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

originally posted by: Aazadan Literally no one reports facts, they ALL report opinion, and that means they're not real press.

If "Literally" no one reported facts, then how could you possibly know about it?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm not so sure about the banning, but remember that John Stewart was polled to be the most trusted news anchor, and he did a show that touted itself as the fake news, with nary a peep.

And John Stewart didn't misrepresent the show. At every opportunity he said it wasn't real journalism or a real news show. In interviews he told people directly to not get their news from him, and he outright ridiculed the fact that his show was the most trusted news program because that's the exact opposite of what they were going for and advertised themselves as.

That's why what he did isn't bad. Some of these other sites though (pretty much all of them actually) represent themselves as actual trustworthy news.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Aazadan

I think you forgot that BILL signed the law authorizing the news to be propagandized and the DNC ate it up as we have JUST seen.www.truth-out.org...

It doesn't matter who signed it. What matters is getting rid of it.

a reply to: Aazadan

A tough one, since they are private entities free to say what they please without slander suits.

Is it possible that all this left wing noise about fake news is to get ahead of the potentially devastating news that the Clintons and many other high level people are involved in satanic pedophilia practices? Btw wasn't it Obama who used an executive order to legalize propaganda(fake news)?

Well, if the

originally posted by: jaws1975left wing noise about fake news

is in fact, fake news then likely your assertion of

potentially devastating news that the Clintons and many other high level people are involved in satanic pedophilia practices

Is equally as suspect, wouldn't you say? Hence giving credence to their claim.

What people tend to forget is that propaganda is entirely subjective to the readers view point.

Politically in the USA, you don't get news reporting, you get views reporting.

God forbid anyone ever actually told you how the world really is.

Alex jones gets something right!
We are in an info war, there is a war on for your mind.

We all seen what was in wikileaks concerning campaign and media collaboration.
Cornering the media allowing it to be controlled by a few. That is a far worse outcome.

So let me see if I got this right. There are people, mostly leftist who need their hands holding and telling which news are true and which ones are false?
Deary me, when I grew up, there was political satire and the Sunday Sport [Tony Blair pregnant with puppies - kind of paper]. Both amusing and for some strange reason I knew what I was reading. The satire actually highlighted more truth than the MSM, but to figure that out you need to be switched on.

Nowadays they moan about the obvious clickbait sites being fake news. As a teen of the 80s I'd say: "Noooo, really???"
How anyone can even remotely believe anything on those sites is beyond me. I'm getting pretty worried about the state of education and intelligence of the great populace if that is true.
On the other hand I can believe somehow that those kids who think the X-Factor, 'Get me out I'm a celebrity' and other brainless rubbish is actual entertainment may also believe that clickbait sites are real news.

The left wants to remedy this by banning.
Normal people want to remedy this by education and by teaching children to make up their own minds.
But then the left doesn't want people to make up their own minds because people might actually have a differing opinion from theirs.
So they ban, they get stupider people who can't be trusted to be critical thinkers, so they ban a little more until only leftist approved opinions are allowed...

The left reminds me of religion. So up their own backside with perceived righteousness that violence, oppression and everything they don't want to have happen to themselves will happily be dealt out to those who don't agree.

That's the most hypocritical, crusading, oppressive and tyrannical ideas since Hitler and Ceausescu. And the worst thing is that they can't see it.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Where are they planning on banning all of these sites?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

its called a coup detat.

The Coup Detat- The Secret Invasion of America The New World Order Army

I guess what we are witnessing today proves the adage, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

originally posted by: loam

I guess what we are witnessing today proves the adage, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

If it's such a big issue that you feel the need to envision Hitler's next coming in such dramatic fashion, then tell me...what are you doing about it other than posting on ATS?

a reply to: alphabetaone


Did I hit a nerve?

Totalitarianism can emerge from the right or left.

What I do off-line is none of your business.

a reply to: Kali74

Of course there are fake leftist news sites. I don't think Media Matters is one of them.

So if you think so that makes it so? That is the basis of this discussion, what criteria is to be used to determine a fake site? Someones opinion? Considering the great pains the mainstream media takes to use manipulative language to tout their news I find it funny. And lets face it the younger crowd that has grown up with access to the internet and believing in it's infailability, the ability to use critical thinking has dropped. Case in point wikipedia, nothing like allowing people to change certain event by putting it on a page that evokes the idea of the encyclopedia. But it is just written by anyone who cares to take the time.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: alphabetaone


Did I hit a nerve?

Totalitarianism can emerge from the right or left.

What I do off-line is none of your business.

Not a nerve. I'm simply stating that your dramatic flare, if not accompanied by actual effort toward change is mostly meaningless. I personally don't have any issue at all finding good and valid sources for anything I wish to research. But if you think its such a problem, I would just imagine you would do something about it.

It was rhetorical, I already knew the answer anyway.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
I personally don't have any issue at all finding good and valid sources for anything I wish to research.

Perhaps for now.

But if you think its such a problem, I would just imagine you would do something about it.

It was rhetorical, I already knew the answer anyway.

What a gift you possess!!! I wish I had the ability to so thoroughly discern what a anonymous person's off-line activities are from the comfort of my chair and computer screen.

Can you tell me what I had for breakfast this morning? I've forgotten.



ETA: Looking for my keys too. I seem to have misplaced them.

I had an idea for a thought experiment today so lets compare some headlines about today's Cabinet/Admin picks:

FOX



CNN



WaPo via MSN



Breitbart



HuffPo



So ... as far as the bare facts of who was picked, did anyone lie?

a reply to: ketsuko

It's unbelievable, isn't it?

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: alphabetaone
I personally don't have any issue at all finding good and valid sources for anything I wish to research.

Perhaps for now.

Speculation. You could be equally as incorrect as you could be correct.

What a gift you possess!!! I wish I had the ability to so thoroughly discern what a anonymous person's off-line activities are from the comfort of my chair and computer screen.

Can you tell me what I had for breakfast this morning? I've forgotten.

I mean I knew you would answer with some form of "its none of your business"...it makes sense to...I was using it simply to illustrate a point.