ATS made the list. We are somebody now

Fake News list:

CNN
ABC
New York Times
Washington Post
BBC
MSNBC
Fox News
USA Today
Huffington Post
www.nsa.gov
www.cia.gov
www.nasa.gov
euvsdisinfo.eu
www.propornot.com
www.snopes.com

well, this is my Fake News list.

and others I may add.

HF

a reply to: imwilliam

hey man...good post there.

Of course if a newspaper actually visited this site, researched it, they probably wouldn't categorize it as a "useful idiot" in the propagation of "Russian" propaganda.

if someone is on the other side..he is evil instantly. It's because you are good

a reply to: FauxMulder

It's an acrual propaganda campaign to try and discredit any alternative media source.

Because... Russians are evil? Or something.

I dunno seems like a pretty pathetic attempt to me.

a reply to: imjack

A conspiracy website is a fine line from fake news.

Only if you believe that real world conspiracies never happen.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: FauxMulder

It's an acrual propaganda campaign to try and discredit any alternative media source.

Because... Russians are evil? Or something.

I dunno seems like a pretty pathetic attempt to me.

hm...you seem too logical to me. You're probably a Russian shill.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: imjack

A conspiracy website is a fine line from fake news.

Only if you believe that real world conspiracies never happen.

You can make this about the conspiracies all you want.

My point is fake news outlets flood this place and call their material 'conspiracies'.

Prove me wrong. 'Sourcing' has become insanely worse in the 1 year I've posted here. You can pretty much nearly make a single sentence partisan mudslinging post as the premise of an OP. You think someone who 'worked hard' on a fake news piece would pass up posting that here?

a reply to: imjack

My point is fake news outlets flood this place and call their material 'conspiracies'.

I'm up for a discussion on this. Let's start...give me one thread example of fake news outlets coming here and making a thread...

To up the challenge if you do find such a thread...make sure it's not covered in cr** by most participating members.

The fact that ATS made that list only reinforces my suspicion that CTR has been very active on this site.

a reply to: Bone75

Why aren't there more right-leaning networks?

Well, (on a serious note) because you have to look back at the roots of newspapers in general. Historically, all the way back to the days of the founding fathers, news type journalism has always leaned left. There was a time when this was important as the common person had no other way to get news. Even before papers you had 'criers' of the day, who would stand on corners and steps and holler the news.

Through the ages since there have been news outlets which leaned right (and there still are to some extent), but they just filled a niche for 'balance'. The left leaning media still held the vast majority of news type publications.

Enter the modern age...with the advent of television you have to look at the demographic who actually watch TV. It's a generally left audience. The last time you saw popular right leaning programming was back in the '70's with programs like All In The Family and the like. Now not so much. This is one of the reasons shows today like Walking Dead are so wildly popular. If one looks beyond the gore and violence for a moment it doesn't take long to see the social innuendo behind the program. It's very clever how they do it too. With the creation of a 'zombie' they have removed all racial, ethnic, religious and social political correctness (sanctuaries of the left). They've effectively removed PC from the equation completely, and no one can scream foul.

When you extrapolate this same principle to the media you can see why you don't really have a lot of right leaning networks. Unless they just broadcast zombies 24x7 they wouldn't have any advertisers (their revenue source) because someone would be offended, and advertisers play to the lowest common social denominator (i.e. those most likely to be influenced by their advertising; in other words, those who are impulsive).

Via the Source page noted in OP. Had to rub my eyes to make sure I read the word "Allies." I'm sure content on those "Allies" web sites are entirely fact based-only, and completely void of opinion, e.g., Snopes. /sarc

a reply to: EightAhoy

That's HILARIOUS!!

No hiding any cards there!!

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: imjack

My point is fake news outlets flood this place and call their material 'conspiracies'.

I'm up for a discussion on this. Let's start...give me one thread example of fake news outlets coming here and making a thread...

To up the challenge if you do find such a thread...make sure it's not covered in cr** by most participating members.

Being debunked doesn't excuse the increase of feces based threads.
The Hillary Hologram IS one example. The story was directly lifted from fake news sources. Just look at HOAX and SW, they are filled with threads that are fake news and have been moved.
So is the Melania sign. Hillary being a Satanist Etc.

Fake News is in part mostly about creating Fake Outrage. There is little reason to spread this news without outrage. The outrage is also considered more important than the evidence. You might not understand this, but to many degrees, her email scandal contained buttloads of 'fake news'. It was nearly impossible to decipher the entire scandal other than "You should be fking pissed off over these EMAILS!" Not saying all these threads were bad, but it was mind numbing reading through most of them.

If you want to know my true opinion, what's sad isn't fake news making it's way to this site, but rather the way 'skeptics' digest said fake news. They seem to find no problem with staying open to all possibility other than the story being 'fake' and they fail to ask the most basic skeptic question: "Source?".

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Bone75

Why aren't there more right-leaning networks?

Well, (on a serious note) because you have to look back at the roots of newspapers in general. Historically, all the way back to the days of the founding fathers, news type journalism has always leaned left. There was a time when this was important as the common person had no other way to get news. Even before papers you had 'criers' of the day, who would stand on corners and steps and holler the news.

Through the ages since there have been news outlets which leaned right (and there still are to some extent), but they just filled a niche for 'balance'. The left leaning media still held the vast majority of news type publications.

Enter the modern age...with the advent of television you have to look at the demographic who actually watch TV. It's a generally left audience. The last time you saw popular right leaning programming was back in the '70's with programs like All In The Family and the like. Now not so much. This is one of the reasons shows today like Walking Dead are so wildly popular. If one looks beyond the gore and violence for a moment it doesn't take long to see the social innuendo behind the program. It's very clever how they do it too. With the creation of a 'zombie' they have removed all racial, ethnic, religious and social political correctness (sanctuaries of the left). They've effectively removed PC from the equation completely, and no one can scream foul.

When you extrapolate this same principle to the media you can see why you don't really have a lot of right leaning networks. Unless they just broadcast zombies 24x7 they wouldn't have any advertisers (their revenue source) because someone would be offended, and advertisers play to the lowest common social denominator (i.e. those most likely to be influenced by their advertising; in other words, those who are impulsive).

I love you man.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: EightAhoy

That's HILARIOUS!!

No hiding any cards there!!

Basket of Allies.

a reply to: imjack

Being debunked doesn't excuse the increase of feces based threads.

It does actually...it's all we got against lies and deceit.

So is the Melania sign. Hillary being a Satanist Etc.

We cant really truly debunk these...we can only laugh..rightly or wrongly.

Fake News is in part mostly about creating Fake Outrage. There is little reason to spread this news without outrage. The outrage is also considered more important than the evidence.

I agree here.

If you want to know my true opinion, what's sad isn't fake news making it's way to this site, but rather the way 'skeptics' digest said fake news. The seem to find no problem with staying open to all possibility other than the story being 'fake' and they fail to ask the most basic skeptic question: "Source?".

Ok man...to a degree I get you...but for the sake of this argument...can you give an example of this latest "fake news" craze. It has to be something about election since it came to being during and because of election. It also has to be somewhat unretarded...in a sense...that it it's not fringe news with links to beforeitsnews.com or something like that...because we all know...99 % of ATS members spit on that crap.

I just want to know what you consider to be fake news...but no links to threads with 1 page where no more then few members agreed with a ludicrous agenda or a theory.

Because..you cant stop crazies from posting...what you can do is observe the response.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: imjack

Being debunked doesn't excuse the increase of feces based threads.

It does actually...it's all we got against lies and deceit.

So is the Melania sign. Hillary being a Satanist Etc.

We cant really truly debunk these...we can only laugh..rightly or wrongly.

Fake News is in part mostly about creating Fake Outrage. There is little reason to spread this news without outrage. The outrage is also considered more important than the evidence.

I agree here.

If you want to know my true opinion, what's sad isn't fake news making it's way to this site, but rather the way 'skeptics' digest said fake news. The seem to find no problem with staying open to all possibility other than the story being 'fake' and they fail to ask the most basic skeptic question: "Source?".

Ok man...to a degree I get you...but for the sake of this argument...can you give an example of this latest "fake news" craze. It has to be something about election since it came to being during and because of election. It also has to be somewhat unretarded...in a sense...that it it's not fringe news with links to beforeitsnews.com or something like that...because we all know...99 % of ATS members spit on that crap.

I just want to know what you consider to be fake news...but no links to threads with 1 page where no more then few members agreed with a ludicrous agenda or a theory.

Because..you cant stop crazies from posting...what you can do is observe the response.

I work in advertising. I don't subscribe to a medium, and I don't consider media so 'sectioned'. It's actually all very conglomerate at the end of the day. All sides buy advertisements too.

Fake News is a couple of different things, not just one example, but examples would be
1. Presenting Evidence to only conclude further inaccurate evidence
2. Falsely presenting Evidence to change narrative, or suggest narrative
3. Creating fake Evidence
4. Flat out lying about events or details


You might think I get tittered when Fox says good things about Trump, even though I don't, and consider that Fake News, but I don't. If you have trouble understanding what Fake News is, maybe that's part of the problem. It's exactly what it sounds like. Fake Material Presented as 'BREAKING!' news to gain sensationalism of the topic over the details of the truth.

originally posted by: ezramullins
I don't know how this has not been posted yet, unless it's in a forum I can't see.
The Washington Post published a list of websites they claim are Russian propaganda sites and ATS made the list! This is a continuation of their "fake news" hogwash from last week and it looks like a big attempt at damage control to me. WaPo has credibility problem on a A. Jones scale, in my opinion.

www.propornot.com...

The link is dated as Nov. 9, but is ongoing. I think the list came out yesterday.

What a bunch of presumptuous crooks but don´t be scared, in no time they will be associated with fake news on google and no one will find their site before page 50.

Wanna give it a little push?

Put this code on as many forums as you can:

[ url=http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html?putin-leader-of-the-free-world.htm]Putin Leads The Free World[/url ]

Remove the spaces after the first [ and before the last ] so the code becomes functional.

On blogs:
< a href="http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html?putin-leader-of-the-free-world.htm">Putin Leads The Free World

Remove the spaces after the first < and before the last > so the code becomes functional.

a reply to: anonentity

The Washington post is owned by Clintons Mexican billionaire buddy, who made his money the same way Clinton did.

The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos who is neither Mexican nor of Mexican (or even Hispanic) descent. His mother did marry a Cuban immigrant who adopted him (hence the name). He made his billions as the founder/CEO of Amazon.

HUMM! This site is crawling with disinfo agents at the moment

Try not to be one, even if it's unwitting. (misinfo agent?)

So the Hillary obeyers (Ho's for short) call us all Nazi's while employing Nazi-style/Brownshirt attacks on persons and property.

The media calls us Russian shills while employing soviet-style information dissemination.


We are the only ones who want more freedom, more transparency.


People are panicking and it is funny as hell.