The 4 Kinds of Fake News

[nextormento]

I think the conflation is somewhat as intended. I sincerely doubt Pizzagate swayed rustbell voters that Clinton was not their candidate.

Pardon me if perhaps I am reading into it, but to the lay person, is now the implication of "Fake News," that "That negative stuff you heard about Clinton, that was fake news!" an example given is Pizzagate, but the implication at least by omission is that it was everything negative or anything negative in particular.

I mean, sure, go for that interpretation. I'm inclined to agree, but only so far as framing the entire thing as more clickbait.
However, if there is some cabal out there, planing on overturning power, that's exactly what they'd want us to believe. They'd want you turn against media -all of it- and live in a world of distrust. They'd want you to believe the media is the cabal.

Conspiracies only gets us so far. Where's the money?.
Suppression of wrong-think doesn't strike me as a lucrative venture. Maybe some reporters are surprised that calling Trump names doesn't work: it only gives more publicity. But I don't see any reason why the MSM companies should care one bit: the readers wanted, clicked into, that bloody mess, and they simply kept producing.
Neither do I see value to the idea that they're sill upset abut some anointed one, and throwing a smoke screen over their supposed failure to make her queen. Why would they care one bit?. If anything, having a degenerate in office enables them to keep churning hit piece after hit piece.
I suppose a protection of their business strategy -clickbait- by blaming those other dirty sources, and acting as gatekeepers or kingmakers for emerging outlets, is a more credible framing.

Whatever the case may be, we should know that distrusting the yellow press resulted in citizen request for a right to privacy at the cost of free speech. This particular is still a bit of a thing through Europe. And it was a major upset in the US when media cried for Gawker, while simultaneously purported defenders of free speech watched it burn with glee. I suspect a bit of introspection should follow.

[Theodarzna]

I mean, sure, go for that interpretation.
However, if there is some cabal out there, planing on overturning power, that's exactly what they'd want you to believe. They'd want you turn against media -all of it- and live in a world of distrust. They'd want you to believe the media is the cabal.

Conspiracies only get you so far. Where's the money?.
Suppression of wrong-think doesn't strike me as a lucrative venture. Maybe some reporters are surprised that calling Trump names doesn't work: it only gives more publicity. But I don't see any reason why the MSM companies should care one bit: the readers wanted, clicked into, that bloody mess, and they simply kept producing.
Neither do I see value to the idea that they're sill upset abut some anointed one, and throwing a smoke screen over their supposed failure to make her queen. Why would they care one bit?. If anything, having a degenerate in office enables them to keep churning hit piece after hit piece.
I suppose a protection of their business strategy -clickbait- by blaming those other dirty sources is a more credible framing.

Whatever the case may be, we should know that distrusting the yellow press resulted in citizen request for a right to privacy at the cost of free speech. This particular is still a bit of a thing through Europe. And it was a major upset in the US when media cried for Gawker, while simultaneously purported defenders of free speech watched it burn with glee. I suspect a bit of introspection should follow.

Well, as Mason said to Dixon, you have to draw a line somewhere.

Distrust does not come from nowhere however, the public trust in the media is very low and there are ample examples of why its credibility is shot.

The Necessity of Credibility: Ridding ourselves of fake news requires having media outlets that are actually worth listening to…

Despite having decisively won the presidential election by the only measure that counts, the Electoral College, Donald Trump recently decided to call the legitimacy of the entire process into question. “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” Trump tweeted.

There was instant widespread condemnation of Trump. The New York Times ran a headline declaring that Trump’s claim had “no evidence.” ABC News declared it “baseless,” NPR went with “unfounded.” Politico called it a “fringe conspiracy theory.” Those news outlets whose headlines about the tweet did not contain the word “false” were criticized for failing their responsibility to exercise journalistic scrutiny.

The Washington Post swiftly sicced its top fact-checker on Trump. Glenn Kessler denounced Trump’s “bogus claim.” Kessler gave Trump a lecture on the importance of credibility, writing that since Trump was now “on the verge of becoming president, he needs to be more careful about making wild allegations with little basis in fact, especially if the claim emerged from a handful of tweets and conspiracy-minded websites.” Should Trump persist in wildly distorting the truth, he “will quickly find that such statements will undermine his authority on other matters.”

The media demanded to know where Trump had come up with such a ridiculous notion. The day after the tweet, Trump spokesman Jason Miller was asked by NPR whether there was any evidence to support the idea that millions of people had voted illegally. But surprisingly enough, Miller did have a source: The Washington Post.

In 2014, under the headline “Could non-citizens decide the November election?” the Post had run a piece from two social scientists, Jesse Richman and David Earnest, suggesting that illegal voting by non-citizens could be regularly occurring, and could even be prevalent enough to tip elections. As they wrote:

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Richman and Earnest’s thesis was extremely controversial, and was so heavily criticized that the Post ultimately published a note preceding the article, pointing out that many objections to the work had been made. But the Post never actually retracted or withdrew the piece. It was ironic, then, that when Trump tweeted about millions of illegal voters, the Washington Post’s fact-checker chastised him for relying on “conspiracy-minded websites.” After all, the conspiracy-minded website in question was the Post itself.

After Trump’s spokesman pointed out that the tweet was consistent with assertions from the Washington Post’s own website, the newspaper’s fact-checking department became extremely defensive. They awarded Miller’s statement an additional “four Pinnochios.” Without actually linking to the Post’s original article about voting by non-citizens, fact-checker Michelle Yee Hee Lee tried to claim that the study wasn’t really in the Washington Post. Instead, she said, it: “was published two years ago in the Monkey Cage, a political-science blog hosted by The Washington Post. (Note to Trump’s staff members: This means you can’t say The Washington Post reported this information; you have to cite the Monkey Cage blog.)”

(Source)

While I can see your point, I think your too quick on the conspiracy theorist draw. I am not wagering much of an explanation or even a cabal explanation. Just that something disingenuous or inauthentic seems to be afoot.

Its akin to that weird event after the Zoey Quinn / "GamerGate," thing became a thing. All the major gaming news websites ran thematically the same exact article all in a 24 hour period. Now nobody, I think, can say that one caused the other or a decision was made. But it was revealed that these journalists talked to one another and leaks revealed they were talking about just this incident.

In that same way it seems rather suspicious that "Fake News," for awhile became THE story and THE explanation for Hillary's undoing. Of course now its Russian spies and Russian agents and Russian hackers and the Kremlin, but still.

[Endus]

I mean, sure, go for that interpretation.
However, if there is some cabal out there, planing on overturning power, that's exactly what they'd want you to believe. They'd want you turn against media -all of it- and live in a world of distrust. They'd want you to believe the media is the cabal.

Conspiracies only gets us so far. Where's the money?.
Suppression of wrong-think doesn't strike me as a lucrative venture. Maybe some reporters are surprised that calling Trump names doesn't work: it only gives more publicity. But I don't see any reason why the MSM companies should care one bit: the readers wanted, clicked into, that bloody mess, and they simply kept producing.
Neither do I see value to the idea that they're sill upset abut some anointed one, and throwing a smoke screen over their supposed failure to make her queen. Why would they care one bit?. If anything, having a degenerate in office enables them to keep churning hit piece after hit piece.
I suppose a protection of their business strategy -clickbait- by blaming those other dirty sources is a more credible framing.

Whatever the case may be, we should know that distrusting the yellow press resulted in citizen request for a right to privacy at the cost of free speech. This particular is still a bit of a thing through Europe. And it was a major upset in the US when media cried for Gawker, while simultaneously purported defenders of free speech watched it burn with glee. I suspect a bit of introspection should follow.

I think there's an easier way to handle all this, and one that gets straight to the financial bottom lines, too. We even have the framework in place. A tweak to existing libel/slander laws, reframing their principles for the digital era, could resolve this pretty handily;

1> Reaffirm the line between statements of opinion and fact, such that no "opinion" on factual matters amounts to "opinion" (for instance, "Hillary is a criminal" would be actionable slander/libel, as there is no evidence to back that assertion, but "Hillary's policies will ruin the nation" would be opinion, because you're not misrepresenting facts in stating it).

2> Establish a standard under which courts can subpoena user information from websites for the purpose of identifying the accused, where the claim's been found to have merit (so the judge has decided that yeah, it looks like libel/slander, before it goes this far, so it's not used just to flood websites with requests).

3> Go back through decades of precedent and re-affirm a hard line on the justification of a statement, use the "reasonable person" standard most civil law expects; could a "reasonable person" draw conclusion A from evidence B? If "no", then claiming it was slanderous/libellous. This involves reverting some earlier decisions, but that's how new law always works.

4> Establish a principle where a plaintiff has their legal fees included in any ruling in their favour, and vice versa for defendants if the claim is deemed to be fraudulent and/or malicious (as distinct from just "not proven"). This both removes the barrier to legitimate complaints being filed, and protects defendants from malicious harassment; if you just file lawsuit after lawsuit, you're just paying their lawyer's fees for doing so. While I don't expect the average citizen to know if their claim would fall under either category, I DO expect their lawyer to.


People would get sued for making false statements, or statements they have no means to defend. Right know, both American journalists and the Internet are a bit too No-Man's-Land when it comes to libel and slander complaints for my liking. I'm basically just proposing plugging some loopholes with the Internet and bringing American libel/slander laws up to the same levels seen by most EU and Commonwealth nations.

[matt4pack]

So the media and their reporting of what happened in Ferguson wasn't fake news? I mean what they were originally saying turned out to be completely untrue and if you want to go the route of well they were just reporting witness statements who were lying then you can pretty much report anything following that line of thinking.

Hey a supposed witness reported a child sex ring being based out of this pizza shop so we're going to report it whether its factual or not. That is exactly how the traditional media is operating these days which completely enables fake news.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Fake news are fake news. Political views or personal feelings don't apply. No newspaper should be trying to sell falsehoods as facts, it should be downright illegal. Fuck freedom of press, it should come with SOME form of responsibility to not drag the IQ levels down further when people are already so prone to just live in their own bubbles of reality where what they AGREE with can trump cold hard facts.

Case in point: All the little societies that deny war events because historical facts don't suit their own agenda. Disgusting people all around.

[nextormento]

While I can see your point, I think your too quick on the conspiracy theorist draw. I am not wagering much of an explanation or even a cabal explanation. Just that something disingenuous or inauthentic seems to be afoot.

I mean, I can get my arachnid senses tingled in a bunch. I like patterns. They're one of my favorite things. I'm not surprised that a mathematician likes them too.
But I like my razors too. And Occam comes swinging on this one fast: they've found a way to rile people up even more, for clicks. I'm simply waging explanations to see how they weight against the razor.

[Theodarzna]

I mean, I can get my arachnid senses tingled in a bunch. I like patterns. They're one of my favorite things. I'm not surprised that a mathematician likes them too.
But I like my razors too. And Occam comes swinging on this one fast: they've found a way to rile people up even more, for clicks. I'm simply waging explanations to see how they weight against the razor.

I don't deny that isn't a strong motivator. But I hold open the possibility of more reasons than just one.

[nextormento]

I think there's an easier way to handle all this, and one that gets straight to the financial bottom lines, too. We even have the framework in place. A tweak to existing libel/slander laws, reframing their principles for the digital era, could resolve this pretty handily;

1> Reaffirm the line between statements of opinion and fact, such that no "opinion" on factual matters amounts to "opinion" (for instance, "Hillary is a criminal" would be actionable slander/libel, as there is no evidence to back that assertion, but "Hillary's policies will ruin the nation" would be opinion, because you're not misrepresenting facts in stating it).

2> Establish a standard under which courts can subpoena user information from websites for the purpose of identifying the accused, where the claim's been found to have merit (so the judge has decided that yeah, it looks like libel/slander, before it goes this far, so it's not used just to flood websites with requests).

3> Go back through decades of precedent and re-affirm a hard line on the justification of a statement, use the "reasonable person" standard most civil law expects; could a "reasonable person" draw conclusion A from evidence B? If "no", then claiming it was slanderous/libellous. This involves reverting some earlier decisions, but that's how new law always works.

4> Establish a principle where a plaintiff has their legal fees included in any ruling in their favour, and vice versa for defendants if the claim is deemed to be fraudulent and/or malicious (as distinct from just "not proven"). This both removes the barrier to legitimate complaints being filed, and protects defendants from malicious harassment; if you just file lawsuit after lawsuit, you're just paying their lawyer's fees for doing so. While I don't expect the average citizen to know if their claim would fall under either category, I DO expect their lawyer to.


People would get sued for making false statements, or statements they have no means to defend. Right know, both American journalists and the Internet are a bit too No-Man's-Land when it comes to libel and slander complaints for my liking. I'm basically just proposing plugging some loopholes with the Internet and bringing American libel/slander laws up to the same levels seen by most EU and Commonwealth nations.

This is what I'm referring to when I say the response to mistrust is for the citizen to ask for protection at the cost of free speech. And well, Americans will do whatever they want with their particular freedoms.
But we're not still certain that this is even an issue worth legislating. Or an issue at all beyond what it was in the past: tabloid journalism was always there. Fake news predate even the printing press, unless we believe every account of glorious and heroic wars to be accurate. I'm skeptical that the superior technology of the internet is the issue itself, if we don't establish first that it always was an issue worth legislating.

The difference between statements of opinion and fact, far as I understand, is pretty stark. Though, of course, my knowledge of specifics is short, and mostly comes from reading popehat and similar stuff. But it seems like they can distinguish them alright.
I'm not sure how the reasonable person construct applies differently than whatever they have today, though I suspect you favor it as way to introduce subjectivity. If that is the case, it sounds like a massive change of procedure, in a country where unprotected speech is systematically very narrow by constitutional principle. This is a thing Americans, and them alone, should ponder.

I will only take a real issue with 2. As you'd expect. I don't think the internet needs to be a special place. So long as anonymity exists in a phone call, or in snail mail, it should persist on the web. I'm fine with the companies producing some information, but not with requesting them collect enough information to produce a person. This is not a loophole anymore than a phone booth is, and your proposal is nowhere in line with the EU or the Commonwealth.
You, of course, have different opinions, on this issue. But I think those are the kind of things people should explore if they want to "open up libel laws".

[Endus]

I will only take a real issue with 2. As you'd expect. I don't think the internet needs to be a special place. So long as anonymity exists in a phone call, or in snail mail, it should persist on the web. I'm fine with the companies producing some information, but not with requesting them collect enough information to produce a person. This is not a loophole anymore than a phone booth is, and your proposal is nowhere in line with the EU or the Commonwealth.

I don't really see this. A website like this one could provide IP and profile information, but if you lied and used proxies, that's just one step to tracking down the "real you". A phone provider can (and will, under subpoena) provide call information and user information on phones in their service, too. Snail mail's a bit more anonymous, but not really by design; there was never that great a worry. But you'll find that investigations into things like letter bombs still end up tracking people down, with the post office's help on what info they have.

I'm just pushing that similar access be given to website data, that Internet sites be treated the same way. Though international complications will, of course, arise in many cases. Can't avoid that.

[Deleted]

Much like Nixx or Wells, I think its become useless to try and engage in conversation with you.

Which will not stop me to debunk your propaganda bullshit. Bring up facts and stop to try to infest the forums with your alt right gibberish.

[Wells]

Much like Nixx or Wells, I think its become useless to try and engage in conversation with you.

You really didn't handle getting called out on that polling thing well did you.

[Deleted]

And i'm sure breitbart, fox news and info wars only post 100% verified info.

Info Wars absolutely does, Fox is about as corrupt as the rest. Not fully sure about Breitbart but they seem reliable so far.

[Anevers]

Info Wars absolutely does, Fox is about as corrupt as the rest. Not fully sure about Breitbart but they seem reliable so far.

Check a page or so back of proof Breitbart posted a fake news story.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post44082255

[Orbitus]

Check a page or so back of proof Breitbart posted a fake news story.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post44082255

There is no reasoning with her. She actually thinks Infowars is reliable, even the shit they spew about Obama and Hillary literally being fucking demons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwURLwd8pEA
That link right there is enough reason alone to not believe anything from Alex Jones. That includes his bullshit that he sells and all of the people on Infowars. Especially with him saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax and that 9/11 was an inside job.

ANYONE that listens to anything Alex Jones says, needs to be ignored and removed promptly. Then they need to have a mental health screening and have their weapons taken away. Because people that believed him are the people that attacked the restaurant that supposedly had "pizzagate" in it.

[nextormento]

I don't really see this. A website like this one could provide IP and profile information, but if you lied and used proxies, that's just one step to tracking down the "real you".

Ah, in that case, sure go for it. I said I'm fine with companies producing some information (like a profile, posting history, IP addressees...), just not making it mandatory for them to collect enough to produce a person.
However, it makes me wonder: is this not in place already?. Twatter even has documentation about what they can give to law enforcement. I suspect because they've been requested in the past to provide it. Looks like standard procedure.
I'm always skeptical of updating-legislation-to-the-digital-era type deals. I'd only consider them necessary if the legislation is written in a fashion that prevents acting on new technologies. If legislation deals with abstract concepts like "communications", they're already up to date, unless we think that the internet is scary, technology is magic, and Berners-Lee is a witch.

I'll note that I'm only explicitly taking issue with 2 because it speaks about principles that could apply elsewhere. I'm glossing over points 1 and 3 because they deal with peculiarities in the US. In particular, false statements of fact are protected unless they meet some narrow criteria. I think you should expand on what makes your proposal different than what they have, which already takes into account if statements are published knowing about their falsity, and the likeliness to be believed by a reasonable person. That these things are narrowly delineated is what permits libel laws to exist in the first place, while abiding by the broad constitutional protection.

[Deleted]

Weinsteins argument is that the 4th estate was fine with "fake news," but only as long as they had monopoly power over that "fake news." Spinning a narrative was not a problem before the election, it is only AFTER the credibility crisis that suddenly there is a push about it.

I would tend to agree with this assessment.

There has been no shortage of manufactured headlines, intentionally obfuscated study findings, "stories" grabbed from random Twitter users making claims; with the journalist doing no verification whatsoever, coming out of left-leaning MSM outlets. For them to now spin around and whine and gnash about the right just being better at it is laughable.

[JohnBrown1917]

Info Wars absolutely does, Fox is about as corrupt as the rest. Not fully sure about Breitbart but they seem reliable so far.

Thats a very good joke.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no reasoning with her. She actually thinks Infowars is reliable, even the shit they spew about Obama and Hillary literally being fucking demons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwURLwd8pEA
That link right there is enough reason alone to not believe anything from Alex Jones. That includes his bullshit that he sells and all of the people on Infowars. Especially with him saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax and that 9/11 was an inside job.

ANYONE that listens to anything Alex Jones says, needs to be ignored and removed promptly. Then they need to have a mental health screening and have their weapons taken away. Because people that believed him are the people that attacked the restaurant that supposedly had "pizzagate" in it.

>Location : Jesusland


Not even surprised.

[Aeriedk]

But does the MSM actually fact check and do the fact checkers have credibility?

I am reminded of the affair of Trumps claim that Wind Turbines kill birds... 'killing them by the hundreds.' Which Politifact reported as "mostly false."

Politifact said that Trump was “inflating” wind turbine deaths. Yet wind turbines do kill over 100 eagles per year in California, as PolitiFact admitted. Furthermore, eagle deaths from turbines are such a serious concern to animal welfare advocates. Save The Eagles International has reported “millions” of wind turbine deaths and the Audubon Society has warned that wind turbines, while good for the environment, come with “hundreds of thousands” of unnecessary bird deaths.

Here we see how bias can affect fact-checks. Trump was clearly correct that wind turbines are a serious threat to birds, including endangered birds. Rating him “mostly false” depends on giving the least charitable possible interpretation to his words, suggesting that he meant hundreds were dying within California per year (which he did not say). And since it’s actually about 116 eagles within California per year, this would be a slight exaggeration.

Or say Carly Fiorina said she went from being a Secretary to being a CEO, this was rated as mostly a fabrication by the Washington Post, They gave this a “Three Pinnochios”, even though Fiorina had indeed (by the Post’s own admission) been a secretary before she was a CEO. The Post reasoned that while Fiorina was literally telling the truth, her statement was nevertheless false since she had advantages in life that other secretaries did not have.

The fact-checkers might think that by going beyond the literal meaning of statements, and evaluating the impressions they leave, they are in fact doing a greater service to truth and reality. In fact, they are opening the door to a far more subjective kind of work, because evaluating perceptions requires a lot more interpretation than evaluating the basic truth or falsity of a statement. It thereby creates far more room for bias and error to work their way into the analysis.

I can't speak for any networks factcheckers, but I'd be more than willing to guarantee that they all have them (Not FOX, maybe they have them, maybe they don't, I stay away)

As far as the eagles claim goes...

Trumps claim was that "the windmills are killing hundreds and hundreds of eagles.". This was in California and it was rated mostly false because the best estimate puts eagles deaths in California around 100 each year. Had Trump claimed that theres around 100 eagle deaths each year thats no problem, but he didn't he did blow it up which does make it false.

The fact that there could be millions of eagle deaths to date and your other source reporting hundreds of thousands of "bird" deaths. While all of this does support Trumps energy policy it does not make his claim any less false.

Its not like politifact rated it 100% false, it was mostly false and that's because there was some truth to it, but to claim that hundreds and hundreds are dying is a lie.

In the case of the Carly Fiorina comment....

Now I think you may not even be reading the entire article. So I posted some of the most important stuff below.

"At The Fact Checker, we take a “reasonable person” standard to examining claims and reaching conclusions. We take no stance on Fiorina’s qualifications as a business executive. Fiorina’s description of rising “from secretary to CEO” conjures a Horatio Alger-like narrative where a character starts at the lowest ranks of an industry, pulls themselves up by their bootstraps and, against all odds, reaches the top position in the industry.

When Fiorina uses this phrase, she often pairs it with saying she came from a “modest and middle class family,” or “challenging the status quo,” which frames her story as an unlikely upstart. She also pitches it as an uniquely American experience.

But the description glosses over important details. Her father was dean of Duke Law School when she was at Stanford, meaning Duke would have paid for most of her college tuition. She graduated from Stanford, and her elite degree played a role in the stories of her at Marcus & Millichap (she was the “Stanford student”) and her convincing the business school dean to accept her into the MBA program (“So, can a liberal arts student from Stanford compete with the analytical jocks you have around here?”).

She worked briefly as a secretary in between law school and business school, but she always intended to attend graduate school for her career. She moved up through AT&T with her MBA, and was placed on a fast track to senior management after her company sponsored her to attend one of the most elite mid-career fellowships in the world. Her role as senior executive at Lucent caught the attention of HP recruiters, to become the company’s chief executive."

While they rate her comment three Pinnochios, they also explain exactly why they did! You seem to be under the impression that factchecking is a black and white situation, but it isn't (if it was Trumps prior mentioned statement would have been 100% false, not mostly false).

Take a look at the quote I posted above. They explain exactly why. She spun this story as a American story like she was a nobody with the world against her and then went from rags to riches, but that's false. Sure she was a secretary, but you know what, my mom was too. This is why I take exception to this story.

While Fiorina went to Stanford, my mother only has a high school diploma. When Fiorinas parents were an artist/homemaker and a lawyer, my mothers parents were a community center art teacher (no formal degree) and a housewife (my grandmother had to drop out of high school at the age of 14 to sell pretzels so that her family could survive).

Today my mother owns her own company and has done quite well for herself, she started in a secretary pool where she had the outside seat and was supposed to be fired.

So while Carly Fiorina may have been a secretary it doesn't mean shes telling the truth because she is selling a different narrative than what actually happened.

The narrative she is spinning is not her own, but the narrative of my mother and thousands if not millions of hardworking Americans.

So as far as I'm concerned she's a dirty liar, the same way a lawyer lies. If you take just her works, shes telling the "truth", but if you really look at what she's saying, shes lying through her teeth.


In conclusion...

With all of that said, please stop looking at fact checking as a black and white thing. It isn't, it never has been, and never will be.

Lastly don't leave out details from Politifact or the Washington Post to better fit your narrative in this thread, there's lots of fake news out there, but not where you want it to be.

[Deleted]

Totally.. Verified..

"POPE FRANCIS CONVERTS TO ISLAM!"
Or the one where Clinton and Obama were literally demons?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GInZ4oQhhzE

Totally verified. We should all listen to this guy.

Actually this proves Im right... Alex Jones actually made a response video to that. They cut parts out of hes other, bigger videos to make him look like a moron. You can do that with everyone, what a moron, ha? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VksAa1smNsI

Yea, Jones rants and sometimes uses a bit colorful examples. For example "the government turning the frogs gay" video was actually about chemicals dumped into the water what caused frogs to change gender actually which absolutely wasn't fake news. They made it sound like he said it is some kind of government conspiracy though and that theyre doing it on purpose.

[Sierra85]

the best kinds of fake news are the ones when you know they're fake, and you can just have a laugh.

kind of like The Onion i guess.