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

"The Tennessee Star claims to be the 'most reliable' online local paper in the state," reports Salon. "In fact it's just a GOP front." An anonymous reader quotes their report:
An investigation by the fact-checking outlet Snopes found that several new local news websites are actually being launched by Republican consultants whose company is funded in part by the candidates the sites cover. Politico first reported last year that Tea Party-linked conservative activists Michael Patrick Leahy, Steve Gill and Christina Botteri were behind the "Tennessee Star," a website that purported to be a local news website but mostly posted content licensed from groups linked to big Republican donors. Snopes discovered that the trio has since launched similar sites in other battleground states ahead of the 2020 elections: the Ohio Star and the Minnesota Sun...

The group behind the sites does not appear content with just three outlets. According to Politico, Leahy has purchased domain names associated with Missouri, New England, the Dakotas, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, most of which are electoral battleground states that will be vital in 2020.

Kathleen Bartzen Culver, who heads the Center of Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told Snopes that political operatives are free to launch their own news platforms, but it's a problem if they are trying to deceive readers into believing the sites are nonpartisan local news. "I have no problem with advocacy organizations creating content that reinforces the positions they take on public policy issues on the left, right or center. The issue comes in when they're not transparent about that advocacy," Culver said... "The information sphere is so polluted right now that the average citizen has trouble telling what is real and what is not," Culver told Snopes. "I find that very troubling within a democracy."

Comments

Now there's an old tradition.

[sabbede]

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.

[Archtech]

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.

Re:Now there's an old tradition.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re: Now there's an old tradition.

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re: Now there's an old tradition.

[Type44Q]

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.

[Type44Q]

... a concept you never hear brought up.

Re: Now there's an old tradition.

[illiac_1962]

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.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re: Now there's an old tradition.

[Type44Q]

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.

[Type44Q]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[jeff4747]

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.

[cayenne8]

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...?

Re: Now there's an old tradition.

[RedShoeRider]

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?

Re: Now there's an old tradition.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[fustakrakich]

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.

Re:Now there's an old tradition.

[Hylandr]

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

Re: Now there's an old tradition.

[Cyberax]

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.

[Darinbob]

Because it can make the shithole that you do live in better?

Re:Now there's an old tradition.

[terrycarlino]

Pot calling kettle black. News at 11.

Re: Now there's an old tradition.

[vux984]

"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.

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

[Cederic]

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.

[AmiMoJo]

They all state quite clearly "Copyright © 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?

Re:Now there's an old tradition.

[retroworks]

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

Re: Now there's an old tradition.

[SlideWRX]

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.

[vux984]

" 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.

[eaglesrule]

“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

it's kind of funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

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,

[nucrash]

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.

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

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,

[coastwalker]

Pot kettle black.

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is a blatant lie modded as "Insightfull"?

Re:it's kind of funny,

[bigdavex]

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

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

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,

[aitikin]

"Alternative Facts" however- that's ALL the Trump Whitehouse, they came up with that one.

I thought it was Orwellian in nature?

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever watched CNN. My god do they lie all day long.

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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!"

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks the Republicans coined the term "fake news", needs to watch this youtube video.

Re: it's kind of funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump only went to school because of a financial quota. See what I did there?

Re:it's kind of funny,

[hey!]

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.

Re:it's kind of funny,

[e3m4n]

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,

[e3m4n]

Bye Felicia!

Re:it's kind of funny,

[gtall]

...just implemented by FOX.

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Ksevio]

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,

[Ksevio]

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,

[Hodr]

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,

[Hodr]

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,

[e3m4n]

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,

[ilsaloving]

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,

[Cyberax]

Is that 85% a part of 85% of all statistics that is made up?

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty strong evidence that his accuser was telling the truth

???

Re:it's kind of funny,

[tbannist]

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

Re:it's kind of funny,

[tbannist]

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.

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Rockoon]

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"

Re:it's kind of funny,

[hey!]

Yes.

Re:it's kind of funny,

[Kyr Arvin]

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,

[Pfhorrest]

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.

Re:it's kind of funny,

[SoftwareArtist]

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.

Re: it's kind of funny,

[Cederic]

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,

[Cederic]

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,

[cyberchondriac]

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.

Re:it's kind of funny,

[eaglesrule]

Really, they are all best described as 'opportunist'.

Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[najajomo]

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

Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[lessthan]

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

Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[mlw4428]

Why is it one or the other? The two can be mutually exclusive.

Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[XxtraLarGe]

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

Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[coastwalker]

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.

Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[pecosdave]

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.

Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[rickb928]

"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?

Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[rickb928]

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...

Re:Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[zlives]

that was so 2008

Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[rickb928]

So Justice goes out of style?

Isn't this actually the problem?

Re: Republicans launching fake propaganda sites?

[zlives]

meh ask the republicans of 2019

WHY is this on /. ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 /. ?

[xpiotr]

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 /. ?

[Ryanrule]

ivan ivan ivan ivan ivan

Re:WHY is this on /. ?

[e3m4n]

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 /. ?

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re: WHY is this on /. ?

[e3m4n]

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 /. ?

[jeff4747]

Yes, this whole Internet thing has nothing to do with nerds. :eyeroll:

Re:WHY is this on /. ?

[AndrewFlagg]

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.

When did slashdot become used as a political site?

[Munky101]

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.

Re: More likely it's the Democrats, not the GOP.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[pecosdave]

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

Non Biased

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to CNN that is totally unbiased.

Re:So, balance it out a little

[lessthan]

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.

Disturbing

[mlw4428]

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

[jeff4747]

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.

Stop posting this crap on Slashdot.

[satan666]

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.

[Ashthon]

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.

[Ryanrule]

Naw you fuck off. Posting this "both sides are bad" bullshit make you obvious, ivan.

Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[satan666]

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.

[satan666]

"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.

[argStyopa]

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

Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot.

[satan666]

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.

[satan666]

I'm so stupid. I should've said vodka. I will never forgive myself. LOL

Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot.

[fustakrakich]

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.

Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot.

[Pfhorrest]

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?

Re:Stop posting this crap on Slashdot.

[satan666]

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:When did slashdot become used as a political si

[jfdavis668]

/. is the only place I go for news.

Well, this is scary

[lessthan]

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!"

Re:Well, this is scary

[Ryanrule]

Those are ivan bots. 100% chance. Slashdot needs a purge.

Re:Well, this is scary

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's OK to be a Republican.

Re:Well, this is scary

[ilsaloving]

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

[lessthan]

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

Re:Well, this is scary

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

Re:Well, this is scary

[110010001000]

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

[GameboyRMH]

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

Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Nidi62]

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.

Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts

[Ogive17]

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.

Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts

[Ogive17]

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...

Re:Yeah, and CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC are liberal fronts

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Re:The real fake news is the headline

[Nidi62]

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.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:So, balance it out a little

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

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.

Dems must do it because...?

[Anonymous Coward]

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: So, balance it out a little

[pecosdave]

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.

Re: Likely true

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias!

[pecosdave]

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?

Re: So, balance it out a little

[pecosdave]

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

Naturally

[Koby77]

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

Re:Naturally

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Naturally

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Re:Naturally

[amicusNYCL]

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

Re:Naturally

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Naturally

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Salon

[sproketboy]

Salon IS Fake News To Spread 'Propaganda'

FTFA

This is the future of "News"

[lfp98]

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.

Yup, if your side is openly evil

[Anonymous Coward]

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:So, balance it out a little

[pastafazou]

Are you for real? https://www.aim.org/aim-column... https://dailycaller.com/2017/0... https://www.washingtonexaminer...

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si

[e0b521bb9d0246d0b619]

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

[Ryanrule]

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

Re:The real fake news is the headline

[Ryanrule]

Fuck off ivan. Yes. It is that obvious.

Re:Russia-Gate fell apart.

[e0b521bb9d0246d0b619]

So verifiable facts are straws now? That does go a long way to explain how the GOP continues to appeal to its voters...

Re: So, balance it out a little

[omnichad]

If that's restrained, I don't even want to know what they be like totally unhinged.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[DigiShaman]

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"

If youi want REAL news?

[King_TJ]

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.)

Re: So, balance it out a little

[WDubois]

If that's restrained, I don't even want to know what they be like totally unhinged.

Breitbart

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Double claims are no more evidence than once.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Bold Move

[ilikethings]

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

er

[cascadingstylesheet]

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.

Re:So, balance it out a little

[e3m4n]

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.

Because it gets clicks

[rsilvergun]

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.

At this point..

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: So, balance it out a little

[pecosdave]

Irrelevant.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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".

Re: So, balance it out a little

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You are right

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[e3m4n]

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

[ilsaloving]

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

[cybrthng]

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

[ezdiy]

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

[Cederic]

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?"

Re:So, balance it out a little

[pecosdave]

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.

Re:NYT fake news

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

Re:Snopes not Salon

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

Re:The real fake news is the headline

[e3m4n]

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.

So Slashdot is......

[Zorro]

Is Full On Venezuela Communist Now?

Re:So Slashdot is......

[Tablizer]

or worse, Russian commies.

Journalistic Integrity

[cordovaCon83]

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.

Re:So, balance it out a little

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

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

Re:Still wrong term, still a moron.

[e3m4n]

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.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[e3m4n]

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

[e3m4n]

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

[greythax]

Are you contending that the information in the article isn't factual?

Re: So, balance it out a little

[e3m4n]

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

[e3m4n]

guy and his wife actually, but yes

Not projection, tactics

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Yes! Facts have a strong liberal bias!

[e3m4n]

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: So, balance it out a little

[e3m4n]

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:NYT fake news

[e3m4n]

AGW?

Re: So, balance it out a little

[skam240]

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.

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si

[e3m4n]

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.

Re:Try making a case,not JAQing off

[rickb928]

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

Re:When did slashdot become used as a political si

[e3m4n]

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_

[rsilvergun]

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?

Re:So, balance it out a little

[Tablizer]

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.

Can you list some hard examples?

[rsilvergun]

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)?

Re:Can you list some hard examples?

[e3m4n]

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?

[e3m4n]

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?

[e3m4n]

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?

[e3m4n]

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?

[Kyr Arvin]

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?

[e3m4n]

My bad, didnt know that even existed.

Re:Can you list some hard examples?

[Tablizer]

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."

Re:Can you list some hard examples?

[e3m4n]

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?

[Ryanrule]

Lol Forbes. Fuck right off.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[e3m4n]

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.

To be fair "Russia-Gate" is still going on

[rsilvergun]

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

Re:So, balance it out a little

[e3m4n]

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

[e3m4n]

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

[Shotgun]

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.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[Shotgun]

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.

Re:So, balance it out a little

[Shotgun]

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.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[skam240]

"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.

vet your info

[hdyoung]

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.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[fustakrakich]

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.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[larkost]

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.

Did anybody even look at the site mentioned?

[bob4u2c]

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...

[gosand]

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.”

  Mark Twain

Re: So, balance it out a little

[pecosdave]

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

Re:So, balance it out a little

[e3m4n]

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

[cybrthng]

Snopes is independent. There is 0 evidence to support your argument.

0 evidence for this claim

[cybrthng]

There is 0 evidence of this claim.

Re:0 evidence for this claim

[e3m4n]

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

[cybrthng]

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.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[Altus]

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.

Re:So, balance it out a little

[ilsaloving]

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

[ilsaloving]

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

[Mike Van Pelt]

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

[e3m4n]

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

[DigiShaman]

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

Re: So, balance it out a little

[Kyr Arvin]

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: Wrong term, moron

[terrycarlino]

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:So, balance it out a little

[pecosdave]

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?

Re:So, balance it out a little

[pecosdave]

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.

Re:So, balance it out a little

[pecosdave]

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.

Re: So, balance it out a little

[terrycarlino]

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:Please cry moar

[satan666]

"Anonymous Coward", Yup, name checks out!

Re: So, balance it out a little

[e3m4n]

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

Salon does not pretend to be neutral

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:So, balance it out a little

[Cyberax]

Anybody who says SJW in a serious context is an idiot. This is an inviolable law of the Universe, it seems.

Oh the irony

[guruevi]

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

Better Fake Local News...

[Scroatzilla]

... 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.

not the medias fault at all

[eaglesrule]

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.