Why Fake News now? Who is Old New's and why is it dying?

Is there a connection in the fake/new news and old/real news?

Let me prefix this by saying that this is new news right here, but is it anymore fake than the real news that Brian Williams delivers with a super white smile and tailored suits?
No, our news is freshly killed and is still warm. We root it out, read it, think on it and post it if it passed a smell test.
Everyone is free to comment/counter point/debunk it, in a way the severely pasteurized and vaccinated news from the wealthy and large corps can't even come close to.

So why suddenly is new (fake) news under assault? Some reasons I have seen are in the deep end of the pool, but are still worth listing.

Clinton's loss? Has this spurred powerful interests to put this fake news to bed becasue there will be other elections and the people are being informed. Would we be hearing of the epidemic of fake news with a HRC victory?

Wikileaks? Could it be the repubs or dems can't afford to have a person or group gain access to poorly stored sensitive communications? Could this be a reason fake news is under attack from all sides and must be stopped before the next election cycle?

Pedesta Bro's and Kidnapping Madeleine McCann? (john Podesta is a real and I mean real powerful politician)www.youtube.com...

Pizzagate? Self explanatory.

Clinton Foundation? Is there yet to be a trial/investigation into the big $$$? www.youtube.com...


Decentralization of news? I personally think this is the main reason fake news is under an almost unified attack. If the news is no longer cooked until brown in the center, all will be lost by that very small cabal that enjoys the totalitarian control of it all, except this internet.

Now that people are awakening with the realization that party is over and the bill is coming due, and all the $ is gone, the net is the only source that is telling us why. I feel this will be the main reason the internet will no longer be a free place to communicate in the future.

Old/real news is slowly dying, not trusted, and has severe information guard rails that can't and will never be violated. Old news must be perfectly cut to fit into predetermined boxes for easy consumption, that leaves me out, and I have a feeling a lot of people feel the same.

The "Fake News" libel is the latest tactical tool in a compromised media's strategy to discredit any thoughts or speech that runs contrary to its controller's agenda or threatens to expose its corruption.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

It will be censored bland flavorless world if people are not allowed to be free. I have yet to consider the libel side of the equation. But that could be a huge lead tipped club to silence all who are not approved.

The "Fake News" libel is the latest tactical tool in a compromised media's strategy to discredit any thoughts or speech that runs contrary to its controller's agenda.

I believe that is also part of the agenda. A bland colourless world is less likely to revolt or rebel against its controllers. I use the term libel in the sense in which it is used in the "Blood Libel" etc rather than the legal sense.
a reply to: seasonal

a reply to: CulturalResilience

What the controllers fail to realize, is it will turn out to be the exact opposite. And once the change from their veiw to the peoples view starts, it can't be stopped.

a reply to: seasonal

Likely because the large media companies have been dealing in yellow journalism, and I think their crusade to paint others with the same brush is straight-up propaganda reminiscent of Ingsoc. Invent an enemy, then portray yourself as the cure, just like a racket.

There does appear to be a groundswell fledgling movement but a movement by definition is something that travels a distance and stops. I am hopeful that an actual revolution is not necessary but by no means certain of it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

100% correct, just like health care isn't available to all, now it is , now it is too expensive, now........

a reply to: seasonal

It really isn't all that sudden.

Recall the all out assault against bloggers a decade or so ago? The MSM pushed the narrative then that they weren't real journalists and represented fake news.

But once HuffPo and Politico came online, they STFU, having clearly lost that battle.

Now they see an opportunity for Ver. 2.0 of their bitching.

Of course the real irony is the MSM stopped being real news decades ago.

a reply to: loam

So fake news calling fake news fake? Wow, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is coming back from an earlier try. The agenda is never grabbed outright, it is slowly taken, little by little.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
The "Fake News" libel is the latest tactical tool in a compromised media's strategy to discredit any thoughts or speech that runs contrary to its controller's agenda or threatens to expose its corruption.

And it's effective. Most people don't believe the fully-evidenced truth in front of their eyes if it isn't sanctioned by the major media. Not even here, at ATS.

a reply to: seasonal

Setting aside all of the issues of credibility and accountability, there is one extremely important factor that you're overlooking — 99.99% of the time bloggers, forum posters, etc are either rehashing information that originated somewhere else or worse, making it up.

That's because "news bloggers" don't have reporters (or press credentials/access, reliable sources, camera crews, travel budgets, interns to do leg work, etc). At best, they're people sitting at a computer, aggregating information from those who do and adding their own bias, spin, etc. Like the child's game "Telephone" that information doesn't get better as it trickles down from primary sources through news blogs and out to forums and social media.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Consider me in that .01%.

Anyone can write open records requests: Link

Like I said, most people don't believe the fully-evidenced truth in front of their eyes if it isn't sanctioned by the major media. Not even here, at ATS.

*gasp! no, it cannot be true!*

But it is.

a reply to: seasonal
Fake News with Big Bosoms went into hyperdrive on 9/11.

Who the hell is Julian Assange, Anonymous, Alex Puffy Jones, Shawn "Worst Journalist in the History of the World" Hannity, Edward Snowden, David Icke. etc?

Nobody knows, No Source can be Trusted any longer. Sociopaths and Money Worshippers rule the World. (We just elected the former with both traits)

Take care of yourself and loved ones and try your best to help others in need. Merry Xmas.

a reply to: seasonal

People will forget. I remember the fake war news broadcasts in Libya on CNN orchestrated by Anderson Cooper. We dissected it and him right here on ATS.

He's still on CNN, his show is still prime time, didn't he even moderate the presidential debates?

And the Band plays on. Their mission is to bombard you with a repetitive narrative that supports the agenda you're supposed to be on board with. It doesn't matter to them if they get caught, they know the most of the people aren't dissecting their every broadcast, the most of the people hear it once and accept it. They only tuned in for the sports scores, weather or traffic report anyway, and don't really care that much about the direction the country is heading. In fact, the less they know the better, right?

Both sides depend on 'Plausible Deniability' to some extent.

Compartmentalized and fragmented we drive on down the road, busy with our daily bread.

a reply to: theantediluvian

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seasonal

Setting aside all of the issues of credibility and accountability, there is one extremely important factor that you're overlooking — 99.99% of the time bloggers, forum posters, etc are either rehashing information that originated somewhere else or worse, making it up.

That's because "news bloggers" don't have reporters. At best, they're people sitting at a computer, aggregating information from those who do and adding their own bias, spin, etc. Like the child's game "Telephone" that information doesn't get better as it trickles down from primary sources through news blogs and out to forums and social media.

That would be a wonderful argument, if only it were true.

I challenge you to demonstrate a preponderance of MSM news reporting that isn't derived from published government sources, published business sources, published press statements, or a rehash of some other MSM source. And given this year's performance by the MSM, any argument they are less biased is beyond ludicrous.

Moreover, if you think the MSM isn't equally a bunch of 'people sitting at a computer', you'd be wrong. The number of field correspondents has long been eviscerated.

Here's some light reading from the Pew Research Center:

State of the News Media 2016

Eight years after the Great Recession sent the U.S. newspaper industry into a tailspin, the pressures facing America’s newsrooms have intensified to nothing less than a reorganization of the industry itself, one that impacts the experiences of even those news consumers unaware of the tectonic shifts taking place.

The overall newsroom workforce experienced its sharpest decline since 2009. According to the American Society of News Editors’ Newsroom Employment Census, after falling 6% in 2012 and 3% in 2013, overall newsroom employment was down 10% in 2014 – the most recent year for which figures are available – to 32,900. Between 1994 and 2014, the profession has shed over 20,000 jobs, representing a 39% decline.

Don't think the remaining 61% are hitting the streets...that is unless they're actually physically delivering the newspapers themselves.

While ASNE will not release 2015 figures until later in 2016, it is likely that 2015 will also experience a noticeable decline. Major staff cuts occurred between April of 2015 and spring 2016 at the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News, Tribune Publishing (including the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune), the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Orange County Register, McClatchy’s foreign bureaus, the Seattle Times and Newsday, the Denver Post and the Boston Globe. (Globe editorial employees also spent one Sunday helping to deliver the paper.)

Foreign bureaus are in decline:

Shuttered bureaus

Between 1998 and 2011, at least 20 US newspapers and other media outlets eliminated all their foreign bureaus, according to American Journalism Review (ajr). Elsewhere, the number and size of those bureaus of have shrunk dramatically.

Link.

See also:

Newsonomics: The halving of America’s daily newsrooms

Newspaper reporter is on the list of most endangered jobs. Again.



Employment picture darkens for journalists at digital outlets

With fewer journalists working today, reporters are becoming increasingly concentrated in coastal cities, investigative journalism and local statehouse reporting is declining, and the ratio of journalists to public relations specialists is widening.

Imagine that. All the blue states. What could possibly be wrong with that?

More:

With fewer journalists, but financial pressure to adapt to low advertising rates, papers and digital outlets are incentivized to focus on shorter articles that cost less time and money to produce. Reporters feel pressure to write stories that get more clicks—and outlets like the Oregonian and the now-defunct Gawker considered using metrics to help determine how much reporters should be paid.

In this economic environment, greenlighting time-consuming, in-depth reports that may get less traffic than lighter-fare articles has become increasingly rare. A recent report by Mother Jones in which a senior reporter worked four months as a corrections officer exemplifies this tension. The massive 35,000-word report exposed corruption in private prisons but conservatively cost $350,000 to produce and only brought in $5,000 in banner ads.

I think it's pretty clear, there is little meaningful difference between the two worlds at this point.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

While I appreciate your extra effort, your conclusion is wrong. You used a couple of quotes to establish that the seal should appear embossed as viewed from the back. Despite all the emboss vs deboss commentary, the only difference between embossing and debossing on a paper document is which side of the same impression one is looking at.

The question being of course from which side of the document should the document be "embossed."

As to your conclusion that the seal should appear embossed from the back side of the document: that's not how any of the Hawaii birth certificates I've just looked at appear. Here's one example from another birther at WND and it certainly appears to show *gasp* that the seal is embossed when looking at it from the front.

I digress though, your point is taken and your efforts are certainly commendable. I've gone to my own extraordinary lengths to track down the truth. In both our cases though, what we accomplished simply required a bit of extra effort. Not press credentials, not access to interview people, not sources within the government/an organization, not travel, etc. And as I said, 99.99% of the time. That doesn't mean that we can't contribute with our research but to believe that we're a viable replacement for professional journalists is wanton fantasy.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The only flaw I see in your argument is that the journalists that you talk about should tell the news consumer what, where, when and how. Not what they think of each or any of the informational points that they should be passing.
The editorializing and passing it off as news is epidemic. And shows no chance of slowing down.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MotherMayEye

While I appreciate your extra effort, your conclusion is wrong. You used a couple of quotes to establish that the seal should appear embossed as viewed from the back. Despite all the emboss vs deboss commentary, the only difference between embossing and debossing on a paper document is which side of the same impression one is looking at.

The question being of course from which side of the document should the document be "embossed."

Ah, you want more evidence. Don't worry. I have it.

But first, let me help you understand the difference between 'embossing' and 'debossing.'

When you emboss an image, the side from which the image is read is the side that is raised. In other words, if you emboss an image of the word 'FAKE,' the backside appears debossed BUT it says, 'EKAF' and all the letters are reversed.

If you deboss an image of the word 'FAKE,' the backside appears embossed BUT it says, 'EKAF' and all the letters are reversed.

Here is a nice explanation

Now that it is clear that there is a distinction and the processes are unique, let's move on to the next part of your response...you say that I haven't provided enough evidence, only a 'couple of quotes.'

First, I already provided the specific HDOH regulation regarding the seal, at my post I linked to. But, here is the agency's rule, as well:

HAR§11-1-2 – Seal of the department of health.
a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches in diameter. At the curve on the top portion there shall be the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and at the curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words “STATE OF HAWAII.” At the curve on each side portion shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents, which has long been recognized as a universal symbol of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an indentation, which shall separate it from the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE OF HAWAII.” For illustrative purposes, a black and white drawing of the official seal is attached at the end of this section as Exhibit “A,” titled “Seal of the Department of Health,” and dated November 1, 1988, and made a part of this section.

(b) The official seal of the department of health shall be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify commissions of appointment of deputy directors and notaries public, certificates, and other formal official documents on which the official seal has been customarily used or is appropriate to be used, as the director of health may determine on a case-by-case basis.

Link

So now you have seen the Regulations and Rules regarding the seal. The official seal is required to be embossed/raised. The seal on the back of Obama's birth certificate is debossed. That is a fact.

But, I am sure facts and truth won't be enough to shake you from your faith that you weren't completely lied to. You were though.

More quotes? Those I have, too. Here's one that Janice Okubo, public relations director, made to the Israel Insider, in 2008:

“In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document.”

At the waybackmachine here: israelinsider.com/Articles1/Politics/12939.htm

Here's one from Factcheck.org:

Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.

Link

And there are more at Factcheck confirming the seal should be raised.

LASTLY, regardless of what anonymous people posted online claiming were authentic Hawaiian birth certificates, I did my own research into not only what an authentic certified copy should look like...but into some of those people themselves.

They are not credible. THEY ARE THE SPREADERS OF FAKE NEWS. In fact, I personally asked one of those people who posted what she claimed to be her own Hawaiian birth certificate (that bore the same fraudulent debossed seal) if she would allow the Hawaii Department of Health to verify its authenticity for me...and she refused.

The stories behind the people who posted Hawaiian birth certificates online that 'corroborated' Obama's are the MOST INTERESTING part of the story. One worthy of its own dozen posts if anyone was actually interested in hearing the truth about the issue.

Obama, with the help of Fatcheck.org and some agent provocateurs online, defrauded the public. That is the truth.

But I am sure you still won't be able to believe your own eyes.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Also, I think it's great you are someone who was/is interested in this topic, even though you are on the side of the 'fake news' with it.

After you have digested what I have written above and at my post I linked to, please tell me what kind of evidence it would take for you to be convinced.

If CNN reported all that I just detailed, sourced, and proved...you would believe them.

I wrote the truth for you, so you don't believe it.

I honestly think that is THE only reason you don't believe your own eyes and, instead, have relied on 'fake news spreaders' -- anonymous people online -- who pretended they had Hawaiian birth certificates that look like Obama's.

Those people are not credible. You don't know them. You haven't authenticated any of those alleged birth certificates and you can't when compared to the HDOH's Regulations & Rules. And the facts show they are liars and disinfo agents. The agency's Regulations & Rules show they are liars.

They haven't shown you what an authentic Hawaii birth certificate looks like, you are just trusting that they have.