fake news, or just dishonest reporting?

As I see it, there is a difference. When you see a story by Sorcha Faal, you can bet safely that it's fake in at least part, if not the whole. But when you see something from MSNBC or CNN, you usually assume it's factual. So while CNN and MSNBC among others in the MSM may not be "fake", they report things in such a way that an agenda is paramount and the way they want you to view the news is inherently obvious. And FOX is not different other than they slant the news on the other side.

Many of the stories from less credible sites are posted here as fact, only to be proven garbage by diligent posters. And I fully admit that when an article sounds like just what I want to hear, I am much less apt to fact check it. I do try not to comment with a wild accusation on such threads as it will make you look really foolish, should it turn out to be bull#. But I had to learn that the hard way, and it's not completely ingrained as of yet.

I have argued that news posted to this site is much safer to read and digest than just getting it from the MSM. You have the obvious slant the OP wishes to put on the article, then you have the link directly to the article, and should there be a glaring dependency to the two, it will be pointed out usually by the first page. And as a reader, you are free to manipulate your feelings however you wish, then share that with the forum. If you are way out there on your opinion, it will be noted and explained. And usually with tact, sometimes with sarcasm. Either way, you usually get a chance to weigh your thoughts among the others here.

Now, the conspiracy here is that "news" itself can be fake, but the narrative being pushed right now is that "fake news" includes forums like Redit and 4chan. Both are user generated forums similar to this one. So not "news" at all, but strictly opinions of articles presented. It seems there is a war on to stifle that sort of information and it's happening at such a speed that something seems a bit strange. We as diligent conspiracy minded individuals do need to keep all that we know, think we know, and have yet to learn, in the open. This is the place for that. It's obvious that MSM outlets watch this site and from time to time, pick up stories written here and run them. So for us to be labeled "fake" is laughable for many reasons.

To avoid confusion, vet the stores you hear, call out BS when you see it, and praise those who offer you true facts with less spin. (IMHO)

a reply to: network dude
This would have been a good idea if Reagan hadn't relocated it and brought about the Rise of Fox News.
from wiki

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the equal-time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.

a reply to: network dude

Opinion is being mistaken for news.

What we're seeing is a push for censorship of opinions.

And to my dismay, many are in support of it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

Opinion is being mistaken for news.

What we're seeing is a push for censorship of opinions.

And to my dismay, many are in support of it.

It has been scary to see how often posts are derailed with the "fake news" comments.....it's like there can be no conversation anymore

OT: what cartoon character is that in your avi? It looks so familiar, but I cant place it.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

When you can't argue, when you can't debate, call the source "fake".

It's dismissive and the height of arrogance.

Honestly, what can be done to turn the tide of this trend?

Maybe people will get sick of using the buzz word, and things will go back to normal.

one can only hope.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
Honestly, what can be done to turn the tide of this trend?

Maybe people will get sick of using the buzz word, and things will go back to normal.

one can only hope.

Glad someone said it. Makes me twitch. I give you one . Enjoy.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

That's Bill the Cat, from the cartoon strip Opus.

or maybe Bloom County....

Fake news is any uncomfortable truth that runs contrary to leftist liberal groupthink. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts. Pretty lies are still lies no matter how often they are repeated.

a reply to: Enderdog

Thank you.

Knew I saw that somewhere before.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Fake news is any uncomfortable truth that runs contrary to leftist liberal groupthink. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts. Pretty lies are still lies no matter how often they are repeated.

In looking at most of what has been shown to be true "fake news" there was a lot of it in the recent election cycle and much from the right leaning sites. I don't remember examples, and I am sure there were some from the left as well, but very obvious BS. I think what DC Cowboy said was spot on.

Opinion is being mistaken for news. What we're seeing is a push for censorship of opinions.

And censorship is a bad thing for everyone. It's something we can't allow.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

Opinion is being mistaken for news.

What we're seeing is a push for censorship of opinions.

And to my dismay, many are in support of it.

Nail hit firmly on the head.

They are calling for a censorship of opinions, because things aren't working out the way TPTB want them.

It seems there are quite a few who still believe they're the best option, better the Devil you know, et al.

Both good points but the epithet "Fake News" has been co-opted by the left as a tactic to demean any person or group that is brave enough to call out uncomfortable truths. Which is not to say there is no right leaning equivalent.
a reply to: network dude

DP network dude

a reply to: network dude

Maybe people shouldn't have thought mainstream news was a source for truth on anything. I just always naturally assumed they're trying to sell me something, otherwise I wouldn't be hearing it.

I like getting news from ATS because after about a month, it's easy to pick out the people with agendas that post 6+ threads a day all in the same vein. When its made that obvious, its way easier to sift through everything.

People are confusing opinion with news, mostly because opinion is making a lot of money for people being sold as news. I mean, come on. A president just got elected because of it.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Both good points but the epithet "Fake News" has been co-opted by the left as a tactic to demean any person or group that is brave enough to call out uncomfortable truths. Which is not to say there is no right leaning equivalent.
a reply to: network dude

completely agree on that point.

a reply to: underwerks

believe it or not, there was a time when we had three channels and all three had the same news.
We didn't have internet and had to "trust" that we were being told the truth.
Back then there was a thing called "journalistic integrity", but these days "integrity" is just another buzz word like "dog whistle".

What I do not understand is this:

If one news organization is considered to be Fake, or putting out false information, then why is the President Elect or others who are working with him, going in and talking with them?

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

It has kinda always been that way , if a person didn't like the message, they would say the source wasn't reliable.

it will become the new race card.

who was the big shot news caster that was caught fudging stories, and got fired?