Fake news threads

Up front, I have started threads based on fake news. It was not deliberate. Basically rushing to get the data on ATS is my excuse. When informed that it is fake news, I ask the Mods to close down the thread. They do so.

My vent on this is it seems there are more and more threads deliberately fake news motivated. That, perturbs me right off.

Yet what to do about it? Fact check is often politically motivated as well. Quite a few are out of date or old links being recycled for the purposes of hits garnered. So merely old rather than complete fabrications When presented as new or the OP doesn't check the date of that item being recycled, it becomes a form of fake news, albeit a minor one.

So how do we qualify without oppressing? Perhaps a field that if filled out prior to posting gets a status granted to it by the Mods when posted. Perhaps with the date of the information, number of confirming sites, etc?

Those that choose the normal route receive no status acknowledgement?

I dunno. Thoughts?

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think the bottom line is, never rely on one source, or a source that regurgitates the same source, with the same narrative.

Look into facts, details, things that stand out. Not many people do. Not many want to, as it would reduce or deny their bias. More people want a certain angle, so they ignore the whole aspect of a thing. All you can do is try to point them to alternate views on a subject, but most of the time it won't matter.

Everyone today seems too eager to judge the book by it's cover, and they never read even the first page.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Just use your common sense and best judgment.

If it turns out fake - thank everyone for helping and ask the mods to close it like you are already doing.

You're fine man, we here at ATS should embrace our community effort as the safety net.

Be honest if you aren't sure it's true or not and request help researching it in the OP.

I agree many fact check style sites are bias and untrustworthy - so let's be the place that they are failing to be and work as a community to Deny Ignorance and get to the bottom of things.

You're doing fine. No sweat ok?
I really respect your candidness and desire for transparency. I too post in a rush sometimes, no one's perfect.

a reply to: nwtrucker


Once you realize that Fake News is driven by fear of being caught/exposed, it doesn't bother you so much. In fact, you can use the volume and severity of fake news to guage how close investigators are getting to the criminals. A very useful tool.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I am confused by the term "fake news" as you're using it in this OP.

What is fake news?

There's the biased propaganda parading about as news such as the type spewed daily by CNN/Fox. Are you calling that fake news?

There's the patently uncorroborated news reported as sourced from anonymous sources; practically every media outlet has done that, Left/Right and Center. Are you calling that fake news?

Then there's the usual unvetted report sourced from known liars like the White Helmets that's actually "disinformation" to serve the interests of the CIA/NIS/FBI Deep state like........"Assad launches chemical gas attack on own citizens". Is this the fake news you're talking about?

Frankly, you might call it all fake news. The "Truth is Out There" but its pretty heavily covered up.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I wish people would stop thinking that 'someone else' can solve the fake news problem for them.

Let me do my own thinking for me.

If more people held that view, fake news would mitigate on its own.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You comments are appreciated....really.

a reply to: TonyS

Dammit. Your making too much sense. Now the fake news label is as much fake news as the fake news.....I'm getting another headache....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Have a cold beer and the headache will go away.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: nwtrucker

I wish people would stop thinking that 'someone else' can solve the fake news problem for them.

Let me do my own thinking for me.

If more people held that view, fake news would mitigate on its own.

Excellent point.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: nwtrucker


Once you realize that Fake News is driven by fear of being caught/exposed, it doesn't bother you so much. In fact, you can use the volume and severity of fake news to guage how close investigators are getting to the criminals. A very useful tool.

It has ratcheted up the last few days, hasn't it?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: muzzleflash

You comments are appreciated....really.

I really appreciate you bringing up the discussion and for your contributions to our community here!

Thank you for helping us search out that ever so elusive Truth. We may never fully realize it but the quest to uncover it is quite the adventure!

a reply to: nwtrucker

Question. Do you consider speculation/opinion that turns out to be wrong to be fake news?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

Question. Do you consider speculation/opinion that turns out to be wrong to be fake news?

If it's presented in a way we can agree it is speculation - opinion than no, it is not fake news. It is instead a speculative discussion or an opinion piece.

Fake news is claiming fact without any valid basis or legit reasoning, and usually designed to promote a political agenda disingenuously.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Well the reason I ask is that many try to stretch the definition of Fake News to include speculative articles that are labeled opinion, speculation, or even analysis as fake news if they don't align with their biases.

Furthermore, people will also call honest mistakes fake news even if the news organization reports a redaction/correction.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

Question. Do you consider speculation/opinion that turns out to be wrong to be fake news?

Absolutely not. I'm not well educated, perhaps better read than the average Joe, but that's it. I rely on intuitive conclusion as an alternative. I would qualify that, usually, with a preface to my statements with 'I believe' or 'I would guess'. Even the 'IMO' or JMO, though.

When I'm wrong? Meh,....can't remember......

Agreed, trucker. It does seem to be getting worse, but that's when we can help each other out and fact check and post the results.

I have been working on a thread that I wanted to post a couple of weeks ago but never got to finishing it, knowing myself, never will... however, it is a list of all the fact check sites that I use, and an in-depth analysis of each one. Who the owners are, what their political lean is, any scandals that may have been substantiated, any scandals that have been debunked and so on.

In the research I've done so far, no one is completely clean and some are opposite of what people think. For example Snopes is being talked about as a liberal spin site and there was a meme about Snopes that turned out fake, but if you look into them they are owned by a conservative family that has made illegal donations to the RNC. So, we have to look at everything, despite of dis-info tactics.

But in general, I find MediaBias to be the best and least biased in evaluating an entire website or a news agency; while Snopes, Politifact and FactCheck.org are clean enough to use, but still be careful with.

Always be careful and don't trust any source 100%. I applaud your interest in fact checking and clean reporting!


P.S. On MediaBias, if you click on Least Biased category, it's a world-wide list of news agencies, and while some are not ours, that's a good thing... they seem to report more honestly on our own affairs.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Up front, I have started threads based on fake news. It was not deliberate. Basically rushing to get the data on ATS is my excuse. When informed that it is fake news, I ask the Mods to close down the thread. They do so.

My vent on this is it seems there are more and more threads deliberately fake news motivated. That, perturbs me right off.

Yet what to do about it? Fact check is often politically motivated as well. Quite a few are out of date or old links being recycled for the purposes of hits garnered. So merely old rather than complete fabrications When presented as new or the OP doesn't check the date of that item being recycled, it becomes a form of fake news, albeit a minor one.

So how do we qualify without oppressing? Perhaps a field that if filled out prior to posting gets a status granted to it by the Mods when posted. Perhaps with the date of the information, number of confirming sites, etc?

Those that choose the normal route receive no status acknowledgement?

I dunno. Thoughts?

I like the idea except for the fact that many 'web' articles and sites don't date their material.

I feel your pain. I started a thread recently after seeing a vid of Pres. Trump talking about "his people" sitting at attention for him like they do for Kim Jong Un.

The next morning I saw a longer clip where he states he is joking... Kinda an oops moment for me. But he did still say it, the video I saw cut the joking part out.

a reply to: Kharron

If you ever get around to finishing it, I will definitely get around to checking it out.

Re: Snopes, is that Conservative, conservative? Rhino conservative? Good old boy/deep state conservative? I suppose we'll have to wait for the rest of the story....