Fake News Thread

[Black Panther]

I find it really weird to set up this "let me educate you guys" post is all.

I wreaks of PR company or advocacy group who let their intern design a social media campaign to spread news literacy to the plebs....it's just strange to me.

People need news literacy to discuss topics in an intelligent manner. Most people aren't news literate.:kanyebp:

It's not wrong to understand that some news sources happen to be more biased than others, despite the potential for any news source to be wrong.

I'm not shilling for any one news source over the other. If you read my post(s), you'd notice that I rank liberal, conservative, neutral, and other sources in pretty much every category.

 

[Strapped]

Conservatives with an agenda

 

[Black Panther]

AP is a wire service so their news can be found on all the sites you listed, even the sites you stated were "fake news".

Also Reuters is a wire service, so sites that you call "fake news" also use Reuters.

Wanted to also note that Reuters and AP aren't simply news aggregation sites. They also employ their own teams of journalists.

Also...I didn't say that Washington Post was "unbiased". Go back and read carefully.

Again, the fact that you came in here to complain about how thinking critically and reading carefully is more important than checking sources, yet fail to carefully read my posts is -worthy

Fail to follow your own advice, brehettes

 

[AZBeauty]

Unfortunately, Americans are stupid. Most folks believe anything they read on the internet without research or checking other sources. IE: Trump's presidency.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

People need news literacy to discuss topics in an intelligent manner. Most people aren't news literate.:kanyebp:

It's not wrong to understand that some news sources happen to be more biased than others, despite the potential for any news source to be wrong.

I'm not shilling for any one news source over the other. If you read my post(s), you'd notice that I rank liberal, conservative, neutral, and other sources in pretty much every category.

This is a message board where people share OPINIONS.

You don't have to like or agree with an opinion but you don't really need "facts" to back up your belief system.

People hold political biases because they want to and believe what they like.

If you really want to figure out the angle of a news story regardless to source start googling the journalist presenting said facts. That will tell you alot about their conflicts of interests and biases. I do that all the time.

The AP has been called out for bias before and they spread a lot unresearched news stories btw...What I do is my on investigation.

These days you have to be that skeptical of ALL the news your reading because of the state of journalism in this age.

The Washington Post for example is extremely biased. The owner, Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon and the Washington Post was a HUGE Clinton support. You can't have that level of conflict of interest and remain unbiased. It's not possible.

The issue is that our media is so corporatist it all carries an agenda, no matter where you turn.

But people just need to dialogue and share their personal experiences an reasoning for why they believe the way they do on this board. In that way it's a place to learn and to see things from different viewpoints not be right per say.

 

[Black Panther]

This is a message board where people share OPINIONS.

You don't have to like or agree with an opinion but you don't really need "facts" to back up your belief system.

People hold political biases because they want to and believe what they like.

If you really want to figure out the angle of a news story regardless to source start googling the journalist presenting said facts. That will tell you alot about their conflicts of interests and biases. I do that all the time.

The AP has been called out for bias before and they spread a lot unresearched news stories btw...What I do is my on investigation.

These days you have to be that skeptical of ALL the news your reading because of the state of journalism in this age.

The Washington Post for example is extremely biased. The owner, Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon and the Washington Post was a HUGE Clinton support. You can't have that level of conflict of interest and remain unbiased. It's not possible.

The issue is that our media is so corporatist it all carries an agenda, no matter where you turn.

But people just need to dialogue and share their personal experiences an reasoning for why they believe the way they do on this board. In that way it's a place to learn and to see things from different viewpoints not be right per say.

Talking about the reliability of news sources ≠ telling people to blindly follow any particular news source.

Nowhere in this thread have I told you--or anyone else--to blindly follow news sources. Again, follow your own advice and read carefully.

To quote myself AGAIN:

DISCLAIMER: The purpose of this thread is not necessarily to denigrate specific news sources. the purpose is to encourage critical thinking about sourcing and research. Any news organization--mainstream, alternative, independent, or otherwise, can get facts wrong, have biases, or participate in sensationalist stories that are more emotional than practical.

That's the main problem I have with your line of reasoning here; you keep responding as if I told you to not question any of these news sources or do any of your own research (WHEN THAT IS LITERALLY THE WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD). I didn't. Question all you like. Just know that some sources are definitely more biased than others, and there is a correlation between bias and journalistic integrity.

Just because AP or Reuters have been shown to be inaccurate before, that doesn't mean it's on equal footing with Breitbart.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

Talking about the reliability of news sources ≠ telling people to blindly follow any particular news source.

Nowhere in this thread have I told you--or anyone else--to blindly follow news sources. Again, follow your own advice and read carefully.

To quote myself AGAIN:




That's the main problem I have with your line of reasoning here; you keep responding as if I told you to not question any of the sources or do any of your own research (WHEN THAT IS LITERALLY THE WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD). I didn't. Question all you like. Just know that some sources are definitely more biased than others, and there is a correlation between bias and journalistic integrity.

Just because AP or Reuters have been shown to be inaccurate before, that doesn't mean it's on equal footing with Breitbart.

Wow...the AP has shown to be more than inaccurate at times that's understatement.

Reuters...in my experience I've never encountered them being really biased or innacurate but that's partially because AP has a wider net in the U.S. news media anyway.

I just think this thread is absurd.

People who read Breitbart do it because they like the bias. The same reason they like Fox news.

I read Breitbart these days actually...mainly to know my enemy so to speak. If Trump is getting his advice from that side of the pond then I want to know their line of logic.

But what I think is silly is the whole "fake news" hysteria.

All this ish is fake on some level is all I'm saying.

You need to learn more about the press...Presenting a safe list is silly.

 

[Black Panther]

Wow...the AP has shown to be more than inaccurate at times that's understatement.

Reuters...in my experience I've never encountered them being really biased or innacurate but that's partially because AP has a wider net in the U.S. news media anyway.

I just think this thread is absurd.

People who read Breitbart do it because they like the bias. The same reason they like Fox news.

I read Breitbart these days actually...mainly to know my enemy so to speak. If Trump is getting his advice from that side of the pond then I want to know their line of logic.

But what I think is silly is the whole "fake news" hysteria.

All this ish is fake on some level is all I'm saying.

You need to learn more about the press...Presenting a safe list is silly.

"'fake news' hysteria"?
"Safe list"?

 

[Uncle Hotep]

We're talking about sources, not individual articles.

We can talk about HuffPo as a whole (I tend to not read it ), but it's pointless to debate the merits of one particular article from a skewed perspective.

We need to talk about WHY HuffPo is skewed.

Huff post is fake news...its a source

 

[Uncle Hotep]

I use my Roku and the Reuters app daily...gives you 30 mins of world news...everything else comes from forums

 

[Black Panther]

Huff post is fake news...its a source

This doesn't really address the issue. Declaring sources as "fake news" with no justification, as if it's an immutable fact, is bad argumentation.

If we continue to dismiss arguments based on sources, such that ANY source with a hint of bias is unacceptable, we can't have responsible dialogue about the issues.

As much as people throw around the term "fake news", it has almost become meaningless. A generic insult for when you want to quickly cut down an argument's legitimacy before examining its merits.

 

[Menelik II]

This doesn't really address the issue. Declaring sources as "fake news" with no justification, as if it's an immutable fact, is bad argumentation.

If we continue to dismiss arguments based on sources, such that ANY source with a hint of bias is unacceptable, we can't have responsible dialogue about the issues.

As much as people throw around the term "fake news", it has almost become meaningless. A generic insult for when you want to quickly cut down an argument's legitimacy before examining its merits.

i agree with you, but this brings up a major point i was recently talking about. The achilles heel of democracy is 'free speech', the concept that everyone has a right to have their voice heard. Although it is a great ideal 98% of the time, free speech is being used as a weapon against its proponents and they can't do anything about it.

If someone presents an hour long pizzagate rant by Alex Jones, and says 'prove him wrong', you end up wasting hours debunking his shyt, meanwhile the troll just wanted to waste your time, won't change their own mind anyway and they're are off to derail another thread.

The problem is 2 twofold. A) all ideas and voices are not created equal. IF you have made shyt arguments before, you should not be given the same voice as someone with a strong track record of valid points. B) there is no retribution for people who spew lies. Maybe only in fields of science and academia are you punished for lies any more, so there is no downside to journalists intentionally lying, you are still going to be given an 'equal voice'.

The whole ideology of free speech and democracy is being trolled on a major scale. This is what the well funded climate change deniers did with great success for the last 15 years.

Although facts are facts, and truth is truth whatever the source. If I get sent something these disreputable sites, and someone uses them as a source, i'm like "fukk em - Fake News'

 

[Pressure]

In general I'd like to simply limit fake news to news that is created around fabricated sources or the story itself is fabricated. It doesn't require sensationalism though fake news generally does because that gets clicks and clicks give those sites ad revenue. Or in cases like state sponsored and politically motivated fake news there more it's read and shared the more it sways the minds of people.


While I don't like news that has a bias other than mine I don't consider it to be fake.

I also find editorials to be useful in that they usually articulate well thought out opinions. Sadly, some of those can be based around fake news themselves or people take them as factual or the writers to be themselves experts by default.

 

[afterlife2009]

I used to like the nyt and wapo but they've indulged in too much fukkery for me this past election cycle.

 

[Black Panther]

I used to like the nyt and wapo but they've indulged in too much fukkery for me this past election cycle.

They're definitely not perfect, but you have to eat the fish and spit out the bones. :kanyebp:

There's some good reporting at WaPo and NYT, if you ignore some of the fluff.