What is.... "Real News"?

'Real news' and 'fake news' are the new buzzwords the MSM has created to keep us bickering back and forth between each other, it also creates extreme polarity between the two parties because either one can say the other believes 'fake news' because there is no exact definition of the term, it's ambiguous for that very reason.

It's just like 'snowflake', 'safe space', 'SJW', 'bigot', 'racist', etc. It's only a buzzword used to reel us into yet another #storm which have been all too common the past few years.

Instead of focusing on real issues they just create a new fake issue every few months then let us go at each other while they make bank behind the scenes.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Real news is whatever TPTB decide it is and if you dont tow that line youll be removed from google searches and have Ad revenue taken away.

Real news doesnt have to be true news it just has to be "official"

That's the reality.

originally posted by: ausername
Unbiased journalistic credibility is the key to separating real from fake news.

Although, it's extremely rare.

It's not so much rare as just not profitable.
Fox worked this out first and it's been an arms race with the rest of MSM to lower the standard since.

a reply to: LumenImagoDei

Divide and conquer much?

Damn, they are good at it.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I think real news is a figment of someone's immagination. Propaganda usually.

I like when they talk about a big flood in a city somewhere and they are showing a street covered in three feet of water and houses flooded. A little research shows one or two blocks of a town flooded, the rest is no problem. So real news can make people think a disaster is way worse than it is. It can be real too, but often the viewer is being misled.

True. That's the issue, that much mainstream "news" is misleading or even propaganda.

If it's not stated it's opinion and the details are not fact then it's fake. As far as breaking, it should state whether the info is certain or a best guess based on evidence.

At least that's what I would consider real news.

Fake news is whatever the government says it is.

Real news is news that doesn't expose the Pyramidal Satanic paedophile control system. Is it pedophile or is it paedophile ? I think Paedophile is what the British politicians do and pedophile is what American politicians do? I don't know, I could be wrong because, my tin foil hat is way too tight!

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Hecate666

originally posted by: underwerks
Real news: Stories that have evidence you can verify.

Fake news: Stories that don't.

Pretty simple if you take off your partisan glasses.

To say that ALL stories you have no evidence for are FAKE is the single most worrying comment I've read in a long time.

Not been reading ATS lately, huh?

And to the rest of your comments, opinion and hunches aren't factual news, they're opinion pieces. People used to know the difference.

I hope you are not deliberately misunderstanding what I said. Read back your description of fake news, then read my post again.
But just in case you need it simplified:

You think that only news that can be verified are real.
YOu think that ALL news that can't be verified are fake.

Where do you verify these news?

By what criteria do you chose the verifying news site?

I read a lot of news on alternative sites. Their news can often not be verified because MSN will not [or has been told] publish anything about it. The only way to verify would be to travel and meet certain people in person. Yet that doesn't make it fake. It only makes it hard to verify.

Lets take German news about immigrant attacks. They happen regularly yet the German press will not tell the people.
It takes alternative sites [as you may call them fake news sites] or private people's accounts [you may call this unverifiable] to let others know. Again, that doesn't make the news fake, it only makes it hard to verify to YOUR EXPECTATIONS.


In short, I think what you are saying is that only 'officially sanctioned news', from officially sanctioned news outlets are real news because you can trust them and they are easily verifiable because of the integrity of such sites.
News that are not touched by 'officially sanctioned' sites but appear on alternative news sites are automatically wrong because you can't read about them on officially sanctioned sites.

Official traceable sites that all say the same thing = real news
Alternative sites with difficult to trace news = automatically fake [no doubt whatsoever, just ignore, nothing to see, even if it were true].

originally posted by: Hecate666

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Hecate666

originally posted by: underwerks
Real news: Stories that have evidence you can verify.

Fake news: Stories that don't.

Pretty simple if you take off your partisan glasses.

To say that ALL stories you have no evidence for are FAKE is the single most worrying comment I've read in a long time.

Not been reading ATS lately, huh?

And to the rest of your comments, opinion and hunches aren't factual news, they're opinion pieces. People used to know the difference.

I hope you are not deliberately misunderstanding what I said. Read back your description of fake news, then read my post again.
But just in case you need it simplified:

You think that only news that can be verified are real.
YOu think that ALL news that can't be verified are fake.

Where do you verify these news?

By what criteria do you chose the verifying news site?

I read a lot of news on alternative sites. Their news can often not be verified because MSN will not [or has been told] publish anything about it. The only way to verify would be to travel and meet certain people in person. Yet that doesn't make it fake. It only makes it hard to verify.

Lets take German news about immigrant attacks. They happen regularly yet the German press will not tell the people.
It takes alternative sites [as you may call them fake news sites] or private people's accounts [you may call this unverifiable] to let others know. Again, that doesn't make the news fake, it only makes it hard to verify to YOUR EXPECTATIONS.


In short, I think what you are saying is that only 'officially sanctioned news', from officially sanctioned news outlets are real news because you can trust them and they are easily verifiable because of the integrity of such sites.
News that are not touched by 'officially sanctioned' sites but appear on alternative news sites are automatically wrong because you can't read about them on officially sanctioned sites.

Official traceable sites that all say the same thing = real news
Alternative sites with difficult to trace news = automatically fake [no doubt whatsoever, just ignore, nothing to see, even if it were true].

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth.

You verify the news you read by investigating it yourself. Besides that, there's no way to really know. For anyone. If you don't have the time to fully run down a story, maybe you shouldn't let it influence how you feel and think. That would be the smart thing.

Or, like so many here, you can choose not to investigate something because you hope its true.

So, how do you figure out the stories you read on right wing blogs are true? Or is "truth" a relative term to you?