Jump to content

Fake news...a warning.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

20 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I'm glad that joke didn't go over your head...like most other things.

:sips coffee...winces...stares awkwardly off camera:

Nah, I'm still here.  

What's most troubling about you trout is your Human trust side. You and I've met, you know I'm 5'7 180lbs and no where near the caricature that you put out to the board. In fact, you go as so far to make fun that I've lost an eye. What kind of sickness is that? So to be little(see what I did there) you try to forward a lie, a false narrative, even while you ***** about media bias and faux narratives. You are really an odd chap. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

What's most troubling about you trout is your Human trust side. You and I've met, you know I'm 5'7 180lbs and no where near the caricature that you put out to the board. In fact, you go as so far to make fun that I've lost an eye. What kind of sickness is that? So to be little(see what I did there) you try to forward a lie, a false narrative, even while you ***** about media bias and faux narratives. You are really an odd chap. 

:lol:

Poor little thin-skinned hypocrite.  I just feel awful about your hurt feelings.

Of course, you made fun of a grieving family who lost their son in the war.  You made fun of Joe Biden's son dying from cancer. Back when you were lying about not being Snake, you spouted all kinds of lies about me personally and my profession.  You made fun of HolyMoses' family situation.  You've mocked and attacked an entire religion countless times, even calling Muhammed a "pedophile".  You lied about mountain climbing heroics and then ran away when the true story got told on the boards.  

You spout all kinds of false narratives about yourself, about others on the boards, and you have attacked people's suffering and personal hardships.  And now you whine about some personal digs.

Why would you act like a complete liar, hypocrite, and terrible human being?  To paraphrase your crappy business video..."because you're...YOU!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

"Your response to my right-wing biased website that has published outright falsehoods is a fact-checker?  Bwahahahahahaha!!!  Stupid libs and their facts and checking of facts."

Moron.

He actually has a good point.  Politifact is well known to have an egregiously different result for Republicans than Democrats.  From Wiki:

"Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings[edit]

University of Minnesota political science professor Eric Ostermeier did an analysis of 511 selected PolitiFact stories issued from January 2010 through January 2011, stating that "PolitiFact has generally devoted an equal amount of time analyzing Republicans (191 statements, 50.4 percent) as they have Democrats (179 stories, 47.2 percent)". Republican officeholders were considered by Politifact to have made substantially more "false" or "pants on fire" statements than their Democratic counterparts. Of 98 statements PolitiFact judged "false" or "pants on fire" from partisan political figures, 74 came from Republicans (76 percent) compared to 22 from Democrats (22 percent) during the selected period reviewed. Ostermeier concluded "By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting — and the game is elephants."[30] The study was criticized by PolitiFact editor Bill Adair and the MinnPost, with Adair responding, "Eric Ostermeier's study is particularly timely because we've heard a lot of charges this week that we are biased—from liberals […] So we're accustomed to hearing strong reactions from people on both ends of the political spectrum. We are a news organization and we choose which facts to check based on news judgment."[31]

A writer with the left-leaning magazine The Nation argued that findings like this are a reflection of "fact-checkers simply doing their job […] Republicans today just happen to be more egregiously wrong".[32] A writer with the right-leaning Human Events claimed that after looking at Politifact's work on a case-by-case basis a pattern emerged whereby Politifact critiqued straw man claims; that is, "dismissed the speaker’s claim, made up a different claim and checked that instead". The conservative magazine noted Politifact's use of language such as "[although the speaker] used [a specific] phrase […] in his claim, [it] could fairly be interpreted to mean [something more general that is false]". Human Events cited Bryan White's PolitiFactBias blog to state that "from the end of that partnership [with the Congressional Quarterly] to the end of 2011, the national PolitiFact operation has issued 119 Pants on Fire ratings for Republican or conservative claims, and only 13 for liberal or Democratic claims".[33]"

"Fact checker" is only helpful if we all agree on what are "facts" and "checking."  Politifact is the same organization that rated Clinton's claim that she never sent classified e-mails as "half-true," then when Comey's investigation showed she did, in fact, send classified e-mails via her personal e-mail server, KEPT the rating at "half-true," with the justification that they rate claims "based on when a statement was made and on the information available at that time."  

Well, that's convenient, since Clinton actually knew the claim was false when she made it.  It's not as if the FBI investigation suddenly revealed to her it was false, and so her fudging was "half-true" at the time based on the "information available at the time" to her.  No, it was false at the time she said it, and she was in the best position to know it was false when she said it.  Politifact gives her the benefit of the doubt as to a claim where the best information as to the truth or falsity of the claim was in her own head, since she's the one who sent the e-mails.

Sorry -- I don't put an ounce of stock in anything they say either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

:lol:

Poor little thin-skinned hypocrite.  I just feel awful about your hurt feelings.

Of course, you made fun of a grieving family who lost their son in the war.  You made fun of Joe Biden's son dying from cancer. Back when you were lying about not being Snake, you spouted all kinds of lies about me personally and my profession.  You made fun of HolyMoses' family situation.  You've mocked and attacked an entire religion countless times, even calling Muhammed a "pedophile".  You lied about mountain climbing heroics and then ran away when the true story got told on the boards.  

You spout all kinds of false narratives about yourself, about others on the boards, and you have attacked people's suffering and personal hardships.  And now you whine about some personal digs.

Why would you act like a complete liar, hypocrite, and terrible human being?  To paraphrase your crappy business video..."because you're...YOU!"

Ah, trout, you seem to be making all kinds of Nonsense out of your faulty behavior. The innuendo you've espoused here is to misdirect your own misdeeds. That's on you dude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

He actually has a good point.  Politifact is well known to have an egregiously different result for Republicans than Democrats.  From Wiki:

"Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings[edit]

University of Minnesota political science professor Eric Ostermeier did an analysis of 511 selected PolitiFact stories issued from January 2010 through January 2011, stating that "PolitiFact has generally devoted an equal amount of time analyzing Republicans (191 statements, 50.4 percent) as they have Democrats (179 stories, 47.2 percent)". Republican officeholders were considered by Politifact to have made substantially more "false" or "pants on fire" statements than their Democratic counterparts. Of 98 statements PolitiFact judged "false" or "pants on fire" from partisan political figures, 74 came from Republicans (76 percent) compared to 22 from Democrats (22 percent) during the selected period reviewed. Ostermeier concluded "By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting — and the game is elephants."[30] The study was criticized by PolitiFact editor Bill Adair and the MinnPost, with Adair responding, "Eric Ostermeier's study is particularly timely because we've heard a lot of charges this week that we are biased—from liberals […] So we're accustomed to hearing strong reactions from people on both ends of the political spectrum. We are a news organization and we choose which facts to check based on news judgment."[31]

A writer with the left-leaning magazine The Nation argued that findings like this are a reflection of "fact-checkers simply doing their job […] Republicans today just happen to be more egregiously wrong".[32] A writer with the right-leaning Human Events claimed that after looking at Politifact's work on a case-by-case basis a pattern emerged whereby Politifact critiqued straw man claims; that is, "dismissed the speaker’s claim, made up a different claim and checked that instead". The conservative magazine noted Politifact's use of language such as "[although the speaker] used [a specific] phrase […] in his claim, [it] could fairly be interpreted to mean [something more general that is false]". Human Events cited Bryan White's PolitiFactBias blog to state that "from the end of that partnership [with the Congressional Quarterly] to the end of 2011, the national PolitiFact operation has issued 119 Pants on Fire ratings for Republican or conservative claims, and only 13 for liberal or Democratic claims".[33]"

"Fact checker" is only helpful if we all agree on what are "facts" and "checking."  Politifact is the same organization that rated Clinton's claim that she never sent classified e-mails as "half-true," then when Comey's investigation showed she did, in fact, send classified e-mails via her personal e-mail server, KEPT the rating at "half-true," with the justification that they rate claims "based on when a statement was made and on the information available at that time."  

Well, that's convenient, since Clinton actually knew the claim was false when she made it.  It's not as if the FBI investigation suddenly revealed to her it was false, and so her fudging was "half-true" at the time based on the "information available at the time" to her.  No, it was false at the time she said it, and she was in the best position to know it was false when she said it.  Politifact gives her the benefit of the doubt as to a claim where the best information as to the truth or falsity of the claim was in her own head, since she's the one who sent the e-mails.

Sorry -- I don't put an ounce of stock in anything they say either. 

Again, here's the problem with false equivalency.  You take an outright biased source that is refuted by Politifact, and draw an equivalency to Politifact based on your exaggerated (and sometimes false) claims of bias by PolitFact regarding the Comey investigation.

Here's the actual timeline of the classified email story:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/clinton-email-half-true/

This is their archived story.  They "kept" the half true rating on the original, archived story but within TWO DAYS they had written a new factcheck for her claim that they rated as false.  They archived the old story and linked to the new "false" rating...within TWO DAYS.  And in the original story, they explain that the "half true" was based on the "impression" her comments left:

"One of the principles of PolitiFact is not only to judge the facts behind a claim, but to investigate whether a statement leaves a particular impression that may be misleading."  So they apply the "impression that may be misleading" principle to Clinton in rating her comments half-true before the Comey testimony.  The "impression" principle was not applied selectively in this situation...it was used to cast doubt on Clinton's comment, not to bolster or somehow support her.

Two days after the Comey testimony, they updated their fact check to the following:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/

The information about the classified markings in the email was NOT public information before July 5th.  PolitiFact had no way of knowing there were "(c)" markers on three of those emails until Comey released that information.  And again, within two days of the new information being public, they wrote a new fact-check rating her claim "false", they acknowledged their previous "half-true" article, and said that the previous rating was based on information available at that time.  

So your claim that they "kept" the half-true rating is false.  They replaced the original one with updated information within TWO DAYS of receiving information from Comey, rating her comment as "false" based on the new information.

They had no way of knowing there were classified markings on three emails until Comey's testimony.  So the "half-true" at the time was exactly right.  And them immediately updating the rating with an entirely new write-up that was very critical of Clinton in light of new information was the right thing to do.  I don't know how you think that is "bias" or "false".  

What you did was made false claims against PolitiFact in how they handled this, apparently without actually reading PolitiFact's own websites and looking at the timeline yourself.  You exaggerated their handling of this situation and use that to draw a sweeping (and false) conclusion that "I don't put an ounce of stock in anything they say either"...implying that they somehow made up things or skewed their analysis in a way that was favorable to Clinton.  Nothing in the facts here supports your sweeping claim about them.  And your criticism of them regarding the Clinton email story isn't supported by the actual facts surrounding their updating of the fact-check and rating.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Again, here's the problem with false equivalency.  You take an outright biased source that is refuted by Politifact, and draw an equivalency to Politifact based on your exaggerated (and sometimes false) claims of bias by PolitFact regarding the Comey investigation.

Here's the actual timeline of the classified email story:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/clinton-email-half-true/

This is their archived story.  They "kept" the half true rating on the original, archived story but within TWO DAYS they had written a new factcheck for her claim that they rated as false.  They archived the old story and linked to the new "false" rating...within TWO DAYS.  And in the original story, they explain that the "half true" was based on the "impression" her comments left:

"One of the principles of PolitiFact is not only to judge the facts behind a claim, but to investigate whether a statement leaves a particular impression that may be misleading."  So they apply the "impression that may be misleading" principle to Clinton in rating her comments half-true before the Comey testimony.  The "impression" principle was not applied selectively in this situation...it was used to cast doubt on Clinton's comment, not to bolster or somehow support her.

Two days after the Comey testimony, they updated their fact check to the following:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/

The information about the classified markings in the email was NOT public information before July 5th.  PolitiFact had no way of knowing there were "(c)" markers on three of those emails until Comey released that information.  And again, within two days of the new information being public, they wrote a new fact-check rating her claim "false", they acknowledged their previous "half-true" article, and said that the previous rating was based on information available at that time.  

So your claim that they "kept" the half-true rating is false.  They replaced the original one with updated information within TWO DAYS of receiving information from Comey, rating her comment as "false" based on the new information.

They had no way of knowing there were classified markings on three emails until Comey's testimony.  So the "half-true" at the time was exactly right.  And them immediately updating the rating with an entirely new write-up that was very critical of Clinton in light of new information was the right thing to do.  I don't know how you think that is "bias" or "false".  

What you did was made false claims against PolitiFact in how they handled this, apparently without actually reading PolitiFact's own websites and looking at the timeline yourself.  You exaggerated their handling of this situation and use that to draw a sweeping (and false) conclusion that "I don't put an ounce of stock in anything they say either"...implying that they somehow made up things or skewed their analysis in a way that was favorable to Clinton.  Nothing in the facts here supports your sweeping claim about them.  And your criticism of them regarding the Clinton email story isn't supported by the actual facts surrounding their updating of the fact-check and rating.  

Assuming all of that is accurate (and I do not have time to go traipsing through PolitiFact's archives), that still doesn't explain the gross disparity between their treatment of Republican statements versus Democrat statements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

Assuming all of that is accurate (and I do not have time to go traipsing through PolitiFact's archives), that still doesn't explain the gross disparity between their treatment of Republican statements versus Democrat statements.

If you don't have time to go "traipsing" through their archives, then how did you "know" all that stuff about their fact check of Clinton's claims?  It took me about 5 minutes to track all of that down myself.  

But again, this points out a huge problem with these discussions.  You make these sweeping claims about media bias that are not supported by the facts.  And you use those sweeping (and largely unsupported) claims to draw false equivalencies between media outlets that are overwhelmingly accurate but sometimes make errors (even egregious ones) and actually biased or fake news sites that have long histories of posting false information.  

"I don't put an ounce of stock in anything PolitiFact says"...because this one time you think they did this thing that they actually didn't do.  So Flip Flop makes a good point when he says that we can't trust PolitiFact's rating of a prominent Breitbart story because PolitiFact did this thing that they actually didn't do.  That's the false equivalency that I keep pointing out.

And even supposing the claim about them covering more stories about Republican lies than Democratic lies is evidence of biased selection of stories, how does that make their fact-checks factually untrue?  As the Wikipedia article itself explained, there are lots of explanations why that would be the case other than bias.  But bias in selection of stories doesn't mean that they are wrong that Breitbart's story is false.  

So you're right, we DO need to agree on what the facts are.  Exaggerated accusations based on a unfounded sense that both sides must be equally bad, which inevitably leads to false equivalencies like you made regarding PolitiFact, doesn't help us reach that goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

Having Met you in person, I'd suggest you stick to your keyboard champion status. You'd fair here worse then your political predictions. 

 

1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

More lame personal BS. Stick to your keyboard internet tough guy. 

 HOW IS THERE A PERSON ON THIS PLANET THAT IS THIS DUMB. 

 

HOW. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Also, "false equivalency" is getting tired.  It doesn't even apply to this situation.  I drew no equivalency, and therefore could not have drawn a false one.

Find another go-to line.

Then stop engaging in them.  

And yes, you were drawing a false equivalency.  We were discussing Breitbart.  I posted a PolitiFact article debunking one of their stories.  Flip Flop responded by laughing at PolitiFact and I mocked him for dismissing facts and evidence.  You stepped in claiming that you "don't put an ounce of stock in anything they say EITHER"...a comparison to Breitbart.  By claiming that you don't put stock in ANYTHING they say, you are making the false equivalency that PolitiFact is just as unreliable, biased, false, or whatever as Breitbart.  

And you made the assertion that you don't believe ANYTHING that PolitiFact says based on a factually incorrect claim regarding their handling of the Clinton email story.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

If you don't have time to go "traipsing" through their archives, then how did you "know" all that stuff about their fact check of Clinton's claims?  It took me about 5 minutes to track all of that down myself.  

But again, this points out a huge problem with these discussions.  You make these sweeping claims about media bias that are not supported by the facts.  And you use those sweeping (and largely unsupported) claims to draw false equivalencies between media outlets that are overwhelmingly accurate but sometimes make errors (even egregious ones) and actually biased or fake news sites that have long histories of posting false information.  

"I don't put an ounce of stock in anything PolitiFact says"...because this one time you think they did this thing that they actually didn't do.  So Flip Flop makes a good point when he says that we can't trust PolitiFact's rating of a prominent Breitbart story because PolitiFact did this thing that they actually didn't do.  That's the false equivalency that I keep pointing out.

And even supposing the claim about them covering more stories about Republican lies than Democratic lies is evidence of biased selection of stories, how does that make their fact-checks factually untrue?  As the Wikipedia article itself explained, there are lots of explanations why that would be the case other than bias.  But bias in selection of stories doesn't mean that they are wrong that Breitbart's story is false.  

So you're right, we DO need to agree on what the facts are.  Exaggerated accusations based on a unfounded sense that both sides must be equally bad, which inevitably leads to false equivalencies like you made regarding PolitiFact, doesn't help us reach that goal.

That's not what "false equivalency" means.

It's getting old.

The problem with the gross disparity between Republican and Democrat claims is it can only reasonably be explained one of three ways:

1)  Republicans really do lie literally all the time and Democrats so seldom lie that PolitiFact barely registers them as such.

2)  PolitiFact rates Republicans more harshly than Democrats; or

3)  PolitiFact cherry picks "facts" to "check" in such a way that Republican false claims are chosen more often than Democrat false claims.

If you want to suggest option 1 is the most reasonable, heave to and have at it.  I think that's by far the most ridiculous option.

3 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Then stop engaging in them.  

And yes, you were drawing a false equivalency.  We were discussing Breitbart.  I posted a PolitiFact article debunking one of their stories.  Flip Flop responded by laughing at PolitiFact and I mocked him for dismissing facts and evidence.  You stepped in claiming that you "don't put an ounce of stock in anything they say EITHER"...a comparison to Breitbart.  By claiming that you don't put stock in ANYTHING they say, you are making the false equivalency that PolitiFact is just as unreliable, biased, false, or whatever as Breitbart.  

And you made that claim that you don't believe ANYTHING that PolitiFact says based on a factually incorrect claim regarding their handling of the Clinton email story.  

I didn't mention Breitbart at all.  I didn't draw an equivalence between Breitbart and PolitiFact.  And I mentioned the Clinton issue in passing -- the bigger issue is actual studies have been done on PolitiFact's accuracy and they have been found wanting.  There is a clear bias in favor of Democrats and against Republicans.

Find another line.  This one is the new "neocon" (or "white nationalist").

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

That's not what "false equivalency" means.

It's getting old.

The problem with the gross disparity between Republican and Democrat claims is it can only reasonably be explained one of three ways:

1)  Republicans really do lie literally all the time and Democrats so seldom lie that PolitiFact barely registers them as such.

2)  PolitiFact rates Republicans more harshly than Democrats; or

3)  PolitiFact cherry picks "facts" to "check" in such a way that Republican false claims are chosen more often than Democrat false claims.

If you want to suggest option 1 is the most reasonable, heave to and have at it.  I think that's by far the most ridiculous option.

I didn't mention Breitbart at all.  I didn't draw an equivalence between Breitbart and PolitiFact.  And I mentioned the Clinton issue in passing -- the bigger issue is actual studies have been done on PolitiFact's accuracy and they have been found wanting.  There is a clear bias in favor of Democrats and against Republicans.

Find another line.  This one is the new "neocon" (or "white nationalist").

First, "in passing"?  You wrote two paragraphs about it and it was your only evidence that they manipulated their fact-checks.  You have spent more time talking about that false claim than it would have taken to verify that your claim was, in fact, false.  And it was the prelude to your sweeping conclusion that you don't "put an ounce of stock in ANYTHING they say".

Second, all of the fact-checkers have more lies from Trump than Clinton this year.  That's because Trump has lied several times more than Clinton did.  Should the fact-checkers ignore that and strive for a false sense of equality?  Of the three situations you mentioned, we have evidence that Republicans have, in fact, spread more lies than Democrats.  You have presented no evidence to support 2) or 3), and the only claim you made about them was false.  They handled the Clinton email story exactly as they should have.  Moreover, even if they select more Republican lies to cover than Democratic ones, it doesn't make their fact-checks false or manipulated.  You want to dismiss EVERYTHING they report as suspect...and your basis for that is a false claim about their handling of the Clinton story and some unsubstantiated speculation about possible cherry picking by them that you haven't bothered to demonstrate.  

Third, "I didn't mention Breitbart at all."  You entered into a thread about fake news, inserted yourself into a discussion about Breitbart, and made a sweeping claim about a reputable fact-checker that you don't believe ANYTHING they say...just like the fake news and biased sites like Breitbart.  You didn't say "PolitiFact is just as bad as Breitbart".  But you did say that NOTHING PolitiFact says is trustworthy...just like the fake news and biased sites like Breitbart that we were discussing.  You were saying that PolitiFact is just as untrustworthy as the sources we were discussing in this thread.   Edit: That's an equivalency.  And it is false.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Russian Agents Are Not Behind Every Piece of Fake News You See - Fortune (link)

~~~~~~~

Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group - The Intercept (link)

~~~~~~~

The 'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting - Rolling Stone (link)

The capital's paper of record crashes legacy media on an iceberg

~~~~~~~

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Worzone said:

Real News

"Active shooter at OSU"

 hour later

"Active shooter ran people over with a car and stabbed them with a machete"

 

"Fake news"

Terrorist drives car into students and hacks them with a machete"

I wonder why "Real" news keeps using active shooter... well some of them have stopped now cause "shooter" is bogus  and never happened but hey whatever fits your narrative cause real news dont try and make news fit their agenda hyuk, this koolaid is good, whats in it?

Can you provide an example of a news outlet using the headline:

"Active shooter ran people over with a car and stabbed them with a machete."

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2016

The Fog of Fog

I woke up grumpy this morning, mulling over the "fake news" controversy, realizing that after the Iraq war and several other examples of reporting on happenings in far away places, I basically don't trust any of it. I don't just mean healthy skepticism, I mean there are moments when I wonder if people who write for newspapers read their own newspapers. Reporting seems too often to take on the form of telephone, with reports of reports of reports of reports. It's all colored by whatever US policy happens to be at the time, and it gets really confusing when our policy is confused and nobody knows exactly who "our b-stards" are that week. Was that our #2 who just got whacked or theirs? Does it matter?

And rarely is the question asked: people all over the place seem to be really good at blowing each other up, sometimes with sophisticated and expensive weapons? All the blown up people, where do they all come from?

The only solution to a fire is to claim that it's twice as big as it is and then demand we pour gasoline on it to ensure it is so.

And I don't even know why. I'll get emails as I always do when I raise this question - oil! arms dealers need money! - but it isn't just one cause. I don't believe the random ******* congressman from Texas and the current POTUS and the head of the oil company and the head of Arms Dealer, Inc., and various "think tanks" and the generals and the national security "community" and the Washington Post editorial board and "liberal hawks" all want to go blow **** up on a regular basis and start wars everywhere for precisely the same reasons. All these people come together to make it happen, of course, but that doesn't mean they're all motivated by the same reasons. Christian apocalyptic messianism for some, sweet sweet cash for others! 

I just know that when all of the serious people start nodding in unison that something needs to be done, therefore we must do something, and there's only one thing to be done. A country whose soon to be controlling political party thinks taking in even one refugee is unpossible isn't much interested in humanitarian intervention, or humanitarianism at all. Still we must do something because reasons.

~~~~~~~

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2016

The War On Fake News

From the email forwards your crazy uncle used to send you to facebook shares, horse**** masquerading as fact has long been a problem. Snopes (imperfect and in the old days they seemed to have a bit of a thumb on the scales in favor of conservative horse****, but reasonably good) has been around a long time for this reason.

But big media outlets believe they are not the primary transmitters of horse****, even when they are, and are thrilled at the thought that they can monopolize the linkbait and shut out smaller independent sites.

If anyone cared about this little blue lemonade stand, I'm sure it'd be on a "fake news" list. I don't use facebook (or anything else really) to promote it, but if I did I'd probably get annoyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Worzone said:

Real News

"Active shooter at OSU"

 hour later

"Active shooter ran people over with a car and stabbed them with a machete"

 

"Fake news"

Terrorist drives car into students and hacks them with a machete"

I wonder why "Real" news keeps using active shooter... well some of them have stopped now cause "shooter" is bogus  and never happened but hey whatever fits your narrative cause real news dont try and make news fit their agenda hyuk, this koolaid is good, whats in it?

Fake News, active shooter

Real News, A man ran over people with his car and stabbed them with machete.

Fake News, our agenda is to keep reporting active shooter so we can push the gun control narrative

Screen-Shot-2016-11-29-at-10.09.26-AM.pn

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Can you provide an example of a news outlet using the headline:

"Active shooter ran people over with a car and stabbed them with a machete."

Thanks.

Same question for you WFW...

39 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Fake News, active shooter

Real News, A man ran over people with his car and stabbed them with machete.

Fake News, our agenda is to keep reporting active shooter so we can push the gun control narrative

Screen-Shot-2016-11-29-at-10.09.26-AM.pn

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...