The Truth About What Constitutes "Fake News" for the Left Which They Want to Ban.

originally posted by: Aazadan
So do you support websites lying to you, while claiming they're telling the truth?

I guess CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream media needs to be banned huh?... Because we know how "sincere" they are all the time huh?...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

UPDATE -




Infowars.com

And
prisonplanet.com

Have been Removed from fakenewswatch.com Lists of CLICKBAIT WEEBSITES


Seems they have Now been Determined to be Creditable News Sites .

Somebody must have sent them a link to this thread !!

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ketsuko

What I saw in those articles was a bunch of clickbait news titles (though two were factual), followed by opinions about what happened. Going by just the front page images, Breitbart looked the most honest on that specific article, but then lost points based on what else was on their front page.

So in your opinion, what constitutes "fake" is when a site's chosen headline for reporting that Donald Trump picked Jeff Sessions for AG and Pompeo to head the CIA (which all did) was how much they sensationalized it? If that's the case then, both Breitbart and HuffPo are fake news as both routinely sensationalize their headlines, but both also still report the essential facts of the story which are the same ones the other three sites reported.

Just because something is sensationalized doesn't make it fake.

Also, you can't call a story fake just because it isn't reported across all platforms. Is the HuffPo going to be sumpathetic to stories of a kid getting beat up for wearing a Make America Great Again hat? Not likely, so as far as they are concerned, not news. The converse is likely going to hold true at Breitbart.

You can guess that the MSN isn't going to touch most of the anecdotal stuff, and they aren't spending much time at all on the anti-Trump rioting preferring instead to lump the anecdotal reports of violence and hate crimes by Trump supporters into stories about spikes in hate crimes. It suits the narrative they've been working on all election that generally speaking, if you vote Trump, you did so for primarily racial hatred reasons and not anything else. So the one flows into the other. You can find opinion pieces where the left, including the MSN left is starting to break past this, but even in those pieces, they still latch on to the salve of telling themselves that, of course, a good many Trump voters were solely racially motivated in their votes.

Wow! So I just finished watching that "Zeitgeist" doc about 9/11 and the Bankers, that stuff is truly startling and one of the main things that struck me was when rockefeller said, "oh, the media, you control them through the media..."

Great thread, I think enough people are awakening to the BS. The rise of alt media is here, I'm subscribe to InfoWars, NextNewsNetwork and TheRebel.

The fact that Trump won was a beautiful personal ending to that movie.

It seems pretty obvious (to me anyway) that the definition of "fake news" ought to be "news which is demonstrably false."

This is different from biased news. Biased news can be any of the following:

1) Accurate news repeated frequently to damage an opponent, praise an ally, or advance/discourage a cause
2) News wherein the details are accurate, but key details omitted per bias
3) News ignored to protect one's interests

And this is different STILL from sensationalized news, which includes dramatization, hyperbole, and histrionics which do nothing to increase the clarity of the actual story.


The only one of these three that can be safely regulated without stomping all over Freedom of the Press is #1.

We might need to pass a law or two to clean it up.

And something else we need to do is go back to forcing news organizations to adhere to the rules of news rather than the "no-rules" of entertainment.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

They are still listed there and even under the "clickbait websites" section they state, and I quote:

Clickbait websites are sites that take bits of true stories but insinuate and make up other details to sew fear. Most of these are conspiratorial in nature are very unreliable.
...

fakenewswatch.com...

There goes every mainstream media... They all have stories that "insinuate and make up other details to sew fear"...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

They are still listed there and even under the "clickbait websites" section they state, and I quote:

Clickbait websites are sites that take bits of true stories but insinuate and make up other details to sew fear. Most of these are conspiratorial in nature are very unreliable.
...

fakenewswatch.com...

There goes every mainstream media... They all have stories that "insinuate and make up other details to sew fear"...

Can you list an example of this from MSM?

a reply to: Greggers

I haven't verified every point made in these links, but I'm willing to bet something in each of them is a good start.

CNN controversies
Fox News Channel controversies
MSNBC controversies

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Greggers

I haven't verified every point made in these links, but I'm willing to bet something in them is a good start.

CNN controversies
Fox News Channel controversies
MSNBC controversies

I don't even need to look at those links to know the MSM is both biased and sensational. They've also fabricated things from time to time.

What I'm asking for is what, specifically, warranted the comment I was responding to. That comment makes it sound like the MSM is routinely making up lies or, at the very least, insinuating them. While they have done this, as I said, that is not their usual modus operandi.

Generally their faults are more bias and hyperbole.

originally posted by: Greggers


Can you list an example of this from MSM?

...Like using stories of people who have used guns to murder and scaring people into believing that "gun control is needed and the second amendment must be repealed"... Yet they would not cover on tv, which is unfortunately the stories most Americans listen to, the fact that the Obama administration has released at least 167,000 illegal criminals into our cities and many of them have committed hundreds of thousands of crimes, including murders with illegal firearms.

...
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Editor’s Note: The second of three articles excerpted from the new book “Emily Gets Her Gun but Obama Wants to Take Yours” by Emily Miller, senior opinion editor at The Washington Times.

I am a member of the mainstream media, but I’m also pro-Second Amendment. There are few in the journalism profession who share my beliefs. The public, therefore, gets a heavily biased view of firearm ownership and gun violence in America.

The anti-gun media bias has had a serious impact on the public’s understanding of the issues. Most tellingly, the majority of Americans don’t know that gun violence has been going down every year. Firearm-related homicides in the U.S. have declined 39 percent in the last 30 years, according to the Justice Department.

However, over half of the public wrongly believes gun violence is higher now than 20 years ago, according to a recent Pew Research poll. Only 12 percent of Americans know that firearms-related crimes are down.
...

Liberal media distort the gun debate; loaded language misleads the public

Or the stories covering the rallies before the election and using camera angles, such as getting as close to the people in the rallies, to make it look like Hillary rallies were full when they weren't...

Or how about the stories covering President Obama executive orders in which he tries to bypass Congress, yet the mainstream media "mostly the left" tried to make it "but it is for the common good of all"...

Or all the BS about Trump sexually assaulting women when several of those claims can be debunked by any intelligent human being...

There are PLENTY of examples of the mainstream media lying, making up false narratives, etc.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Aazadan
So do you support websites lying to you, while claiming they're telling the truth?

I guess CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream media needs to be banned huh?... Because we know how "sincere" they are all the time huh?...

If you hear something you don't like on CNN or MSNBC, it doesn't make it "not true".

People don't seem to be able to come to grips with that.

"I don't like that, it must be a lie!"

That's not a good way to live life.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"The news" anchors themselves never call for the 2nd to be repealed. Talking heads with their own shows aka "personalities" like O'Riley, Maddow ect are OPINION shows. Watching their show is like reading an opinion column or a letter to the editor in a news paper.

You do realize that other presidents before Obama have issued more EO's than Obama, right?

The "BS" sexual assault stories were true, someone filed a sexual assault case. The case was dropped. That too was reported by the same news stations. What they reported was actually happening.

Just because they report -- that means to tell people -- something is happening, doesn't mean that "this woman's case is 100% air tight and factual, and Trump is guilty!"

People don't seem to understand the concept of what the "news" is or something.

Apparently, people today have a grossly twisted and ill-informed idea and pre-concieved notion of what the news is "supposed" to be and do.

It seems people think that the job of "news" is to confirm their own biases...and pat them on the back, telling them things they want to hear.

Newsflash: that's not "news" -- we call that "propaganda".

a reply to: Kettu

wth... Propaganda is how the mainstream media operates... News sources like CNN, and MSNBC among others operate by changing stories to their preconceived notions and to instill fear on people to accept the progressive goals...

Even at least one Fox News anchor has gone as far as calling gun control against AR-15s.

Fox News Anchor Joins Left in Calling For Assault Weapons Ban

You sir/mam are completely delusional if you think that mainstream media does not twist stories, and lie to conform to their pre-conceived notions...

Here is what a former New York Times editor has to say about this...

...
Public editor Liz Spayd cut closer to the bone, as she marveled at an election-night flip from an 84% Clinton-to-win assessment by the paper’s elaborate data operation, to a 95% likelihood for Trump just a few hours later.

“As The Times begins a period of self-reflection, I hope its editors will think hard about the half of America the paper too seldom covers,” wrote Spayd.

She continued: “The red state America campaign coverage that rang the loudest in news coverage grew out of Trump rallies, and it often amplified the voices of the most hateful. One especially compelling video produced with footage collected over months on the campaign trail, captured the ugly vitriol like few others. That’s important coverage. But it and pieces like it drowned out the kind of agenda-free, deep narratives that could have taken Times readers deeper into the lives and values of the people who just elected the next president.”
...
It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.
...
Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?”

The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.”

deadline.com...

For crying out loud, even the wikileaks shows how the mainstream media has been bought for, and they colluded with the DNC to follow the "party line of the left"... For example, reporters asking DNC officials how to "set the stories they were going to print"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Having an opinion isn't propaganda. Talking heads, "analysts" and "experts" that are interviewed on the news broadcasts are allowed to have opinions.

I guess its to much to expect the American people to be able to distinguish opinion from fact in America? *sigh*

Telling outright lies is or intentionally omitting details with a specific agenda to subvert thinking is propaganda. I shouldn't even have to explain this to people.

BIAS is covering more of one thing than another.

If CNN, MSNBC or FOX are guilty of anything, it is BIAS -- not propaganda.

You can buy bias, you can buy influence -- and that happens, sure. These "fake" news sites are no better than The Onion.

Actually, they're far worse than The Onion...because they're not even funny.

Seriously, if someone can't tell that they are watching an opinionated person on TV give their take, and instead claim its deliberate "lies" being told to them...they don't deserve to be watching television.

At this rate, I fear soon people are going to think the new releases at the theaters are documentaries or something, and killer transforming robots are invading the planet.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I see the Alt Right are out in full force defending their critical misinformation business model.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Leftist authoritarians wanting to censor and end free speech and control the flow and type of information.

This is my shocked face.

The left promotes free speech. It is the right that often uses derogatory terms for the left when it is exercised.

The left says They promote free speech.
In reality they try to censor it whenever it does not agree with their opinion

There is a big difference between saying something and actually standing by it. Anyone can shout of of the top of their lungs that they are for free speech all day for all i care. In the end the only thing i will be looking at is what they actually do and the left is most definitely not enforcing free speech but rather the opposite, and quite obviously so. I have no idea who you are trying to convince here but anyone with even a average IQ will have a hard time convincing themselves that the left today is actually actively Enforcing free speech.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greggers


Can you list an example of this from MSM?

...Like using stories of people who have used guns to murder and scaring people into believing that "gun control is needed and the second amendment must be repealed"... Yet they would not cover on tv, which is unfortunately the stories most Americans listen to, the fact that the Obama administration has released at least 167,000 illegal criminals into our cities and many of them have committed hundreds of thousands of crimes, including murders with illegal firearms.

...
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Editor’s Note: The second of three articles excerpted from the new book “Emily Gets Her Gun but Obama Wants to Take Yours” by Emily Miller, senior opinion editor at The Washington Times.

I am a member of the mainstream media, but I’m also pro-Second Amendment. There are few in the journalism profession who share my beliefs. The public, therefore, gets a heavily biased view of firearm ownership and gun violence in America.

The anti-gun media bias has had a serious impact on the public’s understanding of the issues. Most tellingly, the majority of Americans don’t know that gun violence has been going down every year. Firearm-related homicides in the U.S. have declined 39 percent in the last 30 years, according to the Justice Department.

However, over half of the public wrongly believes gun violence is higher now than 20 years ago, according to a recent Pew Research poll. Only 12 percent of Americans know that firearms-related crimes are down.
...

Liberal media distort the gun debate; loaded language misleads the public

Or the stories covering the rallies before the election and using camera angles, such as getting as close to the people in the rallies, to make it look like Hillary rallies were full when they weren't...

Or how about the stories covering President Obama executive orders in which he tries to bypass Congress, yet the mainstream media "mostly the left" tried to make it "but it is for the common good of all"...

Or all the BS about Trump sexually assaulting women when several of those claims can be debunked by any intelligent human being...

There are PLENTY of examples of the mainstream media lying, making up false narratives, etc.

Every single one of those things is BIAS, not "fabricating demonstrably false stories."

The only one that would qualify is what you describe as "BS about Trump sexually assaulting women when several of those claims can be debunked by any intelligent human being," except I don't think it DOES qualify, as there actually were women making those claims.

We could debate the specifics, if you have specifics (links to FALSE articles, links to proof they are false).

As it stands, you continue to demonstrate that you cannot differentiate between biased news and fake news. It's an extremely important distinction, as there is no way to police the former in a free society. The latter, however, can be curbed.

An example of a FAKE NEWS story would be if the New York times had invented the woman making the allegations.

I listen to infowars often, I like Alex Jones, and the fact is, he is a true patriot.

Sometimes he has made some mistakes in his reporting and has apologized on air when he was wrong.

Mainstream media has always demonized Alex Jones because he has called them out on their disinformation.

They hate him and because of their properganda infowars has more listeners and followers then all of MSN.

The night of the election infowars reported over 22 million listeners from 33 countries.

Yes, Alex is a loud mouth and rightly so, he loves his country. The corruption in our government has gone out of control to the point that they are openly admitting what they are doing and there is nothing you can do about it, because they are above the laws of our land, it's disgusting if you ask me.

I turned off mainstream media over 12 years ago when I witnessed the attacks on Americans asking questions about 911.

Mainstream media weapon of choice was to call people asking questions conspiracies theories, using ridicule and applying it to all their talking points against Americans, I saw through this and shut them off.

Mainstream properganda is what has helped destroy what is the real reality for many people, many have no clue.

Now the very same properganda News wants to silence alternative media, such as infowars, Drudge Report and many more because they have help expose the lies from mainstream media.

What mainstream properganda media doesnt realize is that they are now dying and uncensored media is growing on the internet and they cannot stop it.

People are leaving google and twitter to new alternative sources that do not censor free speech.

In the end evil always destroys it's selfe.

Lies and misinformation are the oxygen of Right wing. And it's only gotten worse. FOX didn't go hardcore enough for them so now they slurp Brietbart and Infowars and random Twitter feeds. They're addicted to the stuff. They don't even want the truth. Look at the recent threading saying Trump won the popular vote. That's how #ed in the head they are. They can't even handle Hillary winning a popular vote they have to make that # up.

Calling them uneducated is being very nice. They are more like "lie addicts".

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Tell me again how Mr. Sanders lost the primary. Also, how did DWS lose her job?