It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 13
52
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Really? is that why even the New York Times article I excerpted expressed that this list was made to ban/blacklist alternative media in that list?... BTW, are you even aware that the subject line for threads in ATS cannot be too long? I actually had to cut part of the original subject line to be able to post this here, but now you want to nickpick over the title when ATS itself doesn't allow long titles and you can't post articles with long, descriptive titles...

Just try to come up with some other believable excuse next time...
edit on 19-11-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.




posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   
So funny that THIS is now what the liberals are doing after loosing. They need to maintain their grasp on society so they are now resorting to censorship like a dicatatorship does.

Unfortunantly sites like Google use its power to censor other and to push its own agenda. google does deindex sites that it disagrees with all the time and manipulates it search results whilst at the same time mkaing out that their search results are unbiased...
edit on 20-11-2016 by thejames because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Another example of "fake" news that every outlet ran with as truth.

Remember when Harry Reid told the HuffPo that Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years??


During the 2012 presidential campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made an outrageous allegation that GOP nominee Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years.

Reid, who recently announced that he will not seek re-election in 2016, first made the claim in an interview with the Huffington Post on July 31, 2012. “He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years,” he said. “Now do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain, but obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

This was not a slip of the tongue, it was a calculated lie that Reid repeated several times in an attempt to pressure Romney into releasing tax returns for years prior to 2010.


And every outlet, including HuffPo, ran with it. One outlet fact checked it as a pants on fire lie ... oh and the "fake" right wing news outlets.

But he wasn't content to make the claim just once:


A few days later, on Aug. 2, Reid doubled down in a speech on the Senate floor. “If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn’t be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns,” he said. “So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not.”

He tripled down on the accusation later that day in a statement saying that he was told by an “extremely credible source” that Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years.


He even went so far as to cite an "anonymous source" to back his own lie.

How do we know he was lying?


But Reid has no regrets. “I don’t regret that at all,” he told CNN’s Dana Bash on Tuesday in the interview clip above. “Romney didn’t win did he?”


We know because Reid admitted to it and proudly and even told us why. So all this wailing and gnashing about "fake" news is so much theatre. They've already been caught out at it and carrying it on proudly. How much would it have taken for any of the main outlets to actually fact check Reid? Or before him, Dan Rather? But they didn't because the story being told fit the perception they wanted to believe and supported an outcome they wanted for themselves, so they ran with it.

And now when they have competition, they don't like it. Now when the public loses trust in them as the arbiters as what is and isn't "fake," instead of actually working to rededicate themselves to their mission of reporting the news, they try to ban anything that doesn't agree with their notions of the narrative.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Once again, could someone please explain exactly who is planning to ban these websites, and how? A professor published a list of ways of telling whether or not a "news" website is reliable and now you are screaming "censorship?" Someone please calm down and justify the title of this thread, please.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Another example of "fake" news that every outlet ran with as truth.


But it's true that Harry Reid said that. So long as the lie was attributed to him, the reporting was truthful.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Facebook is looking at ways to block and/or label what is deemed "fake." Google looking at ways to ban ads from "fake" news.

And now the buzz is that "fake" news won the election for Trump. Then this professor starts her list of "fake" news which features several prominent right leaning news sites on it, and she claims it's far from complete. But we note no left leaning sites on there, and honestly if you want to put Breitbart on the list, you ought to include HuffPo which is just as bad from the left side of the spectrum in its degree of "fakiness."

So now it looks like we are moving out from verifiable spoof sites to opinion sites and alternative news sites like are often relied on by members here for more speculative information (whether or not you agree) as a place to jump off for threads. If the social media and silicon valley kings succeed in soft-censoring the information this site relies on, how long do you think this site will be here?



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko


Another example of "fake" news that every outlet ran with as truth.


But it's true that Harry Reid said that. So long as the lie was attributed to him, the reporting was truthful.


The lie wasn't a lie or attributed as such until well after the election. You'll note that piece wasn't written until 2015! Damage done. This could have been verified as unsubstantiated during the election. Responsible reporting would have done that, right?

Maybe now you understand why Trump's taxes were such a non-issue. Rightly or wrongly, a lie over missing taxes may have gotten Obama elected for a second term.
edit on 20-11-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko


Another example of "fake" news that every outlet ran with as truth.


But it's true that Harry Reid said that. So long as the lie was attributed to him, the reporting was truthful.


Ah, so it's ok to publish fake news as long as the publisher is not the source - right?
Interesting.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko


Another example of "fake" news that every outlet ran with as truth.


But it's true that Harry Reid said that. So long as the lie was attributed to him, the reporting was truthful.


Ah, so it's ok to publish fake news as long as the publisher is not the source - right?
Interesting.


No, it's okay to attribute quotes to the source, even if the source is lying. A good editor will fact check statements and clarify whether they are true or not. It is when lies are knowingly published or statements of opinion stated as fact or without attribution that the news becomes "fake." By the way, thank you for illustrating how propagandists rephrase statements to mean the opposite of what is intended!



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko


Another example of "fake" news that every outlet ran with as truth.


But it's true that Harry Reid said that. So long as the lie was attributed to him, the reporting was truthful.


Ah, so it's ok to publish fake news as long as the publisher is not the source - right?
Interesting.


No, it's okay to attribute quotes to the source, even if the source is lying. A good editor will fact check statements and clarify whether they are true or not. It is when lies are knowingly published or statements of opinion stated as fact or without attribution that the news becomes "fake." By the way, thank you for illustrating how propagandists rephrase statements to mean the opposite of what is intended!


Statements of opinion stated as fact? Well I agree there and we must agree then that CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, ABC, HuffPo et al are actually fake news organisations



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Facebook is looking at ways to block and/or label what is deemed "fake." Google looking at ways to ban ads from "fake" news.


Facebook and Google can do what they want. You can always join VKontakte if you don't like Facebook's policies, and there are plenty of other search engines out there. Fake news site and propaganda outlets are in no danger of going out of business.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


The lie wasn't a lie or attributed as such until well after the election.


That is itself a lie. Here is an article about Romney's taxes from 2012:

money.cnn.com...

If you suspect that a public figure is not being truthful, you can always fact check yourself. Always.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

So you think it's perfectly all right to let someone else decide for you what is "real" and what is "fake"? You don't think you have any kind of intellectual obligation to do that for yourself?

Because that's essentially what is happening here. Some self-appointed elites have decided that you and I and every other consumer of media is too stupid to figure out for ourselves what constitutes truth, so they are going to do it for us. It fits in perfectly with the disgusting belief that only uneducated people voted for Trump and that uneducated is a synonym for stupid.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Statements of opinion stated as fact? Well I agree there and we must agree then that CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, ABC, HuffPo et al are actually fake news organisations


Can you provide a concrete example of one of those organizations (other than HuffPost) which does not differentiate between fact and opinion?



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DJW001

So you think it's perfectly all right to let someone else decide for you what is "real" and what is "fake"? You don't think you have any kind of intellectual obligation to do that for yourself?

Because that's essentially what is happening here. Some self-appointed elites have decided that you and I and every other consumer of media is too stupid to figure out for ourselves what constitutes truth, so they are going to do it for us. It fits in perfectly with the disgusting belief that only uneducated people voted for Trump and that uneducated is a synonym for stupid.


Those on the alt-left continue to hang themselves by their own arguments. They are actually arguing for censorship and govt. control of not just information but what is true in the world. Amazing. This election has really brought the fascist core of the alt-left ideology to the fore.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


So you think it's perfectly all right to let someone else decide for you what is "real" and what is "fake"? You don't think you have any kind of intellectual obligation to do that for yourself?


What part of "you can always fact check it yourself" do you not understand? Facebook is not the only social website, and you can still visit godlikeproductions if you want unfiltered fantasy rants.
edit on 20-11-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Prove it.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko


So you think it's perfectly all right to let someone else decide for you what is "real" and what is "fake"? You don't think you have any kind of intellectual obligation to do that for yourself?


What part of "you can always fact check it yourself" do you not understand. Facebook is not the only social website, and you can still visit godlikeproductions if you want unfiltered fantasy rants.


Hmmm, if they get their way, then anything deemed "fake" will be more or less banned. So we won't be fact checking for ourselves. That is what we are supposed to be doing now. Are you saying you don't?



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

CBS ran with the Romney tax story.

Are they fake?

How about with the Bush Memos?

Maybe there ought to be a reason our local talker calls them See BS news.
edit on 20-11-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


Statements of opinion stated as fact? Well I agree there and we must agree then that CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, ABC, HuffPo et al are actually fake news organisations


Can you provide a concrete example of one of those organizations (other than HuffPost) which does not differentiate between fact and opinion?


Sure, let's take one (of many examples) from the disgusting Charles Blow of the NYT, speaking on CNN (where he is a regular contributor). He said, referring to Steve Bannon : "He said Breitbart is the home of the alt-right". FAKE. There was no retraction, no correction by either CNN or NYT.

This same moron has also said on several occasions that Bannon is racist, that Trump is racist. Opinions positioned as facts to the extent he is rude to anyone who even tries to challenge him.

Just this one CNN contributor and NYT 'journalist' has provided countless examples of fake news. There are many other culprits.

None of the media outlets or people crying about 'fake' news has any high ground at all, and those that are trying desperately to side with the fascists who want to control what people see and hear are just revealing who they are. I am all for those revelations as it will help kill off the alt-left for good.
edit on 20/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join