Real news vs fake news???

originally posted by: DustybudzZ
Ok so this is something I truly want to understand
How dose one ever really truly know what "news" is "fake news" or the real deal?

a reply to: DustybudzZ

Fake News: Fabricated stories, not based in fact

Real News: Stories which can be verified by evidence, and the evidence used isn't skewed or manipulated.

What 'fake news' isn't meant to be: A derogatory term used when you don't agree with something or inconveniences your worldview.

a reply to: DustybudzZ

Except for those that are opinion provoking thoughts.

Youll see pigs fly long before you see anything resembling truth or that isnt agenda driven from any media .

Like lawyers and politicians - if a media personalities lips are moving their lying to you .

a reply to: ShiveredIce

But how do you truly know what's fabricated and whats fact?
Just because one source says it's true and the other says it's not
Unless you see it with your own eyes how do you ever know how much something has been twisted
there may be some fact there might not be how do you know?

a reply to: DustybudzZ


The way the internet currently works we are forced into a pre-curated newsfeed based on our own initial biases - If you search for a youtube video "Trump Owns Hillary" you will then be suggested other related videos of Trump magaing it up and eventually conservative talking points defeating liberal talking points. If you search for "Hillary won the popular vote" You will then be suggested videos that support the idea that HIllary Clinton was literally robbed of the presidency and eventually liberal talking points defeating conservative talking points.

Once youtube builds a profile for you it will match the common demographics of your profile with the the profiles of other users who are interested in similar things. Not surprisingly, if you've watched a lot of magaing and conservative ownage videos youtube will suggest Fox, Tucker, Shapiro, etc for current events and breaking news. If you've been watching a lot of videos of Trump colluding with russia and The Young Turks youtube will suggest CNN, Rachel Maddow, and Anderson Cooper.

The only way to combat the acceptance of forced narratives is to actively seek as many contrasting positions as you can on any given topic and use your own objectivity, reason, and discernment to decide what is true and what is false. No source should ever be trusted absolutely.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Nope those are the best lol

a reply to: dox0b

Nice I agree

a reply to: DustybudzZ

Real news is journalism that abides by its code of ethics and standards. Fake news is journalism that does not live up to any ethics and standards, whether their own or anyone else’s.

As a general rule of thumb:


If I read it on an opinion piece blog masquerading as a 'news outlet', then it's probably fake.

If I read it on ATS, it's probably fake.

If it's broadcast by a major organisation then it has at least been fact checked enough that they can't get sued for saying it. But I try to filter out the opinion piece parts.

1) The more exotic a story seems, the more likely it is to be a load of horsefeathers.
2) If something looks like a load of horsefeathers, the old rule applies: "Show and tell." Let's see your sources, have links to relevant material, see excerpts of documents, get interviewees on the record (and ideally on video). Unless there's a very good reason for non-transparency throughout a story, treat it with suspicion.

And if you still can't make your mind up, ask yourself: "Who is telling me this, and why?"

(N.b., the above still won't tell you whether you can believe what you are reading, it just tells you how likely it is that it's outright fiction.)

Here is some interesting research by the Harvard/Shorenstein team. It's about Fake News, but they think that term isn't sophisticated enough to describe what's happening online these days. This diagram (from the report) illustrates how they perceive the problem.



So, a site like NeonNettle.com would fall into "misinformation" and "disinformation" but not "malinformation." Something like the DNC leaks might fall into "malinformation." (IMHO "Pizzagate" would fall into all three categories.) It's an interesting way to think about the whole subject.

It's quite long and wordy, but the executive summary is fairly comprehensible, so just read that if you're short of patience.