Fake News Just For Right-Wingers: A Huge Industry

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I was referring to the Democratic party losing which I can assume you wanted to win.

and I did address your OP and was commenting on the liberal hypocrisy that they don't mislead people and they don't prop fake news as well.

really it's just the poison they deem real news

and I'm not a Trump supporter so don't attack me

The level of delusion present in the OP takes some beating.

The entire MSM circus, in the U.S, is one giant exercise in propaganda, disinformation, smears, half truths and activist revisionism.

You have Fox News on one hand, which, for all its "fair and balanced" spin, is a Republican mouthpiece.

It will see every story, argue every point, state every case from the perspective of conservative voters.

It does, however, hold the Democrats to account and highlights their hypocrisy, lies and divisive attitude.

Which is a good thing because every other mainstream U.S network is totally in love with the progressive cause, idolises people like Obama and it covered up and ignored anything that didn't suit the Clinton team in the recent election.

Really, as an outsider looking in (and I say this as a Brit who has seen the good name and impartial reputation of the BBC destroyed by leftist agitators and progressive activism), the MSM in the States is about as unprofessional, unimpartial, insincere and unreliable as it is possible to be and it's shameless spin, propaganda and disinformation would have Goebbles beaming in admiration...apparently North Korean lunatic Kim Un is a great fan of the U.S media machine.

So please, lets stop this liberal nonsense about right wing outlets fooling a gullible and dumb populous with "fake news".

It's just another thinly veiled way of saying dumb Republican voter.

a reply to: JDmOKI

I was referring to the Democratic party losing which I can assume you wanted to win.

You can? You CAN ASSUME....that whatever? Yes. You "can."

That does not make it true.


I did not attack you. As I see it, you attacked me. Pre-emptively.

a reply to: Godabove09

Really, as an outsider looking in (and I say this as a Brit who has seen the good name and impartial reputation of the BBC destroyed by leftist agitators and progressive activism),

Please provide a valid time-line of facts and data that back up your point of view.

the MSM in the States is about as unprofessional, unimpartial, insincere and unreliable as it is possible to be and it's shameless spin, propaganda and disinformation would have Goebbles beaming in admiration...apparently North Korean lunatic Kim Un is a great fan of the U.S media machine.

So please, lets stop this liberal nonsense about right wing outlets fooling a gullible and dumb populous

....
because........

"fale news". ????

It's just another thinly veiled way of saying dumb Republican voter.

It has only to do with being knowledgeable .....not with "intelligence."

"fale news".

In pondering why there would be more conservatives buying into fake news than liberals, I ran across this in looking at "motivated reasoning"

I am still not convinced that liberals and conservatives are just equally biased, but in different directions. For the record, here is how I am now thinking about things—an argument that was not entirely explicit in The Republican Brain, because my thinking has advanced further since then.

We know conservatives score higher on the need for closure. We also know, from Jonathan Haidt’s research, that they are more loyal to their group, tribe, or team. And these are not unrelated: Belonging to a group provides epistemic closure—a much desired sense of certainty, because you adopt that group’s views and membership in it provides you with a sense of stability and belonging.

So is it very surprising, then, that the views of the group get strongly defended, even if they may be factually wrong?

And it is just as important that liberals are the opposite—less loyal, less likely to affirm central dogmas of the group.

I think this may explain why, in some motivated reasoning tests where there isn’t much emotional at stake, you tend to find equal left-right biases. But in others, where there is something moral, emotional, or group oriented involved—or something political—you sometimes find conservatives more wedded to their beliefs.

source

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

This is obviously yet another BS attemp by a left winger to claim only left wing news and sources are legitimate...

Yes, there are some sites which do spread false information, and quite a few of them have been linked to George Soros to incite racial tensions and violence. Wikileaks has also shown the extend that the DNC goes through to publish false and misleading information while resorting to illegal, and often violent tactics to silence their opponents, to rig polls and even rig elections...

The claims made in that article, and by the op that "they haven't been able to do it to liberals" is nothing but BS...

BTW, should we see one of the many "tweets" from Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas to see how much BS his website and him spew?


twitter.com...

Daily Kos is a "progressive BLOG that tries to "influence and strengthen progressive policies and candidates."

Daily Kos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daily Kos /ˈkoʊs/ is an outlet for American political blogging.[2][3][4][5] It functions as a discussion forum and group blog for a variety of netroots activists whose efforts are primarily directed toward influencing and strengthening progressive policies and candidates. Additionally, the site features a participatory political encyclopedia ("DKosopedia"), glossaries, and other content.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

But I am guessing this thread, and that website are not going to be labeled as "fake news" or thrown into the "lol forum" right?...

Yet another comment from the "bringer of unbiased and truthful news" Claiming terrorism only comes from the right...


archive.is...

If you don't understand spin and don't vet any news source, shame on you.

If you want to banned media or label something as fake news because you don't agree with the author's view or angle, might as well be a book burner.

You may hate Rush Limbaugh and his opinion, and that's fine. But if he was faking actual news and facts, he would have been publicly crucified long ago.

And what would you call Hillary claiming the consequence/fallout of her unethical behavior just a right wing conspiracy. Then the media that pushes that false narrative? Media that allows Hillary's staff to be part of the editing process?

Grow up. Understand both sides stretch the facts of a news story to the limits, and then douse it with their opinion.

If you want better news, you need to hold your source to higher standards. Be intolerant of corruption in your own party.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Awesome thread Buzzy!!! Star and Flag.

Funny Dan Rather and fabricated evidence of Bush unethical behavior was not mentioned? Then made into a movie in a vain attempt to glorify Rather's own unethical behavior.

This from CNN was the best......

Title: Law Prof Smacks Down CNN Chris Cuomo’s Claim That It’s Illegal To Possess Wikileaks Emails

lawnewz.com...

"Remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media,” Cuomo said

I just read the first page in this thread (including the article the OP provided) and the irony is that in the title, the article immediately discredits itself. "We tried to write fake news for liberals but they didn't take the bait". LMAO.

Really?? C'mon OP, DO BETTER!!!

Then, the simple fact that the website itself is a complete click-bait site full of ads and BS trying to misdirect in every direction!!

Whatever though, libs are gonna lib. Spread your stupidity, it's not like the world isn't used to it.

Throw this crap thread into the HOAX bin. Sorry OP, you were duped again by BS.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs>>> OMG, this thread got started off so backwards it slike out of Bizarro world. Liberals thrive on fake news, they eat up whatever the mainstream media feeds them. Its not nearly as bad as the conservatives who do take the effort to counter arguments and research what their opponents say to get a base of facts to use against them. And the war on " fake news" has been main stream media based and discredited right out of the gate. "Fake news" that people get outside what the mainstream media wants to give us is hardly "fake". Its more real and often damaging to the establishment to the point they want it silenced.

More on CNN

www.mediaite.com...

Title: NY Times, CNN Fall For Fake Eyewitness Blaming San Bernardino on GamerGate

The New York Times, CNN, and Associated Press all fell for an elaborate hoax where a troll pretended to be a witness to the San Bernardino shooting.

A Twitter user using the handle of @JewyMarie tweeting during the attacks claiming to be a witness. A number of reporters then contacted her, and she managed to bluff her way an through an extensive interview with AP, which was then reported by The Times:

He told the woman not to move or say anything. When she asked what he was doing, he replied, “for necessary ethics,” according to Parker. The woman said he had a strange emblem on his shirt with the letters GG on it. He didn’t harm her, just asked her to stay quiet, Parker said.

CNN, I guess is an easy target....

www.zerohedge.com...

3. Suppression of brutality perpetrated in Bahrain during the Arab Spring

But threats for Lyon to remain silent followed her off the job, and when she persisted in exposing the Bahraini regime, as well as the suppression by CNN, the outlet sent a stern warning to halt. Lyon, however, said she had never signed a non-disclosure agreement and would not be pressured into their lies — ultimately walking away reputation in hand — something that could not be said for CNN.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


This has been around forever... ever read those newspapers about princess dianna being an alien? That is exactly the same #ing thing and it has always been left up to the consumer to vet stories or determine if it's worth listening too. The only reason this is a thing is because people want to grasp for straws at why Clinton lost instead of just admitting she is a corrupt, unlikable hag and moving on.

Real or Satire?

A website I just discovered while looking up the credibility and credentials of a source someone used in a new thread purports to be identifying what's fake, what's satire, what's biased, etc.

I wonder if any of you have seen it?

About Real or Satire
Tired of sharing an article that filled you with righteous indignation, only to be scolded by your social media circle for posting fake news?

Tired of living in constant fear that the ‘news’ you read isn’t actually news?

Wish there was a one-stop shop to check if a site is ‘satirical’ or submit a site to be labeled as ‘satire’?

Well, now there’s Real or Satire.

Search for a URL to check if it is a satirical site on our home page.

If a URL isn’t in our database, submit it here.

All Sites Reviewed:
Real (52)
Satire (134)
Neither (9)
Biased (11)
ClickBait (18)
Green Ink (2)
Undetermined (17)

I'm going to dig in there now, and see what I can find. If it's worthwhile, I might make a new thread about it.