People who hate right wing news sources and consider them fake

[veehro]

Bias news isn't fake news. Fake news is completely made up. Bias news is like MSNBC or CNN for the left or Fox for the right. You may not agree on their interpretation of the news but it's not fake.

So people at home reading that there is a mass shooting and that the attacker is armed with a gun despite the fact that the attacker is a person with a knife is not a FAKE news.
The fact that dozens of anti gun articles poped up in just the span of 10 seconds after the "news" was reported using the murder of innocents as justification is fine?
Where are the anti knife articles now?

Are we redefining the word "fake" now just because its the news papers you like and want to defend them?

This is not BIAS they completely twisted the reality. Its a fake news because they don't have any journalistic ethics and wait for the facts before reporting.
Last time i checked a journalist required two sources in order to verify a story, not an online tweet

[Xandrigity]

So people at home reading that there is a mass shooting and that the attacker is armed with a gun despite the fact that the attacker is a person with a knife is not a FAKE news.
The fact that dozens of anti gun articles poped up in just the span of 10 seconds after the "news" was reported using the murder of innocents as justification is fine?
Where are the anti knife articles now?

Are we redefining the word "fake" now just because its the news papers you like and want to defend them?

Fake, no. Incorrect yes. There still was an attack. The fact of the weapon is a lot less important than the fact that an attack occurred at all. It's no different than reporting the assailant was wearing army fatigues then later correct it to say he was wearing a black hoodie. Yes it's factually wrong, but not fake news. Fake news implies it was totally made up.

[Venant]

Bias' are a fixture at this point with our current 24/7 news cycles. With a general unwillingness in the media to care about most news they instead fill the time with opinions which of course always carry bias. It's not a giant conspiracy or anything, the media (all media) just embelishes or engages in hyberbole for money, they want clicks and eyeballs. If they have to put up a provacative headline or edit some quotes to do it they will. The bias just determines how they do it, not why, it would be a mistake to be tricked into thinking it's politics that drives the media's current obsession with clickbait journalism. It's only a distraction from how money and access obssessed the media has become.

You have to admit that the media has an agenda when it goes out of its way to cover when Russia blows up a hospital in Syria, yet practically ignores the entire bombardment of Yemen which has killed thousands of civilians. And after things went belly-up in Libya, the US media just completely forgot that the country existed, even though they were complicit in pushing public support for the 'no fly zone' that allowed terrorists to take over the country.

[Sinyc]

louderwithcrowder sounds like a fake news site.

No it sounds like an "unreputable" website/source. If you keep parroting the phrase "fake news" or "fake news site", it will lose all meaning and the entire point you tried to make gets drowned out in memes. See: Racism, sexism, (insert)phobia, etc.

[vindicatorx]

So my question to you is it ok when the mass media that has a progressive bias is doing it?

it's not who said it was? However there is a large difference to reporting facts that are aimed in a bias manner compared to completely making shit up. Like the article on The Blaze where they had information from an inside source that Obama was going to end Thanksgiving and call it minority day

Why use the death of innocent people to push your agenda, regardless if said agenda is justified or not

Using death to educate people or to being awareness of a problem is bad now? Nothing unifies people like a tragedy. I suppose you just want to ignore things and go on your merry way?

[Warbrin]

Just like with groups of people, I think you should avoid saying things like "ALL X group do, xyz" etc. Not ALL MSM is 100% propaganda all the time. Most of them are more concerned with $$$ than anything else. Although personally, I don't watch any of the news networks, I instead get news from NPR, BBC, and fact check sources on everything.

Just my opinion too, but from my experience:

MSNBC - Blatant liberal bias
CNN - liberal leaning, cares more about attention though
FOX - Blatant instruction to be conservative to the point of misleading

Like another poster said as well, the "fake news" everyone has been talking about are blatant fake news sites, as in making shit up for clickbait/ad revenue. The majority of the fake news was shown to be conservative biased, and in an NPR story one of the creators of a bunch of fake news websites said that conservatives just fall for it easier than liberals.

I can't post links yet, but top current result if you google "npr fake news" and starts with "We tracked down"

[xChurch]

You have to admit that the media has an agenda when it goes out of its way to cover when Russia blows up a hospital in Syria, yet practically ignores the entire bombardment of Yemen which has killed thousands of civilians. And after things went belly-up in Libya, the US media just completely forgot that the country existed, even though they were complicit in pushing public support for the 'no fly zone' that allowed terrorists to take over the country.

I really don't think their agenda is political though. There are still stories about Yemen and Libya but they aren't as prominent because I'd argue they just aren't worth it money wise. A story about Russia blowing up a hospital is big news because the Syria conflict is currently nearing it's conclusion so lots of people are interested. Where as in Libya and Yemen it's conflicts that have been dragging on for years with no clear good guys or bad guys and no clear path to victory for either side and no geo-poitical theather involved. It's not like Libya and Yemen were ignored when the events there were really heating up, it just got drawn out to long and got boring essentially.

[Lockon Stratos]

Fake News is just another talking point handed down by Obama's overlords, i.e George Soros and other leftist billionaires pulling the strings. It essentially means News that don't follow the official narrative.

The powers that be are trying to sell the gullible masses into the idea that the only real news is that which comes from corporate media sources, when in reality the true essence of journalism is liberty, anybody can be a journalist.

[kail]

The moment you think "hey, I agree/disagree with this news article!", you should consider if it's really news. The news isn't intended to be agreeable, that's what blogs are for.

News is supposed to simply display the who, what, when, where, how (and possibly why) on current events or relevant topics and back them with evidence and/or credible sources.

[veehro]

Fake News is just another talking point handed down by Obama's overlords, i.e George Soros and other leftist billionaires pulling the strings. It essentially means News that don't follow the official narrative.

The powers that be are trying to sell the gullible masses into the idea that the only real news is that which comes from corporate media sources, when in reality the true essence of journalism is liberty, anybody can be a journalist.

Pretty much this is the vibe I am getting. And this thread just confirms it to me.

Its how people make excuses for the progressive MM even in the face of facts and how they hold the right wing media in different regards instead of saying ALL MM is bad.

When you are breaking news reporting on a shooting then pouring out article after article on banning guns and how guns are responsbile for people deaths, you are missinforming the public.
The fact that I yet to see them appologising for this or at least not doing it in the future shows they just have an agenda.


The solution of banning right wing websites instead of making campaigns to teach people to think critcaly and question what they read and verify citations is even more concerning.

[Reyvah]

Pretty much this is the vibe I am getting. And this thread just confirms it to me.

Its how people make excuses for the progressive MM even in the face of facts and how they hold the right wing media in different regards instead of saying ALL MM is bad.

When you are breaking news reporting on a shooting then pouring out article after article on banning guns and how guns are responsbile for people deaths, you are missinforming the public.
The fact that I yet to see them appologising for this or at least not doing it in the future shows they just have an agenda.


The solution of banning right wing websites instead of making campaigns to teach people to think critcaly and question what they read and verify citations is even more concerning.

Veerho, it sounds like you have an agenda to demonize liberal media.
You're speaking in such sweeping generalizations (all mainstream media is bad), while you yourself are linking to a conservatively-slanted opinion podcast to bolster your own point of view.

The issue at hand is news articles that are verifiably purposefully fabricated. This is entirely different from a conservatively-slanted piece on Fox News. One is fiction, the other is opinionated. Nobody is seriously talking about banning Fox News. This debate is about things like publishing a story saying "Veehro, MMO-Champion User, Suspected of Running a Pedophile Gambling Ring Out of His Basement" which is ridiculously false and shouldn't be passed off as news.

If you've read the responses you've received, people have pointed to actual factual cases of news that was entirely fabricated. Here's an example for you to read and respond to:

News Title: FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide
Shared on Facebook 500,000+ times.
Published by "The Denver Guardian" (a fictional news site).
Quoted "Walkerville Police Chief Pat Fredrick" who is a fictional person, from a nonexistent town.
The address listed for the newsroom is "a tree in a parking lot next to a vacant bank building on Colfax".

Here's "The Denver Post" having to report that the "Denver Guardian" does not exist:
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/05...nver-guardian/

Here's "The Washington Post" discussing Macedonian teenagers writing complete made up news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rs-make-money/

Here's NPR discussing Jestin Coler who published blatantly false or fictional stories:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechc...in-the-suburbs

[LaserSharkDFB]

Fake News is just another talking point handed down by Obama's overlords, i.e George Soros and other leftist billionaires pulling the strings. It essentially means News that don't follow the official narrative.

The powers that be are trying to sell the gullible masses into the idea that the only real news is that which comes from corporate media sources, when in reality the true essence of journalism is liberty, anybody can be a journalist.

You are just wrong. Take a look at this link. Note the large number of sites designed to mimic other news (or news-adjacent) sites. Note the name Justin Coler, whose NPR interview has already been linked to. These are sites designed to give out fake news and make a profit thereof, making money off people's gullibility and biases.

This outrage you claim to feel is directly harming your own cause. You are feeding parasites and making your own party dumber than it already is by refusing to acknowledge this problem. Wake the fuck up.

[Prokne]

Fake News is just another talking point handed down by Obama's overlords, i.e George Soros and other leftist billionaires pulling the strings. It essentially means News that don't follow the official narrative.

The powers that be are trying to sell the gullible masses into the idea that the only real news is that which comes from corporate media sources, when in reality the true essence of journalism is liberty, anybody can be a journalist.

Fake news is stories made up out of nowhere with no actual truth in them. It can be in mainstream media like Fox News or MSNBC, but it is much more likely to be in an independent "news" organization. It is also more likely to be on the internet because it is cheap and easy to make up stories and post them to a webpage, but requires investment to have reporters doing investigation and paying for airtime.

There is non-news and ads in mainstream media, but it is easy to distinguish it from real news. Some sources and news organizations are more credible than others because they do better investigations. Some stories fall short of getting important information in them, but they are not fake, just not good. Still much better than totally made up news.

[Elegiac]

Probably because they are the most popular. And most blatenly biased. They can both report the exact same news story's and spin it two different ways. One more left one more right.

I watch BBC World sometimes, they are pretty middle of the road. Without as much opinion content which lends to bias interpretation.

You tend to find that with most public media outlets. It would be better for everyone if NPR was spun into something like the BBC.

[BourneWolf]

See my signature.

People who oppose at the very least centre right wing views tend to be youngsters who havn't had to work very hard in life.

Or public sector workers, who, yeah, let's face it, don't work very hard or efficiently compared to employed private sector workers.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably because they are the most popular. And most blatenly biased. They can both report the exact same news story's and spin it two different ways. One more left one more right.

I watch BBC World sometimes, they are pretty middle of the road. Without as much opinion content which lends to bias interpretation.

The BBC is having spouts of Left Wing spasms at the moment.

It's because they are pissed that Brexit is happening because they got large chunks of funding from the EU.

They'll stop with their Left Wing spasms when the UK Government starts funding them directly.

[Xandrigity]

You tend to find that with most public media outlets. It would be better for everyone if NPR was spun into something like the BBC.

Yea I wish there were more visible things like NPR and BBC. Perhaps it's just my cable networks limitations.

[veehro]

Veerho, it sounds like you have an agenda to demonize liberal media.
You're speaking in such sweeping generalizations (all mainstream media is bad

)

When ALL the members of a group behave in a certain way then a sweeping generelization is in order and it does not make my statement false.

So yes every single mainstream media outlet, in the west, no exceptions, have at one time or another posted blatant misinformation showing disregards to journalistic ethics. Either faking news outright, showing only one side of the story, having its reporters become political activists rather then journalists.
I am unable to find a single outlet that would be an exception to this.

,

while you yourself are linking to a conservatively-slanted opinion podcast to bolster your own point of view.

Yes lowder with crowder is guilty of doing this as well. he has missinformed about global worming, citing blogs and fake missinformation without verifying his own sources.

However in the article i did give you, you can go on twitter and CHECK this PARTICULAR story for yourself. See if the tweets he provides as evidence are real., check to see if the police confirmed that it was a knife attack and not a gun attack.

This is preciecely my point. people should learn to think for themselves rather then just pain "this outlet disagrees with my world view = bad" "this one agrees with my worldview = good" and "news sites some people deem fake should be banned"

I have nothing against publishing articles from MSNBC, or CNN if they hold up to scrutiny just like I would have nothing against publishing something from FOX NEWS if its sources hold up.

The issue at hand is news articles that are verifiably purposefully fabricated. This is entirely different from a conservatively-slanted piece on Fox News. One is fiction, the other is opinionated. Nobody is seriously talking about banning Fox News. This debate is about things like publishing a story saying "Veehro, MMO-Champion User, Suspected of Running a Pedophile Gambling Ring Out of His Basement" which is ridiculously false and shouldn't be passed off as news.

If that is the issue then it should not be the issue. missinformation is missinformation period. Just because some do it more subtly and others are more blatant does mean it should be ok. ALL the media should be held up to standards and a code of ethics if you hate fake news.
And the solution would be to raise awarness and educate people how to realize when some one is trying to missinform them, not to outright ban outlets that you disagree with.

If you've read the responses you've received, people have pointed to actual factual cases of news that was entirely fabricated. Here's an example for you to read and respond to:

News Title: FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide
Shared on Facebook 500,000+ times.
Published by "The Denver Guardian" (a fictional news site).
Quoted "Walkerville Police Chief Pat Fredrick" who is a fictional person, from a nonexistent town.
The address listed for the newsroom is "a tree in a parking lot next to a vacant bank building on Colfax".

Here's "The Denver Post" having to report that the "Denver Guardian" does not exist:
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/05...nver-guardian/

Here's "The Washington Post" discussing Macedonian teenagers writing complete made up news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rs-make-money/

Here's NPR discussing Jestin Coler who published blatantly false or fictional stories:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechc...in-the-suburbs

And how exactly is this contradicting what i said that ALL news outlets are missinforming people?

I can also point out to Breitbart reporting about a german girl who was raped by muslim refugees and it turns out it was a hoax.
I can point out to rolling stones ruining the lives of students that were at a fraternity who got vandalized because of their fake rape accusations
I can point out to the fake articles released by New York time saying trump has a 5% chance of winning probably convincing a good portion of the population to stay at home instead of going out to vote.
Heck the new york times themselves admited they need to have more fact checks and more accurate news coverege after the ellection admiting that this was not the standard untill recently.


Should I go on? Missinformation is Missinformation and when the media does it it affects real people who often act on the fake version of reality that they are presented.
It does not matter if its the left or the right doing it, the consequences are bad regardless.

[Zomis]

My position is that in 2016 ALL the mass media is just propaganda. If they do not out right lie to you, then they try to manipulate you by presenting just one half of the story.
So i was surprised when people complained that only conservative outlets give fake stories and I even heard that they should either out right be banned or google should remove these websites out of its algorythm
Because the obvious answer to cure a fake news epidemic would be to teach people to be more skeptical and think for themselves rather then outright censorship or shadowbaning.

So my question to you is it ok when the mass media that has a progressive bias is doing it?

Why use the death of innocent people to push your agenda, regardless if said agenda is justified or not

http://louderwithcrowder.com/fake-ne...ia-ohio-state/

100% of the left leaning news sites are gospel, 100% of the right leaning sites are fake.

[Xandrigity]

I wish the was a reuters network, or is there?

[Garnier Fructis]

100% of the left leaning news sites are gospel, 100% of the right leaning sites are fake.

It's pretty fucking weak when people simply straw-man like this.