others. I'd love your input.

6 Best Fact Checking Websites That Help You Distinguish Between Truth and Rumors

I don't trust ANY 100%. I prefer Breitbart but they are pro Israel. so meh.

 

[Treeshepherd]

The Chinese have a saying about their State-owned media: a rumor isn't true until the government denies it. They learn to read between the lines. Sometimes it's what is not mentioned that's most revealing.

We're moving toward that level of cynicism. Our legacy media is the voice of a virtual political party which promotes globalism, Wall Street, debt and military interventionism.

Trump seems to have turned media on its head. He defeated old media with new media. He confronted legacy media in an open war, and against all conventional wisdom he benefitted from that.

I don't think I can vote in the poll yet. I tend to think conservative media is more honest and investigative when libs are in power, and visa versa. But I don't think any of these companies have figured out how to deal with Trump.

For now it's a flame war. The Washington Post went out of their way to use a goofy picture of Trump on the front page. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump responded by tweeting this pic of WaPo owner Jeff Bezos;

 

[OldLady]

Dogmaphobe that was a pretty serious accusation. Where did you hear it?

I read it several years ago, but I can't remember where.

Reuters, like most of Britain, is notoriously antisemitic in their coverage of issues relating to Arabs and Jews. If you would like to do your own research, I might start you off with this:

. Google

Two of the most common fallacies for which people fall are the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity. The fact that so many news agencies are biased against Jews has led far too many people to become antisemitic, themselves. In a world where there are a thousand Islamic voices to every Jewish one, the entire discussion has become warped by the sheer domination of the Arab point of view. Reuters is British. Antisemitism is rampant in Britain, and the Islamic influence is huge. They are beholden to Arab oil and so have become extremely pro-Arab in their reporting.

You have forewarned us that Reuters has a bias. Interestingly, "I don't remember where I read it," now makes one think, was it one of those fake news sites, someone with a bone to pick against Reuters? Of course, it would be easy to move a child's teddy bear into a shot of rubble, and maybe some photographers would do that, or maybe they just make sure to take that shot when they see it. It is certainly a strong statement about war.

The coverage these days about Aleppo is heavy on sympathy for the rebels fighting Assad, but in some ways I wonder why, since NO ONE seems to want to get involved in a meaningful way. However, that coverage is not fake news. It reports real bombing, real deaths, real destruction of hospitals, etc.

I see you had no interest in following any of the links I provided. Is it just easier for you to consider something fake if it does not confirm your preconceptions?

There were all sorts of leads indicating the various ways Reuters tries to influence perception on the subject, from the use of language that refuses to call terrorists terrorist, to the photoshopping of some pics and the intentional cropping of others to the selection of only that material that projects their antisemitic viewpoint.

Why do you think so many disparate sources are all faking these accounts, especially when Reuters was caught redhanded so many different times?

It appears to me that your own trust in Reuters is so great that you are not even willing to consider any evidence that does not conform such trust.

I did not look at the link you provided because I took your word for it that Reuters has a bias. Jewish/Arab relations are way outside my baliwick, and moreover, they are way outside the topic of this thread.
I keep hearing that news which is presented in a biased way is "fake." That is not what I mean by "fake." I mean MADE UP, not clever editing or word choices. You and I will never remove bias entirely from news. Maybe A.P. does a better job, I don't know. But we are all human and every human has a point of view. My concern is with people who think it is somehow acceptable to float stories that are completely untrue. Not biased, not exaggerated, but UNTRUE. And when you have fake "sites" that are designed specifically to fool people, it is even more concerning to me.

Well, on one hand you have fabricated stories. On the other, you have manipulation of actual stories to achieve a desired poetical agenda. Which is more effective in the long run? I say the latter as the former is obviously false. In the prior, people are selecting some facts while ignoring others, framing real issues using dishonest language and altering real photos to make the real situation look different. I think that fools more people by far.

If I hadn't read the many stories from "fake news" authors and even Google that describe how many people "bit" on the made up stuff, I would be in agreement with you. The tricks you describe are always in use to some extent, but I think the degree to which the majors use them is less extensive than a lot of people want to make out. In order to realize something has been left out or reframed, you have to compare it, which is why searching out news from different spots, getting speeches in their entirety (thank goodness for the internet!) and getting different perspectives is the best way to go. Places like USMB are helpful in that, since you might not know there was a whole different perspective on a topic until someone brings it up.
Just flipping from CNN to FOX news during "breaking news" is revealing in what is covered and for how long, not to mention the obvious commentary differences. The underlying facts, though, are the same. As long as one is aware, there is really nothing wrong with either approach.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Some people don't like being offered alternate perspectives...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 100080

Some people don't like being offered alternate perspectives...

*****CHUCKLE*****

Very true. Sometimes I don't "like" it, either, but I don't ignore it. At least not entirely. There are some posters whose threads I don't usually read. But if I have someone on ignore, it's not for their political opinion.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

View attachment 100080

Some people don't like being offered alternate perspectives...

*****CHUCKLE*****

Very true. Sometimes I don't "like" it, either, but I don't ignore it. At least not entirely. There are some posters whose threads I don't usually read. But if I have someone on ignore, it's not for their political opinion.

I have no one on ignore.... However there are quite a few who need their 'safe place' when their reality is turned upside down and sideways.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[flacaltenn]

This week, there has been talk about Google trying to slow down its "fake news" sites by not allowing them ad services. There has been a lot of screaming about that, that it is the left's attempt at shutting down conservative speech. I get it that Google made its liberal bias known during the election, but the election is over and it's time to come back to our senses. It is time to ensure that the "news" articles we receive on our phones and on social media are actually true. If you don't trust Google to say "not true," who will you trust?

This has been freaking me out pretty seriously, since defending the right to distribute "fake" news is well on the path to swallowing whatever propaganda comes down the pike, most often by government types and politicos.
It is against everything my generation was ever taught. It should be against everything the current generation is willing to accept, as well. It's so scary, I don't want to argue about it; I want to find an answer.

Below is an article listing 6 fact checking sites that seem to be valid. You may know of others. I'd love your input.

6 Best Fact Checking Websites That Help You Distinguish Between Truth and Rumors

I only trust myself. Plenty of experience that NONE of these can be trusted. Not so much just about truth telling, but MORESO in WHAT they choose to print.

My take is --- news in CONFLICT with each other is actually the best solution.. I got to be a very happy and alert and educated politics consumer by reading ALL SIDES of stories. Then going back to primary facts, and numbers from there.

I hate it when folks refuse to read a source. It's easy to refute. If it's wrong. POINT IT OUT. Make folks pay their credibility for posting "fake news". But like you --- It worries me deeply that ANY social media or govt should really get involved.

If you EMBARRASS the CRAP out them enough. They will repent and become journalists again. And the only "fake news" will be back on the supermarket check out aisles where it belongs.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?"

Does this seriously need to be explained?

How it limits free speech is obvious - it regulates what you can and cannot say...

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't trust any news source, to do so is exactly what gets people in trouble with false or badly warped reporting. There is simply reputable news sources and non-reputable ones. It is funny that you put such an emphasis on outright false stories as such stories have almost no impact in the large scheme of things. The rampant bias that exists within even reputable sources these days is what has the real and lasting impact on people's understanding of what is going on around them. It has utterly destroyed the concept of the news and why almost no one trusts anything that they say anymore. Even the most reputable news outlets are rife with bias to the point that I find it difficult to bother with them anymore.

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.

If you are not checking your news for validity then what use is trying to weed out bad information? The major outlets are not going to be targeted with any measures and if you are purposefully getting your information from a source that will outright lie without checking on the stories from it then you are LOOKING for that type of information. Google telling you it is false will not matter and government regulation on it will only reinforce the bias those looking for such 'news' already have.

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?

No, it does not make sense. If people are allowed to build websites as they please and say whatever they please on them that is called freedom, plain and simple. If people are told that they are not allowed to post content on their own website that is not approved that is not free - it is the opposite.

The medium here is irrelevant - in the same manner that you can stand on the corner and spout asinine things out of your mouth you can do so on the internet. If people are to damn lazy and apathetic to check into things before they believe them then it is already far to late for those people. Controlling what they are allowed to be exposed to will not help anyone. It will have DEVASTATING effects on rights though.

Me. I trust myself to understand the biases and leanings of various news sources and individuals reporting the news. I take in as many points of view as I care to and draw my own conclusion.

A radical concept for the group thinkers, I understand.

We are essentially consumers of the news, and news deserves the same protection of validity as any other product. It isn't legal for a vitamin producer to advertise that it will add 10 years to your life and they are not allowed to do it. Why is news, which can be equally important in the choices we make, not subject to any sort of protections whatever, just because they are on the internet?

That is false by the way - they are subject to a whole host of laws. What you cannot control is content that is not 'news' and is not sold to people. Different story altogether.

 

[OldLady]

Is there indeed a current siege in Aleppo, Syria? By all accounts, yes.
Did three million illegals vote to elect Hillary Clinton?
From PolitiFact: Did 3 million undocumented immigrants vote in 2016?

Our ruling

Reports claim 3 million "illegal aliens" cast votes in this year's election.

The articles point back to tweets from Gregg Phillips, who has worked for the Republican Party and has a voter fraud reporting app. But Phillips will not provide any evidence to support his claim, which happens to be undermined by publicly available information.

If Phillips does release a more detailed report, we will consider that information. But for now, this claim is inaccurate. We rate it False.

Why is this important? It's just fake news (at least until Philips is willing to come forward with the facts backing up the assertion) and according to most of the respondents here, it is harmless or "obvious."
Yet our President elect believes it and has based a number of Tweets on this "fact."

I don't like this.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The biggest problem as I see it has to do with narrative. If a potential story fits the correct narrative, it is promoted and if it doesn't, it isn't. Beyond that, the narrative often trumps the real story as news agencies have their story BEFORE investigating rather than after. This tendency percolates right down to the local level as well.

I happen to be good friends with the next door neighbor of a rather infamous school shooter. Both parents were professionals and they lived in a upper- middle class neighborhood. The media played it up as a case where shooters can arise from even the best of families. What they failed to report was the way the father abided the boy verbally and continuously - do much so that the neighbors heard. They weren't at all interested in the real story, just the one they wanted to promote.

Magnify this by a million and you have our national news. If it fits the agenda, it plays, and sometimes even if it has to be twisted up in order to do so. If it doesn't fit, it is ignored.

 

[OldLady]

The biggest problem as I see it has to do with narrative. If a potential story fits the correct narrative, it is promoted and if it doesn't, it isn't. Beyond that, the narrative often trumps the real story as news agencies have their story BEFORE investigating rather than after. This tendency percolates right down to the local level as well.

I happen to be good friends with the next door neighbor of a rather infamous school shooter. Both parents were professionals and they lived in a upper- middle class neighborhood. The media played it up as a case where shooters can arise from even the best of families. What they failed to report was the way the father abided the boy verbally and continuously - do much so that the neighbors heard. They weren't at all interested in the real story, just the one they wanted to promote.

Magnify this by a million and you have our national news. If it fits the agenda, it plays, and sometimes even if it has to be twisted up in order to do so. If it doesn't fit, it is ignored.

I agree. It really sucks when I start researching a topic and the facts don't fit what I think is true. But it's a learning experience, nonetheless.
Did you mean he "upbraided" the boy?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The biggest problem as I see it has to do with narrative. If a potential story fits the correct narrative, it is promoted and if it doesn't, it isn't. Beyond that, the narrative often trumps the real story as news agencies have their story BEFORE investigating rather than after. This tendency percolates right down to the local level as well.

I happen to be good friends with the next door neighbor of a rather infamous school shooter. Both parents were professionals and they lived in a upper- middle class neighborhood. The media played it up as a case where shooters can arise from even the best of families. What they failed to report was the way the father abided the boy verbally and continuously - do much so that the neighbors heard. They weren't at all interested in the real story, just the one they wanted to promote.

Magnify this by a million and you have our national news. If it fits the agenda, it plays, and sometimes even if it has to be twisted up in order to do so. If it doesn't fit, it is ignored.

I agree. It really sucks when I start researching a topic and the facts don't fit what I think is true. But it's a learning experience, nonetheless.
Did you mean he "upbraided" the boy?

No, I mean verbally abused. I do not use words carelessly.

Telling a preteen and then teenage boy that he is worthless, that he will never amount to anything and that he can never hope to be as perfect as his sister is not upbraiding. It is verbal child abuse.

The media looked only at his income and his position in calling him an ideal father. They did not listen to anybody describing his behavior.

 

[OldLady]

The biggest problem as I see it has to do with narrative. If a potential story fits the correct narrative, it is promoted and if it doesn't, it isn't. Beyond that, the narrative often trumps the real story as news agencies have their story BEFORE investigating rather than after. This tendency percolates right down to the local level as well.

I happen to be good friends with the next door neighbor of a rather infamous school shooter. Both parents were professionals and they lived in a upper- middle class neighborhood. The media played it up as a case where shooters can arise from even the best of families. What they failed to report was the way the father abided the boy verbally and continuously - do much so that the neighbors heard. They weren't at all interested in the real story, just the one they wanted to promote.

Magnify this by a million and you have our national news. If it fits the agenda, it plays, and sometimes even if it has to be twisted up in order to do so. If it doesn't fit, it is ignored.

I agree. It really sucks when I start researching a topic and the facts don't fit what I think is true. But it's a learning experience, nonetheless.
Did you mean he "upbraided" the boy?

No, I mean verbally abused. I do not use words carelessly.

Telling a preteen and then teenage boy that he is worthless, that he will never amount to anything and that he can never hope to be as perfect as his sister is not upbraiding. It is verbal child abuse.

The media looked only at his income and his position in calling him an ideal father. They did not listen to anybody describing his behavior.

Look back at how you spelled it, Dog, don't be insulted by me.
Back to the point you so conveniently avoided, How is it alright for the President Elect to be "buying" fake news? Might he at some point be basing decisions on it, particularly since he is blowing off his daily intelligence briefings? I can't see bias confirmation being quite as dangerous as that.