Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail As 'Unreliable' Source (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group "generally unreliable." The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors. The editors described the arguments for a ban as "centered on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication." The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia but does not control its editing processes, said in a statement that volunteer editors on English Wikipedia had discussed the reliability of the Mail since at least early 2015. It said: "Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is 'generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a 'reliable source' on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general -- with common sense and caution."

Comments

Censorship.

[Fragnet]

The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not censorship. How can it be censorship? It's about as much censorship as Nordstrom is directly attacking the US Executive. An encyclopaedia has decided that a particular source is too poor quality to use. You are free to read the Daily Mail if you want to.

Re:Censorship.

[Fragnet]

I would agree with you if wikipedia held other news outlets to the same standard.

Re:Censorship.

[negRo_slim]

But what outlets and what standards?

Take RT for instance, even in the fucking summary they slid in "kremlin backed" to throw shade and I hear a lot about supposed propaganda RT engages in. Yet whenever I read one of their stories it seems pretty fucking decent, especially compared to anything "mainstream" be it CNN, NPR, Fox or what have you.

Re:Censorship.

[Fragnet]

They're like all media outlets in that they pander to their viewers' prejudices. Everybody loves the news when it confirms their already strongly held opinions. Wikipedia's editors are no different it seems. If they were genuinely impartial they would hold all outlets to the same standard.

Re:Censorship.

[MightyMartian]

Oh come on. Have you even looked at the Daily Mail? It's frequently sensationalistic in its coverage to the point where some of its headlines and stories more resemble The National Enquirer than a serious newspaper. Often times I don't think it even takes itself that seriously. The headlines are often extremely hyperbolic.

Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone taking the Mail that seriously. PApers like the Guardian and Telegraph have their flaws, and their obvious ideological leanings that at times leak on to the front page, but the Daily mail is just one big absurd mess, a sort of TMZ with news stories.

Re:Censorship.

[MightyMartian]

There's a delightful exchange from Yes Minister that, while reflecting the major British papers as they were in the late 70s and early 80s, is still relatively true today:

Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

The National Enquirer was up for a Pulitzer when they were the only paper to report on a scandal involving a Dem candidate. It's all politics, all the way down, especially wikipedia.

The Daily Fail can at least be entertaining. It's not like you can believe anything you read in the WaPo or NYT - it's all just confirmation bias - but the Mail at least tries not to be dull.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just finished all seasons a month ago. That series is still incredibly relevant today.

Re:Censorship.

[MightyMartian]

I'm sorry, anyone who thinks the Mail is somehow in the same league is the NYT or Washington Post doesn't strike me as someone actually interested in reliability. Journalism isn't perfect but the Mail doesn't even try.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Today every corporate media outlet makes the National Enquirer look good. Major media sources should not have a specific "editorial line" because that automatically makes them biased. I honestly believe these media outlets can no longer even recognize that every thing they publish is slanted and the only facts that get mentioned are those that support their editorial line. That bias came out of the closet when they tried to do anything they could to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. The bias has continued even after he was elected. You can hate Trump all you want but take a critical look at the hyperbolic headlines that come out every day and but the content of the article contains nothing to back up the sensationalist headlines. Quoting people out of context is also a inject bias into the discussion. This is a neat trick the journalist use to counter any accusations of lying on their part. Every major media outlet is fully staffed by people writing their opinion columns which is just another way to inject bias into the discussion.

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

And you believe the NYT or WaPo even tries? I mean, they used to once, and the Mail never did, but these days? They were open and explicit in 2016 that winning the election was ore important than truth.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Daily Mail actually has some very competent, very tenacious, not to mention ruthless, investigative journalists. It's not uncommon for them to break stories of real consequence.

The editorial spin that gets put on them, that's another matter. And their choice of subject matter is often open to question. But the journalism itself is some of the best you'll find, and I find it a sad comment on the state of Wikipedia that its politburo doesn't recognise that.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think it is funny, you are fucked up. The Mail is profoundly depressing.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

That still doesn't make it 'censorship'.

Censorship is an act of prevention. This is an act of product quality control and has no impact on your ability to consult the Daily Mail for your facts.

Re:Censorship.

[Attila Dimedici]

You think the NYT checks sources? Have you ever heard of Jayson Blair? Or Walter Duranty? There were numerous similar "reporters" in between. At the time of the Jayson Blair scandal it was discovered that the National Enquirer checked their reporters sources more thoroughly than the NYT did.

Re:Censorship.

[Fragnet]

I sometimes enjoy the sidebar of shame and I do like the Rugby sports pages. Other than that no, in general I can't stomach it. But really that's irrelevant to this debate. My point is only that if Wiki are going to start blackballing publications for unreliability, they'd better make sure they're applying the same standard across the board. It's completely obvious they're not in this case as if they were they'd have done the same to a number of other publications.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

That still doesn't make it 'censorship'.

Censorship is an act of prevention. This is an act of product quality control and has no impact on your ability to consult the Daily Mail for your facts.

Wikipedia restricts its entries to those that can be "properly" sourced. Anything that can only be sourced to the Daily Mail is now prohibited. That's censorship. They are perfectly within their rights to make those kind of editorial decisions, and everyone else is within their rights when they call it what it is: censorship.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

and everyone else is within their rights when they call it what it is: censorship.

Upon further reflection, I realize that I was wrong and it is not in fact "censorship".

I've resolved to be less hysterical and to realize that words have meaning. I apologize to everyone here on Slashdot.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

They were open and explicit in 2016 that winning the election was ore important than truth.

No, that was Donald Trump. He told lies about himself. About Hillary. About the state of the country. He even lied about how he won the election.

He's lied since then as well.

Maybe you need to get a hold of the truth.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

and everyone else is within their rights when they call it what it is: censorship.

Upon further reflection, I realize that I was wrong and it is not in fact "censorship".

I've resolved to be less hysterical and to realize that words have meaning. I apologize to everyone here on Slashdot.

Now that you've calmed down, which word are you having trouble with? Censorship? Are you one of those pedants who can't even get the meaning right?

From wikipedia itself:

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions./blockquote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a large list of outlets that they consider unreliable to one degree or another. The list includs most tabloid newpapers. The news here is that The Daily Mail was just added to the list.

Re: Censorship.

[hey!]

You do realize all it takes to be "up for" a Pulitzer is pay the $50 entry fee.

As with the Nobel's, which are a *little* harder to get nominated for, the only thing that matters is winning. Being considered says nothing.

Re: Censorship.

[nitehawk214]

The Daily Mail is at the same level as BuzzFeed. Neither should be admissible as a source.

Re: Censorship.

[hey!]

You do realize all it takes to be "up for" a Pulitzer is pay the $50 entry fee.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Enquirer was up for a Pulitzer when they were the only paper to report on a scandal involving a Dem candidate. It's all politics, all the way down, especially wikipedia.

The Daily Fail can at least be entertaining. It's not like you can believe anything you read in the WaPo or NYT - it's all just confirmation bias - but the Mail at least tries not to be dull.

If a source has a large percentage of incorrect information then it is fair to toss it in general, or at the very least not to rely on it as a sole source. Fox has a lot of accurate programming, and a lot of not so accurate programming. It is probably reasonable to quote one of their hard news people, but not their opinion people. Similarly you wouldn't ever quote Kelly Ann Conway on anything if you were looking for truth. I'd double check it regardless and ask if there is a way they could be twisting true information to yield a misleading impression.

Either way, news should be accurate. Interesting or not is irrelevant. Sadly everyone wants ratings. People also lack the ability to look at things on deeper levels. You knew almost everything about Hillary, while you knew almost nothing about Trump, other than he was hiding almost everything and was a talented con man.

He asked us, "What do you have to lose?" Well, he has provided an answer. He has attacked the following constitutionally protected groups:

1) The Press (all of them).
2) Judges (all of them. He just called them all political).
3) Lawmakers (Yah, it was pretty much everyone versus trump the last election. Had he stuck to truth I might have had some sympathy here.)
4) disabled/women/religions.

He also attacks corporations that displease him left and right, or displease his daughter. As near as I can tell he wants to cow all opposition. If he succeeds then the country is basically lost, at least for a time, and perhaps longer...

So the answer to what do we have to lose? How about our democracy? It is quite clear that Mr. Trump doesn't care about it.

Re:Censorship.

[epyT-R]

The writing is better but the content is not. Don't confuse the two. Good language skills are just as helpful for convincing lies as they are for truth telling.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Der Guardian is on par with the Daily Mail in veracity.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah sounds like prior censoring to me. But whatevah ... its to protect us.

Re:Censorship.

[Hylandr]

CNN is just as bad as all the rest of the alphabet channels. All they care about is ratings, and the dollar that comes with ratings.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia has been garbage for a long time.

Re:Censorship.

[grantspassalan]

It is obvious that enough Americans agreed with Trump or at least disagreed with Hillary. If that were not the case, he would not be in the White House today.

Re:Censorship.

[rwyoder]

There's a delightful exchange from Yes Minister that, while reflecting the major British papers as they were in the late 70s and early 80s, is still relatively true today:

Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.

I'm going through the Netflix DVD's of this right now.
I've watched it in it's entirety once before.
I've never seen more brilliantly written political satire!

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

No, that was Donald Trump. He told lies about himself. About Hillary. About the state of the country. He even lied about how he won the election.

A politician? Lie? Who could have seen that coming?

There was a time when the press was more honest than the politicians. Now it feels like 19th century yellow journalism all over again.

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

He asked us, "What do you have to lose?" Well, he has provided an answer. He has attacked the following constitutionally protected groups:

1) The Press (all of them).
2) Judges (all of them. He just called them all political).
3) Lawmakers (Yah, it was pretty much everyone versus trump the last election. Had he stuck to truth I might have had some sympathy here.)
4) disabled/women/religions.

The only attacks I've seen are the Berkeley protestors beating people with clubs. What I've seen from Trump are mean tweets. And no one is immune to criticism just because they're a member of any of those groups. There are fuckups in all walks of life (especially politicians)

And did a lefty just tell me that it's bad to criticize a religion? Really? I'm not even Christian, but after watching 40 years of non-stop, relentless criticism of Christians, Christianity, Christian values, and anything remotely religious, by the left, the hypocrisy of that statement is amazing.

Re:Censorship.

[hackwrench]

What does the concept of standards have to do with whether this is censorship?

Re:Censorship.

[naubol]

and everyone else is within their rights when they call it what it is: censorship.

Upon further reflection, I realize that I was wrong and it is not in fact "censorship".

I've resolved to be less hysterical and to realize that words have meaning. I apologize to everyone here on Slashdot.

Now that you've calmed down, which word are you having trouble with? Censorship? Are you one of those pedants who can't even get the meaning right?

From wikipedia itself:

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions./blockquote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

So, is it suppression of information for an encyclopedia to filter out poor sources? I think it isn't. Or, you have to put it that all false information is purposefully censored by wikipedia, as sort of its mission statement, which semantically makes sense but the connotations of the word censorship makes its use taste absurd on the tongue in this context.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? Are you dismissing Trump's lying because of your own cynical despondency?

Becsuse no, I haven't seen any politicians so committed to lying that they came across quite like Trump. Outright con-artists, door-to-door salesmen, and paid programming pitchmen, maybe.

Personally, I don't know whether to be more sickened by him or the people who purport to believe his pablum. Have they no decency?

That his opinions come across as unhinged, does him no favors with me either. Or decorum.

You should learn some judgement. Really, the mistake of all the media has been to legitimize Trump at all. Which to be fair, they're not alone, politicians, business leaders, religious figures, they should have nothing to do with him, but that!s been the case since the eighties.

Kinda feel sad for the Republican party though, they must feel suicidally desperate.

Re: Censorship.

[ShanghaiBill]

As with the Nobel's, which are a *little* harder to get nominated for, the only thing that matters is winning. Being considered says nothing.

In 1939, Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't win.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more worried about Trump's threats to cut off the university's funding, while showing total indifference to the real problem being a failure by the police.

Gosh, Donald, you didn't realize where the problem was...again. Which made his list of "terrorist" events thag he claimed the media didn't cover even more laughable as it was exposed.

But hey, did you hear about the guy who was exposed to Ricin in Georgia? No, not the one in 2011, the recent one. Huh.

Can we ban Georgia and Alabama from the rest of the United States? They seem dangerous. I think we need a review period. To be safe.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Upon further reflection, I realize I was originally right and revoke my apology.

Re:Censorship.

[taiwanjohn]

In a similar vein, the science journalist Peter Hadfield (aka Potholer54) has a hilarious quote about this: "I know a lot of editors at the Mail, and the nugget of science they understand is so small it could be drowned in their lunchtime gins & tonics."

The quote is from Hadfield's excellent video debunking myths about climate change. (This video is just one of a series on the subject, which is very much worth the time.)

Re:Censorship.

[bongey]

Have you looked at CNN,WashPost, NY Times or the Huffy Post? 10x worse than the DailyMail, at least the daily mail knows they tell some BS tabloid stories, where the MSM tells BS stories and actually believes their BS stories.

Re:Censorship.

[Barsteward]

they should add the Daily Express to the list as well, its just as bad

Re:Censorship.

[bongey]

Dailymail has better format with a clear outline that just states the facts they know at the beginning, without opinion. MSM reports stories in the way to persuade readers into a certain viewpoint by omitting information, flashy headlines, opinions in news pieces, and putting real facts at the very end so the reader will basically skip over it.

Re:Censorship.

[kangsterizer]

maybe its a start.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bahahahaahaha.. oh wait, you're serious.

"without opinion"... gngnnBahahahahahhahahaha!

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

I seldom read RT but the few 'articles' but sometimes I see RT listed as a source for articles in other media.
They are often well written and fairly consistent in themselves. They problem is that they are pushing an alternative narrative.
Take for example when Russia decided to go into Syria.
There were demonstrations outside the Russian embassy because the Syrians didn't want Russian military operations there.
The article presented by RT said that the Syrian people held a manifestation outside the Russian embassy to show their support. (Yep, how often does that happen?)
According to RT the grenades that were thrown to disperse the demonstration were from terrorists who didn't want Russian presence there.

RT articles are probably believable if you don't stop and think about them too much but they are in no way decent or reliable.

All media outlets have an agenda of some sort. A long time ago a few of them had the agenda to provide fair and balanced news.
Now most of them have shifted the agenda to push clickbait so that they can pay the bills. Typically they don't spend much time on fact checking so you can call that unreliable if you will.
Outlets like RT and Breitbart on the other hand isn't driven by money. They are driven with a political agenda so they won't let random news through.
It it fits their narrative they publish it. If it doesn't fit their narrative they either removes it or they misrepresents it until it does.

Other news sources will edit the headline to pull in your eyes. RT will edit the content to pull in your mind.

Re:Censorship.

[tsotha]

I think they try to get the story right if it doesn't challenge their biases. They can't credibly claim to be impartial purveyors of news after the last few election cycles, but there's still a large qualitative difference between them and the click-baity stuff you see in The Daily Mail. Though you have to read the international news with a large degree of skepticism - even the largest outlets rely on the AP for international news after closing their foreign desks.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been banned from Wikipedia because I insisted that the fluff section of the Telegraaf is not a reliable source.
I know someone who works there. They don't check sources, because there are none: they Google around for a bit and then just make up a story. He thinks that's okay, since it isn't meant to be taken seriously in the first place. I'm not sure I agree.

Re:Censorship.

[rainmouse]

I'd argue that RT is about as bad as the others but generally uses higher register language than the far right press. A big mistake may be to read all believing the truth lies somewhere in the aggregate, when frequently they are all just not true.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...
And yes, I am aware of the irony of citing a news source.

Re:Censorship.

[Chrisq]

The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.

To be fair you're not allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source in Wikipedia articles either. ;-)

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Daily Mail is garbage - but so is The Guardian.

The difference is that Wikipedia has been taken over by the social justice loons who agree with The Guardian.

Wrap it up. Wikipedia really is done.

Re:Censorship.

[AmiMoJo]

The Daily Mail is the exactly opposite of what you describe. A typical story starts with several paragraphs of reaction and outrage, before right at the end on page 7 mentioning the facts.

Here's a classic example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...

Note how even in the byline they manage to sneak a lie in (the straight banana law was debunked when it first surfaced in the 90s). If you can wade through all the ranting you will find a perfectly sensible, rational explanation for the ruling.

That's why the Daily Fail has been banned. It's not a serious source of news, it's a source of outrage and vitriol. Almost entirely fact free, virtually pure opinion (so long as it's the opinion of people who are angry, or who you should be angry about not being angry).

Re:Censorship.

[AmiMoJo]

Other media outlets make mistakes, and they are quickly found and covered by other outlets. The Daily Mail rarely prints anything that is accurate, because it's editorial goal is to mislead. The entire point of the thing is to make you angry, not to inform.

It's one thing to try and occasionally fail to deliver news, it's another to consciously try to distort news for profit and to influence the government.

Re:Censorship.

[queBurro]

Daily *Heil*, not *Fail*. "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" etc.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think: in a couple of years, it will be a historical show from the time when the UK was part of the European Union.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think the Express is far, far worse. My mother gets both the Express and Daily Mail delivered every day (don't judge too much, she's nearly 80) and I always have a flick through them when I visit. The Mail is actually not bad providing you open it at page 5 or so and go from there and actually has decent sport, finance and travel sections. The Express is pure vitriolic shite from cover to cover but for some reason doesn't attract the same criticism as the Mail.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

You cited the Big Brother Corporation so this goes beyond irony.

Re:Censorship.

[oji-sama]

The Daily Mail is the exactly opposite of what you describe. A typical story starts with several paragraphs of reaction and outrage, before right at the end on page 7 mentioning the facts.

I came here to post this. This is exactly my experience with Daily Mail. The articles (and I am using the word loosely) start with pure distilled lying shit, and IF you happen to read the end, there is (if they lied enough) their 'get out of jail' card where they briefly state what actually happened (quite contrary to what they wrote above), so they can't be sued.

Re:Censorship.

[SharpFang]

The difference is that RT reporting is often selective, biased, opinionated - painting facts in certain light, keeping silent about some facts and emphasizing others thus painting incomplete image and with misleading implications. The facts they present are just facts though, even if they may mislead you into drawing wrong conclusions through clever wording. If you're careful though, and use multiple sources, confronting them, you are able to extract objective truth; take what the article *says*, not what it *implies* and you're good. If RT says "Kremlin announced plans of X..." you're not getting information that X is or will be true, but you're getting an absolutely true, objective information that announcement of plans of X by Kremlin occurred - regardless of what opinion the article expresses about X.

Meanwhile, Daily Mail fabricates facts. "Russia begins X!" - Nope. It does not. The announcement doesn't make it a fact. The chance Kremlin follows up with actual actions is indeterminate, the time scale was not announced, and there's not even a trace of X in Russia as of now. The news is fake.

Biased reporting is still a valid source, even if you need to proceed with caution because the wording is not conductive to impartial conclusions. Fake reporting is not a valid source, period. The only actual fact we can draw from a link to such an article was that Daily Mail announced that Russia begins X.

Re:Censorship.

[AmiMoJo]

The awful thing is that people believe that stuff, and make irreversible, hugely important decisions based on it.

There was a woman on Question Time last week. For those not in the UK, Question Time is a BBC programme where the public can ask a panel of politicians and invited guests questions. She stated that she was going to vote remain, but the day before the vote was in the supermarket and saw some bananas, which reminded her of the straight bananas lie and caused her to change her mind.

We are all victims of these lies, of decades of deception by the Daily Mail and many other parts of our media. Our democracy has failed.

Re:Censorship.

[stealth_finger]

The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.

Not quite, The Daily Fail is little more than a propaganda and gossip rag.

Re:Censorship.

[SharpFang]

Articles are usually a combination of facts and narrative, some opinion or agenda.

As long as facts check out, that's okay for Wikipedia source. The narrative does get in the way, reducing value of the source, but doesn't invalidate the facts. The source confirms article author didn't make it up, but it's the wikipedia article that must present the facts impartially, stripping the narrative and opinions. If it manages to do it, all is well.

The problem begins when facts are fabricated. This is where Wikipedia must draw a line.

Re:Censorship.

[Jahta]

The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.

I'm guessing you are not familiar with The Daily Mail then. It has long history of running sensationalist, and frequently fabricated, material. The Daily Mail gets a whole chapter to itself in the excellent book Flat Earth News. Personally, I wouldn't trust the Mail (or the Daily Express) to tell me what day of the week it was.

A few years ago, on the BBC satirical show Mock the Week, Frankie Boyle commented that the quintessential Daily Mail headline would be "Immigrants Carry New Form of AIDS That Lowers House Prices"; completely untrue but guaranteed to push all the hot buttons of their target demographic in the UK.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.

I'm guessing you are not familiar with The Daily Mail then. It has long history of running sensationalist, and frequently fabricated, material. ...

So, they're the UK equivalent of the New York Times and the Oh-look-the-Russians-also-hacked-the-US-electrical-grid-ohwaitnevermind Washington Post?

Fact is, Wikipedia banished The Daily Mail not because it's slanted, but because it's slanted the wrong way.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, anyone who thinks the Mail is somehow in the same league is the NYT or Washington Post doesn't strike me as someone actually interested in reliability. Journalism isn't perfect but the Mail doesn't even try.

True, the Mail is not in the same league as the NYT or Washington Post.

The Mail exists in a superior league.

The Mail admits and owns their biases.

The NYT and Washington Post smugly and pretentiously LIE about their lack of bias.

Yep - not the same league at all. One league is open and transparent. The other spouts sanctimonious lying bullshit.

Re:Censorship.

[jabuzz]

Really, please point to one story of any consequence in the last decade that the Daily Mail has broken. Can't think of one myself. Stories about celebrities and their private lives don't count.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

All the dodgy news outlets have *some* good people doing good work. It's when the bulk of the outlet's work is trash that they become generally unreliable: the chore of asking "is this another of those made-up climate propaganda pieces?" becomes moot when the answer is usually "yes".

They made their bed, they can lie (heh) in it.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

They allow, say, Russia Today. Known to be slanted, but everybody knows which way they lean. So you may trust them when they report on stuff that don't have ties to Russian politics.

Daily mail isn't consistently slanted, it is more like 'anything sensationalist goes if it sells papers'. Which means it may be an humorous read, but not trustable on any kind of topic.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

They were open and explicit in 2016 that winning the election was ore important than truth.

No, that was Donald Trump. He told lies about himself. About Hillary. About the state of the country. He even lied about how he won the election.

He's lied since then as well.

Maybe you need to get a hold of the truth.

Given the standard for truth that Hillary! set - it's news when Hillary! tells the fucking truth - the problem isn't Donald Trump.

The problem is that the media lost all claim to having any hold on the truth when they deliberately overlooked the serial and obvious lies Hillary! continuously spewed.

You accepted that from Hillary!, now you're stuck with it from Trump.

Maybe you should have thought about that before letting Hillary! get away with lying.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up who can nominate people for the Nobel peace price. It includes "Members of national assemblies and national governments". So of course Adolf Hitler was nominated, he had a loyal government which was in position to do so.

Re:Censorship.

[stealth_finger]

They were open and explicit in 2016 that winning the election was ore important than truth.

No, that was Donald Trump. He told lies about himself. About Hillary. About the state of the country. He even lied about how he won the election.

He's lied since then as well.

Maybe you need to get a hold of the truth.

Didn't you get the memo? Trump cannot lie. Everything that disagrees with him is 'Fake news' and anything supporting his narrative is 'alternate facts'. If he happens to actually tell the truth then that's just a happy accident.

Re:Censorship.

[stealth_finger]

The Daily Mail is the exactly opposite of what you describe. A typical story starts with several paragraphs of reaction and outrage, before right at the end on page 7 mentioning the facts.

Here's a classic example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...

Note how even in the byline they manage to sneak a lie in (the straight banana law was debunked when it first surfaced in the 90s). If you can wade through all the ranting you will find a perfectly sensible, rational explanation for the ruling.

That's why the Daily Fail has been banned. It's not a serious source of news, it's a source of outrage and vitriol. Almost entirely fact free, virtually pure opinion (so long as it's the opinion of people who are angry, or who you should be angry about not being angry).

I find the worst part of the mail, at least on their website is all the way down the right side they have other stories, which is nothing in itself but it runs about 3 miles down the page (seriously, way, way, way past the content) and 9/10 are look at what this semi-famous person is wearing.

Re:Censorship.

[AmiMoJo]

The only attacks I've seen are the Berkeley protestors beating people with clubs.

This is fake news. There was a completely unsubstantiated claim by an NY Times reporter, which seems like a bizarre false flag op:

Then I saw someone wearing all black walk up to a student wearing a suit and say, âoeYou look like a Nazi.â The student was confused, but before he could reply, the black-clad person pepper-sprayed him and hit him on the back with a rod.

I ran after the student who was attacked to get his name and more information. He told me that he is a Syrian Muslim. Before I could find out more, he fled, fearing another attack.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

So at best we have a rumour, based on a story that clearly makes no sense (why would an anti-hate, anti-discrimination protester identify as Syrian as a Nazi?). If anything it suggests that the protest was sabotaged by Milo supporters.

This somehow became a factual report when repeated on alt-right websites. And you either didn't bother to investigate it, or didn't want to, or are too incompetent to make a sensible judgement.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

And did a lefty just tell me that it's bad to criticize a religion? Really? I'm not even Christian, but after watching 40 years of non-stop, relentless criticism of Christians,

Apparently, Christianity is the only religion lefties can criticize. Try a blatant attack on Islam. You'll get much more trouble with western lefties, than with any islamist organizations/supporters.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sames been said about the National Enquirer, but ask John Edwards about it.

Re:Censorship.

[dave420]

How can you claim that's a fact when there is no evidence for it? Convenience of argument?

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to embellish the facts!

Re:Censorship.

[coofercat]

...and let's not forget the 'sidebar of shame' which is mostly about women in scant clothing and whatever scandal they can think of to make up some click bait. Hardly the way to incite confidence and trust in your journalism.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

As with the Nobel's, which are a *little* harder to get nominated for, the only thing that matters is winning. Being considered says nothing.

In 1939, Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't win.

That's almost as big as an embarrassment as handing out a Peace Prize to someone who never did anything for peace.

Literally. Because he couldn't have yet.

Think that'll ever happen?

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I used to work there and met any. Although I did have the privilege of telling the editor at the time that I wouldn't wipe my arse with his paper for fear of catching something.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are videos of people getting beaten and maced outside of Milo's event. Are the videos faked?

Re:Censorship.

[Greystripe]

So you agree that CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, and a lot of other MSM "news" organizations are worse than The Daily Mail or do you have your blinders on?

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't vote for Trump...or Hillary. The candidate I wanted was ousted in the primaries; so after that, I'm perfectly happy with eating popcorn while America and the world go up in flames around me. Hell, I'll use those flames to efficiently pop more popcorn. Trump, as fucked up as he is, is exactly what the country needs right now. A good fucking kick in the goddamn nuts to both sides of the fence. Maybe we'll actually learn from it for a change, but I'm not holding my breath. In fact, I'll be laughing my ass off as the chaos reigns around me.

Re:Censorship.

[AmiMoJo]

The legendary sidebar of shame.

Re:Censorship.

[silentcoder]

They are, if you actually consider what the standard is: a consensus view among editors that the articles are unreliable and not representing accurate facts.
That doesn't happen lightly - the debate took weeks before the vote, and the vote requirement to actually ban a source is extremely high - you need over 80% of editors to agree. That's some ten-thousand people from around the world, with different biases, ideas, philosophies and beliefs - and you need to get 80% of them to agree before any publication can be banned. It requires a CONSENSUS view - not just a majority view.

The D.M. ban came after years and years of having article based on DM sources that had to be rewritten, replaced and even deleted entirely as they turned out to be pure fabrications. That's a crapload of extra work for editors - who are, remember, volunteers.

It is not censorship - they can't stop anybody reading the dailymail, but they ahve every right to decide that the frequency with which dailymail reports force them to have to do extra work due to blatantly false claims makes it not worth the effort of allowing as a source, since after all, the mission of the organisation is dependent on reliable sources.

There are different ideas on how an encyclopaedia should strive for accuracy. The traditional view is by hiring a host of experts, one on every topic you have an entry on, and have them write the topics for you. Then edit and prettify and have them fact-check the result. This is how things like Encyclopaedia Britanica for example is done.
That, however, is not viable for a crowd-sourced one... so how do you fact check ? They had to find a new way, that way is to demand reliable, outside, expert sources that agree with the statements of fact made on the pages. This reduces the workload from an unmangeable "find a verified expert on every topic and resolve disputes whenever a topic has two experts who don't agree" to a much more manageable "select which sources we trust". A process which, in another contradiction of typical encyclopaedic standards actually is based on "benefit of the doubt" - any published source starts out as "acceptable". Even your personal blog can be a source - though if you fail fact-checking (consistently) you will eventually cease to be one. If it can be backed up by multiple sources this is deemed even better. A scientists' blog about his current research is a fantastic thing to have as a source - it means wikipedia can have up to date information (far moreso than the competition), but having a link to the published paper when it comes out is even more important - because that will include the corrections made over the course of the research and not reflected in the earlier running-commentary posts.

Re: Censorship.

[silentcoder]

>Literally. Because he couldn't have yet.

What you just said cannot possibly be true of anybody over the age of about 2. If you can speak, you can do something about peace. Not everybody DOES - but everybody CAN.

You don't need to be in a position of power to have achieved something remarkable just by the way you sought power.

Re: Censorship.

[silentcoder]

Except that his government didn't nominate him. He was nominated by Swedish M.P. E.G.C. Brandt. and Brandt seriously did not want him to win. Brandt believed that the Nobel nomination process was way too open, allowing people to win who did not live up to Alfred Nobel's wishes for what the peace prize is meant to achieve. The science prizes make more sense. He nominated Hitler to showcase how ridiculous the system was - even the "most obviously worst possible person to consider giving it to" has to be considered if somebody who works for a government says so.

Re:Censorship.

[silentcoder]

>The only attacks I've seen are the Berkeley protestors beating people with clubs.
So... somehow you saw THAT but not the Milo supporter SHOOTING at them five minutes earlier and critically injuring one ?

You know... when people are shooting at you, attacking them with clubs is probably a justified response. If anything, it shows remarkable restraint.

Re:Censorship.

[rhazz]

I don't know if those videos exist, but knowing Milo, any drama of any sort happening around him is just as likely to be a planned part of the show. Like Trump, Milo is simply reality TV on the political stage and most of the content is made up for shock value.

Re:Censorship.

[tehcyder]

The awful thing is that people believe that stuff, and make irreversible, hugely important decisions based on it.

There was a woman on Question Time last week. For those not in the UK, Question Time is a BBC programme where the public can ask a panel of politicians and invited guests questions. She stated that she was going to vote remain, but the day before the vote was in the supermarket and saw some bananas, which reminded her of the straight bananas lie and caused her to change her mind.

We are all victims of these lies, of decades of deception by the Daily Mail and many other parts of our media. Our democracy has failed.

What really gets me about the straight banana story (which I believe was one of the inventions of that legendary journalist Boris Johnson) is that even if it was true who really cares?

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly my experience with every written (print or posted) source of "news." If you think your favorite source is different, that might be because they skip the facts at the end rather than skipping the bias at the start.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

>The only attacks I've seen are the Berkeley protestors beating people with clubs.
So... somehow you saw THAT but not the Milo supporter SHOOTING at them five minutes earlier and critically injuring one ?

Yiannopoulos is a trolling piece of shit that nobody should open their university doors to, but your facts are off. The shooting was at the University of Washington Jan 21. Berkely protests were Feb 2.

Re:Censorship.

[Archtech]

And you believe the NYT or WaPo even tries?

Yes.Yes, I do believe they try.

But *what* do they try? That is the question.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a lot like...

Fox News
Huffington Post
Wall Street Journal
The Economist
[insert your favorite troll pamphleteer here]

Re:Censorship.

[Raenex]

This is fake news. There was a completely unsubstantiated claim by an NY Times reporter, which seems like a bizarre false flag op:

That's not a bizarre false flag op, that's cognitive dissonance on your part.

So at best we have a rumour

No, an eyewitness account from a reporter that matches other violence at the event that's been caught on film, such as this flag pole attack, or this woman being pepper sprayed while giving an interview, or this college Republican being attacked wearing a suit and Trump hat the morning after.

based on a story that clearly makes no sense (why would an anti-hate, anti-discrimination protester identify as Syrian as a Nazi?)

Probably because the left has been throwing around the term "Nazi" like it was confetti, and he was wearing a suit, as the reporter mentioned, something you'd associate with the right, establishment, and conservatism at a lefty protest where hate-filled thugs are violently attacking people and property to shut down another person's free speech. Also, maybe he was wearing a Trump hat that was knocked off before the reporter saw the attack.

If anything it suggests that the protest was sabotaged by Milo supporters.

You truly have your head up your ass. And I suppose the 200+ people arrested and charged as part of a gang committing violence during Trump's inauguration were Trump supporters?

What you don't want to admit is that the left has become the party of violence, openly condoning it in many cases.

This somehow became a factual report when repeated on alt-right websites. And you either didn't bother to investigate it, or didn't want to, or are too incompetent to make a sensible judgement.

*snort* Yes, because you've done such a good job investigating it yourself with your baseless claims of false flag attacks and "fake news".

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can read the lies in the aggregate, though, and see which outlets tend to cover each other with their lies, and which tend to lie in completely opposite directions. Well, it is theoretically possible. From what I can tell, literally nobody does this.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1939, Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't win.

And if they would've voted before September 1st, he would have won. But the worldwide Jewish-Bolshevik-Comintern conspiracy delayed the vote until after Poland attacked Germany at Gleiwitz and Hitler was forced to defend his country.

Re:Censorship.

[TimothyHollins]

Have you checked the more contentious wikipedia pages?

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about when the left chants "racist, racist, racist" at individuals to shut down any attempt to discuss immigration policies?

The left's insinuations that voting "LEAVE" was "racist" led directly to Brexit. Suck it up.

Re:Censorship.

[randallman]

Nice attempt at spin. I don't condone any violence, but Trump thinks he's King and you should be worried. His communication isn't "mean tweets", it's a display of unimaginable ignorance, stupidity, and lack of decency. What, just yesterday he used the office of POTUS to slam Nordstrom because they dropped her daughter's clothing line or something. Ridiculous behaviour.

President Camacho was better suited for the office than Trump - at least he showed some respect.

Re:Censorship.

[AmiMoJo]

The biggest irony is that all the people citing it as evidence that we are being dictated to by faceless EU bureaucrats don't realize that it's the other way around. They were our rules on bananas, already part of UK law, that the EU decided to adopt. Most countries had already adopted similar rules anyway, because they were sensible.

Re:Censorship.

[tehcyder]

The Express is pure vitriolic shite from cover to cover but for some reason doesn't attract the same criticism as the Mail.

That's because it's much less popular, the Mail sells about four times as many copies as the Express.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think broke the Clinton email story? Hint : it wasn't Fox news.

Re:Censorship.

[tehcyder]

they should add the Daily Express to the list as well, its just as bad

The Daily Express is a down market version of the Daily Mail, it's English Defence League rather than Oswald Moseley Blackshirts.

Re:Censorship.

[Raenex]

So... somehow you saw THAT but not the Milo supporter SHOOTING at them five minutes earlier and critically injuring one ?

What shooting at Berkeley? There was one at University of Washington, not at Berkeley, and it was claimed self-defense by an Asian guy who was being surrounded and assaulted before he pulled out his gun and shot one of the attackers.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

So far Trump is actually trying to fulfill his campaign promises unlike Obama. Trump has done more to keep his word to his voters than any recent president that I can remember. Now many of those promises are a bit crazy but at least he does what he says he will. I'm still waiting on gittmo being closed, keeping my same doctor, this wonderful open government, and healthcare that is actually affordable.

Re:Censorship.

[Yunzil]

What I've seen from Trump are mean tweets.

You mean apart from the Muslim ban, antagonizing our allies, ramping up tensions with Iran, and being best buds with Vladimir Putin?

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, Trump is claiming to keep promises while screwing over folks left and right, and lying about it, take his executive order, not only did he lie about how many people it impacted, he has now lied and said he wanted to delay it. Plus his responses to the judicial action has been beyond the pale.

In contrast, Obama did work to close the prison at Guantanamo, but it was the GOP that continued to refuse to allow him to bring prisoners to trial, opposed the release of others (including those who were not enemy combatants) and the transfer of others to their home nations. He also did nothing to take your doctor away from you, so your complaints about that are fallacious, unless you wanted him to impose nationwide public healthcare, and guess what? Health insurance costs did get lowered for many people, it isn't Obama's fault that many states refused to expand Medicaid.

Sorry, but at most, you have Obama not being perfect. When opposed to Trump's derangement, you lose.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we can see you attacking Hillary for lying even now. Poorly, as you lacked specifics, but the problem with that is you find the righties have a history of making up lies about Hillary, including the deathlist, a random screed of assorted deaths, which are breathlessly associated with the Clintons as evidence of some murderous plot.

Trump did much the same, ranging from his accusations on abortion to literally founding ISIS. Ok, that last may only reflect on his inadequacy in speaking English, but that's even worse.

Sorry, but you don't convince me of your choices by going even further into the muck. I though Mitt Romney was mendacious enough, but the GOP surprised me by going even more repellent. Not that they had any great choices, but really, going for Trump? Seems more like a dystopian novel.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably the racist tendencies as people scream about crime and rape and gangs when it comes to immigration, but show not the slightest concern for the exploited among them. Or their owwn repellent members.

Or the exploiters like in the US, Tyson, Wal-mart, Trump, and more.

And a 4% margin for a poll with No Specifics and questionable turnout? Pardon me for not taking it as a sacred word, but looking askance at May's dogmatic frenzy instead. She may face a no-confidence vote sooner than she realizes.

Re:Censorship.

[stealth_finger]

Have you checked the more contentious wikipedia pages?

No, but the fail is on everypage. Go to wiki and it's mostly kinda legitish with some toxic spots. Did you ever see robocop? You know that vat that gets splashed all over that guy and he's all melty and shit? That was full of liquid daily mail.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

NBC was broadcasting live. Not fox news. Not a random youtube channel. Left-leaning NBC broadcasted beatings and a person being interviewed being pepper sprayed live and you "don't know if those videos exist."

This is precisely the sort of speech given out by German civilians in defense of doing nothing against the holocaust and yet you call the other side Nazis. Ignorance is not a virtue, unless you are part of the hateful left these days.

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

RT and Fox always seemed like very biased news to me, so it is ironic that I now trust them much more than any of the other news outlets that I lost all respect for recently.

According to Wikipedia, the media outlets that were reporting a 90% chance of Hillary winning on the morning of the election are still trustworthy.

Re:Censorship.

[micahraleigh]

A TON of examples.

The Washington Post reported the Kremlin was hacking into voting machines. They later retracted the story and put it on page 3. In fact the FEC contacted voting machines in Georgia during hte 2016 election.

CNN also reported on completely debunked BuzzFeed claims about bizarre sex practices of Donald Trump. It's not that they didn't vet their sources either. Ben Smith, the editor at BuzzFeed claimed the fact that national intelligence agencies were asking about the truth of the source mean they were completely justified in reporting them as news.

In other words we are swimming in political hackery semi-disguised as news, but Daily Mail gets punished for not towing the ideological line.

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

Clearly you're not a fan of democracy if you want to surrender the sovereignty of Britain to the unelected few who rule the EU.

Anyhow, democracy was never based on the premise of an intelligent an informed electorate. Who could believe that rubbish premise? It's based on the idea that when things get so bad that no amount of lies by the government can fool them, they can overthrow that government without violence.

Democracy in the UK has very much worked. It's working less well in the US given the wave of political violence we've been having. I hope that's just a temporary temper-tantrum, as it leads to a very dark place if it continues. Just last week we had roving mobs breaking shop windows, starting fires, and beating people with clubs, all in a riot to prevent a gay Jew from speaking. We've seen how that sort of thing ends.

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

There was no shooting at Berkeley. There was a shooting, but it was clearly justified self-defense, and the cops didn't bring charges. There will be more and more of that sort of thing if the left can't get its temper-tantrums under control.

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

My sig says it all. America was built as a system to limit the power of a ruler you don't like. Seems like we've weakened those constraints in the past century. Perhaps a smaller, less power central government would prevent this sort of thing from ever being an issue? That was, after all, the founding principle of this nation.

Re:Censorship.

[AmiMoJo]

Why do you and certain other users always take one faulty assumption, and then compound the error with more stacked on top of it? A little caution would be advisable.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a lie . It's a quote, attributed to MEP Paul Nuttall (whose party affiliation is stated, so you know what you're getting). It's only a lie if Nuttall didn't, in fact, say that.

This is an excellent example of how "fake news" hysteria spreads into condemning real news. Nuttall may be lying, or he may simply be stupid - my money would be on "lying" - but the report that he said something is not, in itself, proven false merely because the "something" is false.

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

The guys I see wearing black, breaking shop windows, starting fires, and protesting Jewish speakers, are Antifa. When fascism comes again it will wear the guise of anti-fascism.

Re:Censorship.

[silentcoder]

Oh right, like the teaparty protests didn't get violent at times ?

Hell the left boasts having quite recently held the largest protest in human history without a single arrest.

And now I'll really blow your mind - it's not because the women were well behaved. They behaved no differently than protestors of all stripes always do. It's because the cops don't like to pick fights with a bunch of white women - so they didn't go and find flimsy excuses to arrest protestors and thus provoke a clash. The same reason there weren't many arrests during the teaparty protests - because cops don't like to pick fights with a lot of white people. Only an idiot thinks the teaparty protestors were any better behaved than say BLM protestors.

Anyway, they ARE justified to use violence. This is the outbreak of the second civil war at the very least, world war 3 most likely. They are literally fighting for their lives, to protect themselves and their loved ones. They are as justified in their actions as the Jewish resistance fighter were in the German ghettos when they fought back against the NAZI's - with guns.

And the right doesn't get to complain. We've had 8 years of a moderate president being obstructed and protested against at every turn on the most ridiculous basis - flagrantly made up bullshit most of the time. Hell, how many people protested because they thought he was going to take their guns ? He never took anybody's guns and, in fact, gun laws are actually became MORE lax under Obama - but gun companies profited from telling people that, and politicians played along opportunistically and a bunch of rightwing nutjobs fell for the scam.
8 years of bullshit protests and obstruction over the most innocuous of things. The army does excercises in Texas like they've done every year since 2003- and suddenly the whole state is protesting and even sending the state guard to keep an eye on them out of some bizarre fear that this was "the start of martial law".

Even if the republicans had elected a sane and moderate president it would be fucking payback time. They didn't, they elected an autocratic demagogue who thinks he is a dictator, lies every time he opens his mouth, signs insane executive orders he has neither read nor attempted to understand, appointed an attorney general who was denied a judgeship by a republican senate for being insanely racist... it would be payback time even if it had been John Kasich... But for Trump.
This will NEVER stop. He will be facing constant protest right until his 4 years are up - and the only president in history who had LESS chance of re-election than Donald Trump was William Henry Harrison - and he died in his first month in office.That is, of course, assuming you get to have another election. Trump is actively looking for his Reichstag fire. He's already claimed that the next terrorist attack will be fault of the courts. He can't wait for one to happen - it will be the excuse he wants.
You were so afraid that Obama would declare martial law - with no reason to ever think he might. Then you elected a president who is determined to do so at the first excuse no matter how flimsy.
Hell he tried to justify his ban by referring to the people who died in the attack on the Louvre... too bad the Louvre was never attacked, a soldier in a shopping mall was attacked (the Mall does have Louvre in it's name somewhere but it's not the museum), and the attacker was instantly arrested - nobody died. Oh, and he is from Egypt - NOT one of the countries Trump tried to ban.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious??

Verbal attacks are attacks. The word "attack" is right in the phrase! Also, you seem to think that it's incidental that Trump is rich, powerful, and the President. No, as the President he has far more authority and people paying attention to him than, well, nearly anyone else.

Trump had better be careful. If he can call a judge a "so-called judge", then Trump can be called a "so-called President", a doctor can be called a "so-called doctor", a mechanic can be called a "so-called mechanic" and so on ad infinitum. There's a saying about people in glass houses.

Trump has verbal diarrhea to the max. He has great diarrhea , yuge diarrhea , you're gonna see so much diarrhea you won't believe it! He's gonna diarrhea the crap out of you!

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

Oh right, like the teaparty protests didn't get violent at times ?

Never heard of any such thing. If so, that was totally unacceptable, as is all political violence.

And now I'll really blow your mind

You're a college sophomore, aren't you?

Anyway, they ARE justified to use violence. This is the outbreak of the second civil war at the very least, world war 3 most likely. They are literally fighting for their lives, to protect themselves and their loved ones

Wow, any more bullshit you want to make up between bong hits?

And the right doesn't get to complain.

As you've no doubt said your whole life. Well guess what, the pendulum is swinging the other way. The self-appointed elite have been rejected at the poles, in the US and the UK. Working-class people are having their turn in the sun.

Everyone has the right to complain. No one has the right to engage in political violence These two ideas are the foundation of a free society.

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

That's what's known as "logical reasoning from basic truths". Scary and foreign to you, I know. Maybe read the posts while wearing sunglasses to lessen the impact.

Re:Censorship.

[dywolf]

see many batboy magazines as sources at wiki?
cause thats the level the daily mail is at.

Re:Censorship.

[dywolf]

"but the journalism itself is some of the best you'll find"

thats why they regularly publish total bullshit, especially when it comes to science, especially when it comes to global warming?

Re:Censorship.

[silentcoder]

Nobody was protesting working class people. It's NAZIs being protested.
And the ONLY place for NAZIs in the political arena is at the end of a fist.

No, it does NOT get to be tolerated. Karl Poppler proved that extending tolerance to intolerant beliefs is a logical fallacy. Tolerance only goes to those that return the favour.

Oh, and I'm a 37 year old professional programmer. I also happen to be a bit of a history geek - and more importantly - to pay attention to what historians are saying right now... and that;'s why I'm saying this is the start of a second civil war and possibly a world war. The president has managed to provoke insane international diplomatic incidents with no less than 3 American allies and he's only been on the job a couple of weeks ! Oh and Steve Bannon would agree with me. He has been saying, publicly, that he believes world war 3 is imminent and will be center around a China/America conflict. He is one of those morons who believes in cyclic history. I am merely saying "don't repeat patterns that have always led to war" - HE is saying "It is the time when war must happen, so I will actually try to help it along so I can steer HOW it starts to benefit myself". This guy now chairs the national security commission. Bannon calls it "The fourth turning". The first turning was the civil war. Each world war was another - and he believes it's time for a fourth. You know all that S.F. about should we go back and kill Hitler ? There's all sorts of paradoxes there - but... should we kill somebody who wants to BE Hitler and now has the power to act on it ? Damn right we should.
Meanwhile I've read dozens of extremely respected historians who are saying Trump is indistinguishable from the worst fascists of the 20th century, in policy, in temperament and in likelihood of causing wars. People who make it their lives work to know how those people came to power, and turned great nations into warring hellholes - are saying "Look at Trump THAT is how they did it".

> Well guess what, the pendulum is swinging the other way
Yeah - now it's liberal's turn to make the presidents life hell and make sure he achieves none of his agenda. But we'll be better than you were. We'll only resist the crazy parts, we'll only resist the bad ideas. There are some things in Trump's platform that were also in Bernie Sander's platform. If he does those - and he does them right 'tax breaks for construction companies' doesn't count - then we'll support him.
We won't oppose him when he's implementing OUR ideas - like the GOP did to Obama.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one investigative breaking story of consequence.

Re:Censorship.

[queBurro]

http://efp.org.uk/wp-content/u...

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

Ha, nice! Is that actually real? I know that sort of belief was popular in the early 30s in the UK and the US.

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

Nobody was protesting working class people. It's NAZIs being protested.
And the ONLY place for NAZIs in the political arena is at the end of a fist.

I'm 100% sure the gay jewish guy is not the Nazi in this picture. You can call anyone you want a Nazi, because of any made-up bullshit. It does not justify violence.

In the 30s, as now, you can spot the fascists by their actions: they're the ones breaking shop windows because of invented BS about people they've decided to hate.

Re:Censorship.

[queBurro]

yup. If you trust wikipedia's sources... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Censorship.

[silentcoder]

>I'm 100% sure the gay jewish guy is not the Nazi in this picture
And the SMART people in the room know that whether you are a NAZI is defined by what you say and do, not by who you are. Hell, I would argue that Israel has become a NAZI state ! And this too, is not unusual - history is full of oppressed people turning around to commit those exact same atrocities against somebody else. My own ancestors were the first people ever to experience concentration camps and the victims of the 20th century's very first genocide (and one of the only white-on-white genocides). 50 years later they invented apartheid.

And in your little fantasy version of history Fash-Bashing was never a thing ?
Throughout the history of the world for every fascist breaking shop windows... there were anti-fascists punching the fascists.
https://mic.com/articles/16020...

The REAL question is - is it worth it ? The standard answer is "no" because it never stopped any NAZI or other fascist movements. In fact they tended to take getting punched as an excuse for greater atrocities.
But I think that answer doesn't apply - because this is a unique situation. These fascists have not yet secured their positions of power. The checks and balances are still in place. They haven't had their Reichstag moment yet, their hold on society is not yet absolute. We can still PREVENT them getting there. Fash-bashing has never ended their reigns of terror - but perhaps it can prevent it. I hope so - because it's the only chance America (and the world) has. Perhaps this unending, unyielding resistance from day one - can keep Fuhrer Trump in check... or at least, in check enough for us to survive the next 4 years.

No other time in history has somebody like him failed to become a dictator, authoritarians NEVER have ENOUGH power, they will always try to grab more. The only reason we have to hope it won't happen this time... is all those people out in the streets, and the fact that they were there right from the start. For once, the anti-fascist resistance may not come too little too late. Either that or, for the first time in their history, America will actually show up on time for a world war.

Re:Censorship.

[lgw]

e. Hell, I would argue that Israel has become a NAZI state

Putting this together with your last post, I can see you want a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem. Why am I not surprised.

Re:Censorship.

[silentcoder]

>Putting this together with your last post, I can see you want a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem. Why am I not surprised.

Not at all, I have no idea how you got THAT from me opposing the final solution to the Palestinian problem.

Re:Censorship.

[Raenex]

And the SMART people in the room know that whether you are a NAZI is defined by what you say and do, not by who you are.

So what has Milo said or done that makes him a NAZI? I'll wait.

Hell, I would argue that Israel has become a NAZI state !

That's because you're ignorant and prone to hyperbole.

No other time in history has somebody like him failed to become a dictator

People were afraid that Bush would become a dictator. And then Obama. And now, of course, Trump. He'll be gone in four or eight years, just like those who came before him, even Andrew Jackson.

Re:Censorship.

[silentcoder]

>So what has Milo said or done that makes him a NAZI? I'll wait.
Anti-Immigrant rhetoric, anti-feminist rhetoric. Cornerstones of Nazism and non-existent in anything else.

>That's because you're ignorant [youtube.com] and prone to hyperbole.
Actually... it's because I'm far better informed than you. That means I don't just read what Israelis write, I read what Palestinians experience - I read THEIR side of the story. And theirs is the side of the people who were invaded, and has been oppressed ever since. If Israel wanted my sympathy they would grant all the stateless Palestinians an unlimited right of return and then either
1) Give all Palestinians full and complete citizenship with complete equal rights and no restrictions or
2) Give Palestinians a state and respect it's borders absolutely.
The Israeli prime minister has made it very clear that he has absolutely no willingness to allow Palestinians their own state - thus forcing them to remain vassals of a state that does not recognize or acknowledge their humanity. You could argue that the means by which Palestinians have protested is wrong, but they are the SAME means by which the ANC protested - and for that the ANC became international heroes and Nelson Mandela is treated like a Saint. Why the difference? Why was bombing Afrikaner civilians understandable but bombing Israeli's is terrorism ?
But all that aside - ultimately the key is in the REASON Israel won't give full and equal rights to Palestinians as citizens which have nothing to do with that. They want to preserve "Israel as a Jewish state" and are afraid of being outnumbered. That is the very definition of Nazism. When you want to preserve an area for a specific ethnic group - even at the price of slaughtering and oppressing another, that's Nazism in a nutshell - and the former INEVITABLY MUST lead to the latter. The Israeli approach is no different from Hitler's Lebensraum.

>People were afraid that Bush would become a dictator. And then Obama. And now, of course, Trump [wordpress.com]. He'll be gone in four or eight years, just like those who came before him, even Andrew Jackson [history.com].

And you think any of those were in any way like Trump ? If you can't tell the difference between exaggerated fears of a politician based on bullshit - and legitimate fears of a demagogue based on what he has actually said and done, then your ignorance is beyond the pale. I didn't say "people" - I said "historians" as in people who make it their lives work to know the difference. When Hitler got elected president nobody thought HE could become a dictator either. Weimar had checks and balances, a constitution and a parliament. Hell the Weimar president had far less power than the US president - most of the power was in the hands of the chancellor (much like modern Germany - do you even know the name of the German president ? He is so unimportant he never makes news outside their borders), they'd given him the appointment as a way to shut up the crazy guy who had somehow gotten 30% of the vote.... from that springboard (much weaker than Trump's) he dismantled every single one of the checks and balances and was an absolute dictator within a year.
The real difference is this: neither Obama nor Bush were authoritarians. Obama was too moderate for his own good, and Bush was a greedy bugger who used his office to make his friends rich - but neither were authoritarian. Trump has never been anything else.

And he gave a senior position to a man who believes that the next world war happening now is inevitable and that the only way for the US to come out on top is for them to START that war. Steve Bannon really believes that - and he has said so, publicly, hundreds of times. He wants a war with China - because he believes one is going ot happen no matter what the US does so the US may as well start it and get first-strike advantage.
Funny how the champion of the working class has filled his cabinet with the very elites the working class STILL think they voted AGAINST. He

Re: Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Make America Great Again... by crashing it and forcing a reboot?

Re:Censorship.

[rhazz]

you "don't know if those videos exist."

That's right. I haven't seen them and I wasn't taking the AC's word for it, but the video's existence was irrelevant to the point I was making, which you completely missed.

"blah blah blah nazis, blah blah blah fuck the left"

Great argument. .

Re:Censorship.

[Raenex]

Anti-Immigrant rhetoric

How does anti-immigrant rhetoric make you a NAZI?

anti-feminist rhetoric

How does anti-feminist rhetoric make you a NAZI?

Cornerstones of Nazism and non-existent in anything else.

Bull-fucking-shit. What defined the Nazis was rounding up Jews and exterminating them, Aryan supremacy, and aggressive, expansionist warfare. Wanting to control your borders and thinking that modern feminism is bonkers doesn't make you a Nazi.

You've just taken the position that anybody that disagrees with your politics is a "NAZI", because you're so "SMART".

Actually... it's because I'm far better informed than you. That means I don't just read what Israelis write, I read what Palestinians experience - I read THEIR side of the story.

If you hadn't noticed, my link was a video to an Arab "born to hate Jews" who was steeped in all the rhetoric, on his way to become a militant, who then investigated the other side and actually went to Israel. What he found was a pluralistic and inclusive society that resembled nothing like Nazi Germany or what he had expected. That's the story you don't want to hear or acknowledge.

In reality, it's the Muslim countries with authoritarian regimes, but you just ignore those and make an absurd claim about Israel.

grant all the stateless Palestinians an unlimited right of return

Which would destroy their country after having defended it against attack from five Arab countries.

Give Palestinians a state and respect it's borders absolutely.

When Sharon unilaterally pulled out of Gaza it was used as a new area to stage attacks by Hamas. While there seems to be a general consensus on a two state solution, the reality of it happening to the satisfaction and resolution of all parties seems slim, since it's been on the table for decades.

the SAME means by which the ANC protested - and for that the ANC became international heroes and Nelson Mandela is treated like a Saint. Why the difference?

Why indeed? Mandela shouldn't have been treated as a saint, the tactics of the ANC were unjust, and the country has turned to shit since the ANC came to power.

They want to preserve "Israel as a Jewish state" and are afraid of being outnumbered.

That's understandable when they were attacked by five Arab nations to destroy their country upon initiation, and to this day many Arabs would like to see Israel destroyed.

That is the very definition of Nazism.

No, defending your country against an existential threat is not the "definition of Nazism", and I've already described what was.

preserve an area for a specific ethnic group - even at the price of slaughtering and oppressing another

Bullshit. Jews were rounded up and exterminated in systemic fashion in Nazi Germany, along with Gypsies, mentally disabled, and other "undesirables". Israel has been in existence for decades and done nothing comparable. Fuck you for trivializing such atrocities.

And you think any of those were in any way like Trump ?

They had views that the other side strongly disagreed with and had their own brand of arrogance, along with an increase in executive powers. Sure, Trump is brash and bombastic in ways that they weren't, but that doesn't make him the next Hitler, as the article I linked to clearly pointed out. You have to watch where the violence is coming from, and it's coming from the left who go around calling everybody Nazis as an excuse for their violence and rhetoric.

And he gave a senior position to a man who believes that the next world war happening now is inevitable and that the only way for the

Re:Censorship.

[silentcoder]

>How does anti-immigrant rhetoric make you a NAZI?
Because NAZIs were anti-immigrant... doh, hell that was their cornerstone policy - opposition to a group of immigrants.

>How does anti-feminist rhetoric make you a NAZI?
It doesn't... by itself (though it DOES by itself make you evil) - but when combined with the rest it sure contributes. And we didn't even get to the abundance of flagrant white supremacist statements he has made, and massive racial stereotypes (which is, also, a form of white supremacist since somehow... they never include negative stereotypes about white people)

> What defined the Nazis was rounding up Jews and exterminating them,
No, that's what their ideas LED to, not where it BEGAN. They were NAZIs many decades before they did that. And while it was Jews that particular time, it doesn't HAVE to be - it just needs to be "people".

>Aryan supremacy,
Milo: CHECK.

> and aggressive, expansionist warfare
Another case of mistaking the end-result for the ideology. That was where it ended up, not where it started. Hitler was not LESS of a NAZI in the 6 years he governed without starting a war.

>. Wanting to control your borders
NOT what anti-immigrant rhetoric actually says, and sure as HELL not what Milo says. I'll be willing to believe you when America considers it equally vital to build a wall on the NORTHERN border and keep Canadian immigrants out (by something other than your culture I mean).

> That's the story you don't want to hear or acknowledge.
I've heard it, it's even somewhat true. It doesn't make the other side any LESS true.

>In reality, it's the Muslim countries with authoritarian regimes
Plenty do, What is the relevance of that to the desire, and right, of Palestinians for democracy ? Oh right- NADA.

> but you just ignore those and make an absurd claim about Israel.
The claim is true. The policy however is, indeed, quite absurd.

>Which would destroy their country
How ? How does SHARING a country equal DESTROYING a country ? Only racist, nazi fucks think that. And don't underestimate how racist Israeli's are - hell the reason the Yemeni Babies Affair was so massive was because their extreme racism even extended to fellow Jews if those Jews came from the wrong places.

>after having defended it against attack from five Arab countries.
What's the relevance of THAT to the plight of Palestinians ? Palestinians aren't even Arabs!

>When Sharon unilaterally pulled out of Gaza it was used as a new area to stage attacks by Hamas.
So ? What does THAT have to do with "if you don't give people equal rights they have a right to fight you for them" ? You think M.L.K would have achieved ANYTHING AT ALL if the Black Panthers didn't exist ? M.L.K. Was ABLE to achieve things with peaceful protest because the politicians KNEW if they did NOT negotiate with him they'd end up having to negotiate with Malcolm X instead.

>Why indeed? Mandela shouldn't have been treated as a saint,
Except that he WAS, in fact, as close to a saint as any human in centuries have been. Including, going to extreme lengths to avert a war which would have been utterly justified.

> the tactics of the ANC were unjust
And also, utterly, unavoidable - the government was not willing to negotiate, they wouldn't consider it. There was no OTHER choice. So no, not unjust. It was a fight FOR justice. You can't fight for justice without fighting.

>and the country has turned to shit since the ANC came to power.
What the fuck does THAT have to do with anything even if it's true ? People have a right to a say in their government. If denied it, they have a right to claim it- by force if needed. Your country only EXISTS because of people who did exactly THAT. Every criticism you raise about Mandela is doubly true of George Washington. Hell Washington didn't go after the revolution and negotiate with Britain and give them a seat in the new government - so he was WORSE than Mandela. Ap

Re:Censorship.

[Raenex]

Because NAZIs were anti-immigrant... doh, hell that was their cornerstone policy - opposition to a group of immigrants.

You're conflating controlling your borders versus purging citizenry based on ethnicity. Nearly every country in the world controls its borders and limits immigration.

It doesn't... by itself

So you're full of shit, as usual.

though it DOES by itself make you evil

Uh huh, anybody who disagrees with bullshit identity politics is "evil". Modern feminism isn't about equality, it's about male bashing because women have already achieved equality in the West.

What completely solidifies the case against modern feminism is how they act as a shield for Islam and say nothing about importing a real rape culture via mass immigration. The women's march was even so stupid as to have an Islamic apologist raising the ISIS salute at the head of their event.

And we didn't even get to the abundance of flagrant white supremacist statements he has made

Indeed you didn't because you didn't quote any and you won't find any. Several publications have promoted this claim and subsequently backed down when challenged, because it isn't true, and even more so, he has explicitly spoken out against white nationalism. That's one of the things that makes him hated by the core and original Alt-Right (they call people like Milo "Alt-Light").

No, that's what their ideas LED to, not where it BEGAN.

Their actions are what defined them. A handwaving analogy between sensible border policies and a rejection of the loony left with Nazi Germany is ridiculous.

NOT what anti-immigrant rhetoric actually says, and sure as HELL not what Milo says. I'll be willing to believe you when America considers it equally vital to build a wall on the NORTHERN border and keep Canadian immigrants out (by something other than your culture I mean).

Because the practical reality is there aren't a flood of illegal Canadian immigrants coming over the border. Somehow this seems to escape your grasp. I'll also believe celebrities and other social justice idiots on the left have a good handle on immigration issues when they pledge to move to Mexico, and not Canada, in protest of Trump.

I've heard it, it's even somewhat true. It doesn't make the other side any LESS true.

It actually does. It completely refutes your comparison of Israel with Nazi Germany, and it completely invalided the other side he was steeped in before he stepped out of the echo chamber and researched for himself.

Plenty do, What is the relevance of that to the desire, and right, of Palestinians for democracy ? Oh right- NADA.

Puh-lease. You're the one bashing Israel as Nazi Germany, where in reality they are surrounded by countries much more apt of the label.

How does SHARING a country equal DESTROYING a country ?

They are already sharing the country, as I referenced, despite your claim that they are Nazi Germany. Very strange that 20% of the population in Nazi Germany would be Jews, doncha think? But what would happen if 80% of Israel were "Palestinians"? Would it be Israel or Palestine? So much for a two-state solution.

Only racist, nazi fucks think that.

You think running around calling people racist and Nazi still works. It doesn't. People elected Trump despite the shrill cries of social justice idiots like you.

What's the relevance of THAT to the plight of Palestinians ? Palestinians aren't even Arabs!

"The Palestinian pe

Re:Censorship.

[silentcoder]

>Yes they were. The immense boycott pressure probably did more than any amount of violence.

Typical rightwing American arrogant fuck. Now you're telling a South African what happened in my own country. The boycotts and sanctioned did fuckall to end apartheid. It didn't affect the white population at all. You sanctioned our oil - we invented making oil from coal and said "fuck you". The ONLY people who actually suffered because of sanctions were the very black people they were meant to help. The whites were fine. Hell we were even importing and running the latest software on our computers - the only thing the sanctions did was to make sure we all pirated everything since there WERE no legal purchases available.

Re:Censorship.

[Raenex]

Typical rightwing American arrogant fuck. Now you're telling a South African what happened in my own country.

Like you're factually erroneous claims about MLK and the Black Panthers, hypocrite?

The boycotts and sanctioned did fuckall to end apartheid.

Maybe I'm off base, but then again I wouldn't just take your word for it. Anyways, enjoy your country now that it has turned to shit.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't happen lightly - the debate took weeks before the vote, and the vote requirement to actually ban a source is extremely high - you need over 80% of editors to agree. That's some ten-thousand people from around the world, with different biases, ideas, philosophies and beliefs - and you need to get 80% of them to agree before any publication can be banned.

I think you're sorely mistaken on how "consensus" at Wikipedia is determined.

No one is polling the full editorship of Wikipedia - it's just a small subset of the editors who hang out at the page (in this case the Reliable Sources Noticeboard) or manage to be informed about the issue.

And it's not a vote - it's *explicitly* declaimed as not a vote. It doesn't matter one whit what fraction of people "vote" one way or the other - it's entirely up to the closing administrators to weigh the arguments which were made and judge which way the strongest arguments are leaning. (They're supposed to do this in an unbiased fashion, but ...)

So, no, it's not "some ten-thousand people from around the world" that voted (sorry, "!voted") to ban the Daily Mail. My (admittedly rough) count is that there was about 56 people in favor and 27 people against now that the conversation is closed. This compares with someone else in the midst of voting who tallied 46 to 24. This is 67%, at best, rather than 80%, but as I mentioned before, it doesn't matter if it was only 20% in favor, if the closing admins felt the 20% in favor had the best arguments and the 80% opposed had nothing.

This is particularly true given that there's a tendency for one side or the other to be more vocal about things and really work at countering the opponents side. This can be seen in this case, where (rough counts) about 18 of the oppose voters (from the 27 total) prompted discussion, often an attempted dissection/refutation of the arguments made by the oppose voters. In contrast only about 5 of the support voters (from a total of about 56) prompted any sort of sub-discussion, and that includes the short "you tell them. man" and unrelated-side-discussion threads. (I'm not bothering to do an official analysis, but it's clear from skimming that the support sub-threads are *much* shorter than the oppose sub-threads.) -- I will admit that this disproportionality may indeed be because the support voters have better arguments and the oppose voters' arguments are weak (I personally think the Daily Mail is trash), but it reflects a trend on Wikipedia I've seen more generally, where much is decided by how much time and effort you can spend in battering your opposition.

I don't know the demographic makeup from the voters (I'm not bothering to go through all their profiles - particularly since it's a crapshoot if their location is even mentioned), so I can't speak to their geographical diversity, but let's not kid ourselves. It wasn't some multi-thousand people who decided the issue, it's the fewer than 100 who were passionate enough about the issue to bother to participate in the discussion. And even then, it's not really those people who decided the issue, it was 5 closing admins, reading the tea leaves of the discussion.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be better to distinguish between their USA-eyeball chasing website and the published newspaper as they have differing content and standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... explains about the 1994-2011 EU regulation covering bent bananas.

Whack both sides

[Tablizer]

NBC also has a bias problem.

Re:Whack both sides

[MightyYar]

Bias is one thing, inventing facts is another.

Re:Whack both sides

[mi]

inventing facts is another.

So "Rolling Stones" is out? As is everybody inventing the "campus rape epidemic" lie?

Re:Whack both sides

[MightyYar]

They retracted that article. Rolling Stone is so biased as to be useless as a news source anyway. It's also a niche magazine targeting pop music enthusiasts. But on facts, they are probably still reasonable most of the time.

Re:Whack both sides

[mi]

Ok, thanks for agreeing, that Rolling Stone is out. What about others pushing the fake news of "campus rape epidemic"? Like Vice? Note their wording: "Undeniably Massive Study Confirms Campus Rape Is an Undeniable, Massive Problem," — yep, the "undeniable" is repeated twice, almost as if article were about Global Warming...

Re:Whack both sides

[Anonymous Coward]

I also agree that people who claim that others agreed with them to further their arguments should be out.

Bye :D

Re:Whack both sides

[MightyYar]

Why would Rolling Stone be out? It depends on the article. For a Wikipedia article about Tom Petty, Rolling Stone seems like a reasonable resource for factual information. If the topic is campus rape, there are probably better resources and if the only source is Rolling Stone, that should raise alarm bells.

Re:Whack both sides

[tsotha]

You mean like the peeing thing that CNN laundered into the news cycle in the guise of reporting on buzzfeed? I don't see any subjective criteria for the disqualification of The Daily Mail that wouldn't also disqualify CNN.

Re:Whack both sides

[squiggleslash]

I'd hardly blame CNN for making the peeing thing public domain, as you point out Buzzfeed already published it. If you think Buzzfeed is obscure and it wasn't going around like crazy as soon as it hit Buzzfeed's website, then I have this thing called "The Internet" I need to tell you about. It's entirely reasonable for CNN to cover something that everyone is talking about anyway.

Another problem with your complaint is your assumption that the peeing thing was false. The paper itself was a genuine report put together by a respected ex-MI6 officer. It was unlikely to be 100% true - and contained caveats explaining that - but it is more likely than not that most of the facts reported are true. The odd thing is that the only statement of fact debunked so far, that a Trump aide went to another country to conspire with Russia, was actually the only statement of fact in the entire report that the report itself said it wasn't certain about. The others, including the peeing thing, had no such disclaimer attached.

And meanwhile, in Russia, people matching the description of the various sources in the paper have been arrested, suggesting that Putin himself does actually take it seriously and believed the report was mostly correct.

What's interesting is that you and everyone else focus on the peeing thing. This is a fact that to most people would be embarrassing rather than disqualifying. Nobody wants their sexual fetishes or their temperament (the incident was a unique demonstration of both) discussed in public. But that shouldn't disqualify anyone for the presidency. It was the rest of the report that should have concerned you.

Re:Whack both sides

[MightyYar]

I'd argue that while this may indicate bias, it is at least factual that Buzzfeed published this report and that this report did in fact contain a unverified report of a peeing incident. Maybe CNN should have higher standards for what they report on as "news", but what they did report was factual.

Re:Whack both sides

[PortHaven]

So would you support Fox News simply re-iterating that The Dail Mail published a report, which is unverified. And then that would constitute REAL news. Cause that's basically what you're saying

Re:Whack both sides

[MightyYar]

No, I don't watch MSNBC/Fox News very often specifically because they wear their bias on their sleeve. As a source of news, both options are terrible because of the bias. You will not exit your bubble. As a source of facts, they both make perfectly fine references on Wikipedia.

Re:Whack both sides

[tsotha]

Sure. That's what you do when you want to get something into the headlines you know isn't true. You wait for someone like Buzzfeed to publish it, then you report on the fact that they published it. That's why I called it "laundering".

The purveyors of this "report" shopped it around to all the big media outlets (including CNN), and nobody would touch it. But once Buzzfeed put out a story CNN could use it as a hook to associate Trump with allegations they didn't think were credible enough to publish under its own banner.

Re:Whack both sides

[MightyYar]

I'm not arguing that what CNN did is ethical - that's outside the scope of this discussion, really. All I'm asserting is that, as a source of dry facts for a Wikipedia entry, CNN is just fine. It's up to the Wikipedia community to make sure that the encyclopedia is as bias-free as possible, but that in no way excludes extracting a fact from even the most biased source. A source that is unreliably factual is another kettle of fish.

Re:Whack both sides

[mi]

Why would Rolling Stone be out?

Because they invented facts, which, according to your own post above qualifies. When Tablizer wrote, that NBC is biased too, you pointed out, that bias may be acceptable, but inventing facts is not.

You then further confirmed that Rolling Stone is "useless as a news source". And now you are asking, why they should not be used as a source? Split personality?

It depends on the article.

There may well be topics, where Daily Mail can be reliable too...

For a Wikipedia article about Tom Petty, Rolling Stone seems like a reasonable resource for factual information.

What if Tom Petty is accused of raping someone?..

If the topic is campus rape [...]

That's the topic, where they were caught red handed and could not spin their way out. How many times do you need a publication to invent facts (your own criteria!) before you declare them unsuitable as a news-source — without changing your opinion the next day? Is it just a question of quantity — with DM getting caught N times, while Rolling Stones — only K times?

Or could it be, just maybe, that the honorable guardians of humanity's knowledge (and Wikipeditors think of themselves as such), are themselves biased — applying different standards to different facts-inventing publications depending on the kinds of facts invented and the tilt thus displayed?

Re:Whack both sides

[MightyYar]

Because they invented facts

Once, and they retracted the story. That is not a pattern of behavior and they did the only thing that a responsible organization could after the fact. Other, well respected, new organizations have made mistakes or had bad eggs, too.

And now you are asking, why they should not be used as a source?

Two different purposes - Wikipedia is just collecting references to individual facts. For a lot of things, Rolling Stone would be a fine source of facts. For a totally different purpose - that is, individuals keeping abreast of the wide world - relying on Rolling Stone for more than music industry chatter would be a very biased, narrow source of news.

There may well be topics, where Daily Mail can be reliable too...

If you say so. Apparently not according to the Wikipedia community.

What if Tom Petty is accused of raping someone?..

I suppose the implication is that Rolling Stone can't print rape stories anymore? I'd say the incident damaged all of their reporting, not just rape narrowly, and I already said that it would be kind of a weird source to quote for events that are covered by more general media.

while Rolling Stones — only K times?

Well, yeah, a single incident hardly can be called a pattern.

applying different standards to different facts-inventing publications depending on the kinds of facts invented and the tilt thus displayed?

Yeah, well, all humans are biased and I assume the editors are human. With that said, "consensus" is a pretty good filter of bias. I'm not British so my exposure to the Daily Mail is very limited, but it seems a lot like US supermarket Tabloids, where the truth is a lot less important than an impulse purchase at the checkout line.

Not undeserved.

[Going_Digital]

The Daily Mail has always been an absolute dreadful comic, calling it a newspaper is just wrong as it is nothing more than sensationalized fiction.

Re:Not undeserved.

[AmiMoJo]

It's worse than that. The Sun is a comic for semi-literate grown-ups, but the Daily Mail is the newspaper equivellent of Nineteen Eighty Four's two minutes hate. The whole thing is designed as a mixture of rage inducing fabrications and milt titillation. Even the latter is irresponsible and damaging, featuring 14 year olds in bikinis and an endless stream of articles on how 5 year old celebrity children dress.

This is the newspaper that call senior judges "enemies of the people" for upholding the law and requiring a vote in parliament on triggering Article 50 (the start of Brexit). In some ways it is even worse than Fox News. Like Brietbart they try to have an air of respectability, and unlike Brietbart their long history and wide readership seems to convey it.

Re:Not undeserved.

[Geeky]

Ah yes, the "this is terrible, look, look at the pictures" method they like so much. Titillate the readers while professing outrage.

The problem with the Mail is that a lot of otherwise sensible people who consider the Sun to be a silly comic actually believe the Mail is a proper newspaper and can't be convinced otherwise.

Re:Not undeserved.

[mjwx]

The Daily Mail has always been an absolute dreadful comic, calling it a newspaper is just wrong as it is nothing more than sensationalized fiction.

Thats why we tend to call it a tabloid, as in tabloid journalism, not the tabloid format, rather than a newspaper.

Re:Not undeserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to The Guardian? Which is basically little more than the Daily Mail of the left considering how many sensationalized "the world is ending" and other clickbait articles they've been churning out.

Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[DanDD]

The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN? Perhaps we should tag submissions from Anonymous Cowards, and ' BeauHD' as equally unreliable and biased ...

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Fragnet]

This needs to be modded up. Slashdot is a slow, steady stream of soft-left propaganda these days.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh that big bad CNN reported Bowling Green Massacre was false, what partisan hacks... Trump's whiniest followers also have the world's least realistic worldviews, go figure.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Tough Love]

The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

Russian Toady and Faux News? CNN doesn't even come close to the same level of alternate.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[quantaman]

The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN? Perhaps we should tag submissions from Anonymous Cowards, and ' BeauHD' as equally unreliable and biased ...

You just had to signal that you're a loyal and enthusiastic Trump supporter didn't you?

Tell me, what exactly has CNN done that makes them "unreliable and biased" in a way that doesn't apply to other mainstream media publications?

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

> CNN doesn't even come close to the same level of alternate.

They told us it was 'illegal' to read Wikileaks, which revealed that they leaked debate questions. They've interviewed their own cameraman. They had fake interviews where they pretended to be places they weren't.

Half of what I remember Fox faking was the Iraq war nonsense laundering phony "evidence" through anonymous administration officials and such and you can see WaPo or the NYT doing the same crap these days. Some of us aren't dumb enough to fall for that any more.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[lgw]

CNN fired all their investigative reporters years ago They're the media arm of the Democratic party, and are quite content being so.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Fragnet]

gold standard

Good god.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

They still haven't found that Malaysian Air flight. Maybe they were right about the black hole?

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts obtained from Faux news no doubt! Might wanna consider more than one source for your information. That one source might JUST MIGHT be ever so slightly mistaken on one or two little facts here and there. But you're a good little 'publican aren't you? You don't question your betters or think outside of pre-approved thoughts and subjects.

Captcha: pathetic

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox has been biased over the years, but the conflict between the corporatist republicans (and Roger Ailes) and the Trump republicans has ironically kept them relatively honest over the last year+. CNN otoh has gone from unbiased (yet embarassing) to being openly seditious. Trump deliberately eggs them on because they either don't know they're actively flushing what little remaining credibility they have left down the toilet, or they know but still can't stop themselves.

Fun fact: CNN has a 33% trust rating among its own viewers

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[serviscope_minor]

That's true: wanting factual news sources is very much a left biased thing these days.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Off the top of my head, there was the "Ohhhh, that sucks" moment, the "Reading Wikileaks is illegal" moment, irresponsible reporting on that "intelligence" document, giving debate questions to Hillary in advance, and asking the DNC for interview questions for Trump.

Oh, and this was pretty spectacular too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0XPOuuxy1I

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[lgw]

Facts obtained from Faux news no doubt!

Did you know - it's mathematically possible for both CNN and Fox to be full of shit? No, really, it's true! Never mistake confirmation bias for accuracy.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Tough Love]

The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

Russian Toady and Faux News? CNN doesn't even come close to the same level of alternate.

It is well known that Russia Today is a mouthpiece for the Homicidal Russian regime. Fox news doesn't even come close to that level of depravity, though as everybody knows, hemlines and cleavage matter more in that forum than balanced reporting. CNN is a veritable bastion of virtue by comparison, though to be honest I do not waste my time with it. What really disgusts me are the trumpist shitmodders who camp on Slashdot now. Surely they are outnumbered by real people.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[coastwalker]

The left have always been as partial to propaganda as the right but there is this curious situation at the moment where the right insist that facts are no longer acceptable and only right wing propaganda is "free speech". Frankly they can fuck off, along with that scumbag of an excuse for a human being Kellyanne Conway.

The Daily Mail is composed mainly of hate speech and the sex lives of celebrities, it only carries news where it supports general hatred or sex. It may or may not be worth pointing out that as recently as January this year it published an article saying that Hitler escaped the bunker in Berlin and escaped to Argentina. It is worse than a comic because at least a comic admits that it is publishing fiction.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Tough Love]

The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

Russian Toady and Faux News? CNN doesn't even come close to the same level of alternate.

It is well known that Russia Today is a mouthpiece for the Homicidal Russian regime. Fox news doesn't even come close to that level of depravity, though as everybody knows, hemlines and cleavage matter more in that forum than balanced reporting. CNN is a veritable bastion of virtue by comparison, though to be honest I do not waste my time with it. What really disgusts me are the trumpist shitmodders who camp on Slashdot now. Surely they are outnumbered by real people.

Educate yourself about Russia Today. Downmod this and prove that it is true.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

And That is what Fake News Looks like.
Stuff you make up and pass around. Because you want it to be true, and don't care if it is false.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Fragnet]

wanting factual news sources is very much a left biased thing these days.

When are you going to start with that then?

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Fragnet]

as recently as January this year it published an article saying that Hitler escaped the bunker in Berlin

Also covered by The Huffington Post.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only question is "are the stories they print true." whether a particular source covers everything or has the same notability standards or writes with a political bias isn't important since you can cite both cnn and fox news and whoever else reports true stories on wikipedia.

Daily Mall is no longer a source not because of any political bias, but because it prints things that are false.

despite how they may slant things, or choose which articles to publish selectively, fox, cnn, et al endevour to print truthful articles so are okay sources.

this isn't a political thing, it's a who does fact checking thing.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Tablizer]

CNN fired all their investigative reporters years ago

I don't know about CNN specifically, but a lot of news organizations are cutting back due to the web, and instead are outsourcing reporters and hiring poorly-vetted amateurs. Paper, cable, and TV are shrinking, and going web is less revenue for most content companies. And, Craigslist murdered the ad business of almost every newspaper.

Cheap-skatery is sometimes mistaken for political bias. It's really wallet bias.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[denzacar]

The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

Neither does the article.

The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also possible to cite structural truths or highlight potential fallacies to attempt to forward personal prejudices and claim that the other party possesses the sole unreasonable bias in the scenario.

Unfortunately that statement you made is meaningless to anyone who is both a 3rd party and understands the words you're using, and you should know it if you understand them yourself. Provide evidence for your assertions or get called on your flimsy sophistry.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistaken.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Horse manure. Media arm of the Democratic party that employed Lewandowski, aired Trump speeches and rallies unedited, uninterrupted ad nauseum, and puts Republican panelists on discussions at a higher clip than the media arm of the Republican party Fox News does puts Democrats on. If you think CNN is anywhere but the center/marginally to the left with their prime-time anchor's personalities, you're dangling out there on the right branch, come on back closer to the trunk b/c that suckers liable to snap. Put on MSNBC, there's your media arm of the Democratic party ya fawkin cult member.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

For Russian interests Russia Today is a fairly bad source. For other countries it is not too bad.

For American interests CNN/FOX/MSNBC are fairly bad sources. For other countries it is not too bad.

For the UK interests BBC is a fairly bad source. For other countries it is not too bad.

For Middle East interests al Jazeera is a fairly bad source. For other countries it is not too bad.

You need to realize all of these news orgs have an agenda. Usually that agenda is local. They however have no problem pointing out the issues in other countries. If they have no skin in the game all of them can be fairly balanced. The second they have an interest the half truths and lies come out.

Daily Mail can have some good stuff in it. But many times it is a flaming dumpster fire. Esp if it is something the UK is interested in. When it is not really a UK thing they seem to do some decent work.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Mashiki]

Rational wiki as a source? You'd have been better off directly posting a link to media matters or democratic underground.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except not so much.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[tsotha]

This has been going on since before Taco left. I used to skip everything Timothy posted during elections - I already know what the leftists think of Republican candidates.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[tsotha]

CNN is far worse than Fox news.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN has a moderately strong pro-US bias, but so do most American news outlets. There is nothing that singles them out. If anything, they are relatively objective compared to others.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Tough Love]

The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

Russian Toady and Faux News? CNN doesn't even come close to the same level of alternate.

It is well known that Russia Today is a mouthpiece for the Homicidal Russian regime. Fox news doesn't even come close to that level of depravity, though as everybody knows, hemlines and cleavage matter more in that forum than balanced reporting. CNN is a veritable bastion of virtue by comparison, though to be honest I do not waste my time with it. What really disgusts me are the trumpist shitmodders who camp on Slashdot now. Surely they are outnumbered by real people.

Why do I get the feeling that a nest of Russians working for Trump is attacking Slashdot? Or is it Trumpists working for Russia?

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[AmiMoJo]

Interesting example of how a bit of fake news and a willingness to believe any old shit that confirms you view that the mainstream media is unreliable.

For example, this claim that CNN interviewed their own cameraman. It originated from Stormfront. When you check the Stormfront story, it actually gives away the deception. The guy is a professional cameraman, he has done some kind of contract work with a CNN reporter once. That doesn't make him a "CNN cameraman" or suggest any kind of conflict of interest with regards to the interview. In fact, it actually lends credibility to what the guy is saying, because the claim that he had been to Rwanda was somewhat extraordinary and is now corroborated.

This is typical of the extremely simplistic take on journalism ethics that also affected Gamergate. People knowing each other is not a conflict of interest. In fact, it's how journalism works, because people are more willing to speak openly and at length with people they know. But the purpose here is not to check for ethical problems, it's to throw shit at CNN.

This whole sentence is a perfect example of how it works:

They told us it was 'illegal' to read Wikileaks, which revealed that they leaked debate questions. They've interviewed their own cameraman. They had fake interviews where they pretended to be places they weren't.

Genuine mistake, since corrected. Fake news story based on twisting some facts. Outright falsehood. Start with something true, move on to a partial and dependable lie, and then end up something vague and general to poison the reader's mind. Textbook stuff.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[PortHaven]

Agreed.

Fox is more biased than CNN, but CNN is actively campaigns and publishes more fake news.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[GameboyRMH]

No, the problem is that the American right has gone absolutely stark raving mad in the last couple of years and lives in a fictional alternate reality now. It's crazy uncle, tinfoil hat, Dale Gribble thinking with a mean streak, gone mainstream. They use false equivalence arguments whenever their animosity with truth and reality is mentioned. They've reached levels of hypocrisy that border on doublethink. Anyone on the right who doesn't see it is a part of it.

The outright rejection of facts and the categorical hatred and dismissal of any news sources other than select far-right rags are hallmarks of the new loony right. The alt-right is just an influential radical splinter of this new ideology which seems to have consumed a vast majority of US conservatives. The minority of non-loons on the right are the ones now called "cuckservatives" rightly shitting their pants at the scariest post-WW2 political movement.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[PortHaven]

1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive... [cnn.com]

2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.

3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.

4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign. Thus their portrayal of a fair debate was fake.

Seems like a lot of fake to me!

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Fragnet]

scariest post-WW2 political movement

I somehow have the impression you don't get out much.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tough Love believes that those that disagree with his worldview aren't real people. He then blames the poor moderation that he received for such an inflammatory statement on a Russian/Trump conspiracy. Lefties are sounding more and more like ideological zealots with each passing day.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also possible to cite structural truths or highlight potential fallacies to attempt to forward personal prejudices and claim that the other party possesses the sole unreasonable bias in the scenario.

Unfortunately that statement you made is meaningless to anyone who is both a 3rd party and understands the words you're using, and you should know it if you understand them yourself. Provide evidence for your assertions or get called on your flimsy sophistry.

What I read was "blah blah blah I'm an idiot blah blah 'PUBLICANS!! blah blah hurr durr."

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was ebay that killed classified ads.

Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?

[cbeaudry]

Or you know... spin.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The Daily Mail is about as "unreliable" as it gets. Now if we were talking about strictly "unreliable" political outlets, well that's a different story.

Does that mean...

[surfdaddy]

...that we should ban Trump's statements since they are typically at least as fabricated as the Daily Mail? #noalternativefacts

Re:Does that mean...

[Gravis Zero]

...that we should ban Trump's statements since they are typically at least as fabricated as the Daily Mail?

As a reference of factual information, yes. As proof that he made a claim, no.

Re:Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like calling Iran's attack on a US ship an act of war? Except it was a Saudi ship attacked by Yemeni rebels.
Or the bowling green massacre farce?

Should Trump be allowed as a Wikipedia editor? no

Re:Does that mean...

[Xenographic]

> Or the bowling green massacre farce?

There was no massacre, that much was indeed wrong. However, this is what did happen in Bowling Green, KY:

In 2011, two two Iraqi men who entered the country as refugees were arrested in Bowling Green, Kentucky.[2] They were charged with federal terrorism because they had attempted to send both money and weapons to al-Qaeda in Iraq.[1][3] They were convicted of supporting attacks on U.S. troops while they were still in Iraq as well as attempting to provide material support to al-Qaeda in Iraq after they had moved to the United States.[3] Arrests were made on various charges including "attempting to provide material support to terrorists and to al Qaeda in Iraq."[1]

Before entering the U.S., both had used improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq,[4] although this had not been known at the time of their admission to the United States. The men both pleaded guilty; one is serving a life sentence while the other is serving 40 years in federal prison.[3] The charges included "conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals abroad, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. national abroad, distributing information on the manufacture and use of IEDs, attempting to provide material support to terrorists" and "conspiracy to transfer, possess and export Stinger missiles".[5] The two men never attacked anyone in the United States,[2] and there was no evidence that the men had traveled back to the Middle East or had any contact with ISIS after being admitted to the United States. Neither of the two was ever charged with plotting attacks inside the United States.[4]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Green_massacre

Re:Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to work out what you are trying to say?

• because two people were arrested in Bowling Green, it's okay for Trump's people to make up a terrorist attack and then attack the "mainstream media" for failing to reporting something that didn't happen?
• because we know that there was a specific incident, we know they were lying about it rather than just being accidentally wrong?
• Bowling Green deserves a massacre for having hosted Iraqis they didn't know were terrorists
• The Bowling Green Two were illegally arrested when they should have been treated as prisoners of war (this is bullshit BTW - POW laws only apply to those who are clearly identifiable when they fight.

What was your intent here?

Re:Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to explain GP's intent.

Trump! Trump! Trump!

Re:Does that mean...

[Xenographic]

I don't think any of those things. That those are the only possibilities you can come up with is a sign of an impoverished imagination. All I'm saying is that something happened there that was relevant to the travel ban. And no, it wasn't a 'massacre' at all. Some of the other events were like that, but not that particular one.

Funny thing is, I'm not even in favor of this ban because I don't see how it helps anything. But it is funny to watch the media get trolled by Trump. I'm amazed you guys still haven't figured out what he's doing. It's as dumb as being surprised by what he's doing now, even after he spelled it out months ago.

Wait....

[dohzer]

Wait... it has been used as a source EVER?! This is shocking news to me.

Re:Wait....

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Brit, I wouldn't wrap my chips in that rag. It's colloquially known as the Daily Fail for a reason.

A friend of mine once had a puff-piece about them printed because they'd won an award. They were interviewed, the reporter took notes and recorded it, but almost every fact in the article was wrong, from her age and where she went to school to what she was receiving the award for. They even managed to spell her name wrong, despite the fact the story was accompanied by a picture of her trophy with her name clearly legible.

If the Mail said that water was wet, I'd want a second source before believing it.

Re:Wait....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised that *any* publication can be used a source in an Encyclopedia...

Re:Wait....

[jabuzz]

While I accept that as being the case. In any story I have ever seen printed in a paper or TV that I have inside information on (aka I had direct access to the story outside of what was being reported), what I have seen reported has *ALWAYS* been full of factual inaccuracies.

The easiest way to see how bad they are is to wait till next time they report on something technical/science in a field you are in. I ensure you that it will be full of mistakes.

CNN?

[Bender Unit 22]

CNN are just as bad as Fox News, each of them just have their own selective version of the truth.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference of reporting truth with bias (CNN) and outright bullshit (Fox News)

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two things that can be measured. The quality of the reporting and how politicized the reporting is. CNN is non-politicized poor reporting where Fox swings from mid-quality right leaning to poor quality extremely right wing reporting. If you only care that the content is presented in a non partisan manner CNN is better than Fox.

Re:CNN?

[quenda]

There is a difference of reporting truth with bias (CNN) and outright bullshit (Fox News)

The "outright bullshit" would be the Daily Mail.

Fox is somewhere in between. While CNN lets its bias show, the Fox has a very deliberate bias, and pushes its agenda. But outside the opinion pieces, they to seem to try and avoid outright bullshit. But Daily Mail just doesn't care.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in the same way as Hillary was as bad as Trump. So: NOT!

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing you cited all those examples of outright bullshit.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. If you bothered to look it up, you'd find that Fox News runs more real news stories than any other outlet.

Re:CNN?

[bongey]

CNN is 10x worse than fox news. CNN will continue to push a story even when multiple other news papers call them out as being wrong, or conflicting with their own reporting.

Anderson Cooper equates CNN to the national equirer https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Anderson keeps repeating that they didn't report something when they did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The people at CNN don't seem to even want to watch CNN. The CNN lies videos youtube have many were one reporter doesn't know another CNN reporter actually said or covered a story.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does CNN stand for?

Clinton News Network?
Communist News Network?
Caliphate News Network?
Comedy News Network?
Crappy News Network?

Re:CNN?

[PortHaven]

You're right. Fox tends to report news with a heavy bias. CNN makes shit up.

1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive... [cnn.com]

2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.

3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.

4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign. Thus their portrayal of a fair debate was fake.

Seems like a lot of fake to me!

Re:CNN?

[PortHaven]

Non-politicized....are you off your effing rocker?

1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive... [cnn.com]

2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.

3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.

4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign. Thus their portrayal of a fair debate was fake.

Seems like a lot of fake to me!

Re:CNN?

[jedidiah]

If you don't think that CNN isn't politicized, you're kidding yourself.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

And keep in mind this is coming from the Guardian. Not exactly an innocent party here either.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, you are employing a double-negative. Is "if you think that CNN is politicized, you are kidding yourself" what you intended to convey? If yes, I'm not sure how you could come to this conclusion. There is no such thing as a non-politicized news network.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit

Re:CNN?

[dywolf]

hardly: http://i.imgur.com/WMTcC1h.jpg

Re:CNN?

[dywolf]

1: a: no it doesnt show that, and b) being packed to the tents doesnt mean the comparison was false. the aerial view is revealing, and real. as are the mass transit ridership numbers.

2) you got one!

3) reading wikileaks is illegal for anyone working for the government.

4) didnt happen. she wasnt given the questions, given that there was no list of questions, as it was a townhall.
Specifically, it was a townhall being held in Flint, Michigan.
And the campagin was told that one of the questions would likely be about the Flint water crisis.
Now I dont know aobut you, but it doesnt take a fucking rocket scientist to figure out that if we're having a meeting in Flint, during the water crisis, tht oneof the fucking questions is going to be about the fucking water crisis. That isnt a rigged debate, that's a "no shit sherlock".

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't support CNN at all either, but it baffles me that you think that Fox doesn't do that at least as badly. Hell, the prime minister of Canada had to correct them on story details related to the Quebec attack since they lied and then refused to correct themselves because they wanted to make people fear/demonize terrorists from the middle east instead of the white people doing the too-common attacks in North America.

More information wouldn't hurt...

[bogaboga]

...which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

Can one tell me where Russia Today has been wrong? I mean categorically wrong? I watch and listen to them regularly. They have been on the point in as far as I am concerned. I'd like to see some examples.

Re:More information wouldn't hurt...

[Anonymous Coward]

RT is good as a source of non-western perspective but it is absolutely a piece of Russian state owned apparatus and exists expressly to promote the views and the agenda of the Russian government.

The above is a well understood fact and you should use it as context to understand what RT publishes. (If you don't believe the above you don't belong in the conversation.)

I, personally, think it's a weakness of western governments to allow entities like RT (Be they government owned, private, or anything in between) to operate freely. Propaganda masquerading as news, as recent geopolitical events shows, is quite effective at destroying public discourse and creating chatic situations that bad actors can exploit.

Media consolidation will be the end of us.

Re: More information wouldn't hurt...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about allowing organisations that want to tell people how to live and what's right and wrong often contradictory to the law of the land.

You might know these orgs as religions, which are nothing much more than political movements with claims of divine will.

Re:More information wouldn't hurt...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is agenda of a Russian government anyway? It's comparatively new institution in its current form and is pretty amorphous as far as ideology goes. Given that there's little point for RT to push a particular agenda. The only reason it exists is as a counter to other propaganda outlets so Russia wouldn't always end up as a punching bag for those reality engineers and ministries of truth.

Re:Pot / kettle

[Outlander Engine]

Depends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Pot / kettle

[Faluzeer]

And Wikipedia is a reliable source?

Only when compared against the Daily Mail.

Perfect timing

[rmdingler]

Blanket bans of sources considered poor news sources is a slippery slope, a slippery slope I say!

FD:I just posted a link to the Daily Mail in the last /. article.

Re:Perfect timing

[MightyMartian]

I think you can look at some sources and where the signal to noise ratio is so low that at the very least you should find some corroboration. The Mail really has few if any real journalistic ambitions.

Re:Perfect timing

[rtb61]

The opposite is also true. Blanket approval of sources is just as dangerous as blanket bans. No matter the source it should still be checked. Here is a subtle reason why, what if it is not actually from that source, should you not check that it is from the claimed source and you can do this whilst quickly checking the validity of the content itself. Keep in mind something can be from an approved source but not from that approved source at the same time ie janitor from a university is not the same as a professor from the university (mostly true but someone can be working their way through university) but they are from the same source. Than there is qualifications versus lack of qualification, catch there, qualifications do not guarantee veracity, they are just an indication the person is capable of it within a specific speciality, not that they will actually be honest.

Re:Perfect timing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. The Onion has a bit of a mixed track record but I'm not going to use them as a source for my Wikipedia edits nonetheless.

Re:Perfect timing

[squiggleslash]

No, a blanket ban is fine. Remember, if it's legitimate, if it's a real story, the chances of another newspaper not covering it are pretty much zero.

Re:Perfect timing

[mjwx]

Blanket bans of sources considered poor news sources is a slippery slope, a slippery slope I say!

FD:I just posted a link to the Daily Mail in the last /. article.

And for that you should be ashamed.

Also you should be ashamed for calling this censorship. Its not, it's a private organisation setting their own rules in their own house. You haven't been censored, you've been told that they think the Daily Mail is unreliable and full of falsehoods... which if you've read any decent news source is blindingly obvious.

If the Daily Mail were to accidentally print something true and accurate, they would not be the only news source to do so. So in that regard, absolutely nothing is being hidden from you.

Wikipedia wants to be considered a reliable reference site, this means they need to be mindful of their sources. The DM is known for deliberately printing lies, slander and well, crap. 90% of their stories are celebrity trash that would make E! blush, the other 9.99999999999999% are exaggerations or outright fabrications to suit the homophobic and racist tendencies of the owner.

I consider the Daily Mail to be an unreliable and often, utterly incorrect source of information. I'll happily and openly state that I think anyone using it as a reference source is a complete Muppet who struggles to know which end of a spoon to hold... but I wont stop you from reading it, I'll just point out you're an idiot for doing so. That isn't censorship, if you're offended by it, thats your problem.

Re:Perfect timing

[rmdingler]

You don't get the show.

Sincerely,

An incomplete Muppet.

Re:Perfect timing

[Anonymous Coward]

When will the do the same for CNN?

Re:Perfect timing

[Anonymous Coward]

Also you should be ashamed for calling this censorship. Its not, it's a private organisation setting their own rules in their own house.

1) He didn't call it censorship.
2) It actually IS censorship, though. Private entities are perfectly capable of censorship; nothing about the concept requires government involvement. It's censorship if you ground your kid for saying mom's meatloaf tastes like shit. Acceptable censorship is still censorship.

Heres a list of fake news sources

[Crashmarik]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/...

Nicely documented and sourced. Somehow I doubt wikipedia will even bother to correct the bad dentires.

Re:Heres a list of fake news sources

[Anonymous Coward]

The federalist? Is it on your list?

I went through the first three in the list before I gave up. What was linked to did not match the conclusion the author was making.

Re:Heres a list of fake news sources

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nicely documented and sourced
and spun to fuck. I would like independent stuff, this is not - see story "Betsy DeVos, Grizzly Fighter" for an attempt to unspin some daft proclamation.
I note the press has repeatedly said Trump has not published his accounts despite promising to, but that 'fake' story was not given here. Because it is true? And actually very important to the integrity of one of the most powerful men on the planet?

Re:Heres a list of fake news sources

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, that's a hardcore conservative website. Half the stories on that page are 'debunking' TMZ and Twitter statements in an attempt to make anyone who isn't conservative out to be wacky. Curiously missing are any of the myriad conservative tweets, news sources.. or even our president's nonsensical and often wrong statements. Give me a break. You're part of the problem. You read an article in your echo chamber and say "man I'm so righteous, I know the facts". The problem isn't fake news, the problem is the sheep who only listen to _their_ fake news.

Re:Heres a list of fake news sources

[Crashmarik]

Dude, that's a hardcore conservative website

Sure it's hardcore conservative. What the hell is your point ?
95%+ of CNNs political donations go Democrat. For most people that would make them Hardcore Lefty.
Do you consider that an indictment of their service ?

Half the stories on that page are 'debunking' TMZ

If by half you mean 1/16 then yes.
Now lets look at the point of the story which is these get started then don't go away
Taking your example "TMZ Trump renames black history month"
googling
https://www.google.com/search?...
We see ABC news repeating the fake story
We see Salon repeating the fake story
The Inquisitr, steveharvey. wbls, and a couple of fact checkers that get it wrong.

All off the first page without even trying.

So maybe you might want to open your mind a little, because as it stands you're guilty of the crimes you are projecting onto others.

Re:Heres a list of fake news sources

[tehcyder]

95%+ of CNNs political donations go Democrat. For most people that would make them Hardcore Lefty.

I'm sure Americans get tired of hearing this, but the Democrats are not "Lefty" by any reasonable global standard. Certainly in European terms, they're centre-right, while the Republicans are right.

Re:Heres a list of fake news sources

[Shotgun]

It's not that we're tired of hearing it. It's that half of us never cared in the first place, and the other half only want to use the difference to try to win a political debate (not understanding that the other side doesn't care).

Re:Heres a list of fake news sources

[Crashmarik]

That's wonderful let me know when they are a European party, and that tidbit is actually relevant.

Re:Pot / kettle

[JoshuaZ]

Wikipedia doesn't claim to be a reliable source for these purposes; you can't use Wikipedia pages as references on other Wikipedia pages.

Re:Pot / kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Reliable source of what? The maths-related pages tend to be pretty good - in fact I use them quite regularly. Obviously not primary-source or textbook good but if I want information on an obscure function, inequality or whatever then I would consider it trustworthy enough. Other branches of science seem mostly OK but my experience with them is limited (especially on the chem/bio side) so I can't be sure. Everything else - news, current affairs etc - I honestly have no idea as I basically never visit that end of the wikipedia knowledge-base.

Retribution

[Anonymous Coward]

for debunking the Global Warming no-pause fraud.

Re:Retribution

[Fragnet]

Yes. David Rose's recent piece about NOAA evidence fabrication before the Paris climate summit is almost certainly the "trigger" for this.

Re:Retribution

[pointybits]

No, it was proposed and voted in January, before David Rose's nonsense was published.

Re:Retribution

[Fragnet]

Sure, Schmidt includes the "adjusted" graph, moving the pea under the thimble as usual. Even worse is NOAA's shitty software, but that's another story you definitely won't be interested in reading about.

Re:Retribution

[pointybits]

I don't see how graphing the data correctly with both sets using the same baseline is "adjusting" anything.

Re:Retribution

[Fragnet]

The more reliable data set was "adjusted" to fit the less reliable data set, not the other way around. Why do you think they did that?

Re:Retribution

[pointybits]

The baseline is a constant offset, so nothing was "adjusted to fit" anything, just translated down. Look, animated gif. If you did it the other way around the lower graph would just move up. Here's more detail on the baselines, and more graphs.

Re:Retribution

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because there's a known temperature difference between the two sources and the one known to be hotter or colder than the other required an adjustment to be accurate.

Nope, must be some vast worldwide conspiracy that depends on telepathy and mind control.

Re:Retribution

[pastafazou]

oh, you mean like when the more accurate ARGO buoy data was adjusted upwards to match the ship engine intake readings, which were known to run hot?

Re:Retribution

[Fragnet]

Yes, precisely. The game here, and it was a game, was to come in with "hottest year ever since the formation of the planet", to hit the headlines before the Paris conference. This is so utterly transparent I'm quite surprised nobody has spotted it. Otherwise the temperature difference between 2016 and 1998 is miniscule - in fact well within the margin of error across the range being studied.

Re:Retribution

[pointybits]

The direction of the adjustment makes no difference to the trend (this has been tested by running it both ways) and the new NOAA series puts 7x more weight on the Argo buoy data where available. It's been further tested by constructing an unadjusted buoy-only record which shows the same trend (see https://skepticalscience.com/b...).

Re:Retribution

[pointybits]

Gosh, I thought it was all about "the pause".

Re:Retribution

[pastafazou]

total horseshit. They identify that ERI's tend to be hot, so they adjust the buoy data up to match. That adds additional warming that doesn't actually exist to the record for the time period where the buoys are recording data. And because they're now weighting buoy data more heavily in the record, we have an adjustment from actual temperatures to a fake higher temperature carrying even more weight than they should. It's a shell game. Notice that they claim the adjustments are "effectively identical in trend"? They avoid saying the temperatures are the same! I don't care about the trend when they're making the claims of "hottest year ever" and "hottest decade ever". Trend doesn't matter in those cases, but the fake heat added from their adjustments definitely does! The purpose of new instrumentation is to get more accurate results. If the new instrumentation reveals previously unknown errors in older instrumentation, you DON'T adjust the data recorded with the new instrumentation! That is fraudulent! You increase your error bars for your data recorded with that older instrumentation. Do you know why they didn't adjust ERI data down? Because it would lower the calculated temperatures in the 1990's more than it would the 1930's, and suddenly the 1930's would stand out as being much hotter than the 1990's!!!

Re:Retribution

[pointybits]

Do you understand what an "anomaly product" is? If you apply a consistent adjustment across the whole series, the mean temperature changes to match across the whole series so the anomaly from the mean, and the trend of that anomaly, is the same regardless of the direction of the adjustment. So your claim that this biases the anomaly higher is false, which is confirmed by the HadSST3 test run and the buoy-only series I linked to earlier.

Re:Retribution

[pastafazou]

Yes, I know what an anomaly product is. I didn't claim that it biases the ANOMALY higher. Do you know what a temperature average is?

Re:Retribution

[pointybits]

Well the data set in question (ERSST) is an anomaly product, not an absolute product. Here, Zeke Hausfather explains they buoys issue really well: https://andthentheresphysics.w...

The baseline is indeed the average temperature for a pre-defined interval. However, it is the average for the dataset being considered. In other words, you produce the baseline average after you’ve done the adjustment. The anomalies are then relative to that baseline. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if you shift the buoys up to the ships, or the ships down to the buoys. Once you’ve done the shift, you then calculate the average for the pre-defined interval and present your data as anomalies relative to that baseline.

Re: Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the young people such fascists. They want to control what you can say, they're probably burning books in their backyards. Is it the university professors? Bad teachers? We're raising a million possible future Hitler's bowing to their hurt feelings. Have you seen this group "antifa" ? Biggest fascists around, it's hilarious.
Nothing but propaganda everywhere today and that includes all major news organizations. No news, just opinion pieces about what to think or you're evil.

Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Bruce66423]

Here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I don't recognise the website, but I leave you to investigate

http://www.stopfake.org/en/rus...

Not RT accused directly but

http://www.businessinsider.com...

A reminder about the lies at the time of the invasion of the Crimea

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...

And finally

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10...

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[PrimaryConsult]

That's quite interesting, though the anchor did not reveal anything I did not already suspect. With RT you know what you get - news with an extra helping of bias, just like everyone else. It's actually easier to see through RT's because the bias is focused on Russian interests, but everyone does it. Fox's is deeply conservative, CNN's is deeply liberal, and BBC is close to neutral but still very western-slanted. The best approach is to read / watch news from different sources and form opinions then, especially while keeping in mind the biases of each one. For internet news I cycle through CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Straits Times, Asahi Shimbun, and yes RT.

My complaint is the way the original article threw "Kremlin backed" out there, as if that were unusual. BBC is backed by the British and Al Jazeera is backed by Qatar. Yet the same people who decry RT espouse these two as bastions of truth. While I do trust BBC more than the average US-based news site and certainly over RT and Al J, I recognize that is an opinion shaped by being Western rather than some magical knowledge. Both sides of US media bought the "we have proof Saddam has WMDs!!" rhetoric hook line and sinker for years. Either they suck at their job or pressure was put on to avoid digging into that.

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I try to read what everyone is saying and look out for the "unimportant" facts that certain outlets like to gloss over. Lies of omission are the favorite tactic of the more 'reputable' papers when they want to shape opinions rather than reporting facts.

I tend to read news with a method similar to this one, because it's required in this day and age. You can't just assume that these are neutral reporters trying their best to give you all the facts, because I have a hard time finding any of those anywhere. They all find certain truths inconvenient. They all focus on different areas and give you an incomplete picture of what's going on.

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Anonymous Coward]

RT is Russian State Propaganda

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Anonymous Coward]

My complaint is the way the original article threw "Kremlin backed" out there, as if that were unusual..

I agree, Kremlin controlled would have been more descriptive. Most of the Western government backed TV stations are run independently of the government.

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[bongey]

Did the 30 anchors that lied for Hillary during the election resign? Nope they wagged the dog and got everyone to believe it was nothing but russian hacking.

https://theintercept.com/2016/...

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC can criticize Britain, Al Jazeera can criticize Qatar. Even CNN regularly criticized Obama.
RT will never speak up against Putin until he is dead and the next dictator needs someone to shift the blame to.

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're a bit unfair to the Beeb, though. At least it's not run by some crony appointed by some ruling autocrat, and I genuinely think they try to be as factual as possible.

One has to remember regarding the supposed Iraqi WMD's that that was an outright lie on a scale not seen at least in (Western)Europe for a long, long time. I think media has gone complacent over the years, they could simply not imaginable someone would serve up lies on that scale.

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Anonymous Coward]

I moderated, so posted as AC:
https://www.rt.com/usa/373141-... https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin...

@AbbyMartin
NYT spreads fake news while defending comical intelligence report, claims I quit RT during live broadcast. Issue a correction now @nytimes

And after NYT's "correction"

Abby Martin @AbbyMartin Jan 8
.@nytimes correction still insinuates I quit RT over Ukraine but I had my show for 1yr after denouncing Putin—disproving the article's point

Please, focus on the bold text!

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[dwpro]

I can't hold the media accountable for proving Iraq did not possess a significant WMD program. Considering how extensively Saddam had lied about his WMD programs throughout the 90's, who would want to go on the record and state that someone as ruthless and dangerous as Saddam had completely dismantled his programs and be left holding the bag when something awful happened. How could one reliably prove such a thing, especially in an environment like Iraq then?

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Anonymous Coward]

Huffington post, nytimes, bbc. If the US election has shown us one thing it's that they are just about as reliable as they claim RT to be.

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[PortHaven]

So basically, the bunch of western news who have very different published statements regarding Crimea and Syria. Both of which I can tell you for a fact, that Western news media outlets have pretty much lied their asses off regarding aspects. And that they have completely covered up America's roles in both debacles.

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[PortHaven]

CNN is USA State Propaganda (Democrat Bent)
FOX News is USA State Propaganda (Republican Bent)

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[tehcyder]

My complaint is the way the original article threw "Kremlin backed" out there, as if that were unusual. BBC is backed by the British

The BBC is very far from a government controlled institution. The normal criticism from right wingers is that it is too lefty-independent. Except in times of war, it tries scrupulously to avoid being blindly pro-government.

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we say the Republican backed Fox news or the Democrat backed CNN, MSNBC, PBS and CBS news?

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the "know what you get" with RT is not that simple. "The bias is focused on Russian interests", sure, but "Russian interests" covers a much wider net than you might think.

For instance, six months ago, I bet a lot of Americans thought that RT would be relatively unbiased in its coverage of their election. See how that worked out.

In practice "Russian interests" can be a much broader concept than is immediately obvious. And I seriously doubt if anyone outside the Kremlin is well enough briefed to anticipate all the areas on which RT will show its bias. Putin has pursued a systematic campaign of throwing FUD on all Western news sources; I wouldn't put it past RT to report things, true or not, solely for the purpose of making some other outlet look like a liar.

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[Anonymous Coward]

news with an extra helping of bias, just like everyone else.

I think it is dangerous to say things like "everyone does it". Or "everyone is biased", implying that the bias is to the same degree.

This is one of the very successful strategies used to confuse the public to the point that they give up and just turn to someone they trust. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyop0d30UqQ&feature=youtu.be

Make all news 'fake news' or 'heavily biased' news, and people just turn to whatever politician they like, and stop questioning them.

It is true that some news is biased, but it is also true that some news is about as objective as they can possibly get. Lumping them all in the "worthless" bin is exactly what allows an authoritarian agenda to have free reign.

I think your suggestion of reading multiple sources, so the biases hopefully cancels out, is a good one. But unfortunately, few people will take the time to read 5-6 different articles on one or more subjects daily. Which is what would be required to keep pace.

Instead, I think we need to defend news agencies that are obviously less biased and attempting to get at the truth. That means pointing out the difference between an editorial article (by definition biased) and straight reporting. That means pointing out and holding up news agencies that are winning awards and attempting to hold politicians accountable.

Facts are facts, and some newspapers and media sources deliver more of them than others. Personally, I find that independent media is the best source. Anything not beholden to ads or corporations.

Re: Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

Because to a lot of idiots, being liberal means saying you're liberal, not living by a certain set of ideals; because those ideals are hard, and get in the way of being an asshole. Like people who talk about supporting feminism and abolishing gender roles, then react hypocritically to those who say they don't support feminism: women only do it for male attention, and men are just angry, jobless virgins.

The Daily Fail angries up the blood...

[Black.Shuck]

...written by a bunch of middle-aged white bigots who somehow manage to keep their rag on the newsagent shelves.

Still, a stopped-clock is right twice a day. If they get something right, there's no need for a blanket ban. Ideas transcend personality and all that jazz.

BBC fake news?

[Anonymous Coward]

And fake news BBC, is listing all the articles on all the terror attacks Trump says they didn't report. Now I could read those links and see with my own eyes, but I voted Republican, and now I have to convince myself that the President I voted for is a Republican, or even a grown up, so instead I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and go la la la la la.

Did he defend Putin again by attacking America? Nope, fake news, la la la la.
Did he block a cyber security bill? Nope la la la la la la, hear no evil.
Did he remove the military from the National Security Council? No, we're still safe, Generals are not needed on a military council, la la la la, fake fake.
Did he attack our allies, and NATO? No, he's a tough president , it must be fake news fake fake fake
Did he leak the names of US spies to Putin, who had them arrested? Fook off, la la la la, I don't want to read any of the details, la la la.

Re:BBC fake news?

[Anonymous Coward]

And fake news BBC, is listing all the articles on all the terror attacks Trump says they didn't report.

I (foolishly) expect more from this place, but how the fuck can anyone with a triple-digit IQ not see how hard Trump played them right there.

Trump: "Hmm, lots of controversy happening about my anti-terror efforts. Y'know what would be nice right now? A buttload of media coverage of terrorist attacks. Good thing I have the media wrapped around my finger."

@realDonaldTrump: "Look at all these terror attacks that the media never reported on! Sad! #fakenews #cnnsucks #dts #MAGA #hashtag."

MSM: LIAR REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! Quick! We must all defend our honor and expose Fuhrer Trump's vicious lies by running front-page stories with a big-ass list of the dozens and dozens of terrorist attacks that we dutifully covered. We'll really show him this time!

Re:BBC fake news?

[Slashvertisment]

If there is anyone with a triple digit IQ left in America, it's probably because they're still packing their bags.

Re:BBC fake news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, right? How dare they point out that the Fuhrer has no clothes.

Fox News

[edxwelch]

"...still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News"

Ok, Russia Today makes sense, but Fox News? I never released they were backed by the Kremlin

Re:A website that can be edited by anyone

[newcastlejon]

[Wikipedia] has a proven track record of demonstrably false articles messed up by random people.

The Mail has a similar track record intentionally created by a handful of deliberately chosen people and it's on paper which means, for reasons I don't understand, makes it more credible for most people.

Guess which one I think is worse.

No, encyclopedias list and summarize sources

[raymorris]

Throughout each Wikipedia article, you'll see references to sources, with the full information about each source listed at the bottom of the article. That's because Wikipedia isn't (supposed to be) the source of any information, it's supposed to be a list of sources, summarized.

As someone else pointed out, Wikipedia rules do not allow citing another Wikipedia article as a source, because encyclopedias are not considered a reliable source, no.

Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, ARE good first place to look to *find* sources.

Re:No, encyclopedias list and summarize sources

[Mashiki]

hroughout each Wikipedia article, you'll see references to sources, with the full information about each source listed at the bottom of the article

The problem is their definition of a source. Blog posts are fine. Articles which are opinion, which reference blog posts are fine. Even opinion and news articles which reference blog posts which are slanderous are fine. It's not the "Wikipedia to be a source for information" it's that wikipedia uses sources to paint narratives, based on what an editor feels is true. And if you happen to disprove what the editor wrote? Well you're likely to be banned for your trouble.

As it stands now? Wikipedia is a good place to find bad sources, or sources which don't actually reflect reality. It's only gotten worse with their "edithons" which push particular ideological view points.

Re:No, encyclopedias list and summarize sources

[raymorris]

  > definition of a source. Blog posts are fine.

Policy is that blog posts, and other web sites run by a single individual (where authors are not acountable to editors) are "generally not acceptable":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

> Articles which are opinion, which reference blog posts are fine.

Opinion articles, including those published by AP, are not acceptable sources of fact.

"Unreliable sources" *may* be cited about *themselves* - you can write "Rush Limbaugh wrote that Pelosi is smarter than him" and link to Limbaugh's site. The source reliably supports the claim that "Limbaugh wrote".

Polls are preferred, but opinion pieces in well-regarded, editorially controlled publications can support the statement that "controversy arose regarding ...". If the New York Times opinion pages have pieces arguing a certain point, that's reliable evidence that people were arguing about it.

Re:No, encyclopedias list and summarize sources

[Mashiki]

"Policy" doesn't matter when it comes down to reality. Policy can say "It's not okay to drone Americans" when the president turns around and drones Americans right? And while that's a far-off example, when someone decides that they can step over the line and present an issue with their own ideological bent, and administrators back it up? The entire base trustworthiness goes right out the window. Take any issue on wikipedia that has even a single touch on a contemporary issue, and all those policies and rules go right out the window. There's a reason why the term citeogensis exists, and you can create an entirely false premise based on wikipedia itself.

If you need an example of how bad this can get, go read the gamergate article. The entire premise of it is based off opinion and he-said-she-said view points, the talk page itself is full of people pointing it out. And actual NPOV's have been repeatedly deleted, and factually inaccurate or direct falsehoods have been presented as fact inside wikipedias articles itself. And with that I'm not sure what's worse, that people try to paint it as "well it's okay as long as x is okay." Or that people actively try to make the argument that even if it's factually incorrect or present falsehoods it's okay because people were "making opinion articles" about it.

Is that your best? I counter...

[bogaboga]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Here is Reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Story that most likely caused the ban. A top NOAA climate scientist, Dr. Bates, whistleblew how NOAA falsifed the data before the Paris accord in order to "alarm" governments to agree to it.

Yep, a whistleblower, giving out evidence of wrong doing and a news outlet prints it and suddenly becomes "unreliable".

Funny how the truth can no longer be printed but CNN can print all the fake news they want and everyone defends them.

Re:Here is Reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Bates is unreliable, a librarian who didn't get on with others and threw his temper tantrum when his new filing method was not used and is now bitter.

And the entire piece is a biased hack job on his former employers.

Re:Here is Reason

[dywolf]

not a whistleblower.
not telling the truth.
the changes made actually, once again, LOWER the temps.

Re: Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CN

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone I don't like is Hitle...err, I mean Putin.

(Also Hitler.)

and the Guardian is a respected news source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia has been a political turn war for a decade now and in of itself, not a reliable source for information. And the left wing Guardian is not much better. The real question is how to kick Wikipedia out of the top 10 search engine results all the time.

Re: Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

Now what would you say if they were calling you a radical.. liberal.. fanatical, criminal.

And Wikipedia is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is a joke full of bigoteers.

Daily Mail = Modern day Der Stürmer

[OneHundredAndTen]

Pure trash.

Lol Fox and RT but no CNN?

[DaRyuujin]

Lol they lump Fox in with RT but leave out one of the worst MSM sources CNN. CNN has shown time and time again to leave out key facts or just report plain out wrong or unverified information. But yea Fox and RT are the ones of concern ;)

Re:Lol Fox and RT but no CNN?

[Lehk228]

CNN also fabricates entire war crimes from whole cloth

Decades of UK media is better for everyone

[AHuxley]

Other the years a lot of different UK publications had to face the system of D-notices.
Recall the D-notice affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and how hard UK publications had to work to get news out to the public?
The publication of stories about Real IRA phone intercepts, news like
German spies 'can't be trusted': Relations between the UK and Berlin intelligence chiefs hit after comments by London (16 December 2016)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
All the work the paper did on the UK MP's expenses scandal...
A lot of really good investigative work in the UK and Ireland should be kept. Different UK publications supported some of the best whistleblowers over the decades.
How many more decades of unique investigative reporting will be hidden from people globally?
The UK had something very unique and rare for decades. Reporters and staff who could interview people and then had some freedom to publish. Why ban that ability to look back over decades of quality investigative work?
A political leader was interviewed, public or private papers sorted, the wider public was informed and educated. More information over decades is always better.
Not every UK publication had the same funding or staffing levels and could cover every story as in depth or had staff around the UK.
What has changed about giving users links with quotes and comments from real people over decades...
What other UK media will now be banned next?

Re:Pot / kettle

[interkin3tic]

Is that because they admit they're unreliable or because that would be circular and inherently flawed?

Also, I think people, especially people who I imagine populate wiki these days, forget that relative accuracy is important. There are zero information sources of any decent length which can be said to be absolutely true. Wiki was shown at one point to be as accurate as the alternative. It's all good to be skeptical of wiki, but let's not pretend God Himself edits Britannica print version.

Re: Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

a methhead prostitute

Let's not bring Kellyanne Conway into this.

Well then....

[JWW]

I will continue to support my Children's schools choice that Wikipedia is not an acceptable reference source.

Re:Well then....

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it isn't, but it could be a useful place to find a summary of a subject and list of hopefully useful sources to back that up.

Re:Well then....

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily with Wikipedia you can check their reference links, and then just use the original reference for your paper.

Re:Pot / kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Because being circular is inherently flawed. absolutely. It is called 'begging the question' and is a classic logical fallacy.

Half-Truths a Bigger Problem [Re:Whack both sides]

[Tablizer]

Bias is one thing, inventing facts is another.

I'm not sure spinning is less powerful "lying" than outright invention (fabrication). In fact, spinning is arguably worse than outright invention because spun facts often have an element of truth to them, making them harder to debunk or dismiss. And you cannot outright dismiss the spinning source because they may not technically be lying.

Propaganda seems to last longer and goes further if it's based on partial truths.

For example, a common propaganda trick is to interview many members of the other side's group (such as at conventions or protests), edit out the normal interviews and play only the "stupid" interviews on TV. The cherry-picking makes the group members seem like idiots.

It's not outright made-up because they are real answers, but they have been filtered to present the entire group in a bad light: it's essentially a statistical trick of only showing the bad samples as if they are representative (random).

Compare that with hiring actors to act like the other side's group and say stupid things on camera. If the producers are caught, they are outright discredited for fabrication. The first approach involves no fabrication and the evidence can be deleted or hidden, such as deleting the "normal" interviews. If investigators cannot find the (excluded) normal interviews, they have no evidence of manipulation to present to the world.

The first approach (filtering) is almost just as powerful as outright fabrication, YET is not fabrication: it's all real, and the filtering trick can be buried.

Re: Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed - the commentary on this site is awe fully biased to the point where I will not recommend this site to my friends and colleagues

Apropos ad

[nitehawk214]

This page had an ad for TMZ.

Re: Pot / kettle

[nitehawk214]

You can't use a thing as a source for itself.

Source: Read my post again.

Re:Half-Truths a Bigger Problem [Re:Whack both sid

[MightyYar]

Still, from the point of view of a fact-collecting encyclopedia, it can be counted on as a reliable source of facts. Just not neutrality.

CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they banned CNN.

cnn is fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

yet they're not banned...

The insight being...

[hackwrench]

One of these things is not like the others.

Wikimedia/pedia should ban itself from being used

[Anonymous Coward]

It's heavily censor prone. Its editors are grandios, trolls, profiteers, psyop specialists. Most of the articles contain fabrications, none fact checked, government provided fabrications/industry fabricated propaganda.

Over time many who fought it got banned themselves.

Wikipedia editors are science illiterate.

The banning of daily mail is similar to the mass bannings of editors and censored, none government/industry funded and provided material.

Alt-Right FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't strike me as someone actually interested in reliability

You're wrong. They are intensely interested in it.

This line of attack comes directly from the top: NYT and WaPo especially are being targeted by those wishing to undermine credible news sources. When there are no longer any established and trusted sources of news, their lies became more difficult to distinguish from fact. Reliability is the enemy.

Daily Mail

[kittipalo]

A comment extracted from The Independent - some years back: The correlation between Daily Mail stories and the truth, meanwhile, fails to reach statistical significance.

Urge Caution

[joboss]

Wikipedia references a hell of a lot of sources that are unreliable. I am really into geopolitical events happening that are really relevant at the moment to our lives. I read a lot on the background of things in wikipedia and it's not bad but I have found plenty of politicisating of science (on controversial biological subjects its extremely hard for wikipedia not to stay neutral), plenty of revisionist history, etc. A lot of the historical sources, potentially even all cannot be well verified. This isn't even one controversial area but everything. History is a really hard subject to have as something fully verified. Not everything is on wikipedia either. I've had to go on adventures to find things. On one major political issue on wikipedia I read a declassified intelligence report on that and it disputed a lot of what was on wikipedia on the matter which was citing a variety of sources largely newspapers and that kind of thing.

On the treatment of defectors

[Bruce66423]

When someone finally rejects the system in which they have been living, it is inevitable that they will find themselves allies of those who have long opposed that system. The US ended up allied to Russia in 1941 despite Russia's invasion of the Baltic Republic in 1940; that didn't mean that FDR was now supporting Uncle Joe's purges, just that he had to find support for his war wherever he could get it.

The invasion of the Crimea is a continuing offence under any reasonable take on national independence. Remember how Russia and RT spun the story at the time - and how Putin now admits it was a preplanned invasion.

Then remember how many lies Radio Moscow of the USSR produced, and don't be surprised that it's been resurrected.

Breaking

[Doloresanto]

An Unreliable Source Bans Daily Mail As 'Unreliable' Source

Interestingly they had a great article...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am no fan of the daily mail but this was well done I thought...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

In an age of bs journalism was very surprised.

The Jew controls the media

[Anonymous Coward]

And the media controls you.

Re: Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CN

[Slashvertisment]

It's so easy to get Putin and Hitler mixed up these days.

The BBC is government backed

[Anonymous Coward]

And is generally, especially for the world service, to be the best source of news available. Since Tony Blair threatened and carried out threats against the BBC after the BBC grilled Tony for his role in the suicide of David Kelly regarding David's comments on the Iraq war, they've been shit scared of the government who, until that time, *theoretically* had control over the BBC via being the only source of the corporation's existence, had never, not once, no matter how partisan (except during world war), actually threatened the BBC with extinction.

Even then, despite never wanting to throw anything other than softball questions to government officials, they're still a very reliable source of news compared to other sources.

So government control does not necessarily negate the ability of an organisation to be reliable.

Oh, and this isn't censorship, not even just because it's not government (only in the USA is it not considered censorship). This is no different than requiring evidence other than the contents of the bible to prove the bible is correct. That isn't censoring the bible,it's just admitting that the source cannot prove the claims because it simply will not be worth the effort of including because you'd STILL need other proof to prove that the source of the proof was correct. Negating the point of proof.

Protesters hours late to the campus

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we've had recordings of Trump supporting organisations trying to pay others for illegal acts as false flag ops against trump, how do you know that these were not trump supporters?

And google "trump supporters violence rally". You don't remember ANY of those events happening????

You're less reliable than RT or the Daily Hate.

Re:Pot / kettle

[jandersen]

And Wikipedia is a reliable source?

The articles do tend to have external references, so it is relatively easy to check the facts. That is, in my view, the only way to even attempt to be realiable. The sad fact is that even if you have a brilliant understanding of things and every intention of reporting truthfully, you may still get it wrong; that is why all scientific articles are crammed with citations and references - they want their readers to take part in the responsibility by checking everything.

Re: Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

Love how you alt-right tards twist things.

Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Authoritarian, AKA what Trump is trying to do. Some people are stupid, but most of us are not dumb enough to let you brainwash us.

Not surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprising at all, the bar in England for fabrication is quite high. Whenever I go to England I can't watch local news or buy local newspapers, the level of bs is so high it's not even funny. An example: a couple of years ago when Cameron went to Brussels to negotiate the agreement so he would campaign for Remain, all british news reported him as having brought EC to it's knees... what they showed was David Cameron speech, fine, what they forgot to show (or rather had hidden from UK readers/viewers) was Cameron being scolded and schooled by the EC parliament president and several MEPs during their speeches, that wouldn't be good for the propaganda put through by british media.

British media prefers to fabricate their own reality in order to retain a little of the memories that they once were a great empire, but reality is right around the corner.

Re:Not surprising...

[tehcyder]

An example: a couple of years ago when Cameron went to Brussels to negotiate the agreement so he would campaign for Remain, all british news reported him as having brought EC to it's knees...

Let me guess, you read that in the Daily Mail?

If you'd also looked at the BBC, Guardian, Times or other reputable source, you would know that the general consensus was that Cameron failed.

Long time coming if true

[DrXym]

The Daily Mail is a horrible news source. Veracity and adherence to truth are unimportant factors when they run a story. If the facts don't match the headline / narrative they're pushing they'll be buried right at the bottom of the article to minimize the chance of anyone seeing them.

The Mail's perpetual campaign to declare things that cause or cure cancer (or both) is a long running joke demonstrating a willful disregard for accurate reporting. More seriously their campaigns against immigrants, Europe and other things designed to push buttons in their mitte England readers are simply malign.

And that's assuming there are any facts. e.g. the Mail loves stories about snipers killing evil ISIS members who are about to slaughter innocents.

They just quote unnamed "sources" and that make shit up. Wikipedia already bans citations from certain sources, and it's understandable if that extends to certain "news" sites.

Re:Long time coming if true

[Alioth]

I clicked on "I" expecting to see "immigrants cause cancer", but I guess they went for the next best thing - "imported food causes cancer"

Dan & Dan Explain the Daily Mail

[Alioth]

I think this explains the Mail very well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

CNN & HuffPo should be considered for this lis

[PortHaven]

They have been the most prominent #fakenews #alternativefacts sites in the past year.

So is mainstream American media

[PortHaven]

Our news is often just as much biased and equally propaganda as RT. It's just that RT is promoting a different propaganda bent than our news. And that's to be expected.

President Obama

[PortHaven]

I do believe President Obama has claim to being the Nobel Peace prize recipient who bombed and killed the most people.

Re:President Obama

[ShanghaiBill]

I do believe President Obama has claim to being the Nobel Peace prize recipient who bombed and killed the most people.

Kissinger had far bloodier hands than Obama. Menachem Begin may be the recipient who killed the most directly, rather than by giving orders. He was personally involved in the murder of more than 90 people, most of whom were British.

Re:President Obama

[lgw]

Arafat is the champion, of course. But the "peace" prize has been the Jew-murder prize for some time now.

Re:President Obama

[ShanghaiBill]

Arafat is the champion, of course.

During Arafat's tenure, the PLO only killed a few hundred, most of whom were Jordanians killed in 1970-71. There is no evidence that Arafat ever personally killed anyone.

Re:President Obama

[lgw]

How do you imagine someone becomes the leader of the PLO? Hugs and kittens?

Re:President Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Good political speeches and a sound political mind?

Re:President Obama

[lgw]

Mean nothing at all to a terrorist organization. Body count, and promise of future body count is all that matters.

CNN/HuffPo

[PortHaven]

Routinely print baseless articles. They never retract, even when proven wrong. (Oh, I am sure there is a webpage buried on their site where they list retractions and corrections. That DOESN'T count in my book.

WRONG

[PortHaven]

It is censorship. But censorship is only forbidden on the part of our government. Private entities are within their rights to censor.

NBC has invented facts

[PortHaven]

They have that problem too.

Re:NBC has invented facts

[MightyYar]

Example? I know they have a lot of "entertainment" opinion shows on their news-branded channel, but their actual news reporting tends to be liberal-biased and factual.

Okay, how about this one.

[PortHaven]

The side by side comparison of President Obama's packed inauguration and President Trump's near empty inauguration. Except it is #fakenews #alternativefacts The Trump photo was NOT taken during the inauguration. In fact, President Trump's inauguration was packed all the way to the tents at the Lincoln Memorial. This is documented, confirmed, and readily

So EVERY article touting that comparison was #fakenews, yet I haven't seen a single retraction. Instead, I have watch my liberal friends on the right exclaim that a difference in time of capture doesn't make it fake. Essentially arguing well it's a picture, and it was the inauguration day, so it's real. Um, but presenting it as a photo of the inauguration crowd is a lie. Just one of many repeated lies by CNN and HuffPo.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive...

Re:Okay, how about this one.

[Stickybombs]

You can watch the timelapse video and decide for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Okay, how about this one.

[nobuddy]

False. the picture of trumps was authenticated as taken at the same time. There was simply no comparison of numbers, for a variety of reasons. The reason they finally quietly let it drop was even their alternative facts could do nothing to make it true. There was a LOT of empty space at trumps inauguration due to far lower numbers than Obama's.

How many people has Putin killed?

[PortHaven]

How many people has Putin killed?

Versus...how many people did President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama kill?

Because you're an idiot

[PortHaven]

And a narcissist who doesn't understand that not everyone sees the world and believes the bullshit you do.

Just a few...

[PortHaven]

1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive...

2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.

3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.

4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign.

Do you really want more?

Re:Just a few...

[Stickybombs]

1. Perspective is a funny thing. https://www.theatlantic.com/po... You can see that the tents were located just past the Smithsonian Castle, which is more like 2/3 of the way to the Washington Monument. https://www.google.com/maps/@3... You can also see in CNN's gigapixel http://www.cnn.com/interactive... that the section between the tents and the first row of green barriers is almost empty, and the section after that has very few people standing on the north side, matching very closely with photographs taken from behind. I'm not arguing numbers, but in this case at least, the evidence seems to match statements published elsewhere.

Re:Just a few...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, asks for proof, then when given ample proof cowers off to [undoubtedly] regurgitate the same fucking BS response on another post.

Yup

[PortHaven]

1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive... [cnn.com]

2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.

3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.

4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign. Thus their portrayal of a fair debate was fake.

Seems like a lot of fake to me!

Daily Mail is trashy publication

[Anonymous Coward]

Good enough for cat laughs or finger pointing or public shamings, but nothing much better than that. So this is actually a good news.

BBC is neutral? and the rest of UK media is NOT !!

[Anonymous Coward]

In a recent review of European print media, it was observed that the UK had the MOST right-wing attitude promoted in its paper press.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-media-is-the-most-right-wing-in-europe-yougov-finds-a6859266.html

Something to think about ....

My mother's fave paper

[niks42]

My mother turned 90 this week, and she reads the Daily Mail, and the Mail on Sunday with fervour. I swear she is keeping the Post Office going in her village posting clippings from the Mail to me, highlighted in yellow marker around articles telling me why the NHS is in the state it is, how the Liverpool Care Pathway was invented by GPs colluding with unscrupulous relatives to knock pensioners off their mortal coils, how migrants from Eastern Europe are coming here to shoplift and have free dental care ..

She is 90 years old, and I can forgive her sucking all this garbage in and believing it, but it is really just as well the Wikipedia has implemented a spam filter.

Re: Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds more lime the Huffington Post is pointing out what a crazy guy is saying.

A bit questionable, but difference in character.

Well, yes...

[whitroth]

It's a right wing British supermarket tabloid. USans - how do you feel about using the National Enquirer, or (my own personal favorite), the Weekly World News as sources for wikipedia articles?

Re:BBC is neutral? and the rest of UK media is NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that you should improve your reading skills.
This was a POLL of how the media was PERCEIVED, which means AT BEST you can conclude the delta between the newspaper and population attitudes, but not what the actual bias is (if any).
There was also no option for "neutral reporting" (only "balanced", which is not the same thing really, media should be neutral in the "only report the facts" sense, not "balanced" in the "publish the same number of stories biased each way").
After some thinking, I kind of fail to see any useful information contained in that article.

Exactly!

[baristabrian]

For example, what "good" Muslim *wants* to read *anything* about Muhammad being a pedophile who had sex with a 9-year old girlâ"his so-called wife?

Suicidally ...

[baristabrian]

Ha. The last I checked, they were giddy. Ecstatic. Winning a majority the Senate, House and .66% of Governorships will do that for a political party. Oh, did I mention they won the White House? You must not get out much!

Re:Suicidally ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha. The last I checked, they were giddy.

Ecstatic.

Oh is that how it looked? Well, it must be the madness of hysteria when they can see the writing on the wall.

Winning a majority the Senate, House and .66% of Governorships will do that for a political party.

They lost 2 seats in the Senate, lost 6 seats in the House, and they were so upset over a key governorship being lost that they went into an illegal lame duck session.

Oh, did I mention they won the White House?

Oh, did you forget? Trump lost by -3 million actual voters, and is desperate to believe that that didn't happen.

You must not get out much!

And then you learn they're ducking their constituents left and right, still failing on the replacement part, desperate to appear as if they were actually doing something, unable to accept the vaunted Mexican wall, letting all sorts of characters into the Cabinet, cringing over this fail of an executive order, and despairing that Trump can't even let his daughter's clothing line go.

What have they embraced?

You know every one of them is waiting for it to pop of them like a hot potato.

Re:Thatcherite ideological propaganda

[MightyMartian]

Yes, there was definitely a Thatcherite anti-bureaucrat edge to Yes Minister/Prime Minister. At the same time Hacker is generally shown as a well-intentioned bungler, so it's not as if the politicians get off lightly. Ultimately the actual straight man in the show is Bernard Woolley, so if anyone gets it easy it's the Principle Private Secretary, whereas the civil service, in the form of Sir Humphrey are shown as shameless schemers and Parliament and Cabinet, in the form of Hacker, are shown as hopelessly outmatched. I'd say as much as it is Thatcherite, it also invokes long-standing caricatures of the Westminster system that date back to the Victorian Era. But there is still insightful commentary on how things work behind closed doors, and Sir Humphrey, even if out of pure self-interest, does on occasion rescue Hacker from catastrophe (like where he convinces Hacker's daughter not to take part in a nude protest). If anything about it is overtly Thatcherite, it's in showing Government has been a bungling, error-prone mess always on the edge of catastrophe.

Mind you, looking at politics in the US and Britain right now, I think maybe the writers had a point. It's hard to see how Trump and Brexit represent government as a sophisticated organ of precise decision making.

Look who's won the peace prize

[NotSoHeavyD3]

People like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres. I always say given I've done nothing for peace but some of the prize winners have done less than nothing I must have won it at least once since I deserve it more than them. Of course more than half the planet deserves it more so I'm figuring it'll take a long time to give them all out.

Re:Half-Truths a Bigger Problem [Re:Whack both sid

[BasilBrush]

What you say is true of vox-pops. But then vox-pops are not news, nor are they suitable citations for Wikipedia, no matter what the source.

Re: Pot / kettle

[interkin3tic]

But... but... (head explodes)

lol

[evil9000]

Its funny because /. hasnt been watching the great man made global cooling culling happening on english wikipedia for the last 10 years by Professor William Connelly, a owner of Freemantle Media's realclimate website, endowed with his myriad of wikipedia sub-editor accounts. I suspect Will would have been one of the people who asked for the ban in the first place!!

Some history:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I thought. But my article link will get 0 votes despite it being a pretty damn good article.
Here it is again:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Re: Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN

[HornWumpus]

The Soviets white washed their former leftist allies as 'right wing' after WWII. You mistakes start with believing this propaganda.

I don't use either as a source

[PortHaven]

I use them as a flag.

Then I usually find myself reading the actual published laws, reports, etc. Watching the actual event or statement on youtube to gain the full context. Etc.

What I've discovered is that about political 70% of our news is hype that only vaguely resembles what they claim.

Wrong it was not...

[PortHaven]

1. It was note, the photographer even had trouble getting up to the monument.

2. Go look at the link I posted, it clearly visibly debunks the media representation of an empty ceremony.

3. I am not saying Trump's was bigger than Obama's. Just that Trump's was very large too, one of the larger ones in history.

4. Please note that most of the metrics claimed, such as metro transit statistics are meaningless. This was a Republican, most DC residents are not Republicans. Therefore they tend not to use local transit. Most come out of state/district.