It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poynter Publishes An "Alledged" Index of 515 Unreliable News Websites

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2019 @ 04:20 AM
link   
They want the sites blacklisted and shut down.

And yes it includes some of the most popular news sites for conservatives and independent thinkers like Breibart and our own ATS at # 6. Their source info is here:


"FactCheck.org’s Misinformation Directory (FC), created by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Fake News Codex (FN), widely quoted by Snopes and others, maintained by web developer and data designer Chris Herbert.
OpenSources (OS), run by Merrimack University media studies professor Melissa Zimdars.
PolitiFact’s Fake News Almanac (PF), by PolitiFact, a joint project of the Tampa Bay Times and Poynter.
Snopes’ Field Guide to Fake News Sites and Hoax Purveyors (SN), created by Snopes, the oldest and largest online fact-checking organization."


Anyone who uses Snopes for one as a basis for a source is highly suspect in my opinion of being politically motivated towards a liberal agenda.

Dems are again showing their desperation to try and gain any advantage they can to take over next year.

Here's the link:

www.breitbart.com...

edit on Thu May 2 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: EXTAGS ADDED IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




posted on May, 2 2019 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: manta78

Snopes is "highly suspect" bc of a "liberal agenda"?

I am interested in your reasoning. Can you quote sources or evidences?
Because I do not think that you have either.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

There are numerous sources and articles on the net about snopes and their known bias; I am not going to quote them all as
I am sure you have access to Google in Europe and can read as many statements as you wish. Here's just one of them with a small amount of this article here:

Is Snopes a credible and authoritative source of information?


"Snopes is now 50% owned by an ad agency (Proper Media) and they make money by generating millions of views on the 3rd-party advertisements on their website. It simply makes sense for them to seek out articles that are viral to “debunk”, so that they can piggy-back on that traffic and generate more advertising revenue.

Snopes was founded by a husband and wife team who are now in the middle of a contentious divorce in which founder David Mikkelsen has been accused of embezzling $98,000 of company money to spend on “himself and prostitutes”.



source: Do You Trust Snopes? You Won’t After Reading This
foodbabe.com...


edit on Thu May 2 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: EX tags and trimmed overly long quote IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: manta78

I read exactly that and could not find the problem. Even the missing editorial oversight seems not to be existant, but that there is indeed an editorial oversight, as foodbabes' snope-snippets show that the original text from snope was edited again and again, in my opinion to better explain the "false" attribute.
That there is a hidden agenda towards better ad-revenue is not really obvious to me.

The thing about the divorce and alleged moneyflows does not have anything to do with that site, or you could critize amazons' Bezos doing the same with National Enquirer etc.

I read the following sources and could not follow your opinion:
Foodbabe
Media Bias Fact Check
Rational Wiki
Owlcation - which seems to be a mixture of lectures and clickbaits to me..
Forbes - But I do not trust Forbes to be unbiased in the least, so there it is.. A factcheck on a factcheck done by a factchecker I do not trust..

All in all, the critics are praising the actual objective fact-checking (even when done by "not oversighted" people on real provable facts), but are wary of fact checking subjective "facts" like "Did the Clintons have to return stuff worth 200,000$ back to the White House?" "False, they had to return stuff worth 136,000$" -- AHA! BIASED.
Thats not necessarily biased, but seen through the critics' own mental filter.


tl;dr: Objective facts are reliably fact-checked. Subjective facts are hard and should be grounds for discussion.
edit on 2 5 2019 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: manta78

Here's the actual link.

www.poynter.org...

I hope ATS continues to grow and morph its business model towards growth and maintain the conspiracy "edge" however, there are way too many long time senior "progressives" here who shut down real factual news. That alone can flip the site yet other media sites consider it bias towards alt right. I do not.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: manta78

Serious problem with the list, a lot of those sites aren't news sites and nor do they claim to be




posted on May, 2 2019 @ 07:01 AM
link   
It sounds as if opinion is getting confused with fact. Most of the sites out here are opinion about some subject.

If a person doesn't understand that idea then that person is already lost in the world.

I take it as Poynter publishing which sites have acceptable opinions.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Hey, we made the top 10 in website's that piss off Liberals.
We must be doing something right.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

That's more likely to be the case. There are plenty of links from places like the BBC, NBC, CNN, NYT, etc., here. What makes this site what one would consider "unreliable" is that it's an opinion board where we all discuss our opinions on subjects. Opinion isn't fact, nor should anyone consider it such. However, most news these days is tainted by the unreliable because most so-called journalists cannot keep their opinion from tainting the news one way or another.

I am guessing this pointer survey would consider my commentary on most of CNN "unreliable" merely because I disagree with a lot of the conclusions its commentators draw and not because they think CNN is "unreliable" although one could make that inference. ... But then again, CNN did air speculation that Malaysian Air 370 might have flown into a black hole, so you never know.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: manta78

Here's the actual link.

www.poynter.org...

I hope ATS continues to grow and morph its business model towards growth and maintain the conspiracy "edge" however, there are way too many long time senior "progressives" here who shut down real factual news. That alone can flip the site yet other media sites consider it bias towards alt right. I do not.




Mission & Vision
The Poynter Institute has grown from a storefront in sunny St. Petersburg, Florida, to the world’s most influential school for journalists.

Poynter is an instructor, innovator, convener and resource for anyone who aspires to engage and inform citizens. We serve not only 21st-century democracies, but those in corners of the globe where people who honor freedom and self-government struggle against tyrants and autocrats.

By supporting the Poynter Institute, you fortify journalism’s role in a free society. Poynter champions freedom of expression, civil dialogue and compelling journalism that helps citizens participate in healthy democracies. We prepare journalists worldwide to hold powerful people accountable and promote honest information in the marketplace of ideas.

[...]


Maybe it's just me, but I'm always wary of anyone who describes themselves as the 'most influential' or 'most authoritative' yet I have never heard of them...
edit on 2-5-2019 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)

edit on Thu May 2 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed long quote IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Yea, I saw that. Did you see who their top financial contributors are?
www.poynter.org...

The Poynter Institute receives broad support from a variety of sources. Here is an alphabetical list of our funders, including all foundations, corporations, partners and individuals that gave the Poynter Institute more than $50,000 for 2018 or 2019. This list was last updated in March 2019.
Funders
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

Annie E. Casey Foundation

Charles Koch Foundation

Democracy Fund

Google News Initiative

John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

LaSalle University

[...]


And they're in my back yard apparently. This is disturbing.

Fact checking should never be centralized.
edit on Thu May 2 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: SOURCE ADDED, QUOTE TRIMMED IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Maybe it's just me, but I'm always wary of anyone who describes themselves as the 'most influential' or 'most authoritative' yet I have never heard of them...


Since no one else will say it, they do.



Creating their own fake news...



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

That's a rogue's gallery if ever I saw one. No sir, everything honest and above board there.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: manta78
They want the sites blacklisted and shut down.

And yes it includes some of the most popular news sites for conservatives and independent thinkers like Breibart and our own ATS at # 6.


If the site was named ZATS, we would have been last, as the list is alphabetical, but I get your point. It's funny we are listed as a "news site".

Those who would shut down opposing views are the same who remove statues that frighten them.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Well, there's this:

accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com...

and then there's this:

www.forbes.com...

So basically....... Highly Suspect. (which is a very good band, you should check them out). A Husband and wife using google to fact check - yet nobody else can use google to fact check, because that's unreliable? The Founders that have been pictured at DNC engagements with prominent Democrat politicians, and can't really answer any informative questions because it's "secret".

I enjoy when people use Snopes as a citation because then I can hit them back with a Wikipedia link and watch their heads explode as they try to justify how one answer from an anonymous biased editor is somehow not as good as an answer from another biased and anonymous editor.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Looks like another paid-for "dossier" style smear campaign by the desperate and the destitute 😎



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: manta78


Wow what a list. LOL how is liveleak 'fake'? It's literally just raw footage from people during actual events/news.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: manta78

Authoritarians who can't control the narrative, will do everything they can to censor those speaking out.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I certainly don't agree with poynter but talk about a clickbait title. Poynter is asking for advertisers to pull their advertising. It's easy for people to see the title and think poynter is advocating for a violation of the first amendment.

Way to fight poynter's point with clickbait.


edit on 2-5-2019 by blueman12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: manta78

Authoritarians who can't control the narrative, will do everything they can to censor those speaking out.



Correctomundo...

Have you seen this....


www.nytimes.com...

and this...

www.latimes.com...

how about this one...

www.usatoday.com...
edit on 2-5-2019 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join