ATS made the list. We are somebody now

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: anonentity
(misinfo agent?)

Genius description. Made my day.

a reply to: imjack

I work in advertising. I don't subscribe to a medium, and I don't consider media so 'sectioned'. It's actually all very conglomerate at the end of the day. All sides buy advertisements too. Fake News is a couple of different things, not just one example, but examples would be 1. Presenting Evidence to only conclude further inaccurate evidence 2. Falsely presenting Evidence to change narrative, or suggest narrative 3. Creating fake Evidence 4. Flat out lying about events or details You might think I get tittered when Fox says good things about Trump, even though I don't, and consider that Fake News, but I don't. If you have trouble understanding what Fake News is, maybe that's part of the problem. It's exactly what it sounds like. Fake Material Presented as 'BREAKING!' news to gain sensationalism of the topic over the details of the truth.

Ok...you've explained it in general terms...and I dont have issue with what you stated. But can you give me an example of such news. An article that has weight on people's opinion...or a thread of such content. I'm somewhat confused by what they/you mean by fake news.

Is it simply pro Trump articles...or pro right wing or what ? because when you say fake news...I'm guessing you mean lies...right ? And when you mention Hillary and satanism...we cant really call that fake news...because that's not verifiable. It can be named unverifiable news at best. But such news is not really news...let alone fake news. It's gossip and it's not really something you can fight with internet.

a reply to: ezramullins

I don't know how this has not been posted yet, unless it's in a forum I can't see.
The Washington Post published a list of websites they claim are Russian propaganda sites and ATS made the list! This is a continuation of their "fake news" hogwash from last week and it looks like a big attempt at damage control to me. WaPo has credibility problem on a A. Jones scale, in my opinion.

Drop in on a Crimea or MH-17 thread some time then tell me that the WaPo is off base.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: imjack

I work in advertising. I don't subscribe to a medium, and I don't consider media so 'sectioned'. It's actually all very conglomerate at the end of the day. All sides buy advertisements too. Fake News is a couple of different things, not just one example, but examples would be 1. Presenting Evidence to only conclude further inaccurate evidence 2. Falsely presenting Evidence to change narrative, or suggest narrative 3. Creating fake Evidence 4. Flat out lying about events or details You might think I get tittered when Fox says good things about Trump, even though I don't, and consider that Fake News, but I don't. If you have trouble understanding what Fake News is, maybe that's part of the problem. It's exactly what it sounds like. Fake Material Presented as 'BREAKING!' news to gain sensationalism of the topic over the details of the truth.

Ok...you've explained it in general terms...and I dont have issue with what you stated. But can you give me an example of such news. An article that has weight on people's opinion...or a thread of such content. I'm somewhat confused by what they/you mean by fake news.

Is it simply pro Trump articles...or pro right wing or what ? because when you say fake news...I'm guessing you mean lies...right ? And when you mention Hillary and satanism...we cant really call that fake news...because that's not verifiable. It can be named unverifiable news at best. But such news is not really news...let alone fake news. It's gossip and it's not really something you can fight with internet.

You're not grasping the premise if you think these ideas are limited to single topics. These spin methods are used even in 'real' news too, and make it 'fake'.

You might not understand this, but to many degrees, her email scandal contained buttloads of 'fake news'. It was nearly impossible to decipher the entire scandal other than "You should be fking pissed off over these EMAILS!" Not saying all these threads were bad, but it was mind numbing reading through most of them.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
..we cant really call that fake news...because that's not verifiable. It can be named unverifiable news at best. But such news is not really news...let alone fake news. It's gossip and it's not really something you can fight with internet.

If it's unverified, it's not news to begin with. It's opinion.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So the Hillary obeyers (Ho's for short) call us all Nazi's while employing Nazi-style/Brownshirt attacks on persons and property.

The media calls us Russian shills while employing soviet-style information dissemination.


We are the only ones who want more freedom, more transparency.


People are panicking and it is funny as hell.

What I see are two sets of reactionaries. This PropOrNot site has clearly gone to one extreme and done so without providing any sort of argument for doing so. People who are completely denying the existence of Russian (or other) propaganda infiltrating English language sources with American audiences is going to the opposite extreme.

Make no mistake, there is an information war underway. Failing to realize it's happening out of political allegience isn't any better than accusing everyone of being a Russian propagandist for similar reasons.

This isn't a new thing despite the recent trend in the media sources talking about "fake news." It's getting attention because of the uptick during the election.

a reply to: imjack

well...at least you could have sourced that quote...for all the good it would do. It's still an opinion...and not verifiable fact.

You seem to be the one that's not grasping what this fake news thing is all about. It's all about eliminating competition that made MSM look so damn foolish in the aftermath of the election. And when a reasonable person looks at that from a bird's eye view...you're inclined to not believe MSM anymore (and many did). And that's what's it all about.

It's about site clicks...its about money, and about survival in the end. Fake...is really a secondary issue...because as you yourself have stated "These spin methods are used even in 'real' news too".

If true, seems off-base on WaPo's part. WaPo is a news organization staffed by professionals, ATS is a website with free membership and user-generated content. Talk about apples and oranges! It is to ATS' credit that it has the LOL forum and the hoax bin. Sure - some of the threads you'll find here are too far gone, but labeling ATS a "fake news site" is unfair to the many who bring outstanding content.

a reply to: theantediluvian

That's why I will simply opt for more freedom, more openness.

regardless of ideology.

TO do otherwise invites authoritarians of every stripe.

a reply to: imjack

If it's unverified, it's not news to begin with. It's opinion.

what I said...

But such news is not really news...let alone fake news. It's gossip

what was the point of your post here... ?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Make no mistake, there is an information war underway. Failing to realize it's happening out of political allegience isn't any better than accusing everyone of being a Russian propagandist for similar reasons.

This isn't a new thing despite the recent trend in the media sources talking about "fake news." It's getting attention because of the uptick during the election.

Yup, i agree completely. Even back in the day, when there were loads of newspapers, private interests tended to control the narrative.

a reply to: ezramullins

Instead of WaPo, we should start referring to them was WaPER.

Honestly, they have no honesty anymore. They went completely off the rails this election season and it shows.

originally posted by: MiddleInitial
If true, seems off-base on WaPo's part. WaPo is a news organization staffed by professionals, ATS is a website with free membership and user-generated content. Talk about apples and oranges! It is to ATS' credit that it has the LOL forum and the hoax bin. Sure - some of the threads you'll find here are too far gone, but labeling ATS a "fake news site" is unfair to the many who bring outstanding content.

Makes one wonder if the news if "fake" when the member in question is sourcing their thread with WaPer content? Does that then make the WaPer story in question also a "fake" news story? You know we all have used WaPer on occasion.

Propornot looks to me to be a lot like a thread here.

About Us
PropOrNot is an independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs. We are currently volunteering time and skills to identify propaganda - particularly Russian propaganda - targeting a U.S. audience. We collect public-record information connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find, act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts to oppose it.

We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political and policy discussions. We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence and improve public discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election.

Who knows who "an independent team of concerned American citizens" is.

It's politically motivated... "However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election"... and it's obvious where it's roots lie.

Allies

EU Disinformation Review
Polygraph Fact-Check
Stopfake
Snopes
Politifact
Bellingcat
InterpreterMag
Russia Lies
CEPA Infowar Project
Digital Forensics Research Lab
To Inform is to Influence
Boycott Russia Today
Active Measures
Real or Satire?
Fort Liberty Hoax Sites
Fake News Watch

That's nearly meaningless as it does not say if they are actually backed by its "Allies" or if that's just a list of sites they like.

It's just more opinion on the Internet and the stuff they link as evidence on the shorter list of sites, is not actually debunked.

IMO, it's yet another political site and no more or less important than any other. Opinions are like ...............

a reply to: JimNasium





We all should just take it with a grain of salt.
A shot of tequila.
And a slice of lemon.

a reply to: theantediluvian


Oh yeh...www.nytimes.com... and this townhall.com...

a reply to: ezramullins

What a great list to get alternative news from.

I never knew educating people about their founding republic was considered a goal of Russian propaganda

thefederalistpapers.org...

Leftist Site Claims U.S. CONSTITUTION Is ‘Russian Propaganda

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

hahahhhahahahhaha

omg....you guys are fu**ed.

The Russians took over your constitution.

LOL...

The left is really losing it. What a bunch of funny nerdlings.

Here's an example of fake news:

A building housing a reactor was destroyed, but authorities said the reactor itself was intact.

The government sought to play down fears of a meltdown at the Fukushima 1 plant.

BBC

We now know that there were 3 complete meltdowns, and that likely there was enough damage done to the plants due to the earthquake alone to have eventuated in at least one of them. The tsunami exacerbated the trouble, certainly, but due to the corruption, graft, and flat out criminal negligence, there would certainly have been at least the one meltdown and explosion in reactor 3.