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.

 

How to spot fake news

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

The staff member who did not verify this is probably unemployed today.




posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

my point was that you need to figure it out by your self and not even relay on ATS, its common sense, its about you doing your own homework alone and not getting brainwashed.



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
they write the story they want with the bias they want
and find 'analysts' and 'experts' and 'insiders' that will say what they're already thinking

just a week or two ago all the buzz was about imminent recession.
it didn't take so they pulled back on it.
watch them redo it a month before the election.

I hate to think it but if about ten people decide to put something out, it will go out all over.
editors/reporters at CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WashPost, CBS ABC NBC, etc.
edit on 1-9-2019 by ElGoobero because: add content



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I am betting that Deutsche Bank does indeed have trumps taxes. ( thats the info that they reported but could not verify)


It's already known that Deutsche Bank does indeed have Trump's taxes, and they admitted it openly. The report in question was that a Russian Oligarch co-signed Trump's Deutsche Bank loans.
edit on 9/1/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   
(actual editorial and reporting experience inc)

How the sausage is made:

1) What we consider "news."

2) Who we consider credible sources and witnesses.

3) The angle or framing we choose, use and substantiate with reporting.

4) The quality and ability of our fact-checkers.

5) How much time (and money) is devoted to fact-checking.

6) The placement of one story over /under/near another story.

7) The placement of the original story involving "unnamed sources."

8) The placement of any retractions that may result from the improper use of unnamed sources.

9) Adherence to the Society of Professional Journalism standards of ethical reporting and behavior vs. financial or promotional considerations mandated by non-journalist managers.

10) The ability to do reporting in the first place where intersections between corporate ownership and reporting on any potential liabilities to that ownership or other "friendly" parties is discouraged. Either directly or through the previous nine points.

How to spot fake news: school board coverage? City council coverage? Probably (mostly) truthful and accurate reporting. Anything related to a hospital or large corporations? Probably PR (until comprehensive research, analysis and/or reporting backs it up). Anything primarily related to government, political parties or national "hot-button" issues like abortion, gun control or foreign election interference? Treat as intelligence propaganda until corroborated by multiple, on-the-record sources.

In my opinion, obviously.




edit on 1-9-2019 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Oh you are right. I saw the segment but I forgot that. Thanks.
They did indeed talk about what documentation the bank might have but the judge was asking about that matter when the bank rep declined to answer. You are correct. I was wrong. Sorry.
Thanks again.



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I will not defend how the press reports the "news" today. However, when it comes to natural disasters, previous cost from other storms are available and can be a start to an estimate at least. It's our own fault, as ATS is a good example in and of itself as many rush to be the first to start a thread on "breaking" news, often using vague tweets from some unknown person on Twitter as their source.

"Breaking" news or "Special Reports" should also be a dead give away for "We really don't have a clue but we are gonna be the first to report" this news. Both terms are so over used they are absolutely meaningless at this point. I was too young when Walter Cronkite was the news delivery source, but pretty sure when you saw him on before prime time, that you could he sure something serious happened and not another "Tick Tock" entertainment and opinion piece.

Again it's our own fault when we demand to know every detail immediately. Reporters using Twitter as it's the new teletype machine instead of social media. Our news people rush to report first and often end up making the news instead of reporting it. This latest shooter incident is a prime example when police really didn't know what they are dealing provide warnings that they may have multiple perps and the press reports it as fact.

And we now watch intently programs on our favorite news source as factual news programs when the truth is that they are simply entertainment shows based on news of the day and provide opportunities for what once were respected journalist and anchors to become famous Elite broadcasters. In reality they are only giving opinions and often share their platforms with fringe sources who cater to each audience most coveted by their respective host a d say outrageous vitriolic diatribes gaining more headlines the following morning when the other side reports the faux outrage over what was said.

Hate to blame the internet but it is the change that brought these changes we see. Before the telegraph, newspapers seemed to publish anything, often referred to as yellow journalism as their was no way to verify news, at least it could take weeks or months depending where the "news" came from. The telegraph seemed to solve some of the more nefarious news as people could inquire about a faraway place instead of just taking a newspaper as gospel.

The internet you would think would have improved on the problem but seems to take us full circle back to a time before we knew better. Anonymous sources, anonymity, and instant have replaced facts, the need to be right as an instant apology is the same. It no longer seems to be a requirement for something to be factual, after all with the anonymity provided by the internet means nobody will know if it was me. Our short attention spans contribute to the problem as well, since a report right or wrong is usually replaced by the next tweet.



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Laurence O'Donnell is a staff person and likes to call himself a journalist so he should have at least attempted to verify it. He didn't, and admitted as much when he started with if it's true. That's not honest journalism and glad he at least retracted the story but the effect they were looking for was accomplished when it was the headline for the day. He was responsible as the journalist so why fire a staffer, he should be fired, it's his job.



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN




he started with if it's true


he actually ended it with "if its true" not started it, there is a deference



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr UAE

Well, I don't watch the jerk anyway so my bad. But he is responsible for the report and for verifying the information



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

neither do i watch the jerk, but its there on you tube



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
What I recommend is to keep a close eye on twitter where our chosen one can keep us informed.





twitter.com... F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2F2019%2F09%2Fnational-weather-service-scrambles-after-trump-wrongly-tells-millions-in-alabama-to-brace-for-hurricane%2F
e dit on 1-9-2019 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr UAE

I don't watch you tube either, which is another part of the problem when any idiot with a camera can make a video and say the same thing you just did "well there it is on you tube" as if its gospel carved into stone because it's on you tube



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

My dad argued the other day Lawrence Odonnel didn't report fake news about Trump because he qualified it with 'if true'.

Unfortunately liberals do not care about the fake news.


'if true' pretty much sums up the MSM.

We trust our family, our friends, and most importantly ourselves. We have played connect the dots before, we don't need opinion pieces masquerading as news which is a major problem.



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s
Phil? Phil? Zat you? I thought you had passed to your great reward.



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Can't really call the MSM people fools though, they are doing their job well. Is it honest and straight-forward? Hell no. But it gets clicks and cash and that's their goal.

Honesty in capitalism is like happiness in slavery.

ETA: actually, my bad, I think you were referring to the fools that fall for it...nevermind me, long weekend!
edit on 9/1/2019 by Admitted because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

How to spot fake news.

Step one,
Look at computer (Or phone,television, newspaper)

No more steps necessary.



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Funny how I only heard one dead when the story broke... until the police chief of Odessa, one who would know, changed it to five.
Two others died overnight.
The numbers have not been speculated by anyone and no one was trying to "up the ante".
That is sick.

As far as estimating damage costs, those are estimates because they cannot say for sure where the storm will go.
But they know the damage possible from each category of storm, they know the possible costs of rebuilding and they certainly can estimate the cost of damage should the storm strike a specific area. Why is that such a mystery?

News agencies do specials for ratings. They do not manufacture the news to get them.

But you know here in conspiracy land the man is always out to get you.


They most certainly do. They made "two scoops" news worthy, for example.



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


News agencies do specials for ratings. They do not manufacture the news to get them.


So when your "news agencies" made up stories and straight out lied to you for 2 1/2 years about the Mueller report and the imminent removal of Trump, that didn't bother you when afterwards you found out it was all just made up to keep their ratings going and push a political agenda?

How odd.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join