The Real Fake News List by Ron Paul

originally posted by: TheCaviller

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Yes, what I found was that Ron this list is comprised of almost entirely of wikileaks as the source. Also that all the emblems on the picture depict sources that are considered 'liberal' by Americas radical conservatives.

Is wikileaks not a good source?

What is a radical conservative?

Wilileaks as a source is one thing, but Wikileaks as the sole source is questionable in my book, ANY source that is the sole source is just to iffy for me to pay attention to.

I consider radical conservatives to be people who are so far to the 'right' that they see Hillery Clinton as a Socialist. I have considered myself a socialist for a long while and to me, and other socialists I know, she is more a neo-con and at best a centrist.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: dreamingawake

I think since news stopped being a public service and became a profit center, the MSM started to sell stories with headlines and stoke controversy over non issues. Opinion news centers like MSNBC and Fox evolved where the could promise advertisers a loyal audience since they stroked their audiences worldviews...predictable demographics means cash.

All of that is different than actually inventing facts and sources like writing fiction.
One spins..the other begins with a lie. They both suck...but one sucks a whole lot more and in signifIcant and relevant ways. Spin vs. invented stories. Bias vs fake news. Obama's policies suck vs. Obama runs pedophilia ring.

You can make a choice not to care as long as the stories appeal to your confirmation bias...but the brain is plastic and it is a dangerous thing to do routinely to your brain. Best to just call BS when you see it whoever is selling ....thinking objectively is good.

Since you want to make this about me(which is an ad hom by the T&C): First off, I'm not a he if you knew who I was as a long time member you'd know the following:

You really think I DON'T see it with all these news outlets*? Of course you do because you're using an ad hom to attack me when you know nothing about me for sharing what RP did.

*Including Fox, Brietbart, InfoWars... Yeah, I commented about that before about racial division "news" stories and others.

You claim Wikileaks e-mails are a lie then since it is the source for the "collusion" list? You align with Hillary and the DNC correct but see no issue in those?
Looks like you are believing your own confirmation bias BS.

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: dreamingawake

They also "coluded with Trump"...such is the nature of journalism, confirming stories, soliciting facts etc.

You seem to be selling BS... to propagandize you must first "remove the referee"..the other fallacy being sold is "false equivalance"...

All so the right wing can feel better about believing the lies they want to believe.

Legal Definition of collude colluded colluding : to agree or cooperate secretly for a fraudulent or otherwise illegal purpose

This is incorrect

They also "coluded with Trump"...such is the nature of journalism, confirming stories, soliciting facts etc.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Who is selling B.S.?

Yeah, I was replying to Indigo earlier.

And I'd assume that reply is in part to mine so: Can you point out there I said that there was no collusion with Trump? I don't believe that nor do I recall making that reply.

Did you miss this on the first page where i had replied with:

I agree with the suggestions, Faux News, USA Today,... he should add a continuation of it. Or even someone else adding on more and a reference.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

People who watch fake news will never trust you to be telling the truth.

What follows is certified opinion:

For those comparing "Faux News" running stories you disagree with or think are poorly sourced or just THINK are politically spun, I'd like to remind you that there is quite a big difference between that and what's being represented on this list going around. These news personalities and agencies have bee CONFIRMED to have colluded with the DNC and/or Clinton's campaign and CONFIRMED to have spun stories for them. When some authenticated hacked emails come out showing some folks at Fox asked Trump's campaign to read over a story and suggest edits, then you can have your "Faux News" label back. Until then, it really just doesn't fit anymore. It used to be a juvenile little jab by people who disagreed with their coverage, but now that some of the other networks have been exposed as ACTUAL fakes, it's just stupid. I used to watch Fox and try to balance myself with some CNN or NBC. I dunno what the hell I'm gonna do now.

a reply to: face23785

I don't watch TV news anymore, but my friends who do say Fox Business is fair. I get my news from DrudgeReport.com they glean news from other websites that they trust. Briebart.com is good. BlacklistedNews.com is good, too.

You can even find new sources on youtube.com that are more believeable than the MSM.

I would say check out anything this one discredits:

Meet The Leftist Professor Who Wrote the 'Hit List' of "Fake News Sites"s

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: dreamingawake

They also "coluded with Trump"...such is the nature of journalism, confirming stories, soliciting facts etc.

You seem to be selling BS... to propagandize you must first "remove the referee"..the other fallacy being sold is "false equivalance"...

All so the right wing can feel better about believing the lies they want to believe.

Legal Definition of collude colluded colluding : to agree or cooperate secretly for a fraudulent or otherwise illegal purpose

This is incorrect

They also "coluded with Trump"...such is the nature of journalism, confirming stories, soliciting facts etc.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Who is selling B.S.?

Yeah, I was replying to Indigo earlier.

And I'd assume that reply is in part to mine so: Can you point out there I said that there was no collusion with Trump? I don't believe that nor do I recall making that reply.

Did you miss this on the first page where i had replied with:

I agree with the suggestions, Faux News, USA Today,... he should add a continuation of it. Or even someone else adding on more and a reference.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, I missed your post and my comment was only in response to Indigo5's collusion comment. Sorry for the confusion. Forgive me for misleading anyone that you were the one talking about media collusion with Trump.

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: dreamingawake

They also "coluded with Trump"...such is the nature of journalism, confirming stories, soliciting facts etc.

You seem to be selling BS... to propagandize you must first "remove the referee"..the other fallacy being sold is "false equivalance"...

All so the right wing can feel better about believing the lies they want to believe.

Legal Definition of collude colluded colluding : to agree or cooperate secretly for a fraudulent or otherwise illegal purpose

This is incorrect

They also "coluded with Trump"...such is the nature of journalism, confirming stories, soliciting facts etc.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Who is selling B.S.?

Yeah, I was replying to Indigo earlier.

And I'd assume that reply is in part to mine so: Can you point out there I said that there was no collusion with Trump? I don't believe that nor do I recall making that reply.

Did you miss this on the first page where i had replied with:

I agree with the suggestions, Faux News, USA Today,... he should add a continuation of it. Or even someone else adding on more and a reference.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, I missed your post and my comment was only in response to Indigo5's collusion comment. Sorry for the confusion. Forgive me for misleading anyone that you were the one talking about media collusion with Trump.

Thanks for clarifying. No prob you didn't lead the confusion.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Thanks for reposting I will be more careful in my formatting in the future.

originally posted by: face23785
What follows is certified opinion:

For those comparing "Faux News" running stories you disagree with or think are poorly sourced or just THINK are politically spun, I'd like to remind you that there is quite a big difference between that and what's being represented on this list going around. These news personalities and agencies have bee CONFIRMED to have colluded with the DNC and/or Clinton's campaign and CONFIRMED to have spun stories for them.

Evidence and facts make things true. Not putting a word in all caps.
None of this shows evidence of collusion.
Megan Kelley of Fix News however just said something about scripts and actors for Donald Trumps faux interviews...off to read up on it.

a reply to: Indigo5

The wikileaks emails to which his list was referring do show evidence of collusion. That's what the caps were about.

a reply to: face23785

That is a false constructed narrative laid atop regular correspondence between subjects, sources and journalists. You are welcome to believe that story or examine it skeptically for its washable paint. Up to you how you choose to be used or not.

a reply to: Indigo5

You keep telling yourself that boss. It's all out there for you to see. As the saying goes, you can only lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink.

a reply to: face23785

Correct. You decide whether to drink the Kool-Aid. Facts and reality matter.