Fake News from Left-leaning Sites

[*wildcats forever*]

(05-05-2017, 08:41 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Breitbart's founder being part of Trump's team doesn't remotely make Breitbart a mainstream publication.  False equivalency.  Prior to July '16, it was hovering around #1000 in Alexa rankings (it's now 292, thanks to the free pub of many hurt feelz).

I've seen Arianna Huffington on Bill Maher numerous times.  She is, when I've seen her at least, a very reasonable and intelligent person.  You would have never been able to convince me she was a co-founder of HuffPo.

Huffington sold Huffpo to AOL in 2011, though she did remain editor-in-chief. She stepped down from that position in 2016, so I'm not so sure she is responsible for it's current 'product'.

[Bengalzona]

For those who are concerned about Russian influence in elections through things like "Fake News", here is something else for you to be concerned about: the Russians don't just influence only one side or political party. Their goal in doing these things is not to favor a particular political candidate over another so much as to create dissension and disunity within a country which they may further exploit in the future. In doing this, they target any and all potential extreme ideologies in a country regardless of politics, religion, nationalistic sentiments (or lack thereof), ethnic groups, minorities, etc. and they generally try to play them off of each other.

It is a very real possibility that some of the left-leaning "Fake News" sites from the list in the OP have roots in Russia.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-05-2017, 08:41 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Breitbart's founder being part of Trump's team doesn't remotely make Breitbart a mainstream publication.  False equivalency.  Prior to July '16, it was hovering around #1000 in Alexa rankings (it's now 292, thanks to the free pub of many hurt feelz).

I've seen Arianna Huffington on Bill Maher numerous times.  She is, when I've seen her at least, a very reasonable and intelligent person.  You would have never been able to convince me she was a co-founder of HuffPo.

How do you figure?

Dude is in the white house. He is the "CHIEF STRATEGIST". How is that a false equivalency? That is called the reality of the situation. 

You can spin out whatever rankings you want. Fact of the matter is Steve Bannon and Breitbart are very much tied to the president. And the president has repeated things from Breitbart since he has been in charge of our country. 

Your president is saying things he reads from Breitbart. That alone makes it a mainstream publication. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-05-2017, 10:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: For those who are concerned about Russian influence in elections through things like "Fake News", here is something else for you to be concerned about: the Russians don't just influence only one side or political party. Their goal in doing these things is not to favor a particular political candidate over another so much as to create dissension and disunity within a country which they may further exploit in the future. In doing this, they target any and all potential extreme ideologies in a country regardless of politics, religion, nationalistic sentiments (or lack thereof), ethnic groups, minorities, etc. and they generally try to play them off of each other.

It is a very real possibility that some of the left-leaning "Fake News" sites from the list in the OP have roots in Russia.

Divide and conquer. They are doing a hell of a job. 

[Bengalzona]

(05-05-2017, 10:33 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Divide and conquer. They are doing a hell of a job. 

Not to get too far off-track (because I'm planning to post another thread about Putin shortly), but he is really just taking pages from our playbook from the past 70 years and adapting them. We've been doing this stuff to other countries for decades. Sometimes out in the open, even.

[*Nately120*]

(05-05-2017, 07:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It's all sensationalism, no matter which side is presenting it.  Gotta reel them in with some shocking headline, tagline, broadcast promo...  News was bleeding money when everyone only told the facts, then someone started doing human life stories, discovered they could garner a bigger audience, sell more expensive ads, yada, yada..


https://www.last.fm/music/Don+Henley/_/Dirty+Laundry

Capitalism never fails. 

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 07:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It's all sensationalism, no matter which side is presenting it.  Gotta reel them in with some shocking headline, tagline, broadcast promo...  News was bleeding money when everyone only told the facts, then someone started doing human life stories, discovered they could garner a bigger audience, sell more expensive ads, yada, yada..


https://www.last.fm/music/Don+Henley/_/Dirty+Laundry

Sounds like you are criticizing capitalism.

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 10:30 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: How do you figure?

Dude is in the white house. He is the "CHIEF STRATEGIST". How is that a false equivalency? That is called the reality of the situation. 

You can spin out whatever rankings you want. Fact of the matter is Steve Bannon and Breitbart are very much tied to the president. And the president has repeated things from Breitbart since he has been in charge of our country. 

Your president is saying things he reads from Breitbart. That alone makes it a mainstream publication. 

I wouldn't call Breitbart a "mainstream publication," but I would say that it is mainstreaming many alt-right ideas and memes. Bannon claims much of the responsibility for that.  Trump's presidency has certainly given that sector of the right greater visibility--and influence in national politics.

More than ideas are mainstreamed here as well. The general coarsening of public discourse and the constant denial of factual accuracy matched by constant assertion of Trump hyperbole (5 million illegal voting, rapists pouring across the borders, WIRETAPPING!) tends to unsettle any public discourse around policy issues.  People can advance racist policies and scream "race card" when called on it.

The president not only reads Breitbart, but he sucks conspiracy theories from it as well. If you were a foreign intel service and you wanted to disrupt/influence our foreign or domestic policy, you might do that if you could figure out what catches his eye (something about how he "really" won the popular vote?) and laden it with something you wanted him to believe and act on, it might work.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-05-2017, 09:56 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Huffington sold Huffpo to AOL in 2011, though she did remain editor-in-chief. She stepped down from that position in 2016, so I'm not so sure she is responsible for it's current 'product'.

Fantastic.  What does that have to do with anything I said?

[JustWinBaby]

(05-05-2017, 10:30 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Dude is in the white house. He is the "CHIEF STRATEGIST". How is that a false equivalency? That is called the reality of the situation.

He made it to MD in Goldman.  I'll bet smarter than anyone you have ever met or worked with.  But you already missed my point.  I mean, I'm guessing you have no clue as to what it takes or how to make it to that level.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-05-2017, 11:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Capitalism never fails. 

(05-06-2017, 01:42 AM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are criticizing capitalism.

Should the news even be about making money?  In a quest for profitability, it kind of seems that Journalism has lost it's integrity for presenting the truth, in a bid to be simply more entertaining.

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 01:22 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: A friend shared this article on Facebook and I thought it was worth sharing.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/09/18/please-stop-sharing-links-to-these-sites/

There's a lot of discussion about Fake News and Right-leaning organizations like Breitbart (and rightfully so, IMO). But without getting into discussions about "Who does it more?" or "Who does it worse?" or "Who did it first?" (which never get anywhere anyway), those who cast stones should be able to examine their own glass houses (or some plithy saying like that). In other words, you can't be part of the solution if you condone a different aspect of the problem.

I agree one might not get far or change many minds if one began a thread in this forum asserting "side X does it more."  

However, if one were treating the subject in a scholarly fashion, like writing a book-length history of media and politics over the last 30 years, "Who did it first?" would be a researchable question. And if there is some way of capturing the differences in data, the other questions are in principle answerable as well.

"Who does it worse?" is an especially important question, to which I would add "Who does it how?"

One big difference I have seen with the arrival of "fake news" as a national political issue is that right wing news has embraced the term as a wide-ranging label. Trump, Hannity and Rush rage about "fake news" all the time, accusing entire (and entirely respectable) news sources like CNN and The New York Times as purveyors of fake news.  This seems to be aimed at factual reporting which challenges Trump claims on many issues where those claims do not seem supported by any factual record. Also, it offers no means of distinguishing fake from real other than party and policy affiliation.

Liberal and left news sources have moved in an entirely different direction, examining their own glass houses and creating primers to help people distinguish fake news from real news via criteria and practices independent of party affiliation. The article you posted, B-zona, is one example of this, as is your own resolve not to share anything from the offending sites.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/tech/how-to-spot-fake-misleading-news-trnd/index.html
http://augustafreepress.com/mark-grabowski-primer-fake-news/
https://www.fairmediacouncil.org/primer-fake-news/
The New York Times has printed substantive articles on how fake news is developed and presented.

The site First Draft News appears to be working on the problem of fake news with a multi-front approach, supported by over two dozen university journalism departments.
https://firstdraftnews.com/lessons-from-the-new-york-times-super-tuesday-hoax-five-ways-to-spot-fake-news-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren/

Some public schools are also beginning to teach media literacy https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/nyregion/fake-news-brooklyn-middle-school.html

But at least one right wing site which commonly traffics in the sensational has sought to imitate the "primer" tactic to continue undermining mainstream news sources. https://wentworthreport.com/2017/02/28/news-fake-news-very-fake-news-a-primer/

I am curious if others know of right wing news sources or journalists who have endorsed the primer/media literacy response to fake news as opposed to the "all MSM is fake news" approach.

[Dill]

(05-06-2017, 08:38 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Should the news even be about making money?  In a quest for profitability, it kind of seems that Journalism has lost it's integrity for presenting the truth, in a bid to be simply more entertaining.

LOL did the Communist Party issue you a card when you joined Sunset?

No, just kidding. In answer to your question, no, I do not think the news should be about making money. It should not be catering to different markets and fashion preferences.

[fredtoast]

(05-06-2017, 09:58 AM)Dill Wrote: I am curious if others know of right wing news sources or journalists who have endorsed the primer/media literacy response to fake news as opposed to the "all MSM is fake news" approach.

This.

There has always been an understanding that some news sites are biased in one direction or the other.  But the current screams of "fake news" started coming from the right and they were aimed not at "fake news" but "real news".

Trump has claimed that the majority of the "mainstream media" is all "fake news".  he has claimed that the entire CNN Network is "fake news".

And many of his supporters believe him despite the fact that Trump was in on the "fake news" business early with his claims that he had evidence that Barack Obama was born in Africa.  So it ends up working like this for them.

Trump tells complete lie..."Not fake news because he did not really mean what he said.

Any news story critical of Trump....."FAKE NEWS!!!!!"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-05-2017, 08:41 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Breitbart's founder being part of Trump's team doesn't remotely make Breitbart a mainstream publication.  False equivalency.  Prior to July '16, it was hovering around #1000 in Alexa rankings (it's now 292, thanks to the free pub of many hurt feelz).

I've seen Arianna Huffington on Bill Maher numerous times.  She is, when I've seen her at least, a very reasonable and intelligent person.  You would have never been able to convince me she was a co-founder of HuffPo.

The only false equivalency here is yours.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-06-2017, 04:39 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: He made it to MD in Goldman.  I'll bet smarter than anyone you have ever met or worked with.  But you already missed my point.  I mean, I'm guessing you have no clue as to what it takes or how to make it to that level.

Well hell. Resorting to personal attacks. I see you have taken to emulating some of the presidents finest characteristics. Trump would be proud.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-06-2017, 07:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Well hell. Resorting to personal attacks. I see you have taken to emulating some of the presidents finest characteristics. Trump would be proud.

I LOLed at him complaining you missed his point when he completely missed your point he responded to. Classic JustWinBaby.

[Bengalzona]

This thread has reached its quota of "you".

Time to shut 'er down.

[Benton]

(05-06-2017, 08:38 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Should the news even be about making money?  In a quest for profitability, it kind of seems that Journalism has lost it's integrity for presenting the truth, in a bid to be simply more entertaining.

Journalism isn't about making money. Lots of people do it to tell the stories that need to be told without ever making anything off of it. Small papers (like the ones I run) rely heavily off citizen journalists, people interested in communities or sports or politics or whatever.

But capitalism is capitalism. To pay the bills, you've got to generate revenue. Some people long ago figured out you can do more than just pay the bills off news, you can make a lot of money. So just like the guys that figured out you can make a lot of money if you pay some football players and sell tickets, media moguls realized they could get people to tell stories and make money off selling them.