Liberal and Conservative News Sites Owned by Same Company

[Deleted]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilver...W65#.pezYr2XeE



These fake news sites are literally playing people and profiting off of them. Disgusting.

What's disgusting are the idiots falling for it, that allow these sites to keep existing.

[Graeham]

Not surprising. I'd like to think many more people than usual are being clued in to the idea that politics are often a circus and the 'Right vs Left' mentality is more about keeping the masses distracted and fighting amongst each other instead of pushing for those in influential positions to be held accountable for the problems brought about by flawed and poorly implemented policies.

[Independent voter]

I wouldn't trust anything from websites named "Liberal Society and Conservative 101".

Get your news from

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/...P&SECTION=HOME

They sell news to over a thousand media outlets and to do so they remove as much of the bias as possible.

[Bodakane]

The government was intended to serve the will of the people. The press was intended to hold the government to that purpose.

Our founding fathers were smart enough to build in safeguards to prevent our government from being spoiled by power. They did not, however, foresee how our government could be corrupted by money.

When the press was print only, it had enough advertising to keep the ship floating so to speak. People will only be ok with a paper of certain size so they weren't adding in more and more advertising. That means they could focus on the news and not sales. As TV, cable and the internet cropped up, there was now infinite space for advertising and more competition to weaken the pool. Everything then became about getting advertising dollars.

Basically, that leaves the American people with a government corrupted by money and the watchdog of the government corrupted by money.

The next question should be....who has the money? Well, that would obviously be the wealthy and large corporations.

So, if you're mad at the government or the press, then in reality and logically you should be extremely mad at the wealthy and big business because they are the ones that have ruined both.

[Mad_Murdock]

I wouldn't trust anything from websites named "Liberal Society and Conservative 101".

Yeah, it's a little hard to get excited about 2 news sources that I've never heard of. If folks are just believing whatever google returns with, then we really have a different problem. The consumers of all this information need to be better inform about their sources and stop hanging out in their echo chambers.

[Rusque]

Our founding fathers were smart enough to build in safeguards to prevent our government from being spoiled by power. They did not, however, foresee how our government could be corrupted by money.

Um, our founding fathers were rich, white, land-owning males who only allowed other rich, white, land-owning males to vote. People seem to gloss over the fact that the rebellion against British taxes was really just rich dudes living in America who didn't want to pay taxes without representation of their interests. They went and manipulated the populace to fight for them against the "tyrannical British" and then promptly set up a government in which only they and their friends had any representation. And then they had the audacity to ask for taxes without representation from all the regular schlubs who fell for it.

At no point in US history was our government unsullied by power and money. It was created by rich guys for rich guys and they only ever expanded who they allowed to participate when it became politically expedient to do so (aka when they needed help to retain power and money).

[Bodakane]

Um, our founding fathers were rich, white, land-owning males who only allowed other rich, white, land-owning males to vote. People seem to gloss over the fact that the rebellion against British taxes was really just rich dudes living in America who didn't want to pay taxes without representation of their interests. They went and manipulated the populace to fight for them against the "tyrannical British" and then promptly set up a government in which only they and their friends had any representation. And then they had the audacity to ask for taxes without representation from all the regular schlubs who fell for it.

At no point in US history was our government unsullied by power and money. It was created by rich guys for rich guys and they only ever expanded who they allowed to participate when it became politically expedient to do so (aka when they needed help to retain power and money).

Ok...and?

I mean I said our government was set up to be corruptible by money and you point out how it's always been run by rich white guys.

As corrupt as you think it was back then, it is 100 times more corrupt now. And the people that are corrupting it, are the wealthy and big businesses....which I'm sure you agree with...no?

[Rusque]

Ok...and?

I mean I said our government was set up to be corruptible by money and you point out how it's always been run by rich white guys.

As corrupt as you think it was back then, it is 100 times more corrupt now. And the people that are corrupting it, are the wealthy and big businesses....which I'm sure you agree with...no?

I don't disagree with you about the increased corruption, I just disagree with the one part where you said our forefathers did not foresee how our government could be corrupted by money. Just stating that it started out tailored to benefit those with money.

The amount and level of sophistication of corruption has surely increased.

[Bodakane]

I don't disagree with you about the increased corruption, I just disagree with the one part where you said our forefathers did not foresee how our government could be corrupted by money. Just stating that it started out tailored to benefit those with money.

The amount and level of sophistication of corruption has surely increased.

The point I was making was they built in safeguards for corruption by power and didn't build in safeguards for corruption by money. Sorry, if my point wasn't clear enough.

[zenkai]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilver...W65#.pezYr2XeE



These fake news sites are literally playing people and profiting off of them. Disgusting.

2 Bullshit sites I never heard of.

[Jun]

Huh. Makes me think of good old GamerGate, with websites running the same stories with just a few different words in each.

Neat.

[stomination]

It's all for ratings and money bro. This is why we need to pull info from many sources.

So that we spread the money even more so.

[Kathandira]

If only we required news agencies to provide both perspectives of a story.....its almost as if we did that at one point....

Thank you for saying that. This is a truth that is way too often neglected.

If Trump wants to fix the Media, he would reinstate the law that says that all news is required to provide non-biased coverage.

This would ultimately result in the down fall of Democrat/Republican Talk Show segments attached to news networks. Which is something I would totally be happy about.

[Deleted]

Why exclude ~50% of your potential audience? It's business.

This, if people are going to be in echo chambers, might as well profit from it.

[thatmikeguy]

We have more opinion than we have news. Count how many times they add "illegal" in front of immigrants when talking.

[Zathrendar]

So, you got this info from a fake news site. Ironic.

Fixed that for ya.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh my god, it's almost as if corporate media is interested in making money by appealing to market demand for biased news and actually doesn't believe a word of what they say.

TBH, they're fed their opinions from the govt, licensed by it and reliant on it to exist. Propaganda has always existed, and in more strenuous forms, but the internet has made one major change - not even the government can effectively monopolise information anymore, thus various "news" outlets have collapsing approval ratings and dwindling share prices. They're dinosaurs.

[Kathandira]

Oh my god, it's almost as if corporate media is interested in making money by appealing to market demand for biased news and actually doesn't believe a word of what they say.

With that, do you believe there is any bit of Journalistic Integrity left in the media? Or is it no better than bloggers running with 1/2 the story, and even less facts to back up their claims?

For example, Can you answer how many years the couple was just sentenced to for their hate crimes against a families party?

I can't. From the different sites i've seen the story posted in, each had a different amount of years in their sentence. One said 19 years, one said 28, another said 38.

A court ruling should be pretty easy to get the facts on. However the media can't even get something that simple correct.

One of my favorites was a site which said 28 years combined, but then said the woman gets 6, and the man gets 18. You do the math to see what is wrong with that.

The media has turned into a school yard game of telephone.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

With that, do you believe there is any bit of Journalistic Integrity left in the media? Or is it no better than bloggers running with 1/2 the story, and even less facts to back up their claims?

For example, Can you answer how many years the couple was just sentenced to for their hate crimes against a families party?

I can't. From the different sites i've seen the story posted in, each had a different amount of years in their sentence. One said 19 years, one said 28, another said 38.

A court ruling should be pretty easy to get the facts on. However the media can't even get something that simple correct.

One of my favorites was a site which said 28 years combined, but then said the woman gets 6, and the man gets 18. You do the math to see what is wrong with that.

The media has turned into a school yard game of telephone.

I think they are out there. You can't paint a broad brush on the media as bad as it is.

[Kalcheus]

It reminds me of the guy that created the "X Days left in the Bush presidency!" calendars. He was a Republican.

[urasim]

These fake news sites are literally playing people and profiting off of them. Disgusting.

I've never heard other either of the sites. Doing some research shows that conservative101.com has little actual site traffic. People who get info from them are viewing it from facebook(only 8% of their traffic is on their site, whereas 90% is on facebook and only facebook)

liberalsociety.com is a far less viewed site than conservative101.com. But they are in the same boat with 90% of their views coming from facebook. The majority of both sites views was at election time. Just thought I'd throw some irrelevant info out there.

Something I found funny is what their top searched organic keywords are. for liberal society its "trump hitler" or "hitler trump" and for conservative 101 it's "trey gowdy trump".

I also don't see an issue with people owning websites from different political sides. They aren't actually competing for views. This is just smart business.