What Is *Real* News?

[Cthulhu 2020]

If most of the Trumpkins around the country are screaming it's fake news, there's about a 90% chance it's real. When something triggers them so much that nearly all of them are screaming bloody murder about it, it's probably because it's real and they're trying desperately to deligitimize it.

[Flatspriest]

Real news is stating what happened without adding bias or spin or opinion to it.

[Garnier Fructis]

I think "real" news is news presented without bias or opinion. If your just reporting facts you should report all facts and not hide facts that would tell the whole truth about things.

And how many facts do you need for the whole truth? Some people on this forum aren't satisfied until they have the race and gender of a suspect. Some people aren't satisfied until unrelated facts are included to 'balance' things out.

These days in order to get a clear picture of what is true from reading the news you need ot know couple of things. You need to know what their agenda or stance on a certain issue is, and then read between the lines. And when you see an outrage, scale it back until it's not outrageous anymore, because for sure they inflated it in the process.

The MSM doesn't care about facts, they care about their narrative. So no matter what source left or right, remove the narrative and pursue the facts, and you'll see what is real news, and what is not.

And if you aren't careful, you'll create meanings where there are none.

- - - Updated - - -

Real news is stating what happened without adding bias or spin or opinion to it.

The issue is that wingnuts will see lack of bias or spin, as bias or spin.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

If most of the Trumpkins around the country are screaming it's fake news, there's about a 90% chance it's real. When something triggers them so much that nearly all of them are screaming bloody murder about it, it's probably because it's real and they're trying desperately to deligitimize it.

Whew.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/u...ries.html?_r=0

But since the election, there has been a noticeable increase in the flow of dubious and unsupported claims among liberals. One widely circulated post on Medium portrayed the Trump administration’s fumbling rollout of a travel ban in late January as an elaborate “trial balloon for a coup d’état.” Brooke Binkowski, managing editor at the rumor-tracking site Snopes, recently told The Atlantic that she has been seeing more false reports aimed at liberals or from liberal sources — “a lot of dubious news, a lot of wishful-thinking-type stuff.”

[araine]

Generally I hear what people keep screaming about is "Fake News" and then go look up that stuff. Since it usually is stuff that is posting information Turnip doesn't like, which is automatically more reliable than him.

I wonder how long until he throws Fox News under the bus too, as they have been slowly turning against him.

Soon the entire media will be fake news. He's almost there. Almost full dictator mode.

Add the fact that well over 50% of his supporters think he should not obey the court rulings if they go against him and we clearly have a group of people in this country that would have no objections to turning the country into a dictatorship country

[Mormolyce]

If you are unable to tell reality from fiction do the world a favor and go back to school or refrain from voting until you actually know.

And please don't run for President.

[Hell-Nicø]

Real news is news that Trump agrees with. Also known as news that helps him in his desires.

Fake news is news that Trump doesn't agree with. Also known as news that doesn't help him in his desires.

Their is no real scorce. In a single story you can have 22 lines of fake news and 14 lines of real news depending on how the wind is blowing that day.

HAHAHAHHAHA !

Thos regressive lefty are HILLAROUS !

Look at them trying to pass Trump for the guy making fake news, when he's the target of most fake news for the lefty that are trying to undermine a legitimatly elected president :

News flash for you : he's THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, he don't make news, that's the job of the media, and they "make up" a LOT of news these days, mostly about everyone being sexist, racist and a nazi !

[Jastall]

''Real'' news is verifiable. It's backed up by facts and legitimate research. It attempts to keep bias in check, and only ever gives commentary that can be supported by outside sources if at all possible.

100% unbiased news is strictly impossible, since that's not how humans work. But a journalist can still have integrity by attempting to avoid clouding their judgement with a bias or an agenda. Your best bet is to diversify your sources. No one's word can be taken as gospel no matter how much you might agree with them. If they make claims, they must have sources. If they state facts, they must back them up. Oftentimes, the source and justification behind a statement is more interesting and informative than the statement itself.

Of course, a running problem with most for-profit media is that they go for ratings above all else. Which means throwing integrity into the garbage bin in the name of sensationalism and divisive politics.

It's why I like Politico and Politifact. They're not perfect. but they often deal in tangible facts, not sensationalism. BBC is also a great source for international news. But I still attempt to fact-check them whenever I can.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Whew.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/u...ries.html?_r=0

I don't get it. Your link addresses small time sites that roll out news with a spin that all of 100 people read. What I'm talking about is big stories that break, like Flynn, where most of the Trumpkins around the country scream fake news at it, and it turns out to be true.

How many Trumpkins a story triggers is a pretty good indicator of how true a story is. If it's most of the Trumpkins in the country, chances are close to 100% that it's real. If it's some small story that barely anybody reads, then it's up in the air.

[Total Crica]

One way to determine real news is to stop trusting those who continually espouse factually incorrect information, and seem to have some sort of victim complex.

If only one individual/source is telling you that something is "true" or "real news" and LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE is "lying" or "fake news", does it make sense to listen to that individual?

Most times, no, it wouldn't. But it will always depend on the story they are telling.

[Nasuem]

Real news are those which..:

- can be confirmed from different independed sources (means sources outside of filter bubbles)
- are without bias and split from comments
- are sourced from news agencies or reporters which get confirmed by other reporters

So if you want to be safe about news, check different news sources. Always check for fakes on sites like snopes.com (or similiar).

Eh. I'd really like to be directed to a news source that doesn't show bias. Especially after this election, to say that with a straight face haha.

When people say news they mean info and opinions. And info comes from everywhere now. Youtube has changed the way people gather information, you can be on the ground anywhere on earth almost and watch real people doing real things. The MSM is on the way out, it's a business like anything else and there is too much competition who can do it for less.

And that's great, they have advertisers, they are beholden. I mean, that's the least of it.

[Deleted]

Honest question? If none of the media can be trusted then whats real news?
I want to be informed but without any of that fake stuff.

I think a good way you can get a summarization of the news is to read from diverse outlets, especially from media sources that are generally considered ideological opposites.

I'm not saying you get a perfect picture but I imagine it gives one a better idea that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Aswell as question why a certain source releases something when it does, in Sweden where I am from, media have had a habit of trying to divert your attention onto meaningless scandals or gossip because there is (for example) a new bill passing that is going to limit your freedom on the internet.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Also, I just had this weird realization. Trumpkins constantly point to blogs and small time news sites where liberals are saying random stuff that might not even be true. And it's like... "Who cares about blogs?" Then I realize, over the last several years, Trumpkins have been linking blogs and small time news sites that contain factually false information to prove claims they make on these forums, then throw a temper tantrum when it's pointed out their sources are horrendously bad.

So when I'm sitting here thinking... "Why would you even mention small time liberal sites that no liberals takes seriously anyway?" I realize it's because of projection. Because conservatives so commonly use said small time sites and blogs whenever they agree with their perceived world bias, so they think liberals probably do the same, when that's so laughably far from the truth.

[Celista]

Also, I just had this weird realization. Trumpkins constantly point to blogs and small time news sites where liberals are saying random stuff that might not even be true. And it's like... "Who cares about blogs?" Then I realize, over the last several years, Trumpkins have been linking blogs and small time news sites that contain factually false information to prove claims they make on these forums, then throw a temper tantrum when it's pointed out their sources are horrendously bad.

So when I'm sitting here thinking... "Why would you even mention small time liberal sites that no liberals takes seriously anyway?" I realize it's because of projection. Because conservatives so commonly use said small time sites and blogs whenever they agree with their perceived world bias, so they think liberals probably do the same, when that's so laughably far from the truth.

The cognitive dissonance is incredible. Pizzagate + "the video was ran backwards" is evidence enough of that, it's so jaw-dropping unbelievable as to the type of mental acrobatics people engage in when their worldview is threatened.

But, that also applies to the other side of the political spectrum as well. Lots of mental gymnastics from the liberal camp on these forums. Not that the two are directly comparable, the conservative news posted on here is often of the easily refutable sort. Which honestly makes the whole affair even more depressing, at least fact check before posting ffs.

[Sam the Wiser]

Real news is what Trump says is real. MMO-C, couldn't even handle the truth on a good day.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I don't get it. Your link addresses small time sites that roll out news with a spin that all of 100 people read. What I'm talking about is big stories that break, like Flynn, where most of the Trumpkins around the country scream fake news at it, and it turns out to be true.

How many Trumpkins a story triggers is a pretty good indicator of how true a story is. If it's most of the Trumpkins in the country, chances are close to 100% that it's real. If it's some small story that barely anybody reads, then it's up in the air.

Actually, Flynn's story was overblown. Flynn wasn't illegal, but he was unethical. Hence why he was shown the door.

Also, I just had this weird realization. Trumpkins constantly point to blogs and small time news sites where liberals are saying random stuff that might not even be true. And it's like... "Who cares about blogs?" Then I realize, over the last several years, Trumpkins have been linking blogs and small time news sites that contain factually false information to prove claims they make on these forums, then throw a temper tantrum when it's pointed out their sources are horrendously bad.

So when I'm sitting here thinking... "Why would you even mention small time liberal sites that no liberals takes seriously anyway?" I realize it's because of projection. Because conservatives so commonly use said small time sites and blogs whenever they agree with their perceived world bias, so they think liberals probably do the same, when that's so laughably far from the truth.

Sadly, you've missed the point of the article and the data within.

[ComputerNerd]

There is no such thing. Even the most honest reporter or agency is simply incapable of reporting anything with 100% accuracy and all important details.

I would disagree.
If the news is reported as accurately as possible, then I would call it genuine.
I don't think it is ever possible to report something with all the facts, because at the time of reporting some will simply be unknown.
And some may never be known.
Fake is when there is an intentional effort to mislead or outright lie.
A deliberate misrepresentation.

Though the intent may not be so easy to judge.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

HAHAHAHHAHA !

Thos regressive lefty are HILLAROUS !

Look at them trying to pass Trump for the guy making fake news, when he's the target of most fake news for the lefty that are trying to undermine a legitimatly elected president :

News flash for you : he's THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, he don't make news, that's the job of the media, and they "make up" a LOT of news these days, mostly about everyone being sexist, racist and a nazi !

Ummm I don't think he is a Nazi. They might have been evil. But they did at least have a plan and knew what the fuck they were doing.

[Thunderball]

Facts. No attributives, bias, journalist or expert opinions. Doesnt matter how they got the information, I dont care, just declare your source.

[Deleted]

Pure unedited video footage of an event covered from multiple angles without any input from the reporter except for neutral descriptive language.