Real VS Fake News Checklist..

I'm not gonna get into anything political here..just post what should be obvious and common knowledge..

So in reality without any political bias.. how do we know what news organizations are "real" and which ones are "fake" news???


Well obviously you need accountability... So..

1) have they ever fired someone for publishing a fake or falsified story???

Any news organization that has never fired someone for publishing a fake story.. either isn't checking up on them, or doesn't care if they lie.. far more focused on traffic than accuracy....


2) do they have salaried teams of investigative journalists??

If not then how are they even breaking blockbuster stories???


3) Are they just a compilation site??

Compilation sites do not have teams of journalists researching stories. They copy paste MSM stories and put their own spin on them..

Which in most cases is just ridiculous..


How do you only have the data provided by the msm story, and yet literally come to the opposite conclusion??

They weren't the ones who interviewed the primaries or spent months researching the story...

They just read their article and rewrote it with their own personal spin..


So if a news source doesn't have those things...you can probably bet they are not a real news organization.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

I'm not gonna get into anything political here..just post what should be obvious and common knowledge..

So in reality without any political bias.. how do we know what news organizations are "real" and which ones are "fake" news???

Well obviously you need accountability... So..

1) have they ever fired someone for publishing a fake or falsified story???

Any news organization that has never fired someone for publishing a fake story.. either isn't checking up on them, or doesn't care if they lie.. far more focused on traffic than accuracy....

2) do they have salaried teams of investigative journalists??

If not then how are they even breaking blockbuster stories???

3) Are they just a compilation site??

Compilation sites do not have teams of journalists researching stories. They copy paste MSM stories and put their own spin on them..

Which in most cases is just ridiculous..

How do you only have the data provided by the msm story, and yet literally come to the opposite conclusion??

They weren't the ones who interviewed the primaries or spent months researching the story...

They just read their article and rewrote it with their own personal spin..

So if a news source doesn't have those things...you can probably bet they are not a real news organization.

There are websites that keep lists of "fake news" sources, too.

The thing is, most fake news is inflammatory. If you see an article that is gets you worked up, especially on Facebook, Twitter or World Weekly News type sites, go and find out if it's true. Cross check names, dates and even use Google Image Search to verify pictures.

... and use your brain. For example, if human remains of 24 people were found in barrels anywhere in the US, the news would be everywhere. If only one or two sites report it, even if they were MSM ones, it's worth investigating so you don't look like a fool.

That's the wonder of the internet. Anyone can research anything online if they maintain a healthy skepticism and a bit of tenacity.

I tend to skim an article first. I'm looking for words like racist, bigot, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, islamophobic, etc.

If I find any of those terms in the article, then odds are it's either fake news or a highly opinionated hit piece that isn't worth my time.

a reply to: Bone75

That's intelligent...

Listens to people who don't even have journalists insteadas long as they don't use certain words...

You truely do not know how ridiculous that is and sounds???

No matter the words..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Bone75

That's intelligent...

Listens to people who don't even have journalists insteadas long as they don't use certain words...

You truely do not know how ridiculous that is and sounds???

No matter the words..

Different strokes for different folks. Obviously I don't have as much time on my hands as you do.

a reply to: chr0naut

But it all starts somewhere... where that is matters if judging credibility..

Your criteria does not include CNN who are the biggest fake news site of all.
CNN money head has just instructed his entire organisation that 'Russia' stories must be run through him or the VP to check if they are fake or not. Seems they have finally got the message that their fake news is not going to be tolerated any more.

I am sure CNN main site and news service will follow suite soon - there are stories swirling that the board room has become split with some realising that their despicable behaviour in conning their readers and viewers over the last year has been devastating for them. They tried to take Trump down and he is beating them.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut

But it all starts somewhere...

What does?

Progressive enlightenment?

No thanks.

I'd rather remain somewhat sane.

a reply to: UKTruth

Go is CNN fake news compared to brietbart, drudge and newsmax when they don't even have journalists?!?!

They have commentators..

It is the craziest thing ever..

No news starts with them. All they do is copy past CNN's stories..

Has CNN done some shady stuff??

Absolutely!!

Have they done some good stuff?? Absolutely....


Either way brietbart and drudge are not running around researching stories and doing interviews..


They just copy paste stories from CNN and other sources after spinning them however they want..but how can they have the real story , when they weren't the ones who researched the story?!?!