4 ms·

"Fake News" is a Orwellian double-speak for alternative news. Mainstream media lost its grip on propaganda and now they're trying to push for censorship of opp

by Jerry2 10y ago

"Fake News" is a Orwellian double-speak for alternative news. Mainstream media lost its grip on propaganda and now they're trying to push for censorship of opposing views (this past election is the proof of that). Read this interview with the founder of Snopes for the background of this [0]. Never mind the fact that "real news" organizations have been caught lying so many times and have collaborated, behind the closed doors, with Hillary's campaign, for example. [1] And they're also grouping WikiLeaks under the "fake news" category as well. I guess that's the punishment for exposing how corrupt the mainstream media really is. [0] https://backchannel.com/according-to-snopes-fake-news-is-not-the-problem-4ca4852b1ff0 https://backchannel.com/according-to-snopes-fake-news-is-not... [1] http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/meet-leftist-prof-who-wrote-hit-list-of-fake-news-sites/ http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/meet-leftist-prof-who-wrote-hit-l...

noobermin 10y ago
The article is specifically about an event which was a mistake. Perhaps they are making a larger statement about alternative media by posting that, but that wasn't the point of the article.
- norikki 10y ago
  The point of the article is to discourage 'non-approved' news sources because they must all be fake like this bus thing was. Its propaganda to try and keep the NYT relevant despite their lies and deception such as promoting the war in Iraq.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    To be fair to the article, the origin of the misconception was a single tweet, which I'm not sure really counts as "non-approved" news sources. The second stage of the stories spread was reddit, which I think too isn't really a news source, or may be that's what you mean.
    - norikki 10y ago
      Of course primary sources are 'non-appoved'. Thats why CNN was caught telling listeners that it was illegal for anyone but CNN to read the WikiLeak Podesta emails. When I saw the bus thing I questioned how the guy knew the buses were full of protestors, and then stopped caring because it was just some guy on twitter. The MSM want you to blindly accept their narrative and lose the ability to tell fact from fiction.
- beaner 10y ago
  I think the commenter is addressing the overall implication of the article (that "fake news" is common and widespread) rather than the specific instance they're investigating. If this was a one-off, it's not really newsworthy.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    You're right. I think the article might be casting doubt on the sources after reddit which carried the story, but I feel the main issue the article addresses is false news stories, not the credibility of news sources, which Jerry2 seems to be talking about.
psychometry 10y ago
Maybe instead of reading that WND crap you instead try reading the article you're commenting on?
- whybroke 10y ago
  If he knows in advance that he's not going to believe it anyway, why would he bother?
- norikki 10y ago
  Obviously the article doesnt mention wikileaks. The point is that this article isnt being published in a vacuum.
rjromero 10y ago
Hm... I'm curious, would you consider the Holocaust to have been "fake news" ? Even though you provided some "reputable" sources, it's hard to take anyone that uses the word "leftist" seriously. Especially when: [0] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/worldnet-daily-continues-pump-out-outrageous-propaganda https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/... [1] http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/the-strange-strange-story-of-gay-fascism-deniers/ http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/the-strange-strange-story-of-gay-...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
davepeck 10y ago
In this context, "fake news" means just that: verifiable falsehoods echoed misleadingly as fact. This is hardly Orwellian, although I do enjoy an overwrought appeal to his name now and again.

by Jerry2 10y ago

noobermin 10y ago

The article is specifically about an event which was a mistake. Perhaps they are making a larger statement about alternative media by posting that, but that wasn't the point of the article.

norikki 10y ago
The point of the article is to discourage 'non-approved' news sources because they must all be fake like this bus thing was. Its propaganda to try and keep the NYT relevant despite their lies and deception such as promoting the war in Iraq.
- noobermin 10y ago
  To be fair to the article, the origin of the misconception was a single tweet, which I'm not sure really counts as "non-approved" news sources. The second stage of the stories spread was reddit, which I think too isn't really a news source, or may be that's what you mean.
  - norikki 10y ago
    Of course primary sources are 'non-appoved'. Thats why CNN was caught telling listeners that it was illegal for anyone but CNN to read the WikiLeak Podesta emails. When I saw the bus thing I questioned how the guy knew the buses were full of protestors, and then stopped caring because it was just some guy on twitter. The MSM want you to blindly accept their narrative and lose the ability to tell fact from fiction.
beaner 10y ago
I think the commenter is addressing the overall implication of the article (that "fake news" is common and widespread) rather than the specific instance they're investigating. If this was a one-off, it's not really newsworthy.
- noobermin 10y ago
  You're right. I think the article might be casting doubt on the sources after reddit which carried the story, but I feel the main issue the article addresses is false news stories, not the credibility of news sources, which Jerry2 seems to be talking about.

psychometry 10y ago

Maybe instead of reading that WND crap you instead try reading the article you're commenting on?

whybroke 10y ago
If he knows in advance that he's not going to believe it anyway, why would he bother?
norikki 10y ago
Obviously the article doesnt mention wikileaks. The point is that this article isnt being published in a vacuum.

rjromero 10y ago

Hm... I'm curious, would you consider the Holocaust to have been "fake news" ? Even though you provided some "reputable" sources, it's hard to take anyone that uses the word "leftist" seriously. Especially when: [0] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/worldnet-daily-continues-pump-out-outrageous-propaganda https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/... [1] http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/the-strange-strange-story-of-gay-fascism-deniers/ http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/the-strange-strange-story-of-gay-...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

davepeck 10y ago

In this context, "fake news" means just that: verifiable falsehoods echoed misleadingly as fact. This is hardly Orwellian, although I do enjoy an overwrought appeal to his name now and again.