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: 9
52
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


originally posted by: alphabetaone
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.


Or perhaps revealing information that can used to identify me isn't in my interest.

You have no clue what I do for a living or in my spare time, so your assumption is completely meaningless.

Exactly what point do you think you illustrated?




edit on 18-11-2016 by loam because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

Oh, it is, but look at FOX and CNN. Both headlines are very different, but neither are they wrong. The picks are hardliners, but they are also loyalists. You pick a much more complete picture by being willing to spread yourself over all the views. Heck, if you can deal with HuffPo's hysteria, you'll even get all the dirt although you will want to pick up another source like Breitbart to balance that and then it's up to you to decide who credible the dirt is.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam

Or perhaps revealing information that can used to identify me isn't in my interest.


Your reasons are unimportant...the fact that it made sense and was an easily predictable response is what mattered.




You have no clue what I do for a living or in my spare time, so your assumption is completely meaningless.


What assumption? I made no assumption. I made an observation.



Exactly what point do you think you illustrated?



That's simple. Talk is cheap.

Now youre being willfully ignorant simply to satisfy your need to be right.
edit on 18-11-2016 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Cookie for you.

I can easily recognize exercises in futility and when it makes sense to move along.

Enjoy your sense of victory.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Completely agree. It's why I'm the kind of person that will read Drudge and Huffington Post and a great deal in between.

I'm a hopeless news, periodical, foreign press junky.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

I just plain like to read although I admit I can only tolerate a certain amount of some sites.

But I've been known to wander in an out of all kinds of sites on all sides of the spectrum and all kinds of interests mainly because I'm looking for interesting things to read.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

When I was a kid...long before the age of home computers...I used to lay in bed dreaming of how cool it would be to have a hand-held-Start-Trek-kind-of-device that would give me instant access to almost any information I wanted.

Little did I know then my dreams for the most part would be fulfilled.


edit on 18-11-2016 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
This is a slippery slope. Yes, we know that Brietbart and infowars is fake news, but so is any blog or pundit with an agenda. Who do you leave in? Huffpost? Some good news there but so much propaganda too. Fox news? The news is good there but then you have the "news shows and personalities" with agendas like O'Reilly and Hannity. Do you ban a whole network because of a couple of bad apples? What about mother jones? Some good news there but some not so good. Do you ban all radio? Because Limbaugh, Prager etc are nothing but propaganda.

That leads to the next big question. The main stream media lies to us. --Fox, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN. We're actually getting more of our information, real information, from "False news sites" So do we ban these guys too?



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I wonder ... did they list Rolling Stone on that list of fake news?



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Alex Jones, one of the people who brought to light the shadow government and their secret meetings, which the mainstream media has been lying for decades about claiming "it doesn't exist and it's just conspiracy theory". But i guess he was wrong about that, or the fact that globalists have been changing and impacting decisions made by the U.S.? He might not deal on issues the mainstream media likes to support, but he, like other alternative news media sources, which includes ATS btw are sources that will bring up issues the media would not even touch because the mainstream media are paid to only cover stories the globalists want.
edit on 18-11-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Well, I didn't expect anything less from you to claim all of those listed news sites are fake... Some of those websites are fake, but many are not. They are alternative websites that do not tow the party line.

I am actually going to show you in another thread one of the many stories that the mainstream media would not cover, and sites like Breibart does cover, and then I will show you directly from the WhiteHouse.org website evidence that the Breibart story is true.
edit on 18-11-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
If "Literally" no one reported facts, then how could you possibly know about it?


Who says that what I believe I know is correct? I could be (probably am) a victim of media manipulation, same as everyone else.

It's a war over our minds, and the internet was the WMD. To one degree or another we all believe information that isn't factual because it was in the interests of various governments and corporations that we don't know the truth. Everything is so buried in lies and half truths that I'm not sure we can ever sort it out. We can however try and put into place standards that new information s truthful though.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: ketsuko

Completely agree. It's why I'm the kind of person that will read Drudge and Huffington Post and a great deal in between.

I'm a hopeless news, periodical, foreign press junky.




One shouldn't have to read 5 different sources in order to simply be informed though. If the press can't actually articulate accurate views within a single article, then they're failing as press.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Gee, liberals telling people what they should and shouldn't believe... color me surprised.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I agree. But I think it's kind of like complaining water is wet. I'd never agree to any version of government policing of the truth.

The truth is, honesty is a cultural value. The world seems to be lacking in this quality-- perhaps always has and always will.


edit on 18-11-2016 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The base facts are more or less there in those articles. What you aren't getting is the spin associated with all the different viewpoints.

So I am left wondering what constitutes "fake" here. Even though I pulled one story from today and showed how all the main sites covered it, several people still maintain that "of course, this or that site lies" even when conceding they were telling the truth, and now you're upset that HuffPo doesn't have Breitbartian viewpoints available for ease of consumption?

Maybe we should stop being intellectually lazy as individuals and just accept that one story can be seen/understood in many ways depending on how you personally perceive the world around you and it still won't alter the basic facts in the story?



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
Gee, liberals telling people what they should and shouldn't believe... color me surprised.


So do you support websites lying to you, while claiming they're telling the truth?



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: ketsuko

Completely agree. It's why I'm the kind of person that will read Drudge and Huffington Post and a great deal in between.

I'm a hopeless news, periodical, foreign press junky.




One shouldn't have to read 5 different sources in order to simply be informed though. If the press can't actually articulate accurate views within a single article, then they're failing as press.





posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
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 .



new topics




 
52
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join