It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


10 Ways to Spot a Fake News Story

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 11:59 AM
This is an interesting article on how to spot a fake news story. I know even some veteran members have fallen and posted fake news in their eagerness to push a particular agenda or narrative. Hopefully this will reduce the number of times we see our collective posts get LOL'ed.


Back in the old days, when people got their news mainly from papers, magazines, radio and television, it was generally easy to figure out when someone was pulling your leg. Pretty much anything in the National Enquirer was suspect, for example. That tabloid often featured stories with outrageous headlines, such as, "Woman Gives Birth to Alien." We may laugh at such titles, but what's not so funny is that in the last decade or two, with the growth of the Internet and social media, fake news stories and entire fake news sites have proliferated.


posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 12:10 PM
"High level official on condition of anonymity".

There it is. Right there. You're welcome.

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 12:28 PM
i've seen recently video's posted in an OP 20min long and in 3 minutes flags and stars without actually watching the video.
and if you are posting a video on current events and its DATED '2012' send to the hoax bin or provide accurate source.

i also say, ban words like 'mysterious' 'strange' 'bizarre' 'unknown'in thread titles .

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 12:48 PM
a reply to: Metallicus

1. It came on TV
2. It was on the radio
3. It was in the newspaper
4. It was on the internet
... and on and on
edit on 9/15/2015 by wtbengineer because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 12:57 PM
a reply to: Metallicus

Do you want to know why modern journalism sucks? click here.

It starts at the headline. I'm sure many ATS users will agree the clever headline is a lost art, I've been guilty of poor ones myself. But these days it doesn't matter what your headline is, as long as it vaguely resembles the source then it gets the thumbs up to attract hits and therefore advertising revenue.

For instance:

"Man attacked by racist DVD player"

David Cooper, 42, was a blue collar worker just like you.

Until the day his Sony DVD player tried to kill him.

"It happened in a blink of an eye" said Cooper, "I was talking to my wife about Hiroshima then BANG! the DVD player just exploded." It was like it knew what we were saying."

Mr Cooper and his wife have not slept soundly since the event and have contacted lawyers to find closure.

"We just want this dark episode of our life to end!" said David's wife Martha.


And a few paragraphs of literal drool later the truth emerges, which is often left at the bottom and is sparse on details.

Experts determined the source of the fault was a beverage spill.


That's online journalism in a nutshell.

edit on 15-9-2015 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 02:05 PM

originally posted by: Metallicus
Hopefully this will reduce the number of times we see our collective posts get LOL'ed.

But there is something strange about what can get a LOL'd or HOAX certificate here. An ongoing thead is in WW3 at the moment, and it is clearly a HOAX. So I don't know what to think, while frankly I don't much care, there is always the possibility of a clever hoax getting through and never discovered, but a blatant hoax??

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:57 PM
a reply to: Metallicus

Interesting thread.

One thing I do when reading a story or listening to the News, or radio is I look for certain words, such as:

May have.
Could have.
I think.

These words represent opinions and are not facts. I see these words used by important people on the News, TV, Radio and the internet when some are saying their stories are facts.

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 04:39 PM
Most ordinary people in the UK tend to still get their news from their TV and our two main terrestrial channels are BBC News and Sky News - and that's basically it - so the Brit public have been extremely easy to brainwash.

Anyway... I noticed several years ago that when they give us a "live" report and you switch between the two channels when they are both supposidly broadcasting from the same "live" location, very often what is happening on the two channels don't match up. Sometimes there is a big mismatch like a group of people on one channel that is missing on the other channel despite them both claiming to be broadcasting live from the same location. Somtimes you should be able to see the other news team behind the reporter, but they aren't there. It calls into question and doubt what they mean by "live" and the fact they're obviously deceiving us.

Another thing that didn't happen in the past, but news reporters do this more and more these days, is that they'll say, "I spoke with a lady earlier and she told me blah blah blah", which will always be some sort of revelation - but if they really did speak to someone earlier why were they not filmed, and if it was for anonymity then show their back on screen! I never believe any reporter who claims to have spoken to someone who said this and that, when they have no evidence of it - trouble is that everyone else believes their bull#!

The other thing that BBC and Sky News reporters do in the UK that is bull# is that they will claim to have SEEN something happening earlier that they did not film - pure BS. Plus... and this drives me crazy... they keep telling us what WE think and what OUR opinions are without a shred of research to back it up - this was very prevalent during the run up to the Labour leadership vote when every TV reporter kept telling us that the public thinks this, the public think that, the public agree or disagree with this, when they were simply getting that opinion off the top of their head, often on the spot, because reporters these days spend a long time interviewing each other on who think what, just to fill time.

I swear that the TV news in the UK is absolute bull# deception and I wish something could be done about it, because most people believe it all and there's no convincing them that the BBC is lying!

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 04:47 PM
Luckily I think I've got a pretty trustworthy intuition and keen smell for BS.

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 09:25 PM
a reply to: aurorarising

As a Brit I can only say I 100% agree with you

The answer?
Take your tv out into the garden, smash to pieces, then burn it.

Stop watching tv and start watching the sheeple, its more fun

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 10:45 PM
I think they missed the mark... The best way to go about spotting a fake news story is to youtube everything there is on the Virginia reporter shooting, watch it, learn from it, and never fall for it again.

Just that story can give a training manual on how to spot a fake news story.

posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 04:45 AM
a reply to: Metallicus

If the story is western MSM

You can't trust it

That simple

posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 06:52 AM
Another favourite of the corporate media is the simple method of parroting another news source.

So many times we a story is released by some entity, and within a day or so all the major news corporations and their many media outlets are parroting the story.
I've even seen people then say that if so many of the news media outlets are reporting it, it must have substance. It also increases the number of hits when entered into a search engine. Of course, it all comes back to a single source and avoids the necessity for any critical thinking, objectivity or journalistic integrity! Canned stories best describes it I think.

A classic example was the "wipe Israel off the map" story from a few years ago, with the alleged offending quote made by the Iranian president. As was shown many times over, although parroted far and wide in print and internet media, the story traced back to a single source, MEMRI, an Israeli organization, and was in fact false. It's still used by some people today in their Iranian bashing.

As has already been mentioned in earlier posts / replies, so much of the news today is full of assumptions, opinions and lacks any real evidence of anything at all, especially when they then start quoting the usual sources given anonymity. In fact, isn't that the very essence of supposed journalism, having verifiable sources and verified facts?

Simply stating that you are a big new organization and therefore trustworthy, as we have seen many times in the past, is absolutely no guarantee of truthfulness or accuracy.

Context, objectivity, integrity and unbiased reporting are all sadly long gone in today's corporate entertainment news organizations.
edit on 538Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:55:02 -05005530600000015 by Britguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:55 AM
a reply to: aurorarising

There are traitors in the UK sitting in offices making up 'news' stories. It's a fairly junior spook job, they usually get posted up the line after a stint of keyboard bashing.

posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:57 AM
a reply to: Metallicus

I notice in that list we are told to watch out for disclaimers.

...simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.

What do we think of this disclaimer? Can we trust us?
edit on 17 9 2015 by Kester because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 07:25 AM
It all got so tricky that it's even hard to tell which news, both shown on TV and published in a newspaper, are true. I am already lost. On the other hand, I work as a writer in a service center, where people can buy essays online and I must admit that making up stories can be really fun.

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 08:03 PM
11. Alex Jones is 99% convinced before he even knows what he's 99% convinced of.

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 08:55 PM
Anyone speaking on behalf of the government should be identified.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:46 AM
a reply to: ConcernedCitizen27

I speak on behalf of the government.

"Free candy for everyone and no more wars."

new topics

top topics


log in