15 ms·

How is this frightening? Why should we turn a blind eye to a source that continually posts provably fake and completely contrived news stories? This particular

How is this frightening? Why should we turn a blind eye to a source that continually posts provably fake and completely contrived news stories? This particular source also targets an audience that is demonstrably not capable of discerning what is probably true and what is absurdly false. It's not worth the price and risk of reading such a source, when the content they provide that is true can easily be consumed from other sources that are far more reliable. Let's call this for what it is and always has been: yellow journalism. It's fake, it's damaging, and with the internet it gets spread far too quickly. And then, when enough momentum around the fake story is able to clearly paint it as false gets noticed by the majority of people, this particular source never issues a correction. They just silently let their mistake fall to the wayside, never bothering to inform their audience of their calculated mistake and what is actually true. When you fail to acknowledge your mistakes, and when you do those mistakes repeatedly to the point where it can only be assumed to be purposefully done, you lose credence. Or at least you should. I'm not sure what's going on with this fetishization of false equivalency in American journalism. Not all journalistic entities are on the same platform; some of them clearly don't mind hiring people that have no principles as a citizen of their respective country or even principles as a decent human being, nor do they have respect for their fellow countrymen and maybe not even themselves.

tomp 10y ago
Which Breitbart news stories are "provably fake" (as opposed to "disagreeable", "editorialized", "provocative", etc.)?
- justinlaster 10y ago
  Here you go: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/1001-reasons-why-global-warming-is-so-totally-over-in-2016/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/1001-reas... >Always, but always, it has been about the cynical exploitation of mass crowd hysteria and about the sly manipulation by activists and crony capitalists of the political system in order to advance the cause of global governance. Let's not be disingenuous. There's tons and tons of stories like this.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    Not demonstrably false. Opinionated yes, but if that is your criteria for silencing a news org then you need to re-examine.
  - nailer 10y ago
    This article is a report of findings by US physics professor Mike van Biezen. If that's your threshhold for 'fake' news it's very low. I read the newspaper linked below most days. Here's them reporting on a incredibly misleading front page headline o their own: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-mark-duggan-headline https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m... I personally believe in global warming, but I also previously believed that major cities would be underwater by the year 2000 due to the 'greenhouse effect' (since that's what we learnt in school) so can understand someone else believing that news organisations often tend to sensationalize science.
    - justinlaster 10y ago
      >This article is a report of findings by US physics professor Mike van Biezen. That's a very liberal reading of that article. Like most yellow journalism and conspiracy theories, there's always of tinge of truth or credibility. The rest of it dives down into completely contrived fear mongering and conspiracy theories, as well as willfully ignoring the mountain of contradicting evidence to the point the article is trying to make. The professor's finding are a very small, small part of the overall article, and certainly a very small part of their overall narrative.
      - rudolf0 10y ago
        It cites real data from a real scientist. I disagree with the conclusion and the premise just like you do, but it's absolutely not "fake news". >The professor's finding are a very small, small part of the overall article, and certainly a very small part of their overall narrative. You could say this for a ton of MSNBC and Fox News articles. Should they also be banned as fake news? People in this thread generally aren't saying Breitbart should be considered a reputable source for anything; in fact I'd bet most of the Breitbart defenders in here are leftists or at least not far-right like Breitbart. I'm saying there shouldn't be calls for it to be censored in any way. Censorship is extremely dangerous; far, far more dangerous than Breitbart publishing their silly headlines.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  I'm curious about this too. A cursory search showed a couple of Politifact articles, one where Breitbart incorrectly said the Californian flag was supposed to be a pear, not a bear, and another where they mistakenly said that Loretta Lynch was a member of Bill Clinton's defense team. My suspicion is that the people trying to muzzle Breitbart have never read it extensively. It has a very obvious conservative slant to it, but I've never seen flagrantly false articles by them (like the one claiming that Trump actually won the popular vote).
  - justinlaster 10y ago
    >My suspicion is that the people trying to muzzle Breitbart have never read it extensively. You would be astoundingly wrong. I get the pleasure of reading Breitbart articles every single morning, thanks to my Facebook feed.
    - masonic 10y ago
      What mechanism do they use to control your eyes, your hand, and your brain, forcing you to read their content in its entirety? And is it the same mechanism that keeps you from clicking "Hide" on such content? If this mechanism could be isolated and productized, we could make a fortune on it!
- seabass 10y ago
  A large part of the coverage I have seen of Breitbart on mainstream news sources has taken the headlines of some of their overly provocative satire pieces and made the claim that they were reporting those headlines as fact. As an aside, I think that if we were to nitpick CNN, FOX, or any of the other "real" sources we would find just as much "fake news" as they are claiming exists on alternative news sites. Of course it would be in their interest to discredit those sources when they fear losing viewership to them.
  - croon 10y ago
    FOX has never been a "real" source, and CNN isn't that far behind, so your argument sort of confirms what you're arguing against.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- rndmize 10y ago
  Eh, I had a look earlier today and noticed they had a story on climate change. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/18/global-warming-blamed-deaths-80000-reindeer/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/18/global-wa... > Yet as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has noted, many of the recent climatological events and trends “can be explained by the natural variability of the climate system,” without excluding an indeterminate influence from atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. In the same report, the WMO said that, at this time, researchers have not yet been able to ascertain “the respective roles being played by climate variability and human-induced climate change.” The report is six years old, the first quote is taken out of context, the second doesn't even exist in the paper, and here's the first paragraph of the paper's conclusion: > Understanding the Earth’s climate and trends in temperature, precipitation and extreme events is of vital importance to human wellbeing and sustainable development. As the report The Global Climate 2001–2010 confirms, climate scientists can now link some natural oscillations to seasonal climate trends. They also understand the mechanisms by which humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions are raising global average temperatures. Regardless of where you stand on climate change, this is a pretty gross abuse of the source. Repeat this kind of thing across most articles, throw in some editorializing to push your opinion in "news" pieces (see paragraph 3/4 of article), add "PHD" to your byline even if your field has nothing to do with the material being covered... Bad sources aren't about deliberately lying, they're about constructing an alternative, semi-plausible reality that meets idealogical goals. Frankly, I'd class most anti-AGW articles as provably fake based on the scientific consensus for the last twenty years, but who am I to judge.
  - tomp 10y ago
    Finally something a bit more concrete. Not unlike how most other journalists report on scientific studies though...
toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Let's call this for what it is and always has been: yellow journalism. It's fake, it's damaging, and with the internet it gets spread far too quickly. Like all the mainstream press that called it for Hillary for months before the election? If you're not judging content by the content itself, than you've got blinders on. Let the content stand on its own.
- wlll 10y ago
  > Like all the mainstream press that called it for Hillary for months before the election? Being wrong != being fake. I thought Brexit wouldn't happen. I wasn't faking anything, I was just wrong.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  Do you recognize the difference between a story speculating about a future event turning out to be wrong and a story about events in the past or present turning out to have made up its facts?
- justinlaster 10y ago
  >Like all the mainstream press that called it for Hillary for months before the election? This is a misunderstanding of what was statistically probable. It's extremely unfair to say that the "mainstream press" called it for Hillary, when it was always going to come down to key battleground states. The exit polls weren't even wrong, it was just an astoundingly low voter turnout: and there could be many reasons for this, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. What you see now though, is most news sources trying to explain how the election turned out the way it did. You see them investigating actual facts and figures, and sometimes even taking a retrospective look at their own articles! Show me one Breitbart article that takes a retrospective about "what went wrong" or one time Breitbart issued a bonafide correction to an article they published. >If you're not judging content by the content itself, than you've got blinders on. And where did anyone advocate not doing that?
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    So the ABC poll having her up by 12 points a week prior, then dropping to 3 points, that doesn't meet your seemingly stringent criteria for fake news?
seabass 10y ago
You're advocating for censoring a source with a better track record than, say, buzzfeed which should by your standard also be censored. Rather than taking your opinion of Breitbart from the companies who stand to profit from the destruction of their competition, take a look at their front page right now and find just one example of fake news. Feel free to post your findings here. The argument that "these words are too dangerous to be in the hands of the masses" is the same one used to justify the book burnings in WWII and similar thought policing throughout history.
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  Censoring? What law is being passed here? People are free to choose with whom they do business with, if people decide they don't want to do business with white nationalists, that's their choice, and more power to them.
  - cheiVia0 10y ago
    Devil's advocate: > People are free to choose with whom they do business with ... unless it happens to be a minority, in which case it's discrimination.
- justinlaster 10y ago
  A private company is refusing to do business with a particular publishing entity. How is that censorship? How am I advocating we just shut them down? I said I don't see it as frightening that a private advertising company would do such a thing, nor do I find it frightening that other publishing entities would attempt to call out Breitbart on their yellow journalism, and I'm not afraid to condemn Breitbart for their spectacularly immoral publications. There is also a significantly small number of people that most likely use Buzzfeed as their primary news source, especially in relation to politics. So I'm not sure why you're attempting to draw a comparison there.
  - seabass 10y ago
    What is the logical conclusion of your position if not censorship? edit: in response to the second part about Buzzfeed, just in this thread there is someone with your stance on this who is advocating for them as a news source. Maybe a coincidence, but I'd say that speaks to it not being a "significantly small" amount.
riazrizvi 10y ago
Personally I would love to know which stories you consider to be 'provably fake and completely contrived'. I have personally been the victim of multiple racial attacks both verbal and physical throughout my life. As a consequence I have v. low tolerance for racism, toward any race, and am thoroughly convinced we are all fundamentally equal in ability. And yet I am also fine with Breitbart's stance of wanting to eliminate the racial hypocrisy of political correctness for minorities only. As the OP I would love to know what articles in particular offend you. I'm just curious.
- woofyman 10y ago
  Not racism but misogyny. Milo: How To Make Women Happy: Uninvent The Washing Machine And The Pill https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/29/the-washing-machine-and-the-pill-the-two-worst-inventions-in-the-history-of-humanity/amp/?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/29... https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/amp/?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08...
  - rudolf0 10y ago
    He's citing university studies there. I disagree with the premise and the conclusions, but it's not fair to call it misogyny. More just like paleo-conservatism/traditionalism/neo-reaction. It's a (I think, false) belief that traditional gender roles led to a more cohesive society or something. It's quite a stretch to jump from there to misogyny. Perhaps sexism, but not misogyny.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      It outright is misogyny, particularly since his claim about the washing machine being bad in any way is entirely unsupported and completely false. Further complete idiocy: Yes, he gets his claim of "women unhappy" from an actual study, but either ignores or misrepresents the results of said study, which concludes largely that women consider themselves to have better lives, and have better lives, but feel unhappy because they now compare themselves to a larger scope of possible achievements. And while he's correct that the pill is shit and does a lot of harm in women, it's utterly disgusting to turn that around into "the church is right". No, the conclusion here is that men need to "man the fuck up" and get their tubes tied, and their rubbers on. (And the refusal of many here probably also is a good source for the unhappiness above.) I could go further, but to properly address how much of that article is vile lies would require a post bigger than the article itself. At the end of the day he is absolutely posting with a fucking agenda, and that is misogyny. Trying to deny that is utterly incomprehensible and reprehensible.
sremani 10y ago
The Honorable New York Times said Saddam had Chemical Weapons, and was a party for enabling a Trillion dollar war. I think they should be definitely be labeled "fake news". I am not fan of Breitbart, but when Reason magazine is labeled "fake news", this is not a crusade for truth, but to stamp out opposition "Stalin style".
- croon 10y ago
  1) NYT reporting on government releases is not peddling fake news. It is being lied to. 2) That was a the Bush administration, why would the "liberal mainstream" be colluding with the GOP? If your goal is to stop spreading lies, I suggest an introspection to begin with.
  - sremani 10y ago
    "liberal mainstream" colluded with GOP during 2003 because of the shadow of 9/11. If you remember history correctly, Dubya had high approval rating for couple years after 9/11 and they found it inconvenient or expedient to play along. NYT has its share of "fake" stories, where they either willfully misguided or parroted the White house talking points because of pressures of the day. At the end of the day, NYT is a propaganda machine most of the time leaning left, except when it is uncomfortable. My point was broadly that labeling Reason as fake news demonstrates this whole news stories about fake news is in itself fake outrage. On your suggestion of spreading lies, I sure do introspect, and in this case, I find you acting childish and narrative driven rather than facts.
idetectit 10y ago
> Why should we turn a blind eye to a source that continually posts provably fake and completely contrived news stories? How much you guys wanna bet this guy watches MSNBC 24/7.
- justinlaster 10y ago
  I don't really watch any major news source to be quite honest. I gleam around and try to measure credibility where I can. But thanks for being completely dismissive based on absolutely nothing except for you trying to get a quick cheap shot.
rudolf0 10y ago
>How is this frightening? Why should we turn a blind eye to a source that continually posts provably fake and completely contrived news stories? Most of Breitbart's inflammatory-headline stories are based on real scientific studies. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes... cites multiple real university studies. Also supported by studies conducted by reasonable sources, if you read the articles: http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/01/not-sexism-women-just-suck-interviews/ http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/01/not-sexism-women-ju... http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/05/fat-shaming-is-good-science/ http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/05/fat-shaming-is-good... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-rights-have-made-us-dumber-its-time-to-get-back-in-the-closet/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right... (the writer himself is gay, if it matters) Exaggerated, sure, but it's not fake news by any means. It's biased news, like many other news outlets. Ad agencies are perfectly free to not associate with them anymore, but calls to mark them as fake news is extremely dangerous and would be a clear case of censorship. I strongly disagree with Breitbart's agenda but there are times when publications like WaPo post stories that are at roughly the same degree of the bias axis as Breitbart, just in the opposite direction. People just need to treat media sources with a grain of salt. Facebook and Twitter should only ban the websites that are clearly just fake article mills, posting nothing but completely fabricated information.
- justinlaster 10y ago
  > http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right.. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right.... (the writer himself is gay, if it matters) As a gay man, no it doesn't matter. You can have completely off base opinions no matter who you are. He panders to an audience, and damages the rest of the community in the process. Calling those articles "exaggerated" is extremely forgiving. The article I quoted uses a combination of outdated pseudo-science and philosophically iffy reasoning behind its pretext. As someone who struggled to come out, I can't tell you how absolutely disheartening and difficult it is to get past your family when they read pieces like that, and clearly don't have the skills necessary to understand why the rationale is bad in the first place. It makes me want to just yank Milo by the neck and show him what irreparable damage he is doing to people (if I could); if he even has the morality to care. >http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes.. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes.... cites multiple real university studies. And then you have things like this. Is this supposed to make up for everything else they do? You gave me a list of articles, but these aren't contradictory to their other practices. To my original point: why bother with the source when you can consume that information elsewhere, from a source that is far more likely to be reliable? To your point about other publications such as the Washington Post being on the other axis of bias, I have trouble understanding how you can simply say they're just on the other side. From everything I've seen from the Washington Post, they're nowhere near as advertently dishonest as Breitbart is, accidentally or otherwise.
234dd57d2c8db 10y ago
The "Fake News" story is being pushed by such places as the New York Times, which just recently admitted they do the same thing. https://twitter.com/melbournecoal/status/797171598163898368/photo/1 https://twitter.com/melbournecoal/status/797171598163898368/... Here's the NYT letter that recently talks about this to their subscribers. In the letter they admit they published dishonest news stories and after the election have rededicated themselves to "honesty". We know we totally weren't honest during the election, but guys, we are now! You can trust us! Said the media establishment losing control of the narrative. I'm sorry, but I don't trust any news from ANYONE nowadays. Not breitbart, not the NYT, not ANYWHERE. If you do, I feel bad for you because you have been fed somebody's propaganda.

tomp 10y ago

Which Breitbart news stories are "provably fake" (as opposed to "disagreeable", "editorialized", "provocative", etc.)?

justinlaster 10y ago
Here you go: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/1001-reasons-why-global-warming-is-so-totally-over-in-2016/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/1001-reas... >Always, but always, it has been about the cynical exploitation of mass crowd hysteria and about the sly manipulation by activists and crony capitalists of the political system in order to advance the cause of global governance. Let's not be disingenuous. There's tons and tons of stories like this.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  Not demonstrably false. Opinionated yes, but if that is your criteria for silencing a news org then you need to re-examine.
- nailer 10y ago
  This article is a report of findings by US physics professor Mike van Biezen. If that's your threshhold for 'fake' news it's very low. I read the newspaper linked below most days. Here's them reporting on a incredibly misleading front page headline o their own: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-mark-duggan-headline https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m... I personally believe in global warming, but I also previously believed that major cities would be underwater by the year 2000 due to the 'greenhouse effect' (since that's what we learnt in school) so can understand someone else believing that news organisations often tend to sensationalize science.
  - justinlaster 10y ago
    >This article is a report of findings by US physics professor Mike van Biezen. That's a very liberal reading of that article. Like most yellow journalism and conspiracy theories, there's always of tinge of truth or credibility. The rest of it dives down into completely contrived fear mongering and conspiracy theories, as well as willfully ignoring the mountain of contradicting evidence to the point the article is trying to make. The professor's finding are a very small, small part of the overall article, and certainly a very small part of their overall narrative.
    - rudolf0 10y ago
      It cites real data from a real scientist. I disagree with the conclusion and the premise just like you do, but it's absolutely not "fake news". >The professor's finding are a very small, small part of the overall article, and certainly a very small part of their overall narrative. You could say this for a ton of MSNBC and Fox News articles. Should they also be banned as fake news? People in this thread generally aren't saying Breitbart should be considered a reputable source for anything; in fact I'd bet most of the Breitbart defenders in here are leftists or at least not far-right like Breitbart. I'm saying there shouldn't be calls for it to be censored in any way. Censorship is extremely dangerous; far, far more dangerous than Breitbart publishing their silly headlines.
cloakandswagger 10y ago
I'm curious about this too. A cursory search showed a couple of Politifact articles, one where Breitbart incorrectly said the Californian flag was supposed to be a pear, not a bear, and another where they mistakenly said that Loretta Lynch was a member of Bill Clinton's defense team. My suspicion is that the people trying to muzzle Breitbart have never read it extensively. It has a very obvious conservative slant to it, but I've never seen flagrantly false articles by them (like the one claiming that Trump actually won the popular vote).
- justinlaster 10y ago
  >My suspicion is that the people trying to muzzle Breitbart have never read it extensively. You would be astoundingly wrong. I get the pleasure of reading Breitbart articles every single morning, thanks to my Facebook feed.
  - masonic 10y ago
    What mechanism do they use to control your eyes, your hand, and your brain, forcing you to read their content in its entirety? And is it the same mechanism that keeps you from clicking "Hide" on such content? If this mechanism could be isolated and productized, we could make a fortune on it!
seabass 10y ago
A large part of the coverage I have seen of Breitbart on mainstream news sources has taken the headlines of some of their overly provocative satire pieces and made the claim that they were reporting those headlines as fact. As an aside, I think that if we were to nitpick CNN, FOX, or any of the other "real" sources we would find just as much "fake news" as they are claiming exists on alternative news sites. Of course it would be in their interest to discredit those sources when they fear losing viewership to them.
- croon 10y ago
  FOX has never been a "real" source, and CNN isn't that far behind, so your argument sort of confirms what you're arguing against.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
rndmize 10y ago
Eh, I had a look earlier today and noticed they had a story on climate change. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/18/global-warming-blamed-deaths-80000-reindeer/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/18/global-wa... > Yet as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has noted, many of the recent climatological events and trends “can be explained by the natural variability of the climate system,” without excluding an indeterminate influence from atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. In the same report, the WMO said that, at this time, researchers have not yet been able to ascertain “the respective roles being played by climate variability and human-induced climate change.” The report is six years old, the first quote is taken out of context, the second doesn't even exist in the paper, and here's the first paragraph of the paper's conclusion: > Understanding the Earth’s climate and trends in temperature, precipitation and extreme events is of vital importance to human wellbeing and sustainable development. As the report The Global Climate 2001–2010 confirms, climate scientists can now link some natural oscillations to seasonal climate trends. They also understand the mechanisms by which humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions are raising global average temperatures. Regardless of where you stand on climate change, this is a pretty gross abuse of the source. Repeat this kind of thing across most articles, throw in some editorializing to push your opinion in "news" pieces (see paragraph 3/4 of article), add "PHD" to your byline even if your field has nothing to do with the material being covered... Bad sources aren't about deliberately lying, they're about constructing an alternative, semi-plausible reality that meets idealogical goals. Frankly, I'd class most anti-AGW articles as provably fake based on the scientific consensus for the last twenty years, but who am I to judge.
- tomp 10y ago
  Finally something a bit more concrete. Not unlike how most other journalists report on scientific studies though...

toomuchtodo 10y ago

> Let's call this for what it is and always has been: yellow journalism. It's fake, it's damaging, and with the internet it gets spread far too quickly. Like all the mainstream press that called it for Hillary for months before the election? If you're not judging content by the content itself, than you've got blinders on. Let the content stand on its own.

wlll 10y ago
> Like all the mainstream press that called it for Hillary for months before the election? Being wrong != being fake. I thought Brexit wouldn't happen. I wasn't faking anything, I was just wrong.
sanderjd 10y ago
Do you recognize the difference between a story speculating about a future event turning out to be wrong and a story about events in the past or present turning out to have made up its facts?
justinlaster 10y ago
>Like all the mainstream press that called it for Hillary for months before the election? This is a misunderstanding of what was statistically probable. It's extremely unfair to say that the "mainstream press" called it for Hillary, when it was always going to come down to key battleground states. The exit polls weren't even wrong, it was just an astoundingly low voter turnout: and there could be many reasons for this, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. What you see now though, is most news sources trying to explain how the election turned out the way it did. You see them investigating actual facts and figures, and sometimes even taking a retrospective look at their own articles! Show me one Breitbart article that takes a retrospective about "what went wrong" or one time Breitbart issued a bonafide correction to an article they published. >If you're not judging content by the content itself, than you've got blinders on. And where did anyone advocate not doing that?
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  So the ABC poll having her up by 12 points a week prior, then dropping to 3 points, that doesn't meet your seemingly stringent criteria for fake news?

seabass 10y ago

You're advocating for censoring a source with a better track record than, say, buzzfeed which should by your standard also be censored. Rather than taking your opinion of Breitbart from the companies who stand to profit from the destruction of their competition, take a look at their front page right now and find just one example of fake news. Feel free to post your findings here. The argument that "these words are too dangerous to be in the hands of the masses" is the same one used to justify the book burnings in WWII and similar thought policing throughout history.

InclinedPlane 10y ago
Censoring? What law is being passed here? People are free to choose with whom they do business with, if people decide they don't want to do business with white nationalists, that's their choice, and more power to them.
- cheiVia0 10y ago
  Devil's advocate: > People are free to choose with whom they do business with ... unless it happens to be a minority, in which case it's discrimination.
justinlaster 10y ago
A private company is refusing to do business with a particular publishing entity. How is that censorship? How am I advocating we just shut them down? I said I don't see it as frightening that a private advertising company would do such a thing, nor do I find it frightening that other publishing entities would attempt to call out Breitbart on their yellow journalism, and I'm not afraid to condemn Breitbart for their spectacularly immoral publications. There is also a significantly small number of people that most likely use Buzzfeed as their primary news source, especially in relation to politics. So I'm not sure why you're attempting to draw a comparison there.
- seabass 10y ago
  What is the logical conclusion of your position if not censorship? edit: in response to the second part about Buzzfeed, just in this thread there is someone with your stance on this who is advocating for them as a news source. Maybe a coincidence, but I'd say that speaks to it not being a "significantly small" amount.

riazrizvi 10y ago

Personally I would love to know which stories you consider to be 'provably fake and completely contrived'. I have personally been the victim of multiple racial attacks both verbal and physical throughout my life. As a consequence I have v. low tolerance for racism, toward any race, and am thoroughly convinced we are all fundamentally equal in ability. And yet I am also fine with Breitbart's stance of wanting to eliminate the racial hypocrisy of political correctness for minorities only. As the OP I would love to know what articles in particular offend you. I'm just curious.

woofyman 10y ago
Not racism but misogyny. Milo: How To Make Women Happy: Uninvent The Washing Machine And The Pill https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/29/the-washing-machine-and-the-pill-the-two-worst-inventions-in-the-history-of-humanity/amp/?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/29... https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/amp/?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08...
- rudolf0 10y ago
  He's citing university studies there. I disagree with the premise and the conclusions, but it's not fair to call it misogyny. More just like paleo-conservatism/traditionalism/neo-reaction. It's a (I think, false) belief that traditional gender roles led to a more cohesive society or something. It's quite a stretch to jump from there to misogyny. Perhaps sexism, but not misogyny.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    It outright is misogyny, particularly since his claim about the washing machine being bad in any way is entirely unsupported and completely false. Further complete idiocy: Yes, he gets his claim of "women unhappy" from an actual study, but either ignores or misrepresents the results of said study, which concludes largely that women consider themselves to have better lives, and have better lives, but feel unhappy because they now compare themselves to a larger scope of possible achievements. And while he's correct that the pill is shit and does a lot of harm in women, it's utterly disgusting to turn that around into "the church is right". No, the conclusion here is that men need to "man the fuck up" and get their tubes tied, and their rubbers on. (And the refusal of many here probably also is a good source for the unhappiness above.) I could go further, but to properly address how much of that article is vile lies would require a post bigger than the article itself. At the end of the day he is absolutely posting with a fucking agenda, and that is misogyny. Trying to deny that is utterly incomprehensible and reprehensible.

sremani 10y ago

The Honorable New York Times said Saddam had Chemical Weapons, and was a party for enabling a Trillion dollar war. I think they should be definitely be labeled "fake news". I am not fan of Breitbart, but when Reason magazine is labeled "fake news", this is not a crusade for truth, but to stamp out opposition "Stalin style".

croon 10y ago
1) NYT reporting on government releases is not peddling fake news. It is being lied to. 2) That was a the Bush administration, why would the "liberal mainstream" be colluding with the GOP? If your goal is to stop spreading lies, I suggest an introspection to begin with.
- sremani 10y ago
  "liberal mainstream" colluded with GOP during 2003 because of the shadow of 9/11. If you remember history correctly, Dubya had high approval rating for couple years after 9/11 and they found it inconvenient or expedient to play along. NYT has its share of "fake" stories, where they either willfully misguided or parroted the White house talking points because of pressures of the day. At the end of the day, NYT is a propaganda machine most of the time leaning left, except when it is uncomfortable. My point was broadly that labeling Reason as fake news demonstrates this whole news stories about fake news is in itself fake outrage. On your suggestion of spreading lies, I sure do introspect, and in this case, I find you acting childish and narrative driven rather than facts.

idetectit 10y ago

> Why should we turn a blind eye to a source that continually posts provably fake and completely contrived news stories? How much you guys wanna bet this guy watches MSNBC 24/7.

justinlaster 10y ago
I don't really watch any major news source to be quite honest. I gleam around and try to measure credibility where I can. But thanks for being completely dismissive based on absolutely nothing except for you trying to get a quick cheap shot.

rudolf0 10y ago

>How is this frightening? Why should we turn a blind eye to a source that continually posts provably fake and completely contrived news stories? Most of Breitbart's inflammatory-headline stories are based on real scientific studies. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes... cites multiple real university studies. Also supported by studies conducted by reasonable sources, if you read the articles: http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/01/not-sexism-women-just-suck-interviews/ http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/01/not-sexism-women-ju... http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/05/fat-shaming-is-good-science/ http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/05/fat-shaming-is-good... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-rights-have-made-us-dumber-its-time-to-get-back-in-the-closet/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right... (the writer himself is gay, if it matters) Exaggerated, sure, but it's not fake news by any means. It's biased news, like many other news outlets. Ad agencies are perfectly free to not associate with them anymore, but calls to mark them as fake news is extremely dangerous and would be a clear case of censorship. I strongly disagree with Breitbart's agenda but there are times when publications like WaPo post stories that are at roughly the same degree of the bias axis as Breitbart, just in the opposite direction. People just need to treat media sources with a grain of salt. Facebook and Twitter should only ban the websites that are clearly just fake article mills, posting nothing but completely fabricated information.

justinlaster 10y ago
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right.. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right.... (the writer himself is gay, if it matters) As a gay man, no it doesn't matter. You can have completely off base opinions no matter who you are. He panders to an audience, and damages the rest of the community in the process. Calling those articles "exaggerated" is extremely forgiving. The article I quoted uses a combination of outdated pseudo-science and philosophically iffy reasoning behind its pretext. As someone who struggled to come out, I can't tell you how absolutely disheartening and difficult it is to get past your family when they read pieces like that, and clearly don't have the skills necessary to understand why the rationale is bad in the first place. It makes me want to just yank Milo by the neck and show him what irreparable damage he is doing to people (if I could); if he even has the morality to care. >http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes.. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes.... cites multiple real university studies. And then you have things like this. Is this supposed to make up for everything else they do? You gave me a list of articles, but these aren't contradictory to their other practices. To my original point: why bother with the source when you can consume that information elsewhere, from a source that is far more likely to be reliable? To your point about other publications such as the Washington Post being on the other axis of bias, I have trouble understanding how you can simply say they're just on the other side. From everything I've seen from the Washington Post, they're nowhere near as advertently dishonest as Breitbart is, accidentally or otherwise.

234dd57d2c8db 10y ago

The "Fake News" story is being pushed by such places as the New York Times, which just recently admitted they do the same thing. https://twitter.com/melbournecoal/status/797171598163898368/photo/1 https://twitter.com/melbournecoal/status/797171598163898368/... Here's the NYT letter that recently talks about this to their subscribers. In the letter they admit they published dishonest news stories and after the election have rededicated themselves to "honesty". We know we totally weren't honest during the election, but guys, we are now! You can trust us! Said the media establishment losing control of the narrative. I'm sorry, but I don't trust any news from ANYONE nowadays. Not breitbart, not the NYT, not ANYWHERE. If you do, I feel bad for you because you have been fed somebody's propaganda.