Sudden Increase In "Satirical" News Stories - Goal Is To Create Confusion

kozmo
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Krazysh0t... I DID think about that as an option. However, these are too well coordinated and originating from seemingly legitimate news sites that have been fed bogus news. These bogus news stories then make their way into the main current of online news - obviously intentionally.

If this was the work of someone trying to gain attention, why all of the effort to obscure the source of the news and spread it virally? Why not take full credit if the limelight is the desired goal?

The two examples that you give, however, would not fall under "seemingly legitimate news sites". I know a lot of people like zerohedge a lot on this site but I've caught them misreporting things in the past. The other one, I've never even heard of before. This, to you, is what is defined as "seemingly legitimate news sites"?

What I'll agree with, wholeheartedly, is that there is such a significant level of misreporting, poorly done satire, biased reporting, even outright disinformation, or even not even reporting at all "out there" on the net in both the mainstream media sources and the more freelance variants. It's beyond ridiculous because at the end of day, how do you know who to believe anymore? The Framers of our constitution felt that a free press was inherently beneficial to democracy. It's an absolute necessity but when faced with what we've got in both press pass carrying journalists and the freelance/blogger variety, how can we come to any appropriate determinations?

It's an absolute aggravation because I grew up in era where I was taught that a journalist was responsible and without bias. That they would investigate the subject matter thoroughly and then, as accurately as possible, report it. It's sad that we've fallen so far that even press-pass carrying journalistic entities are more prone to the sensational (to get those page views!) than actually doing their job.

I don't think Congress should be setting out rules for what defines a journalist. I think that's an equally dangerous pass and an affront to the First Amendment. In fact, any response that we try to take to correct these issues is going to smack the First Amendment square in the jaw. A far better response would be for society to chose their sources very carefully and examine multiple sources for comparison.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I would suspect that the recent focus on *Journalistic Responsibility* is a ruse.

We now live in a "180 degree" world where just about everything said by Watchington D. C. politicians and authorities needs to be viewed opposite of what they say and *Appear* to be doing.

Only then does it make sense.

This 'journalism' ruse is part of the dis-info and psy-ops campaign currently in operation.

The Obama Administration is behind all of it IMO.

They are using grade school level tactics, and it's working like a magic charm.

Since it has been brought up, let's talk about "Freedom of the 'Press'". This is a complete misnomer - in no way does the use of the word "Press" refer to an industry or to a "certified professional". Nope - it refers to an item - a PRINTING PRESS - and guaranteed that every American would have the freedom to print, produce, publish, disseminate and share ANYTHING they wanted without government interference.

We've seen the Democrats scrambling recently to muzzle opposition speech with Diane Feinstein going so far as to state that bloggers do NOT enjoy "freedom of the Press". That is why I am wondering if all of this disinfo, shoddy reporting and satire is designed to change the national mood that would allow the government to muzzle people?