Fake News
Page 1 of 65 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 642

Thread: Fake News

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    936

    Fake News

    Why is there suddenly such a huge interest in clamping down on fake news?

    What really is the make up of fake news and mainstream news?

    Is fake news only alt right as it seems to be suggested?

    If a site is targeted as fake news is it really all fake?

    Many crazy stories like aliens, Bigfoot, ghosts, giants and so on can't be confirmed one way or the other so the site really doesn't have to worry about being debunked. Are these stories put forward to gain views, so viewers will look at the real stories and opinions that the site has to offer?

    The mainstream will put some of this stuff out from time to time as well but will leave it to the viewers to decide for themselves as to what they think of it. This also gains viewers for the mainstream sites. These mainstream sites will also promote Hollywood gossip and so on to gain viewers.

    Doesn't the mainstream seam to heavily promote certain points like Russia to pump a message whether it is confirmed or not?

    Wouldn't you say the rock of both the mainstream and the fake news is the opinions?

    Is fake news all fake or is the mainstream media all propaganda or is it really a mix of real news and so called fake news?

    Is fake news possibly the wrong term for both the mainstream and the fake news site? It seems since many stories and opinions can't be confirmed that they are what they are until proven otherwise.


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,494
    At least half the news is fake no matter what the source. Often it is not hard to expose if you look at different sources and get different views. It is best to go to the source and get the absolute facts if possible. If you do this it soon becomes apparent that practically all sources have their bias and what their bias is.

    I've read that only 15% of the American public trusts the mainstream media. It surprises me that it is that high since it is so easy to detect the fakery. Many of the stories are so childish and so obviously fake it is surprising anyone takes them seriously. This may be why so many media characters and politicians have such contempt for the public. They know they are bullshitting us and can't believe we are dumb enough to believe their bullshit.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,494
    "Doesn't the mainstream seam to heavily promote certain points like Russia to pump a message whether it is confirmed or not?"

    Are you referring to the story that Putin swung the election for Trump? If you look into this story you will find out certain things very easily.

    1) They are saying Putin influenced the vote by publishing Emails from Hillary's campaign headquarters. In other words it was not Putin or Russia, it was Hillary's crookedness that turned voters against her. Her own emails, and those of her staff, were the proof.

    2) Julian Assange of Wikileaks, and several other people who are in a position to know, say there was no hacker and the Russians had nothing to do with it. The emails were leaked by someone in the Clinton camp.

    3) They seem to find something sinister in the fact that Putin prefers the candidate who does not want war with Russia.

    4) Trump and his cabinet of billionaires and CEOs seem like an unlikely collection of Commies .

    Now you have to ask who is spreading this bullshit and why.

    And once you know someone is a pathological liar you are a fool if you believe anything they say without proof.
    Last edited by Rusty O'Toole; 2016-12-15 at 02:12 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    936
    The mainstream media is putting out the Russian story as if it is fact and a done deal. They are pushing so hard that they are even starting to sway some in the electoral college to consider it and change their vote. If Trump tried this the story would be the opposite and they would be framing him as a conspiracy theorist. But still they pump out that there are agencies everywhere that say it is true. Their level of propaganda is truly amazing. However I am not saying it can't come out as true one day but this is at par with Alex Jones or other fake news.

    The 15 percent level is bad and yet they do nothing about it. Their ownership having deep pockets must not care and find that their view or message they want pumped out by the media they own is more important. Still the 15 percent seems low considering people on the left seem to have such complete trust in the media no matter what they do.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    936
    Look at this story now it blames Putin personally.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...n-hack-n696146

    You have to ask yourself why ramp something up so hard without concrete proof unless you are out of time as in Trump will be president very soon.

    It reminds me of Assad gassing his own people which is possible but not likely, considering he would gain nothing from it except to raise the opposition against him. If we didn't go to war with Iraq to find out that there were no weapons of mass destruction, then we would still believe that story to this day. We are pressed very hard and very dangerously by the media these days and it is important that people do step back and resist falling into the trap unless all the facts are presented.

    On the fake news side it is much harder to gain facts because they don't have the level of recourses that the mainstream media has so they are forced to use theories more often. People who see this need to keep it in mind, so if these theories actually start to play out they won't be so easily swayed, by other sources of propaganda.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    936
    Do you think the financial news sites online or mainstream could be some of the worst for fake news. Everytime something drops or rises in price they have to give a reason whether it makes sense or not. Or I have heard information is given and reasons set forward to direct investors or clients onto a certain path whether it is the right for them or not. Alt sites promote products or pump it to direct investors.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,494
    Ex British Ambassador Craig Murray says he is the source of the leak. The Emails were given to him in Washington by a disgruntled Clinton insider who wanted to expose the Clinton campaign's hijacking of the nomination from Bernie Sanders. In other words the emails were leaked not hacked. This shows everyone who says the emails were hacked by Russia is lying or taken in by a liar.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-insiders.html

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,494
    It's called "talking their book". It is common for representatives of big banks, hedge funds etc to say they are buying when they are selling, or to push a trade they know is at the end of its rope for their own profit.

    Financial sites are the worst, they have to let on they know the cause of every blip in the market. Well no one knows the motivation of the millions of investors who make up the market but they have to look wise and come up with something to justify their jobs.

    The only one you can depend on is Dennis Gartman. He is always wrong. Two days ago he went long oil, calling the top perfectly. You would have made some nice profits already if you faded that trade. He does this kind of thing all the time. PS he got stopped out this morning which means oil may be going back up.
    Last edited by Rusty O'Toole; 2016-12-15 at 01:33 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty O'Toole View Post
    Ex British Ambassador Craig Murray says he is the source of the leak. The Emails were given to him in Washington by a disgruntled Clinton insider who wanted to expose the Clinton campaign's hijacking of the nomination from Bernie Sanders. In other words the emails were leaked not hacked. This shows everyone who says the emails were hacked by Russia is lying or taken in by a liar.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-insiders.html
    The mainstream media has gone from suggesting that Russia hacked the Democrats emails to blatantly claiming that they tried to swing the election. That's fake news.

    Of course, the fact that Trump isn't a pushover and the Democrats have done absolutely nothing stop Putin, common sense suggests that Putin would prefer the Democrats remain in power instead of an unknown and likely hard liner like Trump.

    Mainstream media = fake news.

  10. #10
    Senior Member humble_pie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    11,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty O'Toole View Post
    Ex British Ambassador Craig Murray says he is the source of the leak. The Emails were given to him in Washington by a disgruntled Clinton insider who wanted to expose the Clinton campaign's hijacking of the nomination from Bernie Sanders. In other words the emails were leaked not hacked. This shows everyone who says the emails were hacked by Russia is lying or taken in by a liar.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-insiders.html


    what a crackbar story. It's typical of the rubbish spewed out by england's infamous rag tabloid the Daily Mail. Such a pity that Rusty is so easily taken in.

    alas, Rusty omitted mentioning what the Daily Mail actually published. That the former ambassador was an ambassador to Uzbekistan only, ie he not a working professional diplomat from the foreign office but merely an honourary appointment (the US has lots of those, will probably have more under donald trump, the "honourary" dipso appointments are always the political cronies of a White House & they are the disrespected scourge of the entire washington professional dipolomatic corps)

    moreover the feeble former honourary british diplomat is a self-confessed Wikileaks associate who is close to julian assange. Go figure. Of course the Wiki traitors would publicize stories like this.


    here's the Daily Mail headline. Underlining is my own.

    EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers


    Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-insiders.html



    .

    - poor girl, she's going to be Ex No. 3
    - so do you think she knows already?

Page 1 of 65 1231151 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •