Salon: Republicans Are Launching Fake Local News Sites To Spread 'Propaganda' (salon.com)

Now there's an old tradition. by sabbede · 2019-03-11 00:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

One that goes back to our oldest elections, though I think those papers were mostly focused on slandering opponents.

Re:Now there's an old tradition. by Archtech · 2019-03-11 00:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's 148 years since Mark Twain wrote this highly relevant satire:
"Running for Governor"
http://twainquotes.com/Galaxy/...
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:26 · Score: 0, Insightful

Something something boring salon article blah blah blah
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-11 00:33 · Score: 1

Isn't there some legal requirement to label such publications?
I don't live in the US but whenever I see US political ads there is a note on screen and usually in voice over noting who made/paid for it.
Looking at these sites they all use the same template and none of them mention who the owner is.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:08 · Score: -1

does anyone really believe anything snopes.com prints?
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by sysrammer · 2019-03-11 01:11 · Score: 0

Is good retort, Ivan. Will be extra kopek in pay pouch.

--
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:23 · Score: -1

I am very glad the right is finally getting in on the game. The left has been flinging hate at us for decades. You are about to get reciprocity.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Applehu+Akbar · 2019-03-11 01:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Republicans: Salon.com is a nutbar site.
I’m sure it’s not Russian, though, because Russian intelligence wouldn’t design a site so rickety and hard to use. Try to read an article on it, and the page twitches up and down as if trying to avoid your eyes. When you browse it in Safari, you get that little warning that this page is using excessive resources and you should consider closing it.
Salon can’tg Be Russian. It’s what you get when a bunch of critical race theory majors try to write code.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:10 · Score: -1

heh heh... nah, it's what you get when you try to use Safari. Ahh Safari... seriously, have you tried a stack of popsicle sticks? You'd probably get a better experience.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:14 · Score: 1

That really depends whose paying for what and if its considered campaigning.
If I'm a GOP member and I invest money or donate my political influence to a specific business where the owners/operators of directly support or parallel my agenda, they owners/operators then pick and choose their managers/editors who share the same view and then those editors siphon out writers that also share the same view..., and tada, those writers end up writing pieces useful fot me, the GOP member. If they change their tune I cut off my political and financial support immediately, an indirect yet highly effective control mechanism.
You have several layers of separation there and no direct fingers in the basket, you're just funding company A which you can publically justify through all sorts of other means (lies). It's just a coincidence they happen to support you. Trump is a prime example of this sort of political activity. He directly supports Faux with his political influence (praising them from a powerful position of influence, giving them frequent phone interviews) and they do their best to make him appear respectable (they keep try to keep their few journalists like Chris Wallace away and do damage control with their opinion shows after any real criticisms come from within to use as proof of "fair" reporting... though hardly balanced).
When Steve Bannon had political power as chief strategist, I was shocked to see Brietbart "news" (an alt-right wing media outlet) appearing at the top of some of my news aggregators, including Google. Now, I rarely see an article published from the group as Bannon fell out of grace with Trump, the voice has faded to nothing with respect go mass information consumption.
Welcome to late stage capitalism and the proxy of business. You see this all the time with people of great wealth. I'm picking on Trump and Faux because it's in wide view and easy but all politicians (GOP and dem) utilize this sort of practice. There used to be enough real journalism to get the facts and make your own judgement but in the era of the internet, finding respectable journalism in the haystack of extremist voices is difficult at best.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:26 · Score: -1

Independent here: allow me to correct what you said; The *right* has been flinging hate for decades, but everyone ignored it. Now that they are able to spread hate so easily post-facebook, the left is spreading an increasing amount too. There was no agenda from the left; Democrats and Republicans have both been corrupt since my grandmother was a Tot. Stop being a shill and help me save freedom, countryman!
No to gun-control! Yes for ranked voting! No to domestic surveillance! No to illegal searches of brown people near the borders! No to endless wars! Yes to universal health care! No to money in politics! Corporations are not people! Abortion is a state's issue! (but since we're feeling so compassionate right now, how about we address animal welfare in factory farming). Drug enforcement is a state's issue! Let's address the next wave of automation! Let's protect our wildlife and environment! Yes to clean air and water! Cap the size of corporations and actually enforce anti-trust laws! *This* is how to make America great.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-11 02:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Fortunately you don't need to take their word for it, you can easily confirm that these sites are fake by looking at them yourself. Here are the links:
http://theohiostar.com/
http://tennesseestar.com/
http://theminnesotasun.com/
Notice how they all use the same Wordpress template and have extremely similar content. All lack any information on who owns or operates them.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:34 · Score: -1

We make America great by deporting the 50 million or so Mexicans living here. Simple as that.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:37 · Score: 0

Boy, I'd hate to introduce you to the local news sites around here that are most certainly not fake. They all use the same templates and all have very similar content as well. They're also all owned by the same company.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:49 · Score: 0

And Guatemalans and Hondurans and bigoted Somali congress bitches.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Type44Q · 2019-03-11 03:02 · Score: 2

No to illegal searches of brown people near the borders!
Independent here and I agree with a lot of your sentiments but [what little remains] of our middle class shouldn't be destroyed just because of the grossly unequal wealth distribution in another country (we already have our own problem with that).
Creating healthy middle classes in Mexico and Central America instead of eliminating America's - a concept you never brought up by proponents of immigration... how strange.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Type44Q · 2019-03-11 03:03 · Score: 1

... a concept you never hear brought up.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by illiac_1962 · 2019-03-11 03:04 · Score: 2

Poor helpless citizens. Too stupid to judge from themselves and get thier news from reputable sources like Fox News and CNN. Water the tree.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-11 03:07 · Score: 2

Boy, I'd hate to introduce you to the local news sites around here that are most certainly not fake.
You really must hate substantiating your claims or you would have done just that. Come on, give us a link. Just one.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Type44Q · 2019-03-11 03:08 · Score: 1

I should add that it's somewhat revealing how you subtly attempt to turn a purely socio-economic issue into divisive bullshit that it simply isn't. "Think of their skin color!"
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:15 · Score: 0

does anyone really believe anything snopes.com prints?
Snopes tends to lean left, but less so than Politoco and other "fact checker" services.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Type44Q · 2019-03-11 03:17 · Score: 1

However, even if we're to play 'The Race Card Game' over this, I'm eminently agreeable and willing to compromise.
I love brown people (well, brown women. Okay, some brown women.) and I have it on good authority that the brown women - and even some, perhaps, not so brown - from Argentina, Venezuela and Columbia - though not necessarily in that order - are the best in the world.
We can compromise and let in bunch of them; what say you??
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:20 · Score: 0

go to hell you soulless lying piece of satanic shit
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Well TBH whoever named it "The Minnesota Sun" clearly knows nothing about Minnesota:
a) Two major papers in the state that everyone knows, regardless of whether the papers themselves are in decline: (Minneapolis) Star Tribune and (St. Paul) Pioneer Press;
a) Minnesota identifies with the North Star. Yes, it gets sunny here but we leave "Sun" for the Southwest US and Florida.
So it's hard to imagine that too many people in MN would even give "The Minnesota Sun" a first glance, much less a second.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:35 · Score: 1, Informative

No surprise, same shit with largest climate denial organizations.
Behind most of them is a Republican with no scientific background sponsored by fossil fuel industries. Follow the donation trail and you'll see it for yourself it's paid propaganda.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:38 · Score: 0

Why the fuck is it my job to create a healthy middle class in a shithole?
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:38 · Score: 0

I actually regret if it sounded that way. There are blatent violations of 4th amendment protections near American borders and of course any checkpoints in the southern US are meant to target Hispanics. That's what I was expressing. Illegal search and seizure is exactly that - illegal. No matter if it's warrantless wiretaps or freeway checkpoints. Bummer my original post was deleted, I was only trying to find some common ground. Some of us are real people on the other side of the screen.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:58 · Score: 0

It is like a shithole family member; since you cannot remove the proximity you instead wish for them to succeed so that less shit spreads on to you.
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by jeff4747 · 2019-03-11 04:00 · Score: 1

You're only required to have that sort of note when it's a political ad.
These are "news" sites, so they are technically not a political ad. And as long as a candidate or a PAC doesn't fund them directly, they can continue their claim to be a news site.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by cayenne8 · 2019-03-11 04:02 · Score: 2

Creating healthy middle classes in Mexico and Central America instead of eliminating America's -
While I agree we in the US need to do what we can to build back up OUR middle class....
We have no obligation or duty to do this for other countries.
Not sure where in the constitution the limited enumerated rights and obligations of our Federal Govt. is directed to help other countries...?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:03 · Score: 0

All lack any information on who owns or operates them.
Do you understand how links work Ivan?
http://theminnesotasun.com/110...

The Minnesota Sun is owned and operated by Star News Digital Media, Inc.

Or if you prefer, you may reach us directly: The Minnesota Sun 605 North High Street Suite 260 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (ph) 614-636-0497 Email: theminnesotasun@gmail.com CEO & Editor-in-Chief Michael Patrick Leahy Executive Editor Christina Botteri christinakb@theminnesotasun.com Managing Editor Anthony Gockowski Deputy Managing Editor Julie Carr Political Editor Steve Gill
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:09 · Score: 0, Insightful

I've been calling NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC etc fake news since Bill Clinton was president.
It was obvious to me in Middle School during the First Gulf war, that these services were biased in favor of Leftist.
So Stop bitching just cause Republicans are finally getting around to giving dems a taste of their own 30 years later.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:13 · Score: 0

The smoking gun for these sites is the lack of sports coverage despite the fact they have a sports page. The Ohio Star's sport page says "The latest scores for the biggest games in Tennessee" and the most recent article is from August 2018.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Shotgun · 2019-03-11 04:19 · Score: 0, Troll

And George Stephanopolus (sp?) worked for the Clintons and is now a head reporter at ABC. Journalist have polled at over 85% Democrat and most contribute to Democratic campaigns. CNN's lead report, Donna Brazille, was caught giving Hillary debate questions.
But, the only thing you can see through your TDS is that President Trump talks most often to the ONLY major news organization that does not actively try to twist every word that comes out of his mouth. Yes, you tried to roll it back a bit in the last paragraph, but this left leaning MSM has been on full display since they tried to cover for Bill's perjury by putting all the attention on his sexual harrassment of an intern.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by RedShoeRider · 2019-03-11 04:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

To add to that, a little WHOIS:

Domain Name: theohiostar.com
Registry Domain ID: 2090314152_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: WHOIS.ENOM.COM
Registrar URL: WWW.ENOM.COM
Updated Date: 2019-01-01T04:37:07.00Z
Creation Date: 2017-01-15T20:10:00.00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2020-01-15T20:10:53.00Z
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Registrar IANA ID: 48 Domain Status: clienttransferprohibited https://www.icann.org/epp#clie...
Registrant Name: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Organization: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Street: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY

It's the same story for the other two websites. All three are registered though the same registrant.

I realize that's not completely odd, but what news organization has all of their registration information redacted?

--
Chris Knight is my hero.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:22 · Score: 3, Informative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Mountain_Publishing
Have at it. All of the local news sites owned by the same company. You'll see they're a division of an even larger conglomerate. Start going through the sites all owned by them and you'll see they are all strangely similar.
Figure it's easier to just link the wiki page rather than the individual pages, as this provides a clear link that they're all owned by the same company, and also saves me posting a long list of links.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:32 · Score: 0

Lol how sad it is. I literally ignored article because Salon is trash fake news. But I read your comment and actually gave it more attention. I don't even generally like your comments but I still give you more credibility than SALON.
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:38 · Score: 0

Also try The gilded age by twain and The last hurrah by oconnor. today's politics got nothin on the old days.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:51 · Score: 0

Hmmm no way to contact: (Steve Gill and staff sure do get around...but as long as the business is registered and the contact info is real whats the issue?)
The Minnesota Sun
605 North High Street
Suite 260
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(ph) 614-636-0497
Email: theminnesotasun@gmail.com
CEO & Editor-in-Chief
Michael Patrick Leahy
Executive Editor
Christina Botteri
christinakb@theminnesotasun.com
Managing Editor
Anthony Gockowski
Deputy Managing Editor
Julie Carr
Political Editor
Steve Gill
Tennessee Star
The Tennessee Star
2000 Mallory Lane
Suite 103-538
Franklin, TN 37067
(ph) 615-538-8526
Email: thetennesseestar@gmail.com
CEO & Editor-in-Chief
Michael Patrick Leahy
Managing Editor
Christina Botteri
christinakb@tennesseestar.com
Deputy Managing Editor
Julie Carr
Political Editor
Steve Gill
The Ohio Star
The Ohio Star
605 North High Street
Suite 260
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(ph) 614-636-0497
Email: theohiostar@gmail.com
CEO & Editor-in-Chief
Michael Patrick Leahy
Executive Editor
Christina Botteri
christinakb@theohiostar.com
Deputy Managing Editor
Julie Carr
Political Editor
Steve Gill
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by vux984 · 2019-03-11 04:52 · Score: 0

Sure an actual news organization with a politcal bias is the same thing as a pretend news organization owned and operated by a political party for the sole purpose of influencing elections in its favor.
"So Stop bitching just cause Republicans are finally getting around to giving dems a taste of their own 30 years later."
'finally getting around'? Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, ... hellooooo?
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:57 · Score: 0

They say to fight fire with fire. Guess this is how to fight the leftist.
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:00 · Score: 0

What's this? Trotsky-slut "fact checkers" spewing the truth? I thought Rawlsian feb-fantasy was their fav dish ... you know, where the po' po' nibber ghettoite would'a become a quantum mechanic ... but some white folk disrepect his 2 + 3 = 7 conclusion ... broke dat rench so to speak ... he be wailing dat bluz over Miss Rock Sue. Ya think so BOSCO ....?
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:01 · Score: 0

If there was, then the New and Improved /. would need it.
But then, maybe the New and Improved /. is a parody site and shouldn't be taken seriously anymore?
They don't seem bothered by CNN, WP, or Salon?
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by fustakrakich · 2019-03-11 05:12 · Score: 1

Satire? Sounds pretty realistic to me.
I don't think we can do satire any more. Avery attempt turns out to be a prophesy... no, history.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by Hylandr · 2019-03-11 05:21 · Score: 1

Yea, I am going to have to ask you to go back to taking your meds.

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:25 · Score: 0

Its not in the constitution but it is in our best interest to make things nice enough in other places so they want to stay there. Meanwhile our foreign policy seems to be aimed at making the rest of the world into basket cases, see all the places where people are trying to get here from for reference.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Cyberax · 2019-03-11 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

ONLY major news organization that does not actively try to twist every word that comes out of his mouth
You mean, the only "news" organization that is willing to overlook his constant lies?
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:57 · Score: 0

You're a moron Cayenne, you know nothing about this country or its Constitution.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:23 · Score: 0

No, the person that twists every word out of Trump is ... Trump. He is a pathological liar. This is easy to prove as he often does it on camera, then denies it, on camera. If you think Trump has any credibility, you should sit out the election because you do not have the information to make a reasoned choice.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by tbannist · 2019-03-11 06:29 · Score: 0

But, the only thing you can see through your TDS is that President Trump talks most often to the ONLY major news organization that does not actively try to twist every word that comes out of his mouth.
Funny, it was my impression that Fox News was the only news organization actually willing to "actively try to twist every word that comes out of [Trump's] mouth" to make them seem less loathsome.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:36 · Score: 0

As if the GOP has a monopoly on propaganda.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:42 · Score: 0, Informative

If only they had learned how to trick a FISA court with their propaganda, they might be 1/10th of the unethical shit bags that Democrats are!
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:45 · Score: 0, Insightful

The people you listed describe themselves as opinion commentators. There is absolutely nothing unethical about what they do.
CNN "journalists" like Anderson Cooper describe themselves as unbiased newsmen reporting facts, when they are unapologetically regurgitating DNC taking points and injecting personal bias.
Now you understand, so you have no excuse in the future, you sniveling fucking moron.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:48 · Score: 0

You're not an independent, dipshit. You're a dyed-in-the-wool communist.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:05 · Score: 0

The left is not explicitly russian. But the left is descended from folks who love the idea of communism and that is russian.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:10 · Score: 0

That's an attempt to sidestep.
Answer: Most people who register sites are given the option to not give out their home address and home telephone number to the entire freaking planet.
buzzfeed doesn't give out their information.
vice doesn't give out their information.
Just as examples.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:26 · Score: 0

LOL.
The hypocrisy.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:28 · Score: 0

Except if you do a whois search you will see that they are telling the truth.
You close your eyes because truth that is the light hurts your eyes.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:28 · Score: 0

Not many people would give any newspaper in Minnesota - or elsewhere - a glance, period.
Source: live in MN; have lived previously on both coasts; have no shortage of contacts in the rag industry. Even Netcraft has stopped bothering confirming it, the industry isn't dying, it's decomposing.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:31 · Score: 0

Back in the days of the first Gulf War CNN was seen by the rest of the world as very much right of center.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:32 · Score: 0

Yea because democrats have been caught paying people to make fake news sites to spread their propaganda and lies.
Oh that didn't happen. It's as almost as if you eberytime you guys get caught doing something wrong, you point at the left and create a false strawman. Funny how that works.
The repubtard fallacy: blame the poor/black/immigrants/liberals.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:33 · Score: 0

"I'm going to handwave this away, and blame the left, because my party got caught."
Repubtard fallacy detected.
FTFY.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:33 · Score: 0

History fail. Marx was German building on ideas from ideas mostly from central and western Europe and Italy.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:38 · Score: 0

No constituonal obligation, but not everything pragmatic is enumerated in the constitution.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:44 · Score: 0

Which explains all the Democratic senators chilling out in Russia over the July 4 holiday.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:02 · Score: 0

Little brown sausages lying in the sand
I have no idea what that means.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:26 · Score: 0

You mean bordering crossings? No, that is the cost of admission.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Darinbob · 2019-03-11 08:56 · Score: 1

Because it can make the shithole that you do live in better?
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by terrycarlino · 2019-03-11 09:11 · Score: 1

Pot calling kettle black. News at 11.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 10:25 · Score: 0

Ah, the Ali G Movie/Trump theory of immigration, let only the attractive ones in.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 10:46 · Score: 0

Consider climate denial disinformation as supporting worldwide socio-economic genocide and all other current issues are damn near moot.
I say socio-economic genocide because once affects of climate change kick in, the rich will be the most insulated from the negative consequences.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:03 · Score: 0

So basically even if the media is moderate, you consider it leftist?
MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News are the worst perpetrators for bias.
I'd argue that ABC is pretty damn objective in that list and doesn't try to twist stories for either side. Both Dems and Republicans have gotten fair coverage.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:10 · Score: 0

I'm guessing you meant Republicans instead of Democrats with that July 4th comment.
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:30 · Score: 0

Freedom of speech at it's finest.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:51 · Score: 0

No, I don't mean border crossings. I mean freeway checkpoints, where they divert traffic off the freeway and interrogate you. There's one between Sierra Vista and Tuscon - there's no border there. Areas within 100 miles of a border, "functional equivalent".
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 12:18 · Score: 0

Well, hopefully once that happens, people will finally take action and remove the wealthy who contributed to this mess (those vested deeply in the fossil fuel industry come to mind) from their bunkers with pitchforks.
I'm not fan of anarchy or of vigilantism but if the justice system doesn't punish the rich appropriately or prevent such ongoing crimes against the world, it seems to be the only option of justice left.
If your knowing and willing negligence due to greed causes massive global damage and catastrophe, you should be executed. Just because the effects aren't immediate and obvious doesn't mean they're not causing massive global damage. You can't fine them that late in the game, their money can't fix the problem or come close to offsetting the value of what they destroyed.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 12:46 · Score: 0

No, cayenne is correct. While it is in our best interest in the long run for our neighboring countries to do better, it is not in the constitution. Further, it would be better for leftists to help them where they are rather than having them come here at the expense of damaging their family connections. It has never been about the migrants, it's about profits for a tiny minority at the top and their owned politicians' hopes for a new low class they hope to turn into dependent voters.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 12:53 · Score: 0

CNN...all of your other sites. There is no difference.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 12:58 · Score: 0

If one of you EVER touches a piece of my clothing or yanks a hat off, it'll be the last time.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by vux984 · 2019-03-11 13:06 · Score: 1

"Now you understand, so you have no excuse in the future, you sniveling fucking moron."
Stop projecting. Sad!
"CNN "journalists" like Anderson Cooper describe themselves as unbiased newsmen reporting facts, when they are unapologetically regurgitating DNC taking points and injecting personal bias."
Same as Fox.
CNN isn't better than Fox. But as bad as both are, NEITHER is simply a propaganda front like these websites are.
"The people you listed describe themselves as opinion commentators."
Where exactly does describe it as just 'opinion' ?
https://www.foxnews.com/shows/...
"There is absolutely nothing unethical about what they do."
They deliberately and knowingly lie and spread misinformation. Is that ethical?
Now CNN's full of opinion peddlers too who are equally out to lunch. Fox used to be way worse than anything on the left, but I honestly can't say that anymore. Its just as bad now. But lets not pretend the GOP is just catching up. It's the other way round.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 13:23 · Score: 0

Except it's the hordes of billions of uneducated and ever-breeding morons in Africa, China and India consuming exponentially more resources than the people you're whining about.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 13:32 · Score: 0

Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh explicitly and purposefully call themselves opinion hosts, specifically for the exact reason you are whining about. At no time have they ever feigned unbiased positions or held themselves up to the high journalistic standards you're pretending to give a shit about. They are the first people to say that they are biased and expressing opinions, not facts.
Conversely, the leftist shitrag you pretend is a news source does exactly the same thing, but traipses about in the dead flesh of objective journalism, because fucking morons like you LOVE the reinforcement of your biases, but are too fucking stupid to realize that your shit stinks like everyone else.
You are a smug, condescending, elitist fuck whose only talent is convincing himself that he's more informed, rational, unbiased, or intelligent than the next asshole.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 13:37 · Score: 0

Yeah, because these people are so fucking amazing that they generated an incredible wealth of talent and innovation in their shitholes, and now want to bring it here to make us their new shithole.
Fuck them, and fuck you. If you want to help out, go there and help them. Don't ruin our home over your fabricated white guilt.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 13:40 · Score: 0

"Fuck the kikes!"
"Yeah but whattabout Trump is bad!!"
-Democrats, circa last week
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 16:03 · Score: 0

Unfortunately it sounds like your computer is compromised. I've profiled Salon and several other news sites, and it's performance is above average. Plus all the scripts can be identified as safe, which can't be said for sites like Breitbart and Fox News. Those sites have infected many computers I've worked on, usually cryptomining from a viagra ad.
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2019-03-11 19:28 · Score: 1

I think the very concept of Salon complaining about "propaganda" is hilarious.

There's an old saying for that: "The pot calling the kettle black."
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Cederic · 2019-03-11 20:46 · Score: 1

The New York Times is fucking terrible at reporting on the cricket and rugby too. Stuck on a ship with no other news sources and forced to read that horrifically biased shite with no proper sports scores convinced me it wasn't a news source at all, so I completely understand where you're coming from on this.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-11 21:45 · Score: 1

They all state quite clearly "Copyright Â© 2019 MediaNews Group, Inc." at the bottom of the page and have contact information. There is no attempt to hide the ownership. What was your point?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 21:56 · Score: 0

Well said!
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 23:06 · Score: 0

Its old all hell to lie.
But the personal slander didnt start for real until the 1828 election (Adams v Jackson). However, alot of the accustions then (like calling one candidate a wife-stealer) were actually true.
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 23:12 · Score: 0

The US doesnt exist in a vacuum. Creating healthy middle classes in the aforementioned countries could be the easiest way to alleviate issues in that. Im not saying it is, but if the possibility is there you shouldnt discount it.
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by retroworks · 2019-03-12 01:00 · Score: 1

In the Ozarks, your newspaper choices were literally named the "X County Republican" or the "X State Democrat".

--
Gently reply
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 03:19 · Score: 0

So what you are saying that now using " the same Wordpress template" === Fake.
As for Snopes, you seem to hold the same breathless BS they do.
P.s By the way here in the UK most of the local news sites are all identical because they are all owned by just a few companies.
Grow up!
And seriously mods, this is "informative"
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by SlideWRX · 2019-03-12 04:03 · Score: 1

If you search for 'contact' on each website, the same four people come up:
CEO & Editor-in-Chief
Michael Patrick Leahy
Executive Editor
Christina Botteri
christinakb@theohiostar.com
Deputy Managing Editor
Julie Carr
Political Editor
Steve Gill
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by vux984 · 2019-03-12 04:07 · Score: 1

" They are the first people to say that they are biased and expressing opinions, not facts."
My distaste for them is not that they have opinions, It's that they shamelessly lie.
"Conversely, the leftist shitrag you pretend is a news source does exactly the same thing, but traipses about in the dead flesh of objective journalism"
I'd agree CNN is a shitrag right now. But that doesn't make fox news defensible for the same sort of shit. But neither CNN nor Fox are actually operated by the political party as a propaganda front. (If any thing Fox is tugging at the strings of the president right now.)

You are a smug, condescending, elitist fuck whose only talent is convincing himself that he's more informed, rational, unbiased, or intelligent than the next asshole.
I said I agreed CNN was a leftist shitrag these days but you are much to busy attacking your preconceived notion of what I must be to give a shit about the truth.
Because apparently if CNN is a lefttist shitrag, then it's ok for the GOP to directly operate local news outlets as a propagranda front in key battleground states?
Re:Now there's an old tradition. by eaglesrule · 2019-03-12 12:38 · Score: 1

“There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history (1880), in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” - John Swinton, A New York Journalist, from a speech given at a Press Club banquet given in his honor
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-13 00:02 · Score: 0

Drink! Amimojo moves the goalpost when people give him links he asked for
Straight out of the alt-right playbook: when you start losing one argument, move to the next!
Re: Now there's an old tradition. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-13 01:37 · Score: 0

Creating healthy middle classes in Mexico and Central America instead of eliminating America's -
While I agree we in the US need to do what we can to build back up OUR middle class....
We have no obligation or duty to do this for other countries.
Not sure where in the constitution the limited enumerated rights and obligations of our Federal Govt. is directed to help other countries...?
It may not be in the constitution, but "We broke it, we bought it" comes directly to mind. Most of the shit going down in Central America has roots in Nixon's war on Hippies and Negros. The Cold War, too, but the War on Drugs looks like the more enduring damage.

it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

for the party the coined the term 'fake news' (and 'alternative facts'), the Republicans seem to generate more of it than the rest of the world combined.

Re:it's kind of funny, by nucrash · 2019-03-11 00:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ironic that they use projection?
As with Donald Trump's hiding of his grades when asking for Obama to show his, yeah, that's a conservative trait.

--
Place something witty here
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:52 · Score: 1, Informative

Facts beat feelings.
What is the meaning of the phrase “coined the term”?
The phrase “coined the term” is used to mean that someone basically created a commonly used term, so “coined the term” is synonymous with “created the phrase” or “was the first to use the phrase”.
It was not the Republican party and certainly not Trump that COINED THE TERM "Fake News"
According to NPR (of all stations) "Fake News" was first termed for fake reporting by a media damage control consultant hired by the Obama administration to assist Hillary in her election process in managing social media stories and rebuking bad optics (For Hillary) posts. The term was successfully co-opted by candidate Trump before team socialism could effectively use it for optics control.
If you actually used a critical eye on the story And the headlines for the liberal media (which is self admittedly 95% of the media outlets) you would see they are not objective. Maybe you have never had a journalism class. Maybe it doesn't matter. Presumably these so called journalists have had a journalism class and it hasn't stopped them from breaking the rules of professional journalism.
{would you like to know more?} https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/resources/courses/ethical-journalist-toolkit
Re:it's kind of funny, by coastwalker · 2019-03-11 00:58 · Score: 1

Pot kettle black.

--
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Oswald+McWeany · 2019-03-11 01:00 · Score: 2, Informative

for the party the coined the term 'fake news' (and 'alternative facts'), the Republicans seem to generate more of it than the rest of the world combined.
That's like giving Apple credit for inventing the smart phone, or Edison for inviting the light bulb.
Trump may have popularized the expression "fake news", but it was already beginning to gain a foothold several years before he ran for President. He took a phrase he liked and ran with it.
"Alternative Facts" however- that's ALL the Trump Whitehouse, they came up with that one.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:03 · Score: 0

I coined the term coin the term. I also coined sounds good, ask the boss, and hair of the dog, as well as devil in the details
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:24 · Score: 1

Why is a blatant lie modded as "Insightfull"?
Re:it's kind of funny, by bigdavex · 2019-03-11 01:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

The term "fake news" wasn't invented by Republicans.

--
-Dave
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:41 · Score: 0, Troll

At least according to the completely unbiased trifecta of Salon, Snopes and Politico. It's fake news crying fake news.
Next up: Democrats proclaim orange man bad.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:59 · Score: 0

for the party the coined the term 'fake news' (and 'alternative facts'), the Republicans seem to generate more of it than the rest of the world combined.
Of course .. Trump calls anything fake news which disagrees with his own bullshit narrative.
In that vein, these groups are creating 'news' sites which support their bullshit narrative by spreading their own fake news.
I find this trend very dangerous, and it means the Republicans have moved into a phase where the objective truth is "fake news", and objectively false shit is their own version of the truth.
But make no mistake about it, the Republicans these days are all about 'alternative facts' and their own narrative even when it is factually false.
This is either because all Republicans believe the truth is what they say it is, or they're relying on the vote of a large enough swath of people who are stupid enough to believe this narrative.
Trump loudly decries people who fact check him as fake news, while putting forth his own complete and utter lies so drooling idiots can agree with him and be brainwashed into believing main stream media.
This is outright scary if you ask me, we do not need a brainwashed and delusional segment of the population vocally disagreeing with things they are clearly too stupid to understand and disagree with because a pathological liar told them it was false. That's some troubling shit right there.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:59 · Score: 1

Alternative facts was presented long before Trump in the book 1984 . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Also it is present in psychology and philosophy text books as all facts are truly subjective.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2017/02/11/the-left-not-kellyanne-conway-invented-alternative-facts
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:02 · Score: 0

"...team socialism..."
"...liberal media (which is self admittedly 95% of the media outlets)..."
Just wow. Perhaps you should change your painkillers.
Re:it's kind of funny, by aitikin · 2019-03-11 02:02 · Score: 2

"Alternative Facts" however- that's ALL the Trump Whitehouse, they came up with that one.
I thought it was Orwellian in nature?

--
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:05 · Score: 1

Have you ever watched CNN. My god do they lie all day long.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:09 · Score: 0

Only if "Coined the term" means "made it popular" - which it doesn't .
It means first to use or publish - as in Minting a Coin - First to create. etc
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:12 · Score: 0

haha, and you gotta know that Donnie only wanted to see if Obama got into school as part of some diversity quota or something.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-03-11 02:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

As with a number of memes, it was used against Republicans first, then they adopt it and use it against their attackers.
It is part of a larger ongoing lament by the left that "Republicans are learning to weaponize all our best tricks against them...against us!"

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Anyone who thinks the Republicans coined the term "fake news", needs to watch this youtube video.
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:24 · Score: 1

Trump only went to school because of a financial quota. See what I did there?
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:39 · Score: 0

I don't think it's projection, I think it's more about pure unadulterated greed. As a survival strategy it's quite effective.
Essentially, if something (idea, policy, person, effort, business, etc.) helps or benefits you directly, support it just as much as you need to maximize your benefits (optimizing your resources). Attack anything that negatively effects you in the same fashion and ignore neutral items.
If situational circumstances change, then adjust your support and offense to reflect those changes, discard any underlying ethics.
This behavior has been deemed acceptable by the masses, so many use it throughout all aspects of life, not just politics. You're operating with a handicap when you don't employ it.
Welcome a world where the underlying drive of capitalism permates all aspects of of society (culture, relationships, etc.) and promotes sociopathic behavior through reward and punishes humanitarians through failures leading to struggle to survive.
We value and cherish this sort of drive in the US and place those who utilize thess methods on pedestals. We often reframe the context that leads to their success and paint them in some altruistic pastels. "The victor(s) write(s) the history books," so the old saying goes.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:45 · Score: 0

Upmodded, and not only for the Starship Troopers quote.
Re:it's kind of funny, by hey! · 2019-03-11 02:46 · Score: 3, Informative

It's not a *conservative* trait. Philosophical conservatism -- that is to say skepticism of Utopian schemes -- has a long and honorable history. Projection is a *radical* trait, which is why radical groups tend to splinter and break down when they're under pressure -- e.g. when they gain power and have to get things done. As their underlying differences are unmasked, they turn on each other ruthlessly.
Conservative *branding* isn't the same thing as conservatism.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:50 · Score: 0

I watch 50% MSNBC and 50% Fox News. You know what I am? Confused. Fox News gets 'experts' on the so that they can shout them down, and I don't think any conservative views cross desks at MSNBC. It is mostly Op Ed pieces. On that, I've heard a story that Fox News was in a bit of trouble because most of its content is opinion and NOT news.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:54 · Score: 0

"Fake News" was first termed for fake reporting by a media damage control consultant hired by the Obama administration to assist Hillary in her election process in managing social media stories and rebuking bad optics
Ironically what you're doing there is called fake news. What you say is completely fabricated, made up, baloney, bullshit. You get the idea.
The interesting truth is that "Fake News" was originally coined in 2016 by Buzzfeed to describe a cluster of political websites masquerading as newspapers all registered out of the same Macedonian village. That's right, the original "fake news" was generated for and by Trump. These latest Republican fake newsites are just more of the same, and Republicans will keep on projecting, the modus operandi being "accuse others of being guilty of the crime I am committing", which you have more than adequately demonstrated.
Re:it's kind of funny, by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 02:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually the rumor was that the reason the transcripts were never released was that he got a foreign student scholarship by claiming to be kenyan. It would have been fuel for the birther movement. Personally, knowing that his mother is a citizen, automatically makes him a citizen. McCain was born in Panama BTW. However, the transcript would be more damning, if true, than actually having been born in kenya. It would have shown some level of fraud in order to get into college. It would have been unclear how that would have been received. There are a lot of people struggling to pay for college. Lying to get a free ride, and potentially displacing someone who was legitimately eligible, would be an integrity problem for a president. Most people kept holding onto how they could invalidate his presidency based on some geographical limitation of where he was born. That would have never survived a SCOTUS challenge since his mother is a citizen, extending his citizenship as a right of birth.
Re: it's kind of funny, by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:07 · Score: 1

Bye Felicia!
Re:it's kind of funny, by cyberchondriac · 2019-03-11 03:25 · Score: 0, Troll

First, you're wrong about the coining of the term. So, fake news right off the bat. Typical.
Second, it's ironic that a heavily biased, factually anorexic screaming liberal rag like Salon should complain about a fake news. Snopes has lost some credibility as well. They research what they want to, and ignore what they really don't want to touch; tilting the whole playing field; and like any fact-checking site that provides some kind of summary judgment, the final word is still vulnerable to subjectivity and abuse, as is their choice as what to actually cover in the first place.
Democrats generate more fake news by far, via the mainstream media, with it's now open embrace of the democrat party (we all stop pretending now), is full of rotten "facts". How many times have they gotten it wrong in just the past year? Covington, Smollet, collusion, Kavanaugh.. and long before that, the NBC editing of the Trevon Martin 911 tape, or perpetuating the Mike Brown "hands up don't shoot lie" that even Obama's DoJ said the forensic evidence disproved. CNN wrongly tying Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund. NYT linking political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Giffords. (No link was ever established. ) That's not even the tip of the iceberg.
The Russian Collusion tinfoil hat conspiracy to try to de-legitimatize the presidency is the biggest fraud of all. But they say, an offense is the best defense, so the Clinton and DNC cronies have gone on the attack to keep Trump and the DoJ busy so as to avoid prosecution themselves. The whole FISA warrant and fake dossier paid by FusionGPS should be enough to see serious charges brought up. That should be our new Watergate, but it's not.
You can all downvote me to hell but the truth remains unchanged.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:it's kind of funny, by gtall · 2019-03-11 03:43 · Score: 1

...just implemented by FOX.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:50 · Score: 0

Do they? Could you give us a quick rundown of lies CNN has told in the last few hours? Just so we know what you consider a lie (presumably anything you don't like). CNN is certainly sensationalist, and I'm not a fan of their general reporting style, but claiming that they "lie" all day long, you really need to give examples to be credible.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Sloppy · 2019-03-11 03:58 · Score: 0, Troll

We'll eventually find out Trump is selling duct-taped underage sex slaves out of a pizza restaurant.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:it's kind of funny, by bryanbrunton · 2019-03-11 04:01 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Trump is a traitor against democracy and the Constitution for countless misdeeds. He publicly called upon Russia to hack and release Clinton's emails.
You are a pathetic whiny moron for supporting the racist misogynist porn star President.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
Re:it's kind of funny, by Ksevio · 2019-03-11 04:08 · Score: 2

It wasn't originally being used "against Republicans" it was used to describe the fake news stories that people were sharing from random Wordpress sites that were things like "Hillary Clinton Runs Pedophile Ring out of Pizza Joint". Republicans (mostly Trump) then latched on to the term and started using to describe (true) stories they didn't like as a way to discredit them.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Ksevio · 2019-03-11 04:15 · Score: 1, Troll

Which stories would you consider "Fake" from the mainstream media lately? About what percentage do you think are factual? I'd guess about 99.999% but it could be higher. You seem to confuse reporting on events with reports that are fabricated. Pretty much all the things you listed were reported accurately, just there wasn't evidence to prove it.

Take for example the Kavanaugh case - there's pretty strong evidence that his accuser was telling the truth, but that's beside the point - News stories were often "Woman accuses Kavanaugh of rape". That's a true story. A woman did accuse him. We also have solid proof that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. Stories reporting on that aren't fake

The whole FISA warrant and fake dossier paid by FusionGPS should be enough to see serious charges brought up. That should be our new Watergate, but it's not.
Here's a great example of "Fake News". We have proof that the FISA warrant wasn't because of the dossier, but your news stories probably forgot to mention that. Also, why would FusionGPS fund a "fake dossier"? That doesn't even make sense.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Shotgun · 2019-03-11 04:25 · Score: 0, Troll

Are you saying that the Democrats HAVEN'T gone full socialism, or that polls showing over 85% of journalist are self proclaimed liberals are wrong?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:05 · Score: 0

No you are pretty much a crying baby. Truth is you and your liberal ilk will gladly destroy the US. You think the founding fathers would be on your side our the conservative? So that ends that. You are wrong.....those who made this country possible and took real risks would raise and army and crush you....for you are trading freedom for the bullshit ideas of socialism. fuck you and all your kind.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Hodr · 2019-03-11 05:05 · Score: 1

So I agree with your analysis, but will point out that you are incorrect about the argument regarding citizenship. The argument was not whether or not president Obama was a citizen (as you mention, mother was a citizen so there is no argument). The argument was over the definition of "natural born" citizen (whether that requires you to be born in US territory, or to two US parents, etc). I don't think the argument has any merit, but it is a different argument than whether or not he is a citizen due to his mothers citizenship.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Hodr · 2019-03-11 05:13 · Score: 1

Given your UID you should be old enough to have developed some critical thinking skills.
There are tons of legitimate reasons to attack President Trumps actions and policies, but "calling on Russia to hack Clinton" isn't one of them.
That was absolutely meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and was legitimately funny to many conservatives who shared the view that the mysterious disappearance of 35k emails from the Clinton servers was intentional obstruction of justice rather than some harmless accident.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:14 · Score: 0

Obama is , without question, a Keynesian.
Re:it's kind of funny, by bryanbrunton · 2019-03-11 05:25 · Score: -1, Troll

Trump traitors like you just don't seem to get it.
Candidates for the Presidency shouldn't be issuing tonque-in-cheek statements about foreign entities hacking their political opponents. That's just one example of thousands that show Trump is emotionally and mentally incapable of being a real President.
Trump's behavior is undermining democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
Re:it's kind of funny, by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 05:26 · Score: 1

it would have gone to SCOTUS, but the reason I mentioned McCain was because both 2008 candidates were born outside the US. SCOTUS would have upheld the election. My opinion, not that it matters much, is natural born means was a citizen at time of birth versus became a citizen through immigration, not geographical location. I could be wrong but considering how many politicians are children of other politicians the chance we have had a previous president who was born outside of the continental us is plausible. It would not surprise me if there was previous precedence. Defining the ambiguity of 'natural born' is precisely the job of SCOTUS. I think the foreign exchange theory has some merit. It would never have been anything to make him ineligible to be president, but probably would have affected the votes. That would be a reason not to release them more so than them saying he was kenyan. Up until a certain point things like releasing a buried drunk driving citation the night before an election was pretty damaging. But after too many times of that sort of crap now even an access hollywood tape no-one cares about. Mostly because of timing. They had the tape the whole time they pushed trump to win the RNC yet they gave free coverage, talked bout how great his speeches were, then the second he wins the RNC ... bam 180 degrees. They suck at subtlety so by the time that tape came out people were just so done it did not have the effect they wanted. However, in 2008, yea something like cheating to get into college would have hurt in the polls.
Re:it's kind of funny, by ilsaloving · 2019-03-11 05:26 · Score: 1

Don't forget the large and continually growing list of vehemently anti-gay politicians, et al, who try to push brutal anti-gay legislation, only to be found soliciting blowjobs from mens bathrooms, snorting coke off the asses of male prostitutes, etc.
Re:it's kind of funny, by serviscope_minor · 2019-03-11 05:34 · Score: 0, Troll

That's not what happened.
It was being used originally to point out stories that were literally fake. For some reason those seemed to be more popular with Republicans than Democrats. What people didn't see coming is that so many Republicans would take that as a personal insult, not a statement of fact, or that they'd simply start labelling things they merely didn't like as fake news, rather than things which where actually fake.
If Democrats were guilty of anything then it was assuming that large numbers of Republican supporters were actually decent honest people. You clearly think you won, but all you won was making the country a worse, less honest, more partisan place.
Well done!

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Cyberax · 2019-03-11 05:35 · Score: 1

Is that 85% a part of 85% of all statistics that is made up?
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:47 · Score: 1

pretty strong evidence that his accuser was telling the truth
???
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:09 · Score: 0

Really? Oh please oh please point me to dems doing this.
I'll wait, but I only have an hour so chop-chop.
Hint: you won't find ANYTHING.
Thanks for playing, chump.
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:26 · Score: 0

In truth, John mcCainâ(TM)s Citizenship is on much shakier factual grounds than Obamaâ(TM)s were, even if you believe Birther nonsense. He was born in Panama shortly before it became a protectorate. Though opposed to him politically, I would never question his citizenship or his love of country. And that is the difference.
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:29 · Score: 0

Someone, somewhere - statistically a lot of someoneâ(TM)s - used the term âoefake newsâ prior to Trump. It was Trump that parroted it enough times to put it in the public consciousness, along with âoejail her,â âoeHer e-mails!â and other immortal phrases.
Re:it's kind of funny, by tbannist · 2019-03-11 06:31 · Score: 1

So you're saying it's a Republican trait, rather a conservative trait?

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:33 · Score: 0

What's your definition of "socialism"? Is it having a safety net like Social Security, or is it government ownership of the means of production such as roads and other infrastructure, or is it government ownership of other industries such as health care?
The answer to this question is important in answering yours about whether Democrats have gone full socialism. Can you answer it in a such a way that doesn't make Republicans look like socialists?
Re:it's kind of funny, by tbannist · 2019-03-11 06:43 · Score: 1, Troll

You don't seem to get it.
Even if it was supposed to be tongue in cheek, Trump asked for help from the Russians and they gave it. FBI documents have shown that Russia began a spearfishing operation against the Democrats the day after Trump asked for that help.
More basically, a government that wants to see your country fail played a critical role in the selection your country's leadership. You should be pretty concerned about that. They certainly weren't trying to pick the best person for the job.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:57 · Score: 0

The New Green Deal is literal socialism where private corporate resources are taken against the will of the owners and converted to public interests.
It is the literal definition of Fascism / Communism.
Calling these people socialists is inaccurate.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Rockoon · 2019-03-11 06:58 · Score: 1

Covington, Smollet, collusion, Kavanaugh.. and long before that, the NBC editing of the Trevon Martin 911 tape, or perpetuating the Mike Brown "hands up don't shoot lie" that even Obama's DoJ said the forensic evidence disproved. CNN wrongly tying Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund. NYT linking political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Giffords. (No link was ever established. ) That's not even the tip of the iceberg.
It all changed after the press got caught making up documents against Bush.

It changed because nothing happened to ABC even after their explanation became, and I quote, "fake but true"

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:01 · Score: -1

Flaming leftist doesn't think his shit stinks! News at 11!
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:04 · Score: 0

Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
They repeat this lie 24/7, sometimes several times per minute. Over and over, tens of thousands of times... Despite zero evidence to support it, zero indictments related to collusion, and the fact that the entire story was paid propaganda from the Hillary campaign.
Now shut the fuck up, you sniveling cunt.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:10 · Score: 0

Why is drivel like this upvoted? Cyberchondriac is a Russian troll convincing you he knows the truth ignoring the mountains of evidence around us. Fake news is something OWNED by Trump used to undermine legitimate news he doesn't like.
Salon - who gives a shit of its liberal. It's still not fake news. Its opinion pieces and anyone can write for it.
Snopes? 0 evidence to support this bulilshit
You're claiming liberals got a bunch wrong but that's just your own stupidity. Convington is a piece of shit human being. Smollet? realy? Kavanaugh? Another piece of shit human being. In a normal world Kavanaugh wouldn't have made it to the supreme court.
Russian collusion - why are you calling it before the case is even done?
The only thing i can assume is that you and a bunch of trolls are colluding because what everything you have said is a lie.
Re:it's kind of funny, by hey! · 2019-03-11 07:17 · Score: 1

Yes.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:18 · Score: 0

As opposed to the Republican way of privatizing profits and socializing losses?
Or the fascist / dirigistic practice of forcing business owners to subsidize parking on the backs of bicycle-riding liberals?
Pot, meet kettle!
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:38 · Score: 0

This. Because slashdot is now filled with idiots idiots who believe illegals, women, and black men are out to get them.
Basically a bunch of man babies.
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:39 · Score: 0

Next up repubtards claim trump has the biggest cock of all. It's the biggest of cocks they say. Monumental cock size.
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:41 · Score: 0

Show me news where he didn't collude.
Jesus Christ. If it's a duck it quacks you idiot.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:31 · Score: 0

e3m4n noted:

McCain was born in Panama BTW.
John McCain was born in the military hospital on the U.S. Navy's Coco Soco base. By custom and treaty, U.S. military bases are legally considered U.S. soil. Any children born on U.S. soil are, by long-established legal precedent, automatically citizens of the USA, regardless of their parentage - so the fact that McCain's parents were both U.S. citizens wouldn't have any bearing on his eligibility to be president.
The same principle applies to children born inside U.S. embassies or consulates, since those are also legally U.S. soil.
Note that IANAL. If you need legal advice regarding questions of citizenship, you should consult someone who is ...
(Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)
--
Check out my novel ...
Re:it's kind of funny, by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-03-11 08:56 · Score: 4, Informative

As with Donald Trump's hiding of his grades when asking for Obama to show his, yeah, that's a conservative trait.
Or the President, who has spread memes from Stormfront, saying that the Democrats are the party of antisemitism.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 09:18 · Score: 0

"fake news" was spun up by the democrats to discredit pizzagate suggesting the democrats are all pedo abusers.
unfortunatly it backfired and the republicans applied the term to all news.
they didn't create it tho.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Pfhorrest · 2019-03-11 10:05 · Score: 1

Republicans actually didn't coin the term "fake news". It was beginning to come into popular circulation around the same time as Trump's election, to refer to actual fake news sites like these, and the ones that promulgated the Pizzagate conspiracy theory and such. Then Trump started smearing every actual reputable news organization with the term, and now the term just sounds like a crazy Trumpism, instead of the useful descriptor of actually fake sites actually purporting to be news, like these.
"Alternative facts" is all theirs, though.

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re:it's kind of funny, by terrycarlino · 2019-03-11 10:35 · Score: 0

How about lies a few weeks old?
Covington Catholic students.
Hundreds of TSA workers called in sick during the partial gobernment shutdown.
Any story saying Trump ordered anyone to lie to congress.
Everytime CNN says they are the most trusted name in news.
Re:it's kind of funny, by McFortner · 2019-03-11 10:58 · Score: 0

Really? Because I seem to remember the Democrats use similar terms when Obama and Hillary were accused of malfeasance in office.

But, hey, it's all the Republican's fault for that too, right?

--
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:29 · Score: 0

That's right! Democrats haven't gone full socialism. Turn off Fox NotNews and read up for yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:32 · Score: 0

He literally claimed to have invented the word "fake". What he actually has done if invent a new definition. What he means is: "Fake: anything I don't like".
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:42 · Score: 0

I don't see GP saying either of those things.
I also don't see you linking to any citations either, so this is just blowing smoke.
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 13:42 · Score: 0

Wat? You're incoherent.
Re: it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 13:44 · Score: 0

Meanwhile, black men are 6% of the population, but commit 52% of the violent crime.
It's not paranoia when it's true.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 15:03 · Score: 0

Democrats have NOT gone "full socialism". Learn what socialism actually is. It is NOT a synonym for any policy which you disagree with and want to smear.
- ACTPM
Re:it's kind of funny, by SoftwareArtist · 2019-03-11 17:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who are "the Democrats"? I know a lot of people who belong to the Democratic party. I can't think of a single one I'd describe as a socialist. I haven't seen any polls suggesting they're unusual in that.
Maybe you mean the party leadership. Are you claiming Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are socialists? Seriously??? Sorry, but no. Not even close.
So when you say "the Democrats", I guess you mean some group that doesn't include either the party leaders or most members of the party. That's a very interesting use of language.
Maybe you just don't understand what socialism is. Maybe you somehow got the idea that Elizabeth Warren proposing to break up big tech companies makes her a socialist? It doesn't. If she were a socialist she would want to nationalize them, not break them up. The goal of breaking up monopolies is to increase competition. That's a totally capitalist goal, and basically the opposite of socialism.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Re: it's kind of funny, by Cederic · 2019-03-11 20:55 · Score: 1

I recall it was being used to describe anything supportive of Trump, so he responded by using the term to describe anything that was against him.
While both have an element of hyperbole the sad truth is that there's a lot of nonsense masquerading as truth out there, opinion pieces are being given the same prevalence as hard news and the actual news is now primarily being reported in a far more subjective manner than I recall seeing in the past.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Cederic · 2019-03-11 21:04 · Score: 1

We also have solid proof that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia.
Colluded on what?
Just that you're leaving gaping holes there in your statement. Be specific regarding this collusion.
For instance, colluding to split the dinner bill tends not to cause any alarm. Colluding to overthrow the legitimately constituted government of the USA does.
So far you appear to be inferring one by disingenuously referring to something closer to the other. That's naughty, stop it.
Re:it's kind of funny, by cyberchondriac · 2019-03-12 08:55 · Score: 1

Says the AC pussy. The fact that you actually think I'm a russian troll only proves what a moron you are, and reinforces the fact that nothing you say matters. Perhaps you're a chinese troll, for that matter.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:it's kind of funny, by eaglesrule · 2019-03-12 12:47 · Score: 1

Really, they are all best described as 'opportunist'.
Re:it's kind of funny, by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-14 02:16 · Score: 0

Check out all the butthole pussies modding the above post down, yet no one refuted anything he said with any evidence, just kneejerk liberal tears and name calling. Typical.

Launch.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:10 · Score: 0

..republicans into the sun

Re: Launch.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:54 · Score: 0

If there are no liberals on the sun then sign me up.
Re: Launch.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:53 · Score: 0

Enjoy ur trip
Re: Launch.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:43 · Score: 0

Nope, instead it's a bunch of a white men who can't do anything for themselves.
I picture a bunch of white men standing around saying "who can we blame
For our problems now?"
Re: Launch.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:45 · Score: 0

White man here. 50 years old. Former Marine. There's not much I cannot do should I be of a mind. IT for 3 decades now. CS degree. Own my own home, two cars, no debt. Not all of us "crackers" are helpless or milquetoasts. I fall into the "country boy can survive" camp, whereas most modern men don't. Most city boy softie types would crap themselves if the power went out for more than a day. They cannot or will not defend themselves. I've even met grown ass men who cannot change the tire on their "muscle cars" which makes them useless for the females they may be dating should they have a flat while out on a date. Like Robert Heinlein said, "Specialization is for insects..."

So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 00:12 · Score: -1, Troll

Just about every other news source is a DNC front, and Snopes is an enforcer of DNC ideas under the guise of "fact checking". Seems like Slashdot may not be an exception based on what hits the front page.

Let the GOP have one too.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.

Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:16 · Score: 0

Exactly. So-called "fact-checkers" can't be trusted.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:17 · Score: 0

Delusional.
Re: So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 00:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Salon is one of the worst left wing ones pretending to be neutral.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re:So, balance it out a little by lessthan · 2019-03-11 00:32 · Score: 5, Informative

No. None of what you said is true. Even "Let the GOP have one too." Fox News is a prominent "news" source, wholly run for the Republican party. You have got to be troll to claim to be unaware of Fox. You might not know of Sinclair, which is also a conservative news organization, that has been buying up local stations. They are converting local news programs into propaganda machines for the Republicans. So the right is not hurting for "news" outlets.

--
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:32 · Score: 0

The Irony is amazing.
It was naught but three years ago when left leaners were quoting an citing RT, constantly.
Re:So, balance it out a little by currently_awake · 2019-03-11 00:34 · Score: 0

Doesn't political advertising need to be labeled as such? I realize Fox News doesn't do this.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:39 · Score: 0

Conservatives can't let little things like FACTS get in the way of their delusional view of the world, so any news outlet that actually reports the facts becomes their enemy. That's why they love Fact-Free Fox - it's the news for the new American Taliban Party - they'll tell you what you can do, how you can vote, and how you should live.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:48 · Score: 0

Yes, the multi-billion dollar news stations that are not fox, owned by a few select families, want to educate the American citizens to make America great again. I have a lollipop for you, sucker.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Ritz_Just_Ritz · 2019-03-11 01:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

The irony here is that you get a shrill call out if there's any perceived partisanship in the media that favors republican interests in a backdrop where there is an overwhelming bias for democrat interests across a wide swath of mainstream media that SJW's just wink at.
And this has zero to do with technology and is another nail in the relevancy coffin of slashdot. The political crap is boring. If I wanted that, there are plenty of other places to go that offer more insightful analysis.
Re: So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 01:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

You know Fox is basically controlled opposition and that any time one of their, in many cases real conservative hosts, start talking too close to the core about what's wrong they get shit-canned right? Fox news is right-wing news with a restraining bolt.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re: So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 01:09 · Score: 1

He's a sucker for thinking Fox is truly right-wing.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:15 · Score: 0

Salon says "orange news site bad". NPCs aghast on slashdot, news for NPCs.
Re:So, balance it out a little by pastafazou · 2019-03-11 01:23 · Score: 1

Are you for real? https://www.aim.org/aim-column... https://dailycaller.com/2017/0... https://www.washingtonexaminer...
Re: So, balance it out a little by omnichad · 2019-03-11 01:39 · Score: 4, Funny

If that's restrained, I don't even want to know what they be like totally unhinged.
Re: So, balance it out a little by DigiShaman · 2019-03-11 01:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yeah, but we're hell-bent on having a the Communist Revolution in America, so, like...it's ok for Salon to be biased. You know??? OMG *rolls eyes*
"You can vote yourself into Socialism, but you have to shoot your way out"

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re: So, balance it out a little by WDubois · 2019-03-11 01:54 · Score: 1

If that's restrained, I don't even want to know what they be like totally unhinged.
Breitbart
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:04 · Score: 0

I don't think I've ever seen anyone, especially a politically aware American, quoting RT. Left or Right. Maybe Trump would do that but hes not really Left OR Right, is he?
Re:So, balance it out a little by Ryanrule · 2019-03-11 02:06 · Score: 0

FUCK YOU IVAN.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:06 · Score: 0

InfoWars
In fact I would say unhinged pretty much defines Alex Jones.
If you want to listed to level-headed unfiltered right-libertarian news listen to David Knight on the same network.
I'm not saying Alex is wrong (all that often, on occasion sure) just unhinged. If you want to listen to people who would probably be left wing in another world where they weren't be steam-rolled by it Paul Jospeh Watson and Owen over on the War Room show are your call. Owen has sort of become unhinged recently too, he started out as sort of a left-wing refugee, but he's starting to be a bit more like Alex now.
Fox news is nowhere close to "off the leash". The guys above are and it scares the ever living shit out of the left-wing. The only way to protect their place in the world is to convince the rest of the world Fox is right-wing and drive them to it, lest they find something truly off the leash and further endanger their grip on the media and then the public mindset.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:14 · Score: 0

And Reynolds Aluminum changed their formula so that the DNC mind control waves get through your tinfoil hat!
NO WHERE TO HIDE!
Re:So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 02:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Its probably true, but Snopes is no longer a reliable source. They compromised integrity for partisanship a couple years ago and its going to take a long time to regain credibility. Snopes is supposed to call out misinformation. Deciding to rank certain and provable false claims as a 'we arent sure, its possible but we just dont know' for DNC related stuff was a stupid ass move. If your going to call out misinformation, you have to have a religious level of commitment to the truth, regardless where it leads you. Using influence to sway opinion was never what the site was intended for. Thats an abuse of trust that is hard to regain. I have never seen them call a truth a lie, but I have seen them abuse the in-between-ratings and thats poor journalism if you ask me.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:22 · Score: 0

Salon isn't under the guise of local news all over the country, releasing choreographed propaganda from the DNC. Nice try Einstein.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Colbert
Re: So, balance it out a little by mjwx · 2019-03-11 02:25 · Score: 0

You know Fox is basically controlled opposition and that any time one of their, in many cases real conservative hosts, start talking too close to the core about what's wrong they get shit-canned right? Fox news is right-wing news with a restraining bolt.
No, fox news is an unashamed propaganda channel. Their job is expressly to lie to their viewers and readers in order to push a specific viewpoint.

And I'm not an American... I'm worldly enough to know when someone is obviously lying and Fox News meets that criteria, they don't even bother hiding it any more. Their "reports" are going beyond mere exaggeration, often into the territory of complete fabrication. Even when easily observed facts and evidence are clearly arrayed against them they'll still tell you water isn't wet with a straight face. None of the other mainstream US channels are nearly as bad although I wouldn't class any as reliable, none of them are as bold as Fox news when it comes to pissing on your back and telling you it's raining.

Fox News is on the same level as Russia Today. It's entirely a political mouth piece, the only difference between Fox and RT is that Fox's viewers actually pay to be lied to (fair enough, that kind of fantasy indulgence will cost you £300 an hour in London).

Before you ask, the number one factor in news source trustworthiness is an organisations ability to issue errata and retractions. Fox news will only issue a retraction when ordered by a court... and even then they'll try as hard as they can to bury it.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Ryanrule · 2019-03-11 02:28 · Score: 0

eat shit and die
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:29 · Score: 0

Being liberal and being a front for a political party's messaging are two different things.
You're literally accusing Slashdot of working with members of the Democratic party to push that organization's agenda.
If not, then you chose your words poorly. Words matter.
Re: So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 02:37 · Score: 1

Irrelevant.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-03-11 02:38 · Score: 1

Bias isn't in the facts per se but the choice of stories to drumbeat on, day after day, year after year, to get people concerned to build a solid coalition for "your side".

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes, the so-called "facts" should not be trusted. The so-called "theories of evolution" are a lie. The so-called moon landings are a hoax. The so-called "space" does not exist. "Free markets" and "trickle down" are not fantasies, but actually work. Both the victims and the perps share the blame. It ain't bigotry and racism when we do it. Religious fundamentalism of our kind is good.
And so on.
Re:So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 02:41 · Score: 1

No, I'm simply accusing what comes out of Slashdot on the front page on a regular basis to be the product of a DNC fanboi.
A couple of owners ago Slashdot was rather neutral, the past two owners at least have been quite left-leaning.
I salute Slashdot for more or less leaving the classic moderation in place, though I do go back and look at some old post and see "-2 Moderation" on some of my post that are less forgiving of the left wing, even some that appear to have been down-moded after the comment period has ended, though I'm not 100% sure. I am beginning to wonder if they don't bias the scoring system a bit these days.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:48 · Score: 0

It is 100% true. Every word he said.
Looks up Snopes; but don't use Snopes to do it. It is a "company" of 1 guy - along with the numerous photos and meetings he partakes in with democratic elite.
All the other news organizations are total democratic mouth pieces.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2019-03-11 02:56 · Score: 1

Ah, Whataboutism. Such a marker of despearation and deflection. Try again.

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re: So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:20 · Score: 1

I liked the way Myth Busters did their fact checking. They filmed experimentation to prove or disprove results. You know, that scientific method we seem to be lacking these days. Independent verified experimentation.
Re:So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:26 · Score: 1

IMO its not just Fox news. Its ALL of the 24hr news channels. To be clear, the actual News segments are not full of bullshit opinion and political spin. Unfortunately the 24hr news channels only air news for about 10-15min every hour at most. The rest of the time its the stupid ass talk shows which are clearly not news, but opinions about a particular snippet of half of a news story. I think our country would be in a lot less divided state if we simply ditched all these news channels and just went back to the evening news like the days of Walter Cronkite.
Re: So, balance it out a little by greythax · 2019-03-11 03:28 · Score: 1

Are you contending that the information in the article isn't factual?
Re: So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:29 · Score: 1

its all of them, CNN too. basically if its not the two achormen sitting at the desk giving the 15min news segment, its a show where a host gives opinion in order to sway the viewer to their point of view. By the very definition that is not news. Its a persuasive argument paper, or in terms of politics, propaganda.
Re:So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:30 · Score: 1

guy and his wife actually, but yes
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:35 · Score: 0

No, it doesn't, unless actually purchased by a candidate's campaign organization or one registered to support or oppose a candidate. General poisoning of the news well is just fine, and is considered "free speech." As a practical matter, all coverage of political activities and people involved in politics has to be considered "fake" or "advertising" to some extent; actual relevant facts may fall out of it occasionally, but it's hard to identify them against the background noise.
And yes, the Left may have developed some of the worst practices, but they were definitely commercialized and weaponized by the Right. As has been noted many times, in politics as with wildlife, the only thing you find in the middle of the road is roadkill.
Re: So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:40 · Score: 1

its having shows on a news network that are not news. They call them Commentary. It has no place on a news channel. They might as well just rent out the extra air time running Rogain commercials. Sean Hannity - not a news segment, Rachel Maddow - not a news segment, Bill O'Reilly - not a news segment, I really dont have the energy to list them all. The problem is that people see them on a news station and assume that they are there to simply report facts. When your segment consists of bringing on guests who are partisan and practically had the 'talking points of the day' faxed to them 10min before going on air, you simply are not a news segment. Unfortunately everyone else seems to think they are.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:44 · Score: 0

I’d say that RT is miles better than FoxNews. At least the pieces about topics not related to Russian matters are well written and informative. FoxNews and CNN are smelly drivel.
Re: So, balance it out a little by skam240 · 2019-03-11 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think it's funny you pointing to Salon's political bias (which it certainly does have) while making claims of an eminent communist revolution in this country. You either don't understand what communism is or have a personal political bias so far departed from reality that you're consciously choosing to characterize the mild Leftist push the Democrats are actually experiencing as communism.

--
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:54 · Score: 0

You can't prove whether something happened or not using the scientific method. Nor whether did or did not make a certain statement. That's mostly what Snopes deals with, and since the truth has tended to have a liberal bias in the past few years, the delicate supporters of the Mango Mussolini get annoyed.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:59 · Score: 0

Slashdot is user submitted, though there are a couple editors who definitely have extreme slants. As for the rest, you aren't wrong.
My wife leans extreme left where I fall solidly in the middle/independent category. We've clashed more and more under the current administration because frankly something serious has changed. The right traditionally has played loose on facts and Fox News outright manufactures things sometimes. The left traditionally presents logical arguments and their lies usually take the form of omission, p-hacking, or cherry picking. This helps create their intellectual image since the right presents no logical refute to what they say creating the impression the right are a bunch of dupes and idiots and anyone with a brain falls on the left. They win the debate every time because they have no logical opponent. The radical shift is that the left is looking more and more like the traditional right, facts and logic are now also omitted and emotional arguments are presented. CNN more and more simply looks like the left Fox News.
Applying basic critical thinking to fact checking of the state of the union speech I wasn't able to find a single fact check that limited itself to "facts." All included opinion including things like "but that is actually the result of earlier policies" when talking about a positive outcome or statistic. The outcome or statistic is a fact, giving opinions about whether it is a residual of the previous administrations policy or the current one is outside the scope of a fact check.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Tablizer · 2019-03-11 04:06 · Score: 2

How about some specifics. Your accusations are too general to evaluate. And a couple of mistakes doesn't necessarily mean the whole kit and caboodle is rotten. They are run by people, and people make mistakes. I've disagreed with the scoring myself on occasion.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:06 · Score: 0

Fuck you, asshole, that's as much FAKE NEWS as the fake-ass 'news' sites in TFA. Fuck you, eat shit, and die, astroturfing GOP shilling piece of garbage.
Re: So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 04:10 · Score: 1

but snopes did get caught claiming someone might possible be true (not definitely true but true leaning) when everyone else admitted otherwise. When they, (and by 'they' you do know its just a guy and his wife right?) did that a few times their credibility suffered. Its very possible that they are accurate in this discovery. But when they choose to list other left-leaning claims as 'possible' instead of 'false' it turned them into effectively the same caliber as any other political smear campaign. Most smear campaigns actually do find factual information, but they will certainly, and purposely, withhold any potentially self-damaging information. Snopes should have stayed out of politics. They were awesome when they stuck to debunking nigerian price email.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Ksevio · 2019-03-11 04:17 · Score: 0

That's not even close to true. You're saying that all the other news sources in the world are controlled by the DNC, except for Fox News? Doesn't it seem more likely that they're all just reporting the news accurately?
Re:So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 04:24 · Score: 1

I hate that phrase. It used to be a matter of integrity to avoid hypocrisy. If you did something that you railed against, and someone tells you that its pretty much the same thing as this other thing your against, you would say 'fair point' and give it more consideration. Now its an -ism. How dare you point out that I am railing against something I was all for just a couple years ago! Anyone using the phrase whataboutism should simply just run around going 'Do as I say, not as I do!', thats about all they are good for. Purposefully choosing to protect one group of people for the same behaviors another group of people are condemned for is the root basis for every single other social justice topic of the day. This doesn't matter if the topic is gay marriage, white privilege, racial profiling, xenephobia, homophobia, it really boils down to some manner of inequality. Yet by dismissing a clear point of allowing one side to do something and railing against another side doing the same thing when it pertains to politics is still, without question, inequality.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Shotgun · 2019-03-11 04:36 · Score: 0, Troll

I think it funny that you believe that AOC is "mild Leftist". Call it what you will. What they want is to take my money so that the politicians can decide who deserves it. In every case where it has been tried to date, the politicians have always decided that it was they and their supporters that deserved it. No thank you.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 04:37 · Score: 1

follow the thread rsilvergun started with the same request. I'll dig it up again but while searching i ran into other examples of them doing it for monsanto too.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Shotgun · 2019-03-11 04:37 · Score: 1

Haha! You obviously haven't paid any attention to all the montages of all the liberal outlet using the exact same wording after the DNC puts out their talking points.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re: So, balance it out a little by Shotgun · 2019-03-11 04:48 · Score: 1

Not just the choice of stories, but also how they are framed.
If Republicans do something stupid, the story is wall-to-wall "Conservative does something stupid".
When Democrats do something stupid, the story is "Conservatives react to something stupid".
It even has a name, because the trope is used so much. "Republicans Pounce."
Once you start seeing it, you will be unable to unsee it.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:So, balance it out a little by Shotgun · 2019-03-11 04:51 · Score: 1

Well, I can't find the link to meta-moderate anymore, and I haven't gotten any mod points for several months. It is starting to feel fishy.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re: So, balance it out a little by skam240 · 2019-03-11 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

"I think it funny that you believe that AOC is "mild Leftist"."
I think it's funny that you think that AOC is the entirety of the Democratic party and not just one of 235 Democratic house members who represent's only one of New York's 27 congressional districts. Is the entire Republican party libertarian because the people of Kentucky elected Rand Paul to the Senate?
" What they want is to take my money so that the politicians can decide who deserves it."
Every government, no matter where on the political spectrum, does this. It's what governments do and the odds are fairly certain you're in favor of government doing this in some sort of context so you can quit with the delusion that only those on the Left practice what you describe.

--
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:58 · Score: 0

BS. This has been going on for as long as political speech has. The simple fact is that most in the DNC had not seen an oppositional news source in their lifetimes and decried when any subjective reporting did not align with their narrow world-view (e.g. choosing what to report or placing blind trust in non-verified sources). Free speech can be a bitch when it is not you speaking.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:01 · Score: -1

The Democrat party today is symptomatic of a much larger issue; that people are less enlightened and more primal. Gimmie gimmie gimmie!!!
We are a nation in decay. It's you and me until it's you OR me!
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:03 · Score: 0

politicians already take your money and give it to who they decide deserves it, just now they decide that it goes to the corporate interests and billionaires
Re: So, balance it out a little by fustakrakich · 2019-03-11 05:35 · Score: 1

All of mass media is "right wing". That's where the money is. The news is directed by advertisers, not politics, beyond that of the advertisers, of course.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:37 · Score: 0

I think it is funny that you don't have a clue what Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez supports or stands for, but somehow know how it shall cost you personally.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:44 · Score: 0

Please show your work.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:46 · Score: 0

You put way too much effort into that response, and throwing pearls to the swine.
Whenever you hear "whataboutism", you simply say, *Yeah? What about it?! FUCK YOU!* Even that will probably go over their heads, being the dumbasses that they are. You don't waste your energy trying to reason with a fanboi sociopath. They are too primal.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:46 · Score: 1

She stand for theft of personal wealth all while pushing some batshit insane NGD which is nothing more than a Communist Manifesto to the likes of a Chinese Great Leap Forward. It would also leave 100+ MILLION dead from starvation and strife all the same. THAT IS WHAT SHE STANDS FOR!! She's queen of death in the making!
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:59 · Score: 0

Snopes is just a guy (used to be guy and his wife) that researched old chain-letter style e-mails so you could point to something to show grandma that Bill Gates isn't going to send her $1000.
There's no particular reason anyone should have put any amount of faith in their findings.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Ichijo · 2019-03-11 06:01 · Score: 0

Snopes doesn't always come to the right conclusion, but they always provide their sources.
If you think they're wrong today just because they were wrong in the past, then please be aware that you are vulnerable to manipulation. All someone has to do to convince you that something is true is to have someone you distrust say the opposite. You should try to be a little more skeptical!

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Re: So, balance it out a little by larkost · 2019-03-11 06:04 · Score: 1

In "every case" are you including most of Europe? Most, if not everything I have seen pushed by the current Democratic Congressional Freshmen, or Presidential candidates are out-of-line with what you see in parts of Europe right now: single payer healthcare, living wages, etc... And it is pretty easy to argue that places like Germany or Sweden have not descended into Kleptocracies.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:10 · Score: 0

Pretending to be neutral, seriously? I think you've been clicking the wrong link.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:31 · Score: 0

Are you trying to make a joke about the Sinclair "This is extremely dangerous to our democracy" bit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re: So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 06:53 · Score: 1

well, I did have Jack in the Box tacos yesterday, it's just a matter of time....

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re:So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 06:55 · Score: 1, Informative

i said this story is probably true but they do have a credibility issue, theyve been caught skewing the results. Even the WaPo has called them out, I linked their article in another thread. RealClear politics rated them and showed that they actually cited THEMSELVES as sources of their fact checking. Its fact checking. You cannot site yoursel or for that matter opinion articles (they scored a 90% on the topic f using the media as their 'fact check'. Considering journalists often use snopes for their fact checking, this means that a journalist runs with an article because snopes said another journalist said its true)
Believe me, I am highly skeptical, of everything. Im one of the few that believe both sides of these debates work in concert to keep us believing the world would be a better place if only the other side wasnt preventing progress. The reality is this 50/50 split serves to guarantee no progress ever happens and noone is ever held accountable. its entirely by design. But some more tidbits of this supposedly fact-only not bias'ed group:
Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer, Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes. Couple of examples
https://www.inquisitr.com/6700...
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/...
While at Inquisitr, she consistently displayed clear partisanship. She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.” She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.) These are not good traits if you're trying to portray yourself as someone only about the facts.
After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for any rumor or otherwise against democrats.
She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.” Eactly how is this fact checking and not a platform to substitute her opinions as given facts. The FACT was he was a registered democrat. Why did she need to downplay this fact and rate it as a Mixture and not simply True. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
here is the quote
"What that lone fact means is the subject of a good deal of speculation, with possibilities ranging from Mateen’s being a supporter of Democratic ideology to his simply having chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered. Mateen didn’t appear on the FBI’s radar until 2013, and it’s possible that in the ten years between 2006 and 2016 his political outlook (whatever it was to begin with) might have changed radically, even
Re:So, balance it out a little by Ichijo · 2019-03-11 07:10 · Score: 0

Again, you may not agree with their conclusions but at least they provide their sources so that people can think for themselves and come to their own conclusions, optimistic though this may be!

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Re:So, balance it out a little by cybrthng · 2019-03-11 07:40 · Score: 1

Snopes is independent. There is 0 evidence to support your argument.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:45 · Score: 0

They were awesome when they stuck to debunking nigerian price email."
They were awesome when they werent debunking all the repubtard bullshit I was told to believe without questioning, because, well because.
FTFY.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:48 · Score: 0

Pot meet kettle.
The repubtards believe anything that a KNOWN liar tells them, because he's one of them.
Repubtard fallacy committed: blame the left/poor/blacks/immigrants.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:50 · Score: 0

You repubtards are so used to believing lies that you come here spouting fake numbers and lies and expect us to be as stupid as you?
Fuck off, but 100 million people will dieeeeeee. LOL nice number pulled out of your ass. Why will those people die? What's the reason? The cause? You list none of those because you are spreading lies another repubtard told you.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:52 · Score: 0

He's a repubtard that commits the repubtard fallacy everytime he opens his mouth. He can be ignored.
I mean shit more than 50% of his post are downmodded. I bet his daughter dates a black guy and he's mad. Black guy has bigger dick.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:53 · Score: 0

Citation needed.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:58 · Score: 0

Repubtard fallacy detected.
Blames the left for the rights stupid shit we call them out on.
Republicans pounce. LOL I have never once
Heard this saying being userd. This is the first time I heard it.
It might be better to say "repubtards pounce on Putins cock"
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:59 · Score: 0

Post them then you cuck.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:00 · Score: 0

Reality is well known for its liberal bias.... this makes it appear that all news outlets share that bias. What youre actually seeing is evidence that your political beliefs are objectively incorrect and morally repugnant.
Sorry you find that uncomfortable, but the universe doesnt really care about your feelings.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Altus · 2019-03-11 08:03 · Score: 1

Yeah, much better to give a bunch of my money to the government so it can give tax breaks to billionaires and subsidies for fossil fuel companies.... that's not a hand out at all.
In the end it won't be you OR me, it will be us CRUSHED by them.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:05 · Score: 0

That's because almost every post you write is repubtard troll bait. You get downvoted because your post are always blaming "the left".
If we went thru your posting history, all we'd see if you blaming democrats. That song is old buddy. We no longer wish to hear it. You have been a proven liar on slashdot and people know this.
That's why you have no mod points, because you abuse them and
Offer nothing of service back to the community other than "the left is to blame
For destroying mahhhh America"
Fuck off, we will keep modding you down until you take some personal responsibility and stop blaming the left for all your troubles. You are a walking republican fallacy.
Re:So, balance it out a little by ilsaloving · 2019-03-11 08:14 · Score: 1

Wooow, if you think snopes is considered a democrat front, I think that says all we need to know about your ability to look at information objectively and rationally.
That being said, it's already been very well established that anyone not willing to swallow the republican party line hook line and sinker, is considered to be pushing a "democrat agenda". And that includes card carrying members of the Republican party who dare to step out of line even just once.
Re: So, balance it out a little by ilsaloving · 2019-03-11 08:18 · Score: 1

And here we go. Are you one of those Russian trolls I keep hearing about? The whole "anything even vaguely "left" sounding is COMMUNISM" line is just so beyond stupid.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:24 · Score: 0

Specifics would be a lot more convincing than vague accusations, but I have come to expect nothing more than that from the right.
AC to preserve moderation. Just about every time the right tries to smear something like Snopes or the SPLC or the ACLU they can never say exactly what it is that's wrong with them.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Mike+Van+Pelt · 2019-03-11 08:36 · Score: 1

Snopes is supposed to call out misinformation. Deciding to rank certain and provable false claims as a 'we arent sure, its possible but we just dont know' for DNC related stuff was a stupid ass move. .... I have never seen them call a truth a lie, but I have seen them abuse the in-between-ratings and thats poor journalism if you ask me.
Yeah... If the topic has no political slant, or if they say flat-out true or false with documentation, Snopes has seemed to be pretty reliable. But they have long shaded the "maybe" ratings in a certain direction.
The first one I came across was back during the GWB administration. There was some utterly brain-dead rumor going around that Ashcroft was terrified of calico cats because he thought they were of the Devil for some reason. It took Snopes several weeks to change that from "Unverified" to "False", even after they quoted a source saying that asked Ashcroft about this, and he laughed out loud. I'm sure if it were an accusation made about Hillary that it would have been stamped false instantly.
I still consider them a valuable resource, but I don't trust them unreservedly.
Re:So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 08:54 · Score: 1

while looking up links to examples for some others I ran across ratings by real clear politics. It appeared to give snopes high marks. However there was something I found highly disturbing. Based on their ratings, it appears snopes does not actually do any fact checking. They go to google and then if some media outlet is saying the same thing, they use it as a source. Here is the problem, one that even WaPo criticized, most journalist depend heavily on Snopes for their own fact checking. If the fact-checkers are using journalists as facts, and the journalists are using snopes as the facts, then NOBODY is actually checking any facts at all. Its a rumormill by accident. Another interesting statistic is sometimes they use their own website as a source for fact-checking. In other words, if they were fact checking a question 'is tom brokaw gay?' and someone else previously wrote an opinion piece at snopes as to why they thought Tom Brokaw was gay, they would use that as their source to say True, Tom Brokaw is gay. Thats pretty insane right? Thats like asking Trump 'hey do you tell the truth or do you lie?' and he comes back with 'Believe me, I always tell the truth' and that being the end of the inquiry. I wouldnt stop there in my fact-checking and thats not what I get paid to do.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 09:12 · Score: 0

No. snopes was never reliable. you had to be a fucking moron to think snopes was ever reliable.
Re: So, balance it out a little by DigiShaman · 2019-03-11 09:18 · Score: 1

I've been on this forum for a very long time. Russian Troll?? Fuck the Russians! Fuck Communism, and fuck YOU!

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-03-11 09:32 · Score: 1

I’d say that RT is miles better than FoxNews. At least the pieces about topics not related to Russian matters are well written and informative. FoxNews and CNN are smelly drivel.
RT sometimes has good news pieces. They are an intentional mix of accurate news that you can find elsewhere, with a smattering of pure Kremlin propaganda, so your defenses are down when the propaganda is pushed. They need to create that thin veneer of respectability as a shield.
Re:So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 10:04 · Score: 1

If you say the same phrase over and over does it make it come true, or does it make you feel like a repetitive idiot?

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re:So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 10:05 · Score: 1

There's plenty of evidence to show Snopes is crooked, but there's not point in bringing it up when you will only accept information checked by Snopes.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re:So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 10:39 · Score: 1

Everyone should check the parents post history. It reads like a Russians everywhere insult script, rarely more than a single sentence and almost always an insult with the exception of the occasional "we should submit to the government and give them more power" post.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 10:52 · Score: 0

"The house is on fire!"
"Who cares, our son is drowning!"
Such a marker of desperation and deflection. Your drowning son clearly must not matter.
Re: So, balance it out a little by terrycarlino · 2019-03-11 11:13 · Score: 1

The idea that news organizations were ever unbiased is a lie itself. It was most successfully perpetrated by Edward R Murrow and his protege Walter Cronkite, two globalists who did propaganda for the U.S. government during the Second World War and after the war shilled for the left.
Like good propagandists they convinced their viewers that they were unbiased arbiters of the news while cleverly slanting their coverage by not reporting on certain stories.
Most of the media continued to do this for years. It is only recently that they forgo any attempt at journalism at all and have started to report on Twitter postings which are completely unverified.
Of course many of the news items on both the right and the left that get reported as lies are really just soundbites that have nuance removed, that is they are true when taken in a particular framework but lies when taken alone or absent that framework. That's why so many of them are reported by places like PolitiFact as "mostly true" or "mostly false", because in the real world things can seldom be explained in a soundbite.
Re:So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:29 · Score: 0

The WaPo article you linked is hosted on the Washington Times website for some reason.

She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
The claim refuted on that page is that President Jimmy Carter banned Iranian nationals from entering the U.S. in a manner similar to Donald Trump's proposal to ban the entry of Muslims..
It was rated a "mixture" and they pointed out how it had some elements of truth to it, but was false in the claim that it had any similarity to Trump's proposal of banning all Muslims.
What exactly is wrong with it?
- ACTPM
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:55 · Score: 0

Do enlighten me. I'm sure there is a wealth of reputable links you can share demonstrating your assertion. So, please do. If its systemic like it is with Republicans, should be an easy endeavor.
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 12:04 · Score: 0

You should look up the meaning of the word irrelevant because I don't think it means what you think it does.
Re: So, balance it out a little by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 12:40 · Score: 1

So kind of like organized religeon, where they qoute a specifc verse out of context, to justify something they want you to do. Seems plausible
Re: So, balance it out a little by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 16:10 · Score: 0

Nobody shoots their way out of Socialism. Without fail, in 100% of cases so far documented, the CIA is the entity shooting their way in. This is extremely well known history. Hell you can watch it in real time in Venezuela!
Re:So, balance it out a little by Cyberax · 2019-03-11 21:35 · Score: 1

Anybody who says SJW in a serious context is an idiot. This is an inviolable law of the Universe, it seems.
Re: So, balance it out a little by pecosdave · 2019-03-12 10:16 · Score: 0

I think it's pretty obvious our posts have been passed along to the collectivist moderation rail-road, I went from +5 to -1 on a few posts and most the others have yo-yoed and I see yours has been attacked to.
The NPCs have better team-work than the rest of us.
Conservative post bad!

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.

Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by najajomo · 2019-03-11 00:16 · Score: 1

I'm confused slashdot editors, which is it Russian Internet trolls or Republican internet trolls are manipulating elections.

Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:23 · Score: 0

Both! When you lose a fair election and canâ(TM)t admit that your candidate just didnâ(TM)t try hard enough because she thought she had it in the bag, and generally wasnâ(TM)t well liked, you use whatever excuse you can find.
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by lessthan · 2019-03-11 00:23 · Score: 1, Informative

Is there a difference? Republicans seem to be willing to go to any lengths for power, so if the Russians offer help winning elections...

--
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by mlw4428 · 2019-03-11 00:30 · Score: 1

Why is it one or the other? The two can be mutually exclusive.
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:32 · Score: 0

It was her turn. Like it was Bob Dole's turn in a prior election.
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:34 · Score: 0

Slashdot is run and owned by very weak men, they can't think for themselves.
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:47 · Score: 0

whats your problem exactly? Her platform? Her operatives? Her execution? What's with the cliches?
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:59 · Score: 0

They might be working together duh. It is easy to confuse when you are a simpleton or just really trying to purposely confuse it because you are working with the Russians and Republicans. Why did so many republicans go to Russia last 4th of July? Why won't Cammander Bonespurs let anyone know what he and Putin talk about?
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by XxtraLarGe · 2019-03-11 01:00 · Score: 1

It seems like real propaganda sites would be much more effective than fake ones.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by coastwalker · 2019-03-11 01:06 · Score: 1

This comment epitomises political disruption propaganda. It has no other purpose than to inflame the debate. It is almost certainly not left or right wing but is almost certainly paid for by an enemy of the United States.

--
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 01:10 · Score: 1, Funny

It wasn't a fair election.
The DNC cheated, just not hard enough to overcome a landslide and they're super butt-hurt about it.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:18 · Score: 0

We know the answer. When someone's making a disingenuous, misleading, and willfully ignorant argument, setting up a false dichotomy is one of many forms of logical fallacy the idiots employ to help drive their point home.
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:29 · Score: 0

I am just glad that her "charity" isn't able to take in hundreds of millions of bribery payments any longer. Go ahead, run the dirtiest politician you can find again.
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:32 · Score: 0

Or just an enemy of democratic processes. Which includes the republicans now that the RWNJ lunatic fringe control the GOP, meaning that everyone can see, including the vast majority of non-nutjob rightwingers, that the GOP is evil. That is why the GOP hasn't won the popular vote for 20+ years and would have lost the electoral college several times despite their overwhelming superior gerrymandering of states and voter disenfranchisement (see Mitch seeing nothing salvageable about a bill that includes a day off mandatory on voting day so everyone can vote in a democracy).
When your political future requires that the democratic process be nullified for you to continue to retain power, it's your only go-to move: pretend "both sides do it just as bad" to remove voter participation, since that will mostly affect Democratic votes, given that your voters have already seen how evil you are and aren't voting for you any more.
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:32 · Score: -1

That conspiracy theory is old and proven incorrect. Guess you have to find another one. Two years of incoherent delusional rambling...you have nothing to show for it but the "evidence" you paid to plant. The only collusion came from you working with retired KGB thugs to do so. I wonder if they were the same ones you sold our uranium to?
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:14 · Score: 0

You should familiarize yourself with the concept of "collusion."
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:51 · Score: 0

Except that it is not a "conspiracy theory".
Nixon did it.
Reagan did it.
Dealing with the enemy to secure election advantages is a time-honored neocon Republican strategy.
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by rickb928 · 2019-03-11 04:13 · Score: 0

"and generally wasnâ(TM) (sic)t well liked,"
Nothing to do with the reports that she violated 18 US S 1519, S 793(f), S 1924, , both by the then-FBI director, publicly, and in his memos? And, based on this and other public reports, 18 US S 2071(b) (or S 641), S 1505, S 1031, S 1343...?
Oh, and before her husband was President, 18 US S 1001, S 1014, S 371, and S 1341, all in connection with real estate transactions and financing,
Besides being perceived by some as an 'unlikable' person, which is not much of an impediment for many other candidates, her well-publicized legal transgressions should have resulted in indictments, as many of them do not require intent. And as a candidate, claims that 'I didn't understand the regulations' or 'I didn't know they were classified' would not be tolerated from any other candidate, possibly, even, other Democrat candidates.
No, of course not.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by rickb928 · 2019-03-11 04:16 · Score: 1

"Republicans seem to be willing to go to any lengths for power, "
Really? Romney, McCain, GHW Bush, these are men who would and did 'go to any lengths for power'?
Really?

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:02 · Score: 0

eh?
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:07 · Score: 0

Talk about cherry-picking examples from your own source. Almost like this is a common strategy performed by monkeys when engaged in competitive behavior. Instead, let's dehumanize the other side and further the tribalism! Long live the monkeys on this side of a political border!
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:15 · Score: 0

It wasn't the republicans who kicked bernie off the ticket you disinformation spreading liar.
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:08 · Score: 0

Then why isn't trump locking her up?
Wasn't that his campaign slogan? Lock her up!! I find it hard to believe that she committed so many crimes and is getting off Scott free. Either the repubtards are the biggest incompetent bunch of idiots in charge, or Hillary is a criminal mastermind.
Pick one because there's no other reason.
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:09 · Score: 0

Why didn't you address his points? Why are you choosing to ignore them and instead try to derail the topic?
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by rickb928 · 2019-03-11 09:13 · Score: 1

Strategery, my friend.
Let all these made-up accusations of collusion and such be cleared as best they can. Let all this run its course.
Then begin the work. Knowing that ALL of Washington will oppose him...

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by zlives · 2019-03-11 10:32 · Score: 1

that was so 2008
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by rickb928 · 2019-03-11 10:37 · Score: 1

So Justice goes out of style?
Isn't this actually the problem?

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites? by zlives · 2019-03-11 11:37 · Score: 1

meh ask the republicans of 2019

WHY is this on /. ? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

This has nothing to do with nerds. Nor is it news...
Salon is the biggest piece of shit masquerading as journalism out there right next to Mother Jones and The Daily Stormer. Who gives a rat's ass what they think?
Do better, /.

Re: WHY is this on /. ? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:28 · Score: 0

Agreed. Iâ(TM)m about one âoemuh Russiaâ story from abandoning Slashdot for good after reading it since the early 2000s. Itâ(TM)s slowly turning into the post Taco Tuesday toilet bowl mess that sites like Kotaku, Jalopnik, etc turned in to.
Re:WHY is this on /. ? by xpiotr · 2019-03-11 01:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's here because it matters.
Fake News sites like this, gives troll accounts a "valid" source to point too.
So when ever "references needed", this will be the answer.
Re:WHY is this on /. ? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:42 · Score: 0

Because the Daily Kos would be too obvious?
Re: WHY is this on /. ? by Ryanrule · 2019-03-11 01:45 · Score: 1

ivan ivan ivan ivan ivan
Re:WHY is this on /. ? by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 02:24 · Score: 1

even a broken clock is right twice a day. I happened to enjoy reading the articles Camille Paglia wrote. Even though she tends to vote more liberal, she was always brutally honest about people like Killary and Obummer's shortcomings. Any journalist that will set aside personal wishes to report accurately as to someones shortcomings has my respect. I see way too much of this 'well we just wont say anything since it will make our guy/gal look bad' crap. That has no place in journalism.
Re:WHY is this on /. ? by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-11 02:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yep, it's an effective online debating tactic too. It forces you to waste time and effort debunking the site or building a case against it. And then they just move on to calling you part of the legacy fake media and an idiot for taking the blue pill.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: WHY is this on /. ? by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:45 · Score: 1

side note, i managed to fix my iphone from putting in all those weird characters in my posts when I use quotation marks. I clicked the link to use the real site instead of the mobile version. It also has kept me from having to sign in every single post.
Re:WHY is this on /. ? by jeff4747 · 2019-03-11 04:04 · Score: 1

Yes, this whole Internet thing has nothing to do with nerds. :eyeroll:
Re:WHY is this on /. ? by AndrewFlagg · 2019-03-11 05:52 · Score: 1

it has to do with reputation building. i have had CEO's approach me with wrecked past careers trying to push down and hide their past. try to get the .gov site to list the entire ruling against them, charged and then released without prejudice. nothing new. just bad .gov sites.
Re:WHY is this on /. ? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:56 · Score: 0

Yep, it's an effective online debating tactic too. It forces you to waste time and effort debunking the site or building a case against it.
Which is precisely what people have been accusing you of for years here on slashdot. The same reason why you were banned from SoylentNews.
Someday I hope you grow a spine and either admit to what you are doing or better: grow up and stop doing it.
Re:WHY is this on /. ? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 03:22 · Score: 0

How do we know you're not a troll?
Re:WHY is this on /. ? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 06:09 · Score: 0

Err...is this reporting wrong? We're not talking about what Salon thinks, we're talking about a coordinated republican misinformation campaign which we should all care about. Otherwise, sure, ad hominem.

Likely true by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:17 · Score: -1

But the Democrats do the same thing. This has been proven over and over again. Both sides are frequently up to no good. Politics serves only to divide us. The elites love the bickering, backbiting, and division. Bread and circuses allows them to do what they want behind the scenes when everyone is only paying attention to the hot issues like abortion, gun control, and taxes. I don't trust either side and I hope that someday we can get away from the sodden duopoly we have in America.

I doesn't help that the vast majority of politicians in America are millionaires and don't have our best interests at heart. The Democrats secretly make deals with the medical insurance companies to keep single payer from becoming a reality. The Republicans and the NRA meet behind closed doors to craft laws to reduce the rights of gun owners. Neither side is what they claim, and as a consequence, I personally trust neither to do the right thing.

Re: Likely true by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:35 · Score: 0

Also, this appears to be a case of "a small group of Republicans" and not Republicans in general.
Re: Likely true by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Republicans of today are not what they claim to be. I'm old enough to remember the 70s. I grew up with people who remember WWII. Today's "conservatives" are anything but. A conservative would never endorse homosexual marriage. There would be zero waffling on the issue. A conservative would not happily go to war at the drop of a hat. A conservative would not want a wall built, because it means more government meddling. True conservatives are penny pinchers. True conservatives want term limits, no lobbying, and far less meddling in foreign affairs. If Ron Paul would have been elected, we would be a lot better off. Not saying he was the panacea, but we don't have true conservatives in office. True conservatives wouldn't make deals with the left. There is not a single true conservative in office in America at the federal level. All of them have shown their true colors in some way.

Pot calling the kettle black by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:17 · Score: 0

An article on Salon.com complaining about fake news and 'fronts' for a particular political party is highly ironic.

When did slashdot become used as a political site? by Munky101 · 2019-03-11 00:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

When did slashdot become a politics site where propaganda sources are allowed like salon? Np, we do not want this in our nerd news. Keep this crap on twitter.

Kettle, pot, black by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:18 · Score: 0, Troll

Salon, a Democrat propaganda house calling another website propaganda. Interesting... NOT

More likely it's the Democrats, not the GOP. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:18 · Score: 0, Informative

Never forget the false flag operation at Alabama.

I repeat...

Never forget the false flag operation at Alabama.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html

The DNC are proven liars who have been caught red-handed. Never trust them.

Re: More likely it's the Democrats, not the GOP. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:25 · Score: 1

Donâ(TM)t forget about the one in Chicago, which all of the leftest news outlets called a âoemodern day lynchingâ before any of the facts came in, and after 16 felony charges by a grand jury, none of them are apologizing for jumping the gun. Rather theyâ(TM)re still trying to paint the false flagger as a victim. Whatever fits their narrative.

And you're spreading Salon's propaganda by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:18 · Score: 0

why?

Where are the proofreaders? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:20 · Score: 0

IS ANYONE PROOFREADING? "The group behind the sites does not appear content with just three outlets. According to Politico,"

And on the other side... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:21 · Score: 0

Kathleen Bartzen Culver, who heads the Center of Journalism Ethics

Now let's hear her weigh in on the MSM's 'ethics'.

This is creative thinking. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:22 · Score: 0

Sometimes campaigns need to be creative to get their message out. This is especially true when the mainstream media acts as a gatekeeper, as if it is their job to protect the voters from wrong think.

Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:24 · Score: 0

"I find that very troubling within a democracy."

Should have been:
"I find that very troubling within a oligarchy."

Salon.com = Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:26 · Score: 0

Sorry that someone is cutting into your fake news biz guy.

Re:Salon.com = Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:03 · Score: 0

They're probably angry that the Republicans are starting to use the same tactics that the Democrats have been using for decades.
*shrug* I'm GenX; I sit on the sidelines and watch the world burn.

There's a Center of Journalism Ethics? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:26 · Score: 0

And they DON'T have a problem with CNN?

Non Biased by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:31 · Score: 1

As opposed to CNN that is totally unbiased.

Re:Non Biased by NikeHerc · 2019-03-11 00:56 · Score: -1, Troll

As opposed to CNN that is totally unbiased.

All the liberal "news" outlets consistently deliver about 90% negative views of President Trump. If you think that's unbiased, you need to look up the definition of the word "bias."

It's clear to any rational person that the liberal media are simply the public relations wing of the democratic party.

--
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.

Disturbing by mlw4428 · 2019-03-11 00:34 · Score: 1

Look if these sites were satirical in nature, it'd be one thing. But these "news" sites are proclaiming to be actual journalistic news organizations. But they're more or less mouthpieces supported by and for prominent Republicans in their area. They exist to push an ideology. This is disturbing and the fact that after 2016's Fake News debacles, you'd think either party would be rather adverse towards creating yet more fake news. I'm disappointed in the Republican party...

Re:Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:42 · Score: 0

The Republicans are full of it and the Democrats, too. On the one hand, you have a party that is OK with people going into massive debt to receive "health care", wants to build a token, useless wall, etc. On the other hand you have a party that wants to elevate anything and everything that is not a white male at the expense of white males. The Democrats would love nothing more than see total gun confiscations. Don't forget this very meme came out of the mouth of the former AG, Janet Reno. She said the end goal is confiscation. Both sides are evil. Neither has the interests of the people in mind. The Democrats secretly lobby with the health insurance companies to kill single-payer healthcare, went after Bernie Sanders because they knew he would trounce Hillary in the election, and are generally hostile to anything that doesn't align with the LGBTEIEIOOMG brigade. The Republicans are mired in stupid thinking, fiscal irresponsibility, and insipid dreams of a wall that will do nothing. Neither side are for Americans.
Re:Disturbing by jeff4747 · 2019-03-11 04:05 · Score: 1

This is disturbing and the fact that after 2016's Fake News debacles, you'd think either party would be rather adverse towards creating yet more fake news
Why? It worked.

The real fake news is the headline by onyxruby · 2019-03-11 00:35 · Score: 0, Troll

They are starting new sites with a focus on local (State) level news. Most local news sites are owned by a handful of large companies.

https://www.businessinsider.co...

These people are obviously responding to a need for news that the public feels isn't being met.

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_...
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018...
https://thehill.com/homenews/m...

Simply because a website sources some of their news from large national sources does not make it fake news. Local news companies source stories from Reuters and the Associated Press all the time. Why do you think you can find the exact same article in a range of news outlets?

Presuming news to be fake simply because it comes from a different political perspective is hubris at best.

Re:The real fake news is the headline by Nidi62 · 2019-03-11 00:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Simply because a website sources some of their news from large national sources does not make it fake news. Local news companies source stories from Reuters and the Associated Press all the time. Why do you think you can find the exact same article in a range of news outlets?
Presuming news to be fake simply because it comes from a different political perspective is hubris at best.
I'm sure a local news service founded by a man with the following description (taken directly from his publisher's website):

Michael Patrick Leahy is an innovative leader in both the tactics and strategy of grassroots conservative new-media activism. As cofounder of Top Conservatives on Twitter, Leahy helped to form the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition....He lives in Tennessee
will be a bastion of fair, accurate and unbiased reporting. And, while I can see him being concerned about local news in TN since he lives there, it is hard to see what ties he may have to Missouri, New England, the Dakotas, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, as mentioned in the summary. Unless he is just really concerned about local news.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:The real fake news is the headline by Ryanrule · 2019-03-11 01:27 · Score: 1

Fuck off ivan. Yes. It is that obvious.
Re:The real fake news is the headline by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 02:46 · Score: 1

as a libertarian who leans more conservative on spending issues but more liberal on some social ones, I am troubled that the the phrase 'news-media activism' has a definition at all. Those 2 things should never appear even in the same paragraph let alone the same sentence. Unfortunately this is why the phrase fake-news came about initially. It wasn't the Republicans that invented this phrase, it was us, the regular Joe's of the world that have been watching news shift into ad revenue driving click-bait. This shit started happening around the time of 24hr news reporting such as Headline News and CNN. Before we had 24hr news channels we simply had news segments and they were mostly just news. These 24hr news channels hosts shows that are not about reporting at all. Whether its Rachael Maddow, Sally Kohn, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reily. These shows they hosts take a piece of news and they talk about it, and bring in people to defend or attack it. When that is done on a NEWS CHANNEL that creates a blurring of fact and fiction, or fact and opinion, that the viewer is misled into thinking everything they hear is 100% true. Yet these shows are always about opinions, views, etc. Walter Cronkite would have walked out of the studio if this shit went down when he was king of the hill.
Re:The real fake news is the headline by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:59 · Score: 0

I'm sure he's just extending the "all politics is local" mantra to local news "all news is local" or something like that

Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:35 · Score: -1

Bullshit. News if fact based. It's not liberal or conservative, it's facts.
A lot of the facts about Donald Trump don't get reported in Fox, Sinclair etc. Sinclair for instance is a serious bullshit manufacturer see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGIYU2Xznb4

CNN or even MSNBC doesn't have that. They don't shill for the DNC and they don't need to. Trump is on the phone with Hannity every day. He literally live tweets fox and friends. Imagine Obama talking to Rachel Maddow or live tweeting an MSNBC show. These things don't exist in the left.

At most you can argue that some extreme left sites are a bit of a shill (e.g. Hufpo) but we know about them and their bias. They are like Britebart, they don't pretend that they have no bias. Here is an attempt to hide these biases similarly to Sinclair. That's a situation that's unique to the right.

Re: Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias! by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 01:08 · Score: 1, Informative

CNN doesn't shill for the DNC?
You know they've actually admitted (finally) that they have debate questions to Hillary ahead of time right?

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Re: Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:28 · Score: -1

CNN doesn't shill for DNC! Best joke I've heard all day. Lol!
Re:Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:44 · Score: 0

News if fact based. It's not liberal or conservative, it's facts.
That's got to be the most delusional thing I've read in a while.
Re:Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias! by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:34 · Score: 1

so what happens when they get caught publishing non-facts, ones they forgot to fact check? How does that automatically make you want to believe it because its parroting your personal opinion? thats not facts friend. Thats manipulation. You would think for someone so sick of Fox doing this, you'd recognize others doing it too. I mean if your ex-wife got caught cheating on you, you'd think you'd be more likely to spot the same warning signs if your new wife starts doing it too.
Re:Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias! by Shotgun · 2019-03-11 04:44 · Score: 0

They don't shill for the DNC?
If you really believe that, put it to a simple test. Just watch for the "Republicans Pounce" stories. This is where they report on Republicans screwing up. They report on what the Republican actually did. But, when a Democrat screws up...say, the use antisemitic tropes, for instance...then the story is Republicans trying to use the even for political gain...Republicans Pounce.
I'll wait for your analysis.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re: Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:56 · Score: 0

Republican fallacy detected.
Deflect blame the left.
Re: Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:39 · Score: 0

CNN fired Donna Brazille for that and there have been suggestions that Fox tipped off Trump to some debate questions as well.
What we know know for a fact is that Sean Hannity is openly campaigning for Donald Trump
Re: Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:40 · Score: 0

A "contributor" did that, and she was fired for it.
Of course, in typical Trump style of always projecting, he was also leaked some questions. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/books/review-megyn-kelly-tells-tales-out-of-fox-news-in-her-memoir-settle-for-more.html

Racist Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:39 · Score: -1

Why haven't the site's moderators banned this racist troll yet?

There should be a zero tolerance policy for accounts that spout hate speech.

Re:Racist Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:43 · Score: 0

Yeh you should be banned immediately.

Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by satan666 · 2019-03-11 00:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why are political news on Slashdot all of a sudden? Actually there has been an increase of this garbage. I don't give a fuck if you are Republican, Democrat, anarchist, whatever, don't post your garbage here. Fuck off already.

Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:58 · Score: 0

Why is political news on Slashdot? Controversy generates clicks, clicks generate advertisement revenue.
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by Ashthon · 2019-03-11 01:00 · Score: 1

This seems to be a problem in all news media. It used to be that you could visit a games sites and read the latest gaming news and reviews, but now most of the articles are political and the sites aren't worth reading. It used to be you could go to a gadget blog and read about the latest hardware releases, but many gadget blogs are now just political propaganda sites. Even automotive news sites can't stay on topic and end up talking about politics rather than cars.
Something has gone honorifically wrong with modern journalism, and journalists now see it as their job to push their own political agenda rather than cover the news. Things didn't used to be this way, and I can only assume the problem stems from modern journalism degrees. They're produced a generation of journalists who are astoundingly bad at their jobs.
I've had to stop reading a lot of news sites because they've become nothing more than an endless stream of political propaganda, and Slashdot is in danger of heading the same way. They need to either stay on topic or move all this trash to a politics.slashdot.org subdomain and keep it off the main site.
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by Ryanrule · 2019-03-11 02:21 · Score: 1

Naw you fuck off. Posting this "both sides are bad" bullshit make you obvious, ivan.
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:42 · Score: 1

Websites that present themselves in a false manner have been standard fare for Slashdot for a very long time. Of course you already knew that you vile filth. It is a fundamental problem involving recent events with Facebook and other social media. The creation of information bubbles to surround people with alternate realities is also an issue that is current. These issues are definitely ones where IT tech is used and people have suggested technical solutions in the past.
Just because a news outlet may run stories you don't like such as pointing out the creation of false websites does not make their stories propaganda. The difference is intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity through the maintenance of professional standards. But those things are completely lost upon you as they involve a reasonable and sober mind to comprehend. Not even on your radar.
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by satan666 · 2019-03-11 03:16 · Score: 1

What's the matter? Mommy did not suck your dick this morning and woke up grumpy? Asshole. Fuck you!
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by satan666 · 2019-03-11 03:21 · Score: 1

"Ivan", oh nooo I must be one of those Russian trolls. Well, I have one thing going for me. You Mommy likes me. Tell her hello and next time when she comes over she has to bring beer.
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:57 · Score: 0

Yeah! Slashdot didn't used to be political! From about 1996 - 2001.........
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by argStyopa · 2019-03-11 04:05 · Score: 1

Because *everything* is justified in the resistance to the election result of 2016.

--
-Styopa
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by satan666 · 2019-03-11 04:34 · Score: 1

I know and it makes me insane. I have to read from 4-5 places before I can get a sense of the truth. Even then...
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:13 · Score: 0

she has to bring beer.
Proof not a Russian because you did not slip on vodka
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by satan666 · 2019-03-11 05:35 · Score: 1

I'm so stupid. I should've said vodka. I will never forgive myself. LOL
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by fustakrakich · 2019-03-11 06:02 · Score: 1

Why are political news on Slashdot all of a sudden?
*sigh* Normally I would consider the question rhetorical. Just look at the number of hits it generates. Does anybody expect better these days? The data says, *NO*, in big bold letters and dollars.
Fortunately, Slashdot allows us to ignore these stories and scroll down to something more suitable.
If you want truly factual information, you will only find that in the service manual.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by Pfhorrest · 2019-03-11 10:16 · Score: 1

You must have bought your UID off of someone much older than you really are, because you sound like you must be new here.
Slashdot has been political since at least the 2000 election.
Maybe you've just been living under a rock since the 90s?

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by satan666 · 2019-03-11 12:17 · Score: 1

Or maybe I prefer my Slashdot to be unbiased and I am seeing more and more of this bullshit political crap and it makes me very angry. Does that make sense? Do I meet with your approval so I can post in peace? Your attitude is one of "Oh well, everyone is doing it". Well, maybe but this is still a free country and if I don't like something it is my motherfucking right to say so. Ok, we good now?
Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 13:58 · Score: 0

All of a sudden
https://slashdot.org/story/00/...
Political news has been on Slashdot almost as long as there has been a Slashdot.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by jfdavis668 · 2019-03-11 00:47 · Score: 1

/. is the only place I go for news.

Well, this is scary by lessthan · 2019-03-11 00:47 · Score: 1, Troll

This story just came up for me and the first (chronologically) 20 posts are about how we can't trust the mainstream media and how the Republicans deserve a voice. I guess this is how a country ends, in a tidal wave of propaganda screaming about "both sides!"

--
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math

Re:Well, this is scary by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:56 · Score: 0

Neither side has the interests of the American people at heart. Politicians are self-serving, self-aggrandizing, and in it only for themselves. This can be plainly seen by looking at how they vote (public record), with whom they align themselves, etc. Bread and circuses to keep the masses divided and frothing at the mouth with hate and vitriol. The elites love this stuff. Politicians have been recorded as saying "we the people" are idiots and need to be controlled. Both sides have done this. Politicians are not our friends and never have been.
The first order of business is term limits. Two terms. No more. Re-wired the way things happen. Make lobbying illegal. Dismantle K Street and their meddling. Make it a requirement that a politician is held to their promises, at least as much as they are able. You say something on the campaign trail? You're held to it. Now, having said that, no one can ensure a vote for a bill goes a certain way, but what can be ensured is the paper trail and recorded efforts. DO WHAT YOU SAY with zero deviation. If you say you're going to fight to single payer, do it. Don't waffle like BHO. Don't negotiate. Go balls to the wall, get as many people as you can to vote with you, document those facts, and execute. No lobbyists, no insurance companies, no pharm companies. Just do it. Unless and until we can get rid of lobbyists, nothing in this country will get done.
Re:Well, this is scary by Ryanrule · 2019-03-11 01:28 · Score: 1

Those are ivan bots. 100% chance. Slashdot needs a purge.
Re:Well, this is scary by e0b521bb9d0246d0b619 · 2019-03-11 01:34 · Score: 0

If any of that was possible within the current political climate, it would already have been done. Fact is that unless you've got enough money to have your name up in lights often enough to remind people to vote for you, you ain't gonna get their votes. And the only way to get that money, is by selling out. The American Dream in its final, purest form. Welcome to rampant capitalism.
Re:Well, this is scary by e0b521bb9d0246d0b619 · 2019-03-11 01:45 · Score: 0

BUT
HER
EMAILS
Re:Well, this is scary by DNS-and-BIND · 2019-03-11 02:19 · Score: 1

It's OK to be a Republican.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Well, this is scary by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:52 · Score: 0

That's racist.
Re:Well, this is scary by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:36 · Score: 0

You have to spell it right: "Dats raciss. Dats right. Dindu nuffin."
Re:Well, this is scary by ilsaloving · 2019-03-11 08:29 · Score: 1

I love (and by love I mean I'm saddened) how you got modded troll.
Apparently the whole "Two sides" thing has gotten so ingrained that there's no hope of repair.
There is no "both sides" to news. There is, or at least, there should be, exactly one side to news: The facts. Everything else is propaganda.
Re:Well, this is scary by lessthan · 2019-03-11 09:51 · Score: 1

Totally is okay. What isn't okay is buying into the narrative that paints the media as the enemy of the people.

--
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Re:Well, this is scary by DNS-and-BIND · 2019-03-11 17:52 · Score: 1

They keep lying, they're certainly not our friends. Did you see what they did to the Covington kids? Malice, there's no other word for it.
A breakdown of the media ignoring the senate and house intelligence committees finding no collusion between trump campaign and Russia.
The Nation of Islam published a book about the Jewish role in the African slave trade. This is no secret, they're very open about this and wish everyone to read it. In his own autobiography, Barack Obama admitted to being an avid reader of the Nation of Islam's Final Call newspaper, this did not seem to impede his eventual path to two presidential terms.
So let's review: Obama's mentor and fundraiser Tony Rezko was also the Nation of Islam's business manager. Obama read Farrakhan's newspaper regularly, posed for a photo with him that borders on the bromantic, and yet the press refuses to condemn him. Donald Trump said he didn't know David Duke and openly disavowed him, yet the press has nailed Trump and Duke together on the same cross.
Yet the country's self-described "journalists" still wonder why people don't trust them.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Well, this is scary by 110010001000 · 2019-03-12 05:14 · Score: 1

That is naive. News reporting has NEVER been "just facts" except for the most dry topics. There were no "good old days" where newspapers were impartial. They still even endorse candidates which is completely idiotic.

Oh good by GameboyRMH · 2019-03-11 00:50 · Score: 1

This open info-warfare suggests that the endgame of American democracy is at hand, finally we'll see a resolution.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Laughable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:52 · Score: 0

Snopes is nothing more than DNC hack machine. Has been for some time. This is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.

Why not just buy CNN? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:52 · Score: 0

Its already running and have all the con-artists in place already.

Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe Salon doesn't know this but it been like FOREVER that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc are all in bed with the democrats. Clinton or Obama says something and the media forwards it on as truth but if Bush or Trumps says something they are suddenly obligated to "fact check" and doubt everything the say and filter it to the people with "the Republican is claiming that allegedly water is wet and the sky is blue but we have some political pundits here who disagree with those outrageous claims".

Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts by Nidi62 · 2019-03-11 01:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Maybe Salon doesn't know this but it been like FOREVER that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc are all in bed with the democrats. Clinton or Obama says something and the media forwards it on as truth but if Bush or Trumps says something they are suddenly obligated to "fact check" and doubt everything the say and filter it to the people with "the Republican is claiming that allegedly water is wet and the sky is blue but we have some political pundits here who disagree with those outrageous claims".
If the Republican's want people to stop accusing them of lying and fact checking everything they could, you know, try to stop lying.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:16 · Score: 0

Do you hold the left leaning news sources to the same standard? I've been noticing a fairly large lack of coverage on CNN, WaPo, NYT, etc. about the anti-semites the DNC recently elected to congress. If you don't know what I understand what I'm talking about, do some google searches on "Ilhan Omar anti-israel", and if it were limited to simply anti-israel statements, it would be more forgivable, but she's making far more general comments than that.
Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts by Ogive17 · 2019-03-11 03:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

You sound like a 6 year old that got busted for doing something wrong and using the excuse "well Billy did it first!"...

Fox News makes my skin crawl. I don't ever watch MSNBC. I visit CNN but typically avoid any political story (which can be hard).

Trump is a lying SOB.. anyone still in denial is a moron. He is likely the worst human being that we've ever put in a federal position. He doesn't give a shit about America, he cares about Trump and money. Well, maybe he cares a bit about America because he can lie his ass off and get away with it.

I don't blame people for voting Trump over Clinton.. could Hillary be less likable? But the veil has been lifted and it's time to move on.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:39 · Score: 0

Hillary would have been far worse. I agree DJT is not fit for office, but HC would be so underhanded in her dealings, everything would be done out of the reach of sunlight. DJT wants you to see what he's doing because he's a narcissist. HC is secretive and conniving, and we'd likely be at war with her at the helm. She's far more of a hawk than DJT. DJT doesn't seem too interested in military dealings, which is a good thing.
We need to move on. There should be a law preventing any family from running for office once a family member is elected. This prevents dynasties like what we just experienced to our detriment. HC is unfit for any office and should simply retire. She's hostile to her own party and the people would have preferred Bernie if the DNC didn't sabotage his candidacy.
Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts by XxtraLarGe · 2019-03-11 05:48 · Score: 1

Trump is a lying SOB.. anyone still in denial is a moron. He is likely the worst human being that we've ever put in a federal position.
Trump's lies are largely inconsequential. Does it really matter if he claims he has the largest crowd at his inauguration? By contrast, FDR put over 100,000 American citizens in concentration camps.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts by Ogive17 · 2019-03-11 06:11 · Score: 1

That's the lie you're still stuck on? He incapable as a human being of being.. fuck, I don't even know the a good word to use... decent?

Just be a decent human being...

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts by XxtraLarGe · 2019-03-11 07:27 · Score: 1

That's the lie you're still stuck on?
That was just an example. Which one are you stuck on?

He incapable as a human being of being.. [expletive deleted] I don't even know the a good word to use... decent?
Do I think Trump's decent? Not really--I wish act more dignified. From what I've seen though, it's usually the left that is behaving indecently, whether it's the women's march, the histrionics over the Kavanaugh hearing, or some of their upstanding elected officials. You can't claim the moral high ground here.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.

As A Life Long Liberal... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:54 · Score: 0

Go fuck yourself you pathetic little shit.

The fact that you posted your inane drivel without the slightest sense of irony is sickening.

And when Trump easily wins again in 2020 you dumbfucks will double down once again with this juvenile garbage.

Ah, yes, but if it were ACORN.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:55 · Score: 0, Insightful

THEN you'd be all rage induced spittle flinging. Because you're only bored because (a) This is from the right, which you expected, though insist is a lefitst only thing, and (b) because you dont want to know or anyone else to care that the rightwing are doing it.

Re: Ah, yes, but if it were ACORN.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 04:40 · Score: 0

Ah the lefts circle jerk bubble, can't stand that anyone has a different opinion than them, eh Princess?

Wrong term, moron by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 00:59 · Score: -1

FAKE NEWS as ameme was used to mean "real news i don't like". See also the RWNJ relabelling of "troll" as "someone who disagrees with me" when they are butthurt over being moderated -1 Troll. THAT term you use is not a term but an actual description.

A shitshow that is literally a show of fecal matter is not the same term as the colloquial "Shitshow" term. This is why Urban Dictionary has different meanings for words and actual mainstream dictionaries have the "slang, ..." definition added to many words, where there's an official meaning (one term) and a slang one (another term).

See the terms "theory" and "theory". Theory in science is not the same term as theory in common normal usage.

However I really didn't think that a repubtard idiot like yourself would care, it gave you a chance to blame Obama again and bring Hillary into it once more. It's like your ideological comfort blanket.

Re:Wrong term, moron by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:49 · Score: -1

Nope- Just relaying what NPR said - I tried to find the link to the radio article but it is no where to be found. (I'm kind on not surprised.)
Also - Language matters - Most of the "butt hurt" you speak of is coming from using words is two different contexts in the same paragraph or conversation. stop being lazy. (Maybe it is intentional focus shifting? )
Example - Many news organizations use Anthropogenic (Man Made) Climate Change and Natural Climate Change interchangeably in the same paragraph as just Climate Change. Watch for the context and you will see it.
Do you believe in climate change ?
Trump - I do not believe in Climate Change. (implied Man Made)
CNN - See he's a moron - He doesn't believe in Climate Change! (implied Natural)
- NO ONE is saying the climate never changes except people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old. That would be denying history.
Re: Wrong term, moron by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:04 · Score: 0

When most people talk about climate change in modern times, anthropogenic nature is almost always implied. Being anthropogenic used to be debatable so anthropogenic origin wasn't implied because discussions often orbited around the observational data that global climate was changing and the cause wasn't as certain.
This has changed and there's nearly insurmountable evidence now that climate change is not only occurring, it's being driven by human interactions on the planet (an anthropogenic process).
The typical line of questioning I see is first, if the person believes current scientific consensus on climate change (anthropogenic driver). If the person disagrees, they typically ask if the person believes sets of observational data that's out there and for a rationale why not, if not. If the person does believe the observational data, they ask what they do believe the driver is and why. Questioning also typically asks if the person disagrees with the consensus, what is their evidence and line of reason.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." --Sagan.
I argue that counter-claims fall in the same boat.
Re: Wrong term, moron by terrycarlino · 2019-03-11 09:48 · Score: 1

Science is not done by consensus. Science is done by looking at data and making conclusions. At its most basic one takes data, makes a model to explain the data and then attempts to falsify the model against the real world.
When one side in a scientific debate refuses to make their data available for inspection, when they create false narratives and misleading graphs, when their models fail to predict future outcomes accurately, then it's no wonder some people are skeptical of their theories.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by Oswald+McWeany · 2019-03-11 01:02 · Score: 1

When did slashdot become a politics site where propaganda sources are allowed like salon? Np, we do not want this in our nerd news. Keep this crap on twitter.

There's been the occasional politics piece on Slashdot for at least a decade or more. This isn't new.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch

Dems must do it because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:05 · Score: 1

Oh, is it because if they don't, then you are fucked ideologically and can no longer delude yourself that you're rational at all in politics, so therefore they HAVE to be assumed to be doing it...

Even if you claim HuffPo is left leaning, it's no "worse" than Breibart, both of them for the purposes of this illustration (leaving aside the actual rhetoric and its toxicity differences aside) claim to be left or right wing promotional rags.

THIS is lying to you.

Something that if it were a lie against your current political ideology would have you up in arms and incandescent with rage, but since it supports your ego and preconceptions, you HAVE to pretend it is a big pile of nothing by asserting out of pure hope that the dems do it too.

You haven't even tried to look like you checked. You just blatantly asserted they MUST do it too.

Lame.

Re:Dems must do it because...? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:25 · Score: 0

OP here. They HAVE done it. They all have and all do. If you think for a second a single Democrat or Republican politician has your best interest at heart, you need your head examined. Both sides have mouthpieces. It's patently obvious what side news orgs are with.
Me? I'm neither D or R. I'm firmly independent. I like NONE OF THEM. I vote to do my civic duty, but I hold my nose 99% of the time. I'm a social conservative, but an economic liberal. I don't really have a home. Neither side speaks for me in any meaningful way. I'm a huge proponent of the 2A, but at the same time I loathe the right's view on single-payer healthcare. I am vociferously against homosexual marriage, but likewise equally vociferously against the wall. I don't have a clean political home. I'm for low taxes for the common man, but would love to see corporations pay more. I believe mandatory military or civil service would be a good thing. I'm opposed to tuition for college, but am opposed to $15 hr. fast food wages because I understand that restaurants have ultra-thin profit margins, and they really do. That is not a made up fact.
Neither side has our best interests at heart. We are literally on a ship without a proper captain and crew and we have been here for some time. In the estimation of many, we have not had a decent president since Eisenhower. I would agree, and he was far from perfect, but better than what we have.

Naturally by Koby77 · 2019-03-11 01:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course, if a bunch of Democrats get together and put together a biased newspaper, then it's okay?

Re:Naturally by e0b521bb9d0246d0b619 · 2019-03-11 01:30 · Score: 0

Except that's not what the article is about. Perhaps you should consider returning to school, since you evidently failed reading comprehension.
Re:Naturally by ScentCone · 2019-03-11 03:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course, if a bunch of Democrats get together and put together a biased newspaper, then it's okay?
It's not just OK, it's virtuous! The dems might as well just go ahead an launch a newspaper actually called The Virtue Signal.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Naturally by amicusNYCL · 2019-03-11 11:38 · Score: 2

Of course not, if Democrats did something similar they should be called out too. This has less to do with the political party at fault and more to do with the fact it's happening at all. So, if you've got any examples of stuff like what's listed in the article, feel free to call them out.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Naturally by amicusNYCL · 2019-03-11 11:39 · Score: 1

It seems kind of ironic that your comment, which doesn't contain any actual insight, jumped up to +5. Talking about signaling.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:54 · Score: 0

If a bunch of anything gets together and puts out a propaganda sheet, that's fine by me - just so long as they're up front about who they are and what they're doing and why.
It's the false flag that makes it dubious. For someone who's probably never been within a thousand miles of North Dakota to be pretending to source stories from there, so that they can be picked up and used as primary-source evidence of whatever by likeminded fuckwits elsewhere - that shit ain't right.
Re:Naturally by ScentCone · 2019-03-11 18:02 · Score: 1

You really don't understand that pointing out the endless parade of left-leaning media outlets that engage in nothing but non-stop virtue signaling and receive praise from their audiences for it ... is important in the context of a very left-leaning publication complaining about that sort of thing? If you're not seeing why that's worth noting, then you are their perfect audience/consumer, that's for sure.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Naturally by amicusNYCL · 2019-03-12 07:03 · Score: 1

You really don't understand that pointing out the endless parade of left-leaning media outlets that engage in nothing but non-stop virtue signaling and receive praise from their audiences for it ... is important in the context of a very left-leaning publication complaining about that sort of thing?
That's a nice anecdote, but that's not what TFA is about. Did you even read it? These are a series of websites set up to look like "local news" even though they aren't. They share content, syndicate other content, etc. One of them even had the weather for the wrong state because they forgot to change that when setting up the new site. The few people running these "local news" sites are conservative activists, people involved with political campaigns, PACs, etc. They run stories promoting their candidates or causes, deriding their opponents, etc. They do not disclose that they have any connection with the people they are writing about, they do not disclose the obvious conflicts of interest. They make the stories appear like a journalism story without stating the political nature of the story and its authors, that it is nothing more than a political ad wrapped up as "news." The reason they do this is because of polls showing that people find local news to be more reliable and trustworthy. So they create "local news" sites in battleground states - where they are not themselves based - and try to pawn off their political ads as local news stories to take advantage of that local trust.
This is fundamentally different from a publication whose staff generally leans one way or the other. If you're not seeing why that's worth noting, then you're the person they're trying to fool. And you're defending them for it.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black

Salon by sproketboy · 2019-03-11 01:10 · Score: 1, Troll

Salon IS Fake News To Spread 'Propaganda'

FTFA

Russia-Gate fell apart. by pecosdave · 2019-03-11 01:12 · Score: 0

We need *new* straws to grasp at!

From the pro globalist shills at Salon.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.

Re:Russia-Gate fell apart. by e0b521bb9d0246d0b619 · 2019-03-11 01:31 · Score: 1

So verifiable facts are straws now? That does go a long way to explain how the GOP continues to appeal to its voters...
Re:Russia-Gate fell apart. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:55 · Score: 0

Wouldn't it be ironic if these fake "right news" sites were set up by some "left" group just to use as a new "News-Gate". All the "left" has managed to do is ruin relations with a county that we have worked to improve relations with since the cold war. I mean look, they are fucking partners with us in the most expensive man made object ever made, floating about 200miles over your head, you know that thing called the ISS
I am sure if Wikileaks managed to get an email dump off Hillary's email server the "left" would somehow blame wikileaks as some "right" shill site.

"New England" now a state? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:14 · Score: 0

Everyone knows "New England" is the most recent State to be ratified! Who is pushing fake news now, bitch!

Re: "New England" now a state? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:22 · Score: 0

It would be real news if we had the exact answer

Snopes ?? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:18 · Score: 0

Salon & Snopes, both left leaning publications getting upset about a right leaning publication. Nothing new here, not sure why this is news or worthy of /.

This is the future of "News" by lfp98 · 2019-03-11 01:18 · Score: 1

The economics of news journalism is already completely broken and getting worse. Advertisers desperate to get readers' attention turn to obtrusive animated ads that only serve to annoy. News sites desperate for revenue permit this, even though it makes their pages basically unreadable. It's true even for sites that charge subscription fees, like NY Times. The only ad-free, readable sites are those supported by people or governments with a political ax to grind and a point to make. It's a perfect storm.

Re:This is the future of "News" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:14 · Score: 0

It's not about making money, I seriously doubt a single one of these news outlets will turn a profit. It's about spreading propaganda though what people think is a trusted source, and local news is one of the few left that people seem to have faith in, same reason Sinclair has been buying up those outlets.

Prove, not assert. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:20 · Score: 0

You claim Dems are just as bad, you have to prove that. You already accept the facts that show your side, the republicans, do it. Your mere assertion that the dems do it is pure bullshit and partisan lying.

The entire rest of the post is pure bullshit too. Nowhere does it indicate in reality anything like "a party that wants to elevate anything and everything that is not a white male at the expense of white males", that's just because YOU are being fucked over by the republicans and meanwhile some of the fucking over done to non white males is being undone (while they are still being fucked over by the same things you are). And because you are losing, you demand to blame someone else for winning.

Sure as shit can't blame the wealthy class. That would be "socialist" and you've been programmed to HATE that.

"The Democrats would love nothing more than see total gun confiscations"
So would the police, the republicans (they want muslims to be forbidden guns, along with the long standing prohibition of guns for people arrested for drug possession, something more frequently done to black me, though white and black both possess M-J equally frequently, so the difference is not the criminality but the rigour with which the laws are applied to each race). Indeed 95% of Americans would love to see total gun confiscations. See Hannity: he wants total gun confiscations. So does Trump. Those MS-13 guys should have their guns taken from them, they both agree.

What? I missed out "MS-13"? Well that's what you did. ASSUMING that your claim of what Janet Reno said was ANYTHING connected with reality. You don't provide proof, only your assertion.

" Both sides are evil."
So therefore you will NOT allow republicans to be attacked for being evil....

Right...

See where your claim to "they're both evil" merely proves the repubicans (and yourself) are evil? Both left and you on the right agree the rightwing are evil. But only the rightwing insist the left re evil.

And you only defend the evil republicans, never the "evil" democrats. Making you support the evil republicans evident.

And you DO know that Bernie is running as a democrat, yes? Yet you will run hate on that party and insist "they're both evil" so that Bernie will be knocked out because if you get your way, nobody gets a vote unless they WANT that brand of evil, meaning absolutely no Bernie votes.

YOU are what is toxic to America. You remove the democracy from it by asserting both are evil to delegitimise ANY politician.

Re:Prove, not assert. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:21 · Score: 0

You obviously cannot read. I'm in favor of Bernie, not opposed. It's the Democrats who screwed him because they accused him of caucusing with them only for their voter base. Without the DNC and Hillary's purposeful abotage of his campaign, he would likely be president now.
95% of Americans are NOT for gun confiscations. Recent independent polls all say around 70+% are in favor of the 2A, as am I. Even the true socialists are 2A proponents. Karl Marx himself said the people shall not be barred from gun ownership. Know thy history.
I'm in favor of single-payer healthcare, opposed to the wall, and generally think today's Republicans and Democrats are trash. They are self-serving, power hungry, and serve their lobbyist masters.
You, sir, have so misread what I even said it's not even funny.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:20 · Score: 0

When did slashdot become a politics site where propaganda sources are allowed like salon? Np, we do not want this in our nerd news. Keep this crap on twitter.

There's been the occasional politics piece on Slashdot for at least a decade or more. This isn't new.

Emphasis on occasional. The political bullshit both in articles and comments has become a daily thing.

Yup, if your side is openly evil by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:23 · Score: 1

Your only possible defence is to claim both sides are, then you can point to your side's evil as "proof" that you're a reliable "balanced" witness to reality. It's a load of fucking shite, but it's the best they can do now that Trump and the RWNJs have taken hold of the entire republican party, making it undeniable in its toxic evil.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by e0b521bb9d0246d0b619 · 2019-03-11 01:25 · Score: 1

When did Slashdot become filled with right-wing Trump lover dipshits who try to discredit factual reporting by playing the "partisan politics" card?

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by Ryanrule · 2019-03-11 01:26 · Score: 1, Troll

Go fuck your self ivan. Fuck you, fuck your mother, fuck your culture, fuck your leadership. I want you dead.

Try making a case,not JAQing off by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:27 · Score: 0

"CNN doesn't shill for the DNC?"
Did you not know what shill means????

It doesn't mean leaking questions to Hillary early so she can rehearse debate points. That's not shilling, FFS.

Re:Try making a case,not JAQing off by rickb928 · 2019-03-11 03:57 · Score: 1

To PLU, it sure does. We figured this out a while ago.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

Fake Conservative News, Always Has Been, Always Wi by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:35 · Score: 0

Here soon, the conservatives will start calling Fox News fake liberal media, because they merely withhold information and deceive, rather than create all-out fabrications. "You ain't trying if you ain't cheating." should be the conservative slogan.

Remember the time Salon left up an anti-vax... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:37 · Score: 0

article filled with with out of context quotes that implicated thiomeorsal as the cause of autism, for six years after it was published? This is still plaguing us to this day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_Immunity What about the time they accused Milo Yiannopoulos of supporting pedophilia at the same as deleting an interview with the owner of the website "virtuous pedophiles"? Salon is a rag and now Slashdot is too.

Here's a snapshot of their wikipedia page in case anyone decides to get cute: http://web.archive.org/web/20190306124742/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_%28website%29

Vote bernie, then by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:39 · Score: 0

Bernie would introduce bills to cut political funding and do much of what you claim. As for gay marriage, unless you believe you want to marry another person of your gender if you were allowed to, therefore you cannot afford to allow gay marriage, why on earth would it matter?

No, the bibble doesn't count. For a start, ORIGINALLY Adam was supposed to pick one of he other animals, but he refused god's request and he made Lillith, who didn't work out either, so he made Eve. See where that got the story... So according to the bibble, bestiality should be the first option.

No, you don't get to pick and choose bits you like. Either the bibble is god's word and therefore all of it is "true" and should be followed, or some of it AT THE LEAST is, and you need proof that bits of it is real that you choose BEFORE you can claim that they should be law for everyone. Otherwise all you'redoing is making your personal preference the law for others. Care to let a Muslim Socialist make your choices for you by force of government?

FFS, TRUE conservatives if hey also adhere to what you claim (small government, not interfering in people's personal matter) would want gays allowed to be married, because not allowing it would be government interference in people's lives. Or, if you refuse to allow that and pretend instead that marriage is government interfering, then you have to remove marriage from law altogether. Ban it altogether if you want to ban gays getting married. Because that is what you are doing:banning people from being married because they are gay, you're not freely allowing marriage.

If youi want REAL news? by King_TJ · 2019-03-11 01:44 · Score: 1

You better go out and get it yourself!

At this point, I don't think ANY of the news sites are that trustworthy, reliable or honest. Print journalism is dying a slow, painful death because nobody is really interested in paying for newspaper or magazine subscriptions anymore. Everyone has gotten used to trying to obtain the news online for free. (What's that? A paywall is in the way? Well, time to find one of those browser extensions that helps you bypass it! Can't do that? Ask someone else to copy/paste the content to a social media site so you can read it for free!)

Sure - they can make a little money in the online world, via pop-up ads or getting businesses to sponsor them in some manner. But then, you're back to the news likely having a bias towards whoever is funding it.

The TV news? It went from being a loss-leader to a profit center long ago, but did so by only concerning itself with maximizing eyeballs watching it. That meant getting rid of the costly "investigative reporting" that would span a whole week's worth of newscasts. Ditch the editorials where "equal time would be provided for those with opposing viewpoints". Make everything a neatly packaged 30 second spot and mix in "feel good, fluff" with anything hard-hitting, so ensure viewers don't come away unhappy enough so they blame their feelings on your channel. Cover all the sports and weather things, no matter what else is happening. Don't expect to become real well informed from any of that newstainment!

I mean, I just posted yesterday how disgusted I've been some of the recent BBC reporting -- and they've always been regarded as one of the last few trusted news sources. (Slashdot even featured one of their bone-headed articles trying to argue why we need to be concerned about the trend towards listening to streaming and digital music instead of buying it to play on physical media. Lame attempt at equating it with accelerating climate change! That's the stuff I might expect from an environmental extremist blogger, but not the BBC.)

NYT fake news by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:49 · Score: -1

The NYT is a fake new site used to spread DNC propaganda.
And CNN, MSNBC PBS ... the whole lot of them, coluding to spread a constant anti-Trump narrative and chant of global warming disaster porn.

It's not "Russians", is is the socialists/communists in our own country spreading propaganda.

Re:NYT fake news by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-03-11 02:42 · Score: 1

There is something to be said for investigating the desire to use AGW as levarage for massive government control of the economy, when class warfare no longer works at the polls
I wish there was further investigation into this aspect, but it is lost in all the hoopla regardless of veracity.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:NYT fake news by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:41 · Score: 1

AGW?

Trump is 100% the US president by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 01:56 · Score: 0

So I would say that there is no bias, or at most 10% bias, since they could include 10% more trump in the news.

What YOU mean is that the coverage is negative of him. Except on right wing propaganda sites like breibart, daily stormer and Fox News.

But complaining about trump 90% of the time would only be biased if he was not bad 90% of the time.

However, since his decisions have been 99% bad, he's made tens of thousands of lies in office, and he's completely incompetent at the job 100% of the time, the only bias there is being too nice to him.

A claim that "orange man bad" is not bias against trump, the orange man, if he IS bad. And facts, real life reality facts, show he is.

MAGA by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:00 · Score: 0

MAGA ... that is all

Snopes not Salon by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:00 · Score: 0

Because it all comes from Snopes. Salon is just what you have to click through for some reason. They should have skipped the BS and went straight to the source.

Re:Snopes not Salon by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-03-11 02:46 · Score: 1

By the 1970s, "leftists" had captured academia and were using it as a money-powered think tank to churn out talking points, so the right created their own think tanks to help pay people to do the opposite.
This stupid game of blinders that "your side is biased but not mine!" has been going on for a lot longer.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:03 · Score: 1

When it became a relevant part of nerd culture. Politics has impact on tech trade, tech companies, how we consume media through tech, not to mention being a good politician means you have to be a nerd about a lot of topics.

Do you think we need uneducated clowns in politics or something?

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:07 · Score: 1

Nah its pretty much been a daily occurrence for a long time.

The difference is YOU as a person are feeling more dvided from the mainstream and are feeling like perhaps some sort of conspiracy over arching OMG LIBERAL LEFTIES are trying to cram some sort of warped un-truth down your throat.

The truth is, you're getting older, more conservative, more fat, and are feeling attacked by the constant barrage of anti-white-male crap you see everyday, amirite, so fuck politics, now hold my beer, amirite?

Propagating fake news ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:11 · Score: -1

Slashdot is quoting Salon, which relies on the discredited Snopes for its fact checking, which makes Slashdot into a de facto purveyor of fake news ...

Double claims are no more evidence than once. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:11 · Score: 1

So utter fail yet again.

You clearly are bigoted and are anti-democrat, pro republican and totally out to lunch when it comes to rationality.

Re:Double claims are no more evidence than once. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:16 · Score: 0

Not a bigot by any stretch. Just because one doesn't agree with homosexuality being celebrated doesn't mean one is a bigot. One does not have to agree with everything that comes down the pike to be "rational". Homosexuality is NOT normal. Everyone knows it. Even the homosexuals. To a person, they suffer horrible percentages of depression, suicide, you name it. 80+% of all homosexual men have some form of STD, hepatitis, whatever. Go read the CDC reports. This is not me saying it. Just because someone likes the smell of another person's anus doesn't mean it's normal or to be celebrated. Some will claim that there are homosexuals in the animal kingdom and that that makes it normal. Congrats! They've reduced themselves to animals.
I'm not pro Republican. There is not a single Republican that I would vote for today. Not a one. Or a single Democrat. Unless and until Americans start to vote outside the duopoly, we'll never get anything done.

Bold Move by ilikethings · 2019-03-11 02:12 · Score: 2

Salon is going to lose a lot of readers by publishing something so contrary to blindly held beliefs of their readership.

"get your own news network!" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:13 · Score: 0

Center leaning/right wing people have been told forever now "twitter/google/etc" are allowed to enforce the rules they want as they're a private company.

"If you don't like the rules of their network... go make your own network!"

Now that its actually happening, people are crying "omg! pull their funding! Slander their name! This is an outrage!"

er by cascadingstylesheet · 2019-03-11 02:16 · Score: 1

All the major news companies have strong political biases of their own.

Nobody is free from bias. There is nobody you can trust to be the "fact checker" or enforcer.

And this has always been true; it's just much more obvious in the internet age.

Because it gets clicks by rsilvergun · 2019-03-11 02:24 · Score: 1

You clicked. And you even commented. And you got modded up, meaning more clicks and even better, lots of user engagement.

/. does two things: Advertisement and User Generated content. Both rely on clicks. If you want this stuff to go away stop clicking on it.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

At this point.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:32 · Score: 1

I don't trust any of you people anymore. Right or left you are both a bunch of agenda driven nut bags.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:34 · Score: 0

Slashdot has always been a bottom of the barrel clickbait site.

At no time in it's history has Slashdot generated any unique content of it's own. It has always simply monetized flamebait.

Hope that helps you understand, you brainfagget.

Still wrong term, still a moron. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:36 · Score: -1

You used the same words. But again you, despite a LOT of explanation from me, refused to see that terms are different even if they use the same words. Either you are irremediably stupid and therefore uneducable, or you don't WANT to change and therefore uneducable.

They are not the same terms

Re:Still wrong term, still a moron. by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:06 · Score: 1

why are you posting AC, its hard to follow which of the two of you is posting? The first time I heard the phrase was post 2012 when a bunch of congressional dems wanted to shut down news sites that were not 'certified' by them as legitimate. However, their list of sites they did not like were 100% conservative ones and not one liberal site among them. That in itself seems strange considering it would be a statistical impossibility that only conservative sites would be capable of running skewed stories. I warned everyone here back then that if they did not take a 1st amendment stand, and they went along with this blatantly obvious partisan attack, simply out of political convenience, this shit would come back to haunt them. Apparently you guys (not you specifically but /. as a whole) did not take my warning seriously enough. Here we are a decade later and we simply cant trust any news source any more unless its parroting what we want to believe. Thats simply not how news is supposed to work.

You are right by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Correct. The GOP managed to...

Get Buzzfeed to run a story that Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress, which CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ... all ran as well.
They then got them all to run the story on how racist the kids from Covengton were despite overwhelming evidence showing otherwise. Now WaPo and CNN are both being sued for $250 million for these "Fake News" stories.
The GOP followed that up with all those same outlets running the fake Jussie Sommellet story as well.

They are getting good at planting blatantly "Fake News" stories in NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and so on. They have gotten so good at it those news outlets have lost all credibility.

So you are correct GOP has managed to destroy the left's credibility on issues.
OR
The left is so dip shit stupid they can't figure out a fact to save their own lives.

Which is more believable?

Re:You are right by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:17 · Score: 1

even if its true, and I am not saying its not, should we still not keep the blame still focused on those media sites you listed? They are ultimately responsible to verify the information they report. The fact that they wanted something to be true so badly they published false news only further proves they have no credibility. Who pulled the strings to expose themselves is only a minor matter in that scenario. It is akin to when Hillary got caught up in all that shit and wanted to blame russian hackers. Maybe it was russian hackers. Does it really matter? They admitted the content of the email was legitimate. If I rob a bank and get caught on surveillance cameras do I have an affirmative defense because the camera in question was a counterfeit manufactured in china? Despite the content being undisputed? Shouldn't the WaPo, CNN, etc have had every single eye looking for fake leads? They deal with false stories all the time and pass on them. Its only when its a high profile story that aligns with their most wished for results that they fail to do so. I dont know about you but thats pretty damning. No matter which way it came down, their integrity is in the toilet.
Re:You are right by ilsaloving · 2019-03-11 06:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or maybe you're intentionally confusing ambulance chasing journalism with intentional propaganda.
I've been generally avoiding the news cause I'm sick of of all this, but your post is yet another example of the right trying to muddy the waters in order to establish a false equivalence.
Some quick google searching shows that the Mueller articles in question all discuss things like, "If Buzzfeed's assertions are true..." or "According to Buzzfeed", etc. Most importantly, barely a day later there are new stories referring to how Mueller's office specifically contradicted what was reported previously.
This was ambulence chasing and yes, the media outlets should have known better, but apparently the story was too juicy for them to help themselves.
But as usual, you take one instance and extrapolate that to be standard modus operandi of "the left".
Meanwhile, look at what the right is doing. They have a full feedback machine where bullshit stories are invented out of whole cloth, repeated by major right-wing networks, repeated by *the president*, and suddenly all republicans are treating it as fact. The sheer number of times that this has happened is astonishingly large, and instead of having checks and balances to curb disinformation, you all step over yourselves to embellish the lies further because you care more about feeding your outrage machine than having an informed populace.
And this happens to such an extent that it triggers the truely paranoid into action, like that whole nonsense with the child prostitution thing happening in a pizzaria.
Hell, I've found myself *still* arguing with idiots over the size of the crowd during Trump's inauguration.
This is a fundamental difference between "the left" (which by US standards also includes the centrists) and the right. At least attempts are made at getting the story correct, even if there's an initial WTF moment. The right instead doubles-down on the lie than admits they were wrong.
Re: You are right by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:59 · Score: 0

Yeah but whattabout!!
Other people being evil doesn't excuse your evil, asshole.
Re:You are right by cybrthng · 2019-03-11 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

The "Convington boys" were bused to an anti-abortion march and allowed to wear MAGA hats by their school. Many things failed to create the circumstances that lead to those boys feeling the need to do what they did and none of those failures were the media. Making boys as part of their school field trip decide the fate of women's reproductive rights was failure number one and failure number two as allowing school children to wear MAGA hats and incite the coverage they deserved their own own actions. Why would school bus boys from OK to protest women's reproductive rights and allow them to wear MAGA hats and then let them get involved in making political statements that they then sued to hide? Why would these boys or the school need a PR Firm?
What you are doing is projection. You're blaming others for your own actions as if being a liberal or having liberal media is the problem. The media reported on these kids and if they didn't want to be used for the propaganda they shouldn't have been sent for propaganda.
Re:You are right by ezdiy · 2019-03-11 12:46 · Score: 1

You need to account for that majority (by eyeball count) of mass media is liberal, both online and TV (summary viewership; not just news). This gives a slanted perspective. Even though Buzzfeed and Huffington Post fails their due diligence less on average compared to Breitbart and Drudge Report, far more eyes see it.

The strength of current US right wing is not in traditional neocon media (of the sort one could consider well established). Those just continue their usual bible thumping and climate change denying nobody but old folks pays attention to.

It's more of a "grass-roots" resurgence in young generation, which got Trump elected in the first place. Whether this "grass-roots" is genuine and young people are simply losing trust in DNC as engineered by Clinton-Obama, or astroturfed by russians is up to debate of course.

IMO, it's a bit of storm of in a teacup. The moment DNC reinvents itself under banner of (not obama style faux) social democracy, the kids will be back. From that perspective, Trump was perhaps a reasonable accelerationist strategy for a lot of liberal voters.
Re:You are right by Cederic · 2019-03-11 20:59 · Score: 1

They have a full feedback machine where bullshit stories are invented out of whole cloth, repeated by major right-wing networks, repeated by *the president*, and suddenly all republicans are treating it as fact.
So much the same way that wikipedia turns bullshit into 'verified facts'.
I'm not challenging whether you're right or wrong, just observing that I've heard the same claims about people that aren't republicans too. Maybe we should play a game of "Where did the Republicans learn this tactics?"

Fake comments by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:41 · Score: 0

Any time there's shade on republicans there's people coming out of the woodwork complaining about political news 'all of a sudden'

You missed all the news about the FCC and Huawei and trade deals and unemployment and laws and bills and the list goes on.

We need more people paying attention and less people becoming willfully ignorant as you suggest

Re:Fake comments by satan666 · 2019-03-11 03:17 · Score: 0, Troll

Fuck you dickwad. I've been with Slashdot since the very beginning. Who fucked your father and made you the defender of the truth ? Fuck off.

So Slashdot is...... by Zorro · 2019-03-11 02:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is Full On Venezuela Communist Now?

Re:So Slashdot is...... by Tablizer · 2019-03-11 04:10 · Score: 1

or worse, Russian commies.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:So Slashdot is...... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 11:44 · Score: 0

Found the full-on Russian. Hi, comrade, welcome to Slashdot. Enjoy your stay.
Re:So Slashdot is...... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 19:52 · Score: 0

Are those the only options? You either report on websites claiming to be local news but actually just being fronts for right-wing propaganda – or you favour Socialist dictatorship?
Is it impossible to be critical of fake news exposed on side A without self being a propagandist for the extreme B?
This is exactly what the Russian trolls have been doing. Polarizing and radicalizing the political field to prevent understanding between political rivals, and to foil and sunder any attempts at reaching interideological (bipartisan) agreement. The didn't care if Trump of Clinton won, as long as the divide between their respective supporters was widened.
Captcha: MISTRUST

Journalistic Integrity by cordovaCon83 · 2019-03-11 02:49 · Score: 1

This story definitely belongs on Slashdot. It involves how technology is being used to spread news, factual or not. Journalism with integrity requires that the reader be able to fact-check the news being shared. It requires that the reader have some degree of certainty about who the author is. If these websites are tantamount to political ads then the implications need to be considered. While the internet loves anonymity, in a democracy, we find it important to disclose political ads. This is why, on television commercials, political ads are clearly labelled.

You're doing it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 02:53 · Score: 0

We're supposed to be jerking each other off over our oh-so-clever dunking on Republicans.

Did you know that they are all racist, dumb, backwards hicks?

Did you know that the fragile pissboys get offended if you call them that? Isn't that hilarious?

Did you know that they believe lies and lie themselves?

Did you know that orange man bad?

Ha ha ha, I sure love seeing Snopes and Salon putting those dumb, backwards hicks in their place!

Breibart is what you claim. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:02 · Score: 0

These aren't. They are lying about their process. So the complaint is not about you nutballs getting your own echo chamber to scream insults and circle jerk on, it's making fake news sites lying to people.

You DO know that lying to people is a bad thing, right? Even if it is your rightwing apparatchiks doing it.

If the sites said they were rightwing rags, then there would be no complaint.

Trust a righwingnutjob to find a way to work in their persecution complex into this...

Re:Breibart is what you claim. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:22 · Score: 0

You DO know that lying to people is a bad thing, right?
So are sticking things up your bum and farting on elevators, but that doesn't mean we need laws to enact morality.

How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:05 · Score: 0

CNN, MSNBC, Wapo, NY Times, BuzzFeed, and many others create propaganda every day for Democrats. Each of these sources has been caught red handed multiple times yet many in the tech community ignore it. Talk about burying your head in the sand...

Like Hillary launched 'Heatstreet' by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:12 · Score: 0

but did a terrible job obfuscating the DNS transfer from the lapsed domain and got busted.

Not projection, tactics by rsilvergun · 2019-03-11 03:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's an old Soviet tactic that was borrowed and perfected by a GOP operative named Karl Rove. Take whatever your faults are and accuse your opponent of them. It puts them on the defensive and distracts from you and your problems. It wouldn't work if we had a media that wasn't owned lock, stock and barrel by mega corps but, well, we do.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Not projection, tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 06:38 · Score: 0

I think it was Alinsky first

Fuck Salon by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:33 · Score: 0

You mean like salon.com does for Democrats? No hypocrisy here.

Genetic fallacy, moron. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:41 · Score: 0

Even if I gave my name, how would you know anything more about me? And why would that at all matter? Thought and logic require the inspection of hte words used, not the stature of the author, to do so is either genetic fallacy (you must be wrong because of who you are) or an appeal to authority (you must be right because of who you are).

Tht you demand something irrelevant adds YET AGAIN to the moron count and your lack of any actual cortical action you profess.

If who I was not what I say is important, then provide full details so everyone can find who you are in reality, not what label you attached to an anonymous coward psudonym.

Republicans start fake news sites by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:43 · Score: 0

says fake democratic news site 'Salon'.

Lol...really? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:43 · Score: 0

Salon is the epitome of fake news and propaganda. 90% of news sites are Democratic propaganda including main stream news. I see the socialists are already lining up excuses as to why their pathetic candidate loses to Trump in 2020.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 03:52 · Score: 1

mostly the same here. If only because they do NOT censor. The mod points might get abused a bit but overall I can see every post by simply adjusting the filter. I get to see multiple points and arguments. I get to see things I had not considered. Of course sometimes I see just parroting of talking points, which is sad because this site does not appeal to facebook morons. We've all read 1984, some of us a very long time ago. We should always be prepared to discover we have been the victims of double-think. I would more people were more skeptical instead of thinking they are in some epic battle of good-vs-evil when the good side happens to be a political party. The 'good' side in these debates are us everyday people, not any political party. Their goal is to tell you what to do, no matter who wins, thats their goal. They all have an inherit motive to mislead you in pursuit of that goal.

Snopes LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 03:59 · Score: 0

They're literally run by an embezzler, a prostitute, and a dominatrix. I'll probably get voted down as a troll even though it's true.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 04:02 · Score: 2

the difference is that our old debates were about us discussing how we are marching right toward an orwellian future. This blind loyalty to one side is new. I mean who would ever suspect that the company making radar detectors was the same company selling the radar enforcement equipment to law enforcement. Or that the anti-virus companies released virus' to drive product demand. Oh wait, we heard that and it totally made sense. Tell someone that their picking a side in a 1-sided battle and no matter who you pick your going to get the same result, they think your crazy. The more they can get us to sign up for the blame game the less work they have to do. The ultimate goal is to keep it 50/50 so as to always claim the other side is the reason nothing gets done. We fall for it, they collect paychecks and backdoor cash. We get screwed in the end no matter which way the wind blows.

MSNBC is a front of the DNC _establishment_ by rsilvergun · 2019-03-11 04:04 · Score: 1

which is the pro-corporate, anti-worker arm of the Democratic party. CNN is just pro corporate. They don't care about parties one way or another. That leaves Fox News and the Local stations (unless you count stuff like Bloomberg which is as pro-corporate as it gets). The local stations are completely owned by an outfit called "Sinclair Media". Google "Sinclair Must Run" if you want an idea where their loyalties are.

What I'm saying is that it's not about balance between DNC and GOP. It's about pro-corporate and pro-worker. That's where the balance is skewed. If I want to hear a narrative that isn't 100% pro-corporate/anti-worker I've got to dig up YouTube channels like TYT and Secular Talk and maybe the BBC.

What we have here is a mainstream media that is moderately left wing on social issues (moderate, they only started openly supporting Gay Marriage when the polls changed in favor) and hard right on anything economic. There is no balance here whatsoever. Hell, Trump got $6 billion in free advertising from our Media. How much did Bernie get?

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Can you list some hard examples? by rsilvergun · 2019-03-11 04:07 · Score: 1

If I search for "Snopes DNC" the only thing that comes up is this. Can you post some specific links (with commentary if the links don't already have it)?

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Can you list some hard examples? by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 04:34 · Score: 3, Informative

sure, It was pretty dissapointing when it happened. I did not know before then it was just a husband and wife and after they got caught, it then came to life all the photos with high level players in politics, specifically left leaning. While Im digging that up though, read this. Its not political but it is from a left-leaning site that outed them for doing the same pretending a false is a 'maybe true' thing, this time for monsanto.
https://foodbabe.com/do-you-tr...
I find it highly concerning that googling 'snopes fails to report false' that the first 5 hits are articles written BY SNOPES about how non-biased snopes is. Thats like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 04:44 · Score: 1, Informative

here is one where WaPo attacked their credibility and I wouldnt call WaPo right-leaning at all.
https://www.washingtontimes.co...
they even quoted a forbes article
The fact-checking site was originally founded in 1995 by David and Barbara Mikkelson, who divorced in 2015. In December 2017, Forbes ran a piece that concluded Snopes has major credibility problems such as: David Mikkelson’s “responses regarding the hiring of strongly partisan fact checkers and his lack of response on screening and assessment protocols present a deeply troubling picture of a secretive black box that acts as ultimate arbitrator of truth, yet reveals little of its inner workings.”
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 04:51 · Score: 3, Informative

heres an earlier forbes article where they outlined other credibility issues with snopes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/k...
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 05:33 · Score: 0

No they can't post links to anything supporting their claim. That would be because it is made up.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 05:36 · Score: 3, Informative

crap I hate citing this source, because using a right-leaning source to discredit an alleged left-leaning one is subjective at best... the takeaway is that you'll need to independently verify the claims outlined here..
https://dailycaller.com/2019/0...
it its true then its a very recent excample of what I saw them do a couple years ago. Are you any good at using the wayback machine? I never used it and would need to verify this screenshot that showed they were both on the board of that PAC.
Re: Can you list some hard examples? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:01 · Score: 0

So let me get this straight. Websites and news organization that have been targeted by snopes are now saying snopes isn't reliable.
In every link you posted, I still don't see why I should believe you. All I see are a bunch of people who are mad that snopes called them out on their bullshit, and now want to discredit snopes.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:54 · Score: 0

I have no knowledge of the merits of your argument, but the reference you quote is very poor.
This is a contributed opinion piece which is almost entirely argumentative. I rather like the author, but this article is full of hyperbole and false equivalence.
Without other sources, I'd rate the quality of the evidence to back your contention to be very poor.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-03-11 09:39 · Score: 3, Informative

here is one where WaPo attacked their credibility and I wouldnt call WaPo right-leaning at all.
https://www.washingtontimes.co...

That's the Washington Times, not Washington Post. Washington Times was created as the conservative alternative. It was created be Unification's Revered Moon, and a prominent proponent of the Obama birther conspiracy.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 10:56 · Score: 0

crap I hate citing this source, because using a right-leaning source to discredit an alleged left-leaning one is subjective at best...
Why stop now? You've already cited Foodbabe, 2 Washington Times articles and a Forbes article about a Daily Fail article.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 12:04 · Score: 0

FAIL (see this comment) ... as usual with for a conservative shill. Shake it off. There is more fake news and falsehoods for you to spread, so get busy...
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 12:37 · Score: 1

My bad, didnt know that even existed.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by Tablizer · 2019-03-11 12:55 · Score: 2

It appears to be a character attack on employee(s) of Snopes. Judge the content by the content. Where is the evidence the content itself is systematically wrong or biased? If character attacks on editors are the best you have against it, your argument is weak and you have homework to do.
Something along the lines of, "Article 13 says Bob Smith was in NJ on March 3rd, but these 5 court documents clearly show Bob was in NV."

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 13:08 · Score: 1

Ok but isnt forbes strictly a finance site? I dont read forbes since I dont deal much with stocks.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 16:07 · Score: 0

Why can't you answer the simple question? Why is it that every time a right winger makes an outlandish claim, and someone inevitably checks it and finds it false, the narrative is always shifted elsewhere? Do you not realize those tactics only work on dumb people, aka right wingers? You aren't going to fool anyone with an IQ above room temperature; we can easily look up your claims and then we often find them blatantly false.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by Ryanrule · 2019-03-11 23:17 · Score: 1

Lol Forbes. Fuck right off.
Re:Can you list some hard examples? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 14:03 · Score: 0

forbes.com is not directly associated with forbes magazine. It is not managed by the same system, forbed.com itself is a right-leaning information spewer.

To be fair "Russia-Gate" is still going on by rsilvergun · 2019-03-11 04:10 · Score: 1

the Mueller investigation continues apace with multiple convictions and indictments. It's even profitable. And China-Gate is just getting started.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

No, Germany! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:26 · Score: 0

Germans popularized Lying Press (WW1) A more modern translation would be Fake News.
The phrase was so popular during Hitler that it still caries a stigma today.

Given that Trumps writer for the Art of the Deal said he looked around Trumps place to find any books and found only a few... one was a book of Hitler's speeches, it makes sense that Trump would "come up with" the idea.

Keep in mind Trump takes credit for stuff other people do and blames bad things on others that he did. Blatantly, so you can't ever assume he is telling the truth and his supporters lack any critical thinking so the simple answer is: he got it from reading about Hitler from the book he owns on the man.

Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:33 · Score: 0

The irony of salon.com expressing outrage over biased and fact free news coverage is outstanding.

Catch a clue progs.

Snopes?? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:39 · Score: 0

The same Snopes that is run by an ultra-Liberal asshole that has already been caught lying and spreading misinformation as a part of their "fact checks"?

vet your info by hdyoung · 2019-03-11 05:14 · Score: 1

It's always been like this. There were always bad sources of information out there. The targets have ALWAYS been the people with low intelligence, the people with brain chemical imbalances, the willfully-ignorant and the actually-ignorant. I was born in the 1970s, and there were ALWAYS conspiracy theories being thrown around. You think they were invented yesterday? The internet has just amplified the effect by 100.

You know that a news source is trustworthy when the people generating the news are named. The reporters, writers, and editors have actual names, and actual credentials. Where the people involved have actual journalistic credentials, and their source of income is transparent, and they have an explicit, written code of conduct that emphasizes factuality, and any bias is explicitly stated up front. Translation: a transparent, subscription-based news source.

Hair salons spreading propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:04 · Score: 0

O RLY?

*SNOPES* get it right by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:09 · Score: 0

This is a Snopes article. Not sure why they linked to a salon write-up of the Snopes story tho.

https://www.snopes.com/news/20...

Did anybody even look at the site mentioned? by bob4u2c · 2019-03-11 06:18 · Score: 2

Go ahead, take a quick look, I'll wait. Quickly scanning a few of the stories should tell you how the site leans. While the stories are not out and out right fake, they are misleading. Much like almost every other "news" source I've ever seen, I'm looking at you CNN, Times, FOX, New Yorker, LA, etc... What is not said is often just as important as what is said. All this illustrates is that you should never rely on news from one source. Try to compare at least three different sources, with different takes on the news, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Also I don't know how much digging was needed; just look at the Contact Us -> Privacy Policy. It clearly states this is a product of "Star News Digital Media, Inc" and lists all the associated websites. Really it looks like some company started a business selling political sites to candidates. It wouldn't surprise me if they offer the same type of sites to the other party and make money from both side.

This also reeks of the common "Voters Guide" that each party mails out to me every voting year, of which the slant is so bad even my kid knows something is up (and he's only 9).

P.S. The weather forecast is hilarious, "Today is forecast to be Much Warmer than yesterday."

He also said... by gosand · 2019-03-11 06:36 · Score: 1

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.”

Mark Twain

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 06:51 · Score: 0

mostly the same here. If only because they do NOT censor.

Yes they certainly do, but typically only delete AC posts, because fuckem right?

Each post has a unique Comment Identification Number right next to the date and time of the comment. They are incremental. Run a script and iterate over the numbers (remember to limit the SID too) and you will find holes. 404's returned from some CIDs.

Yes. Some posts sometimes are censored. This has been happening for a decade, but has been dramatically ramped up in the last two years. Why they let the guy harassing Kendall and other trolls post yet occasionally deleting posts with polite argumentation and sources which go against the summary narrative, I do not know.

You don't say.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:31 · Score: 0

I see the editors are getting their marching orders for the DNC. Gotta spread that fake news or evil Republican Nazis won't let them legalize dating 8 year olds or whatever new thing Democrats want.

0 evidence for this claim by cybrthng · 2019-03-11 07:41 · Score: 1

There is 0 evidence of this claim.

Re:0 evidence for this claim by e3m4n · 2019-03-11 08:01 · Score: 1

Yeah you’re right not any of the 42 fucking links I just sent on the same goddamn thread dumbass Go back to fucking Russia you troll. I even posted one from the fucking Washington Post so go fuck yourself

The world isn't black and white by cybrthng · 2019-03-11 07:44 · Score: 1

When something nefarious is pointed out, it doesn't mean its time to seek out nefarious activities of others to justify your own, it means its time to learn and do what is right.

The idea isn't to weaponize fake news, the idea should be to remove it. For the benefit of all.

Claiming that because we're raising the issue of fake news and its impact to American's doesn't mean that we're full on Venezuela Communist now and to assert such is assinine.

local GOP fake ass bullshit news by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:47 · Score: 0

Hang the mother fuckers for treason shoot them in the face on sight.
Anyone involved.

I am a pedophile not a monster by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 07:52 · Score: 0

Thank you Salon for being #brave

Information Warfare by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 08:50 · Score: 0

And itâ(TM)s all legal. The very same dirty tricks campaigns we pulled off in Iran and other nations as a means to destabilize democracies we disagreed with are now being used against us by âoepatriotsâ who wave the confederate and Nazi flags of our enemies and those stupid red MAGA hats

I thought it was Macedonian content farmers by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 09:10 · Score: 0

The Democrats (who laundered money through the Perkins-Coie law firm to a British spy and his Russian spy friends to make up a fake golden showers "dossier" on Trump which the British spy, named Christopher Steele, has testified under oath in a British court is unverified trash) told me ir was Russians, or Mecedonian content farmers, or stupid American women listening to the men in their lives that destroyed the plan to elect Hillary in 2016.

ALL the Democrat-affiliated news outlets like ABC,CBS,NBC,PBS,MSNBC,HuffPo,Salon,NYT,WaPo have told me it's so, often using the exact same phrases on the exact same days in their reporting - in perfect alignment to the press releases from the offices of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

The presiendt of CBS news during the Obama years was the brother of one of Obama's top guys. Over at ABC the political talking heads show host is Bill Clinton's old Chief of Staff. NBC's famous talking heads hosts Chris Matthews and Chuch Todd are both former Democrat political staffers. The list goes on and on and on.... Even at taxpayer-run PBS the top political talker for many years was Bill Moyers, the Democrat who helped his old boss presidetn Johnson sell the Vietnam War.

And I'm supposed to worry about the controlled opposition at Fox News who are to all practical purposes the Washington Generals of the news business? The Fox News Sunday political talking heads show is run by Chris Wallace, of all people [sigh]. The news anchor at Fox is Shep Smith, the openly gay Democrat Trump-hater, and somehow Fox News is this giant terrible right wing behemoth??? What, because they have some [largely ineffective] right winger opinion types on in the evening? That's ONE channel on CABLE that in no longer even being run buy the elder Murdoch but is now under the thumb of Trump-hating Democrat Lachlan Murdoch. If you are a Democrat and you are afraid of Fox News, then you have some real confiidence issues, and you apparently fear ANY opposing views even when they are ineffective and weak and designed to make money serving an otherwise unserved market while not really changin things in the culture.

By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 09:26 · Score: 0

Treat NEWS like you do Science or even RottenTomatos.

Site Score Cards, ( when launched, reports, fact checking, etc ) and give it a score.
if a newbie news source starts showing off, the people can see it.

I never understood how social media and all this jazz got out of hand, in the end, people dont want the truth, people just want to complain and point fingers.

Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 09:30 · Score: 0

The rest of the so-called news is democrat fake news, including this article and everything ever published by Salon.

Slashdot has become political for a simple reason by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 09:34 · Score: 0

It's an old Marxist line that "everything is political" and it works in multiple ways. This is starting to affect the USA in ways it never has before.

Consider:

1. In any country where government becomes huge, it becomes involved in everything, and thus everything is affected by government which in-turn is run by politicians, so everything becomes political. Many businesses spend money influencing government because it's often more cost-effective to manipulate marketplaces than it is to honestly compete. Everyone with a serious interest in anything affected by government feels the need to get in on the related politics.

2. In Socialist/Marxist regimes, the governments feel the need to tamp down any political opposition, including criticism, because that could lead to a so-called counter-revolution which could end the regime and doom the leaders to trials for all the evil they need to to to run a Marxist country. These governments see everything as politically-connected and important, as a basicmatter of survival for those at the top. As a result, one finds "political officers" in institutions monitoring the politics of the people there.

3. When powerful interests are playing the government game, and the political system includes voters, they need large pools of angry/motivated voters who can be urged to the polls in a hopefully angry and irrational mood (so they can be more easily manipulated to vote angry without paying attention to details). As a result, it becomes a tool for interests on the left, on the right, and even the otherwise non-partisan but highly interested like globalists organizations (interest groups, big business, etc) to stir-up each and every emotional social and cultural hot-button issue and then tie it to something they want voters to act upon.

The USA has been growing its government at a rate that would have shocked our founders for decades, really since the 1930s - this ties to point #1 above. The Democrat party in the USA is now veering so far left that the only past Democrat president that the current Democrats would not denounce as a knuckle-dragging right winger is Obama. In fact, there are now Democrats openly identifying as Socialists, and very few Democrat politicians now will publicly identify as capitalists - which means that a bit of point#2 above is now at play.

If we want to get back to a time when geeks/nerds/techies etc can discuss tech stuff without politics saturating things, and if golfers want to get back to golf without politics and sailors want to get back to sailing without politics, and so on, then we as a society need to get government back under control and shrink it back down to the point that it no longer infests every aspet of our lives.

If government is not involved in 99% of your life, then 99% of your life can be free of politics. Conversely, if government is involved in 99% of your life, then 99% of your life will be political. There is no escape from this.

Whambulance inbound! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 10:00 · Score: 0

That's a whuddabout deflection by itself. You want attention for your lack of discipline to be swapped to us self-discipling. Since we're gonna throw out stupid deflection memes, I'm gonna go with:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
CRY MOAR

You can't handle the truth by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 10:54 · Score: 0

I like how you guys can't stand being shown your own failures over and over again. You were wrong. You are still wrong. Now you don't want to face the consequences for your actions.

CRY MOAR

Please cry moar by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 10:57 · Score: 0

Your tears sustain me. You voted for trump. You DEMANDED this bed, NOW FUCKING LAY IN IT.

Re:Please cry moar by satan666 · 2019-03-11 12:11 · Score: 1

"Anonymous Coward", Yup, name checks out!

Salon does not pretend to be neutral by rsilvergun · 2019-03-11 13:07 · Score: 1

not even a little bit. If you want pretend neutrality go watch some CNN or even Fox News ("Fair and Balanced", though these days it's not even a joke anymore). Salon wears it's politics on it's sleeve and always has.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Hilarious. Tell me another one, Salon. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 13:28 · Score: 0

"Republicans", they're so nefariously clever, right?

"Conservatives" in USA are really radicals by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 18:26 · Score: 0

I've long thought this too. That "conservative" these days is a label that really means "radical".

Nobody anymore seems to be the "conserve the good bits of the past" type of conservative that I once thought I understood. Now "conservative" is synonymous with hate, racism, fear, lies, denialism, etc. Bit of a shame, really.

Please explain this for us foreigners by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 18:40 · Score: 0

What can you possibly mean? You are saying Fox News is not as right wing as it wants to be? How can anything be any more right wing than Fox? It defines the right wing. It IS the right wing! It accepts and promotes all the bullshit and never exposes any of it to light.

What sort of restraint do you think Fox shows? I find it difficult to believe you gained +5 Informative for something that makes no sense, so please tell us why people think you are making sense.

Oh the irony by guruevi · 2019-03-12 00:09 · Score: 1

Politico has an article talking to Snopes about biased media websites, and are worried about the trend. Make sure HuffPo, Salon and CNN don't get wind of it, they may have a patent on the business model

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com

As opposed to Salon.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 02:30 · Score: 0

As opposed to Salon....which is one the Democrats fake news networks?

Better Fake Local News... by Scroatzilla · 2019-03-12 06:12 · Score: 1

... than National Fake News (a la CNN, MSNBC, WaPO, NYT, etc.) Remember? The media outlets who collaborated with the DNC to publish "Hillary good, Orange Man Bad" propaganda? The ones who allowed Democrat Party subjects to review stories about them before they were published or aired?

Or how about when CNN said it was illegal to view the emails leaked on wikileaks that showed this overt propagandistic collaboration?

This "Republican Bad" argument holds no water anymore because information is right in front of peoples' eyes (if they choose to look at and process it). The corporate media would love it if you would just forget what happened; not notice their overt lies, half-truths, and omissions; and just follow the laser pointer of their narrative.

As the Russia hoax inevitably disappears from sight on corporate media (without retraction or anyone being held accountable for overtly lying to divide average Americans), the laser is now pointing at financial crimes. After that, it will be something else. The real authoritarians are right in front of us, but behind a wall of cover from the corporate media.

Oh, Oh, I Can Play This Game! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 06:29 · Score: 0

You missed one!

You need to claim that any given left wing politician, or better yet all of them are Extreme! Extreme! Extreeeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmmmeeeee!!!

That's how yer rite-thinkin' neybors will no yur serius!

not the medias fault at all by eaglesrule · 2019-03-12 13:38 · Score: 1

What you are doing is projection. You're blaming others for your own actions as if being a liberal or having liberal media is the problem. The media reported on these kids and if they didn't want to be used for the propaganda they shouldn't have been sent for propaganda.

Because kids going on a field trip to DC and buying souvenir political attire related to the current sitting president while they are there can't possibly be true. There's no way Occam's razor can be applied here, as this was totally a setup.

It takes all of about one second to realize what bullshit that claim is. At least, for a rational person. But someone who levels accusations of projection towards those making verifiable observations is probably not rational. It's also not uncommon for the liberal media to blame the victim, and sensationalize in order to profit, not caring if they further ruin the victim's lives. Then here you are, doing just that.

Slashdot Mirror

Salon: Republicans Are Launching Fake Local News Sites To Spread 'Propaganda' (salon.com)

539 comments