So I Started Building A 'Fake News' List

a reply to: Anonopolis

2. A specific quote was attributed to her that was purportedly made in a specific interview. It didn't happen.

4. The claim was that she was wearing an earpiece and that it could be seen in a picture. Beyond that, True Pundit claimed to have an NYPD source claiming that she was wearing the earpiece which was purportedly shown in the image. Numerous additional images from a variety of sources proved that what was supposed to be this flesh-colored earpiece was actually just reflected light off the inner part of Clinton's ear.

It's also important to understand that an unnamed source is really only as credible as the writer citing that source. The audience is taking the writer at his word that the source exists, that the source has been vetted, that the writer is competent to vet the source, etc. Even then, the source could be wrong or lying. True Pundit is a completely anonymous individual or persons with a poor track record based on other stories.

There were no other sources corroborating the claim. The Clinton campaign denied it. The picture as I mentioned turned out to be bogus and other pictures clearly showed no earpiece present.

a reply to: imjack

I'm not making a website...and I'm not setting myself up as an expert arbiter of what others should believe.

a reply to: imjack

You never lost free speech, there are still consequences for yelling fire.

There aren't. Since Brandenburg v. Ohio, "Immanent lawless action" is the standard over "clear and present danger".

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I never suggested otherwise. I was simply offering data pertaining to the quality of information provided by some sources on the web based on my own light research.

Somehow "denying ignorance" in this case is "scary" and "wrong."

It's scary, but not wrong.

Fair enough?

Some speech is scary even if it is entirely protected. I even put my own three on this 'list.'

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: imjack

You never lost free speech, there are still consequences for yelling fire.

There aren't. Since Brandenburg v. Ohio, "Immanent lawless action" is the standard over "clear and present danger".

Saying an attack of free speech is real over news being criticized is only constituted under free speech in the first place.

Nothing was attacked, and what is in question is how appropriate sensationalism is to facts. Supplementing that with sensationalism is all he's doing. Hypocritically with his freedom of speech. Most places, censorship from 'speaking out' is what constitutes the idea of free speech, not ability to push false information. The idea people with thousands of subscribers are being censored is laughable, when their only job is to check the information they themselves are putting out there, to their massive fanbase.

It's about as possible to censor these outlets as it is to silence Selena Gomez from Twitter. They're not exactly vulnerable, this outcry is over their revenue because they are in the shadow of MSM.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ColdWisdom
a reply to: RickinVa

I purposefully left out Fox, CNN, MSNBC, WND, DC, The Hill, WaPo, Washington Times, etc. They're all getting plenty of attention.

So you left out fake sites because they were getting attention?
This makes your list fake.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So then you must have a problem with Donald Trump calling all members of the media that don't flatter him liars right? Since you're so against labels and it's such a serious concern for you that you're scared witless by a private individual compiling a list and sharing it with others.

Clearly you must be about ready to have a stroke over the President-elect of the United States of America putting labels on media outlets and reporters based on his opinions and emotional whims.

Yes? No? I'm honestly curious.

a reply to: imjack

Saying an attack of free speech is real over news being criticized is only constituted under free speech in the first place.

Criticism is one thing, banning these sites from advertising revenue is another. One is criticism, the other is a threat to free speech.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: imjack

Saying an attack of free speech is real over news being criticized is only constituted under free speech in the first place.

Criticism is one thing, banning these sites from advertising revenue is another. One is criticism, the other is a threat to free speech.

These sites? In this OP? Or generally speaking? Guessing generally.

Advertisers do not determinate free speech, denying them domain space would be. They can't pay for their lies themselves? Sad. They also are not denied advertising for their issues or domain. It seems the issue is they don't feel they make enough money in the process of 'spreading the truth' then? What a bizarre definition of 'free speech', 'not enough money'.

Why don't we try to find sites/sources that have not posted fake news. then have others try to find fake news they have posted.
Ben Swann is the only one I can confidently say will not have fake news.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You and Trump have a lot in common.

Both of you want labels, are labeling, and I'm against both of you doing it.

a reply to: imjack

That's quite the misrepresentation of what I said, but that's ok. You have harmed no one but yourself, just like those sites who spread falsities.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: theantediluvian

You and Trump have a lot in common.

Both of you want labels, are labeling, and I'm against both of you doing it.

"Fake" isn't a label, it's an antonym of authentic. It's about as ubiquitous as True or False.

Generally speaking, regarding single pieces of news fake or not is appropriate while an entire domain is not.

Saying "I'm tired of reading many fake news stories so I attribute the whole domain to fake news" is also a mouthful, and also a generalization people don't seem to care about overlooking.

The idea of ignorance isn't disregarding news as fake, 'and that makes you have less of a open overlook', it's the fact they read it enough to disregard it. "Fake News Censorship" is the newest meme, because something isn't "news" unless it's reported, and it isn't "Fake" until digested. You make it sound like it's harder for fake news to get coverage! That sure didn't seem to be the trend to me this election. Can you show how this has negatively impacted any truths from reaching the surface? Or will we have to wait for next election to have less fake news...and then we protest?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: imjack

That's quite the misrepresentation of what I said, but that's ok. You have harmed no one but yourself, just like those sites who spread falsities.

Banning a sites ad revenue doesn't harm it's 'free speech'.

Google.com has no ads and is the most visited single webpage in the world.

Facebook didn't start with ads.

Domain space is cheap. Nothing prevents someone from owning a website, unless they're homeless. Explain the connection of revenue to free speech.

a reply to: imjack

So you are for censorship?

Ok.

Personally, I'm against it.

I know this is unpopular but...

We have way too much news with way too many outlets.

There is no way to have 24 hour, 7 days a week news.

After awhile they lie and exaggerate the news.

I don't have an answer to fix the imbalance.

a reply to: DBCowboy

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: imjack

That's quite the misrepresentation of what I said, but that's ok. You have harmed no one but yourself, just like those sites who spread falsities.

a reply to: whyamIhere

Everyone should have a voice.

It should be up to the individual as to whether or not they listen.

wrong thread.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I'm building my own list of sites that originate/promote "fake news."

I think it would be more efficient if you listed sites that never originated fake news.

The list should be a lot shorter.

It would also be more useful. Since we'd know where to go to find the real news.

Good Luck.