Fake News

Per the "mainstream media", well, anyone who has the slightest knowledge of history can currently only sadly shake their heads and at best laugh at what it's sadly become, which is little more than an entirely bought-and-paid-for propaganda mill for the left. The likes of FOX "news" exist only to permit people to at least imagine there's really a "choice" in such anymore, but is equally corrupt to the journalistic core, and check just who owns them as well. Sadly, about the only true "news" during this election cycle came from Wikileaks...and what does that say about the sorry state of "investigative"...umm..."journalism" in America today?

Most amusingly though; it was the leftist media's attacks and continually evidenced disdain for Mr. Trump that afforded him countless millions in free publicity and air time. The more they went after him, the more people raised their middle fingers at all the ever-increasingly-obvious BS instead. One could reasonably argue that even an actual billionaire couldn't have easily funded all the campaign exposure the liberal left media so arrogantly and contemptuously gave Trump...but of course, no one's ever accused liberals of being exceptionally bright anyway. ;)
 
Last edited:
Great article advice:

Behind the fake news crisis lies what's perhaps a larger problem: Many Americans doubt what governments or authorities tell them, and also dismiss real news from traditional sources. But we've got tips to sharpen our skepticism.

Are we really in a post-truth era? Somebody on the Internet said so. Many people,actually.

The presidential campaign was filled with falsehoods. Our president-elect no longer poses as a truth-teller: Aides and supporters say we should not take him literally. That's good for him, since he endorsed a conspiracy theory that cast doubt on his own election. (Remember? He claimed without evidence that there were "millions" of illegal voters, who, if they did exist, might have swung the election to him?) Fake news stories about a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant prompted a real person to "investigate" with a rifle last week.

But let's properly define the problem. History and experience tell me it's not a post-truth era: Facts have always been hard to separate from falsehoods, and political partisans have always made it harder. It's better to call this a post-trust era.

Business, government, churches and the media have fallen in public esteem. These institutions paid a price for an entire generation of wars, scandals, economic convulsions, and cynical politics. We're left with fewer traditional guideposts for whom to believe. The spread of fake news from fraudulent sources is only a symptom: The larger problem is that many Americans doubt what governments or authorities tell them, and also dismiss real news from traditional sources.


ALL TECH CONSIDERED
We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here's What We Learned


THE TWO-WAY
Students Have 'Dismaying' Inability To Tell Fake News From Real, Study Finds

Propagandists obviously have fun (and profit from) trying to con us, the public. Why not have fun smoking them out? You can apply this advice not only in hunting for totally fake stories, but also in testing out the stories on more or less fact-based websites or traditional TV and newspapers. (Even NPR.)

In general, traditional news organizations are more reliable because their business model is to paint the clearest picture of the world that they can manage. But in the post-trust era we know that any news source can steer you wrong at times, and they're likely all jumbled together in your news feed anyway.

So here's a finder's guide for facts:

First, take a moment. If you have time to scroll Facebook or watch the news, you probably have a moment to decide if a news story seems credible. Ask some quick questions:

Is the story so outrageous you can't believe it? Maybe you shouldn't. Respect the voice inside you that says, "What?"

Is the story so outrageous you do believe it? That's also a warning sign. Many stories play on your existing beliefs. If the story perfectly confirms your worst suspicions, look for more information.

Does the headline match the article? Many compelling headlines don't.

Does the article match the news story it's lifted from? Many sites rewrite other news articles to fit the political slant of their presumed audience. Look for links to original sources and click through and see what the original says.

Are quotes in context? Look for the sentences before and after the quote that makes your blood boil. If the article fails to give them, that's a warning sign.

Is the story set in the future? It's hard to get firsthand reporting from there. Any story that tells you what will happen should be marked down 50 percent for this reason alone.

Does the story attack a generic enemy? Vague denunciations of "Washington" or "the media" or "Trump supporters" or "the left" should be marked down 99 percent. Good reporting doesn't make these kinds of generalizations and is specific about whom is making a claim about what.

Are you asked to rely on one killer factoid? Not a good idea. If a hacked document "proves" an implausible conspiracy, look for the context that shows what the document really means. As for photos and video, use Ronald Reagan's old slogan: trust but verify. If there's any doubt about a "stunning" video, see if more traditional sources link to it. They love video clicks as much as anyone. If they refrain, there may be good reason.

Who is the news source, anyway? Traditional news brands may occasionally get it wrong — sometimes hugely wrong — but at least you know where to find them and hold them accountable. Less prominent news sites might carry compelling stories — but expect them to show you who they are and where they gathered information.

Does the news source appear to employ editors? Many news organizations produce stories that are checked before publication. Others don't. It's a big deal. Hiring an editorial staff shows the publication's respect for you, and matters more than "political bias." The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, for example, have different owners, audiences, stories, perspectives and obsessions. Both have made mistakes and omissions; but both send reporters out into the world and back them up with an editorial process that catches and corrects many errors. This means both can be informative, regardless of your politics or theirs.


ALL TECH CONSIDERED
Fake Or Real? How To Self-Check The News And Get The Facts


LAW
What Legal Recourse Do Victims Of Fake News Stories Have?

Are you told, "Trust me"? Don't. It's the post-trust era! Expect everyone to show where their facts come from, link to underlying articles, and demonstrate that they've argued honestly. Here's a way they may bolster their credibility:

Did the writer engage with anyone who disagrees? Did they call a senator whose legislation bugs them? Did they try to grasp what the president-elect was doing, or merely repeat one of his more outrageous statements? If it's a broadcast interview, was the guest presented with genuine opposing views and challenged to answer? Those who wrestle with opposing arguments do you a service and often improve their own arguments.

These simple questions should take you a long way toward judging the value of a news story. While applying such questions to any given story, you can also take a few more general steps:

Broaden your palate. Make a point to check sites that do not agree with your politics. You may discover stories that are wrong — but you'll know what other people are consuming, which will sharpen your own thinking.

Be open to the idea that some falsehoods are sincerely held. In spite of all the warnings here, some inaccurate news stories grow out of haste or misinformation rather than pure cynicism. (But they're still false.)

If a news source consistently passes the tests in this guide, support it. Gathering reliable information isn't free. Helping to pay for it aligns the news source's interests with yours.

If this guide helps you to find some reliable information, that's great — but remember one more thing: Never stop looking. Learning the truth is not a goal, but a process. As a journalist, I can never express everything in the world in a single day's program. The saving grace is tomorrow's program, when we try to do a little more. It is same for me as a news consumer: I will always be learning more.
 
Just days after criticizing the online proliferation of so-called fake news, President Barack Obama lauded the “great work” of a notorious fake news outlet which was just busted in federal court for peddling news that never actually happened.

In an interview with Rolling Stone, which was found liable by a federal jury earlier this month for malicious defamation for its role in pushing a rape hoax, Obama nonetheless praised the magazine’s “great work”:


http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/30/obama-just-praised-great-work-notorious-fake-news-outlet/
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/30/obama-just-praised-great-work-notorious-fake-news-outlet/
Example #1 was revealed earlier this year, when Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes — the brother of CBS News President David Rhodes — literally bragged to the New York Times how easy it was for the administration to dupe reporters when shaping a narrative to their liking.

"All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes told the Times in May. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change."

"They literally know nothing."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/308940-wheres-the-outrage-over-obamas-fake-news-peddling

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...e-news-to-push-global-warming/article/2609159

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-obama-used-fake-news-sell-iran-nuclear-deal/
 
Just days after criticizing the online proliferation of so-called fake news, President Barack Obama lauded the “great work” of a notorious fake news outlet which was just busted in federal court for peddling news that never actually happened.

In an interview with Rolling Stone, which was found liable by a federal jury earlier this month for malicious defamation for its role in pushing a rape hoax, Obama nonetheless praised the magazine’s “great work”:


http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/30/obama-just-praised-great-work-notorious-fake-news-outlet/
Example #1 was revealed earlier this year, when Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes — the brother of CBS News President David Rhodes — literally bragged to the New York Times how easy it was for the administration to dupe reporters when shaping a narrative to their liking.

"All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes told the Times in May. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change."

"They literally know nothing."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/308940-wheres-the-outrage-over-obamas-fake-news-peddling

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...e-news-to-push-global-warming/article/2609159

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-obama-used-fake-news-sell-iran-nuclear-deal/

Nice deflection.

All of us should use that advice and checklist.

Care to respond to Trump team denying any Russian hacking?

This will get ugly. Congress will not be his beeyach. He has never had to answer to anyone with more power than him.
 
Last edited:
Nice deflection.

All of us should use that advice and checklist.

Care to respond to Trump team denying any Russian hacking?

This will get ugly. Congress will not be his beeyach. He has never had to answer to anyone with more power than him.

Even better one:

Sitting before the House Intelligence Committee was a senior FBI counterintelligence official. The question the Republicans and Democrats in attendance wanted answered was whether the bureau concurred with the conclusions the CIA had just shared with senators that Russia “quite” clearly intended to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and clinch the White House.


For the Democrats in the room, the FBI’s response was frustrating — even shocking.


During a similar Senate Intelligence Committee briefing held the previous week, the CIA’s statements, as reflected in the letter the lawmakers now held in their hands, were “direct and bald and unqualified” about Russia’s intentions to help Trump, according to one of the officials who attended the House briefing.


The FBI official’s remarks to the lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee were, in comparison, “fuzzy” and “ambiguous,” suggesting to those in the room that the bureau and the agency weren’t on the same page, the official said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...m=.328aa8f29e84&wpisrc=nl_rainbow-fbia&wpmm=1
 
You answered your own question about fake news but are too blind to see it. On January 20, 2017 Trump WILL BE YOUR President. Suck it up buttercup!

When did I say he wouldn't be my president? I was with Bush for 8 years. Disagreed with much, but never said, not my POTUS.

You have me confused with someone you hate.

I have faith in our system. This guy is going to be so upset when he finds out that he is only 1/3 of the ruling power of the USA.

Congress has a way of making sure that POTUS' that think they have more power than them are kneecapped.

Oh, and good luck if you think this guy is what you voted for, unless of course, you simply voted for throwing the firebomb into the mix to shake things up.
 
You just do run by negatives?
Do you?

xUT.jpg
 

Latest posts