A guide to what is fake news and what is real news

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
Post Reply
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

A guide to what is fake news and what is real news

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:40 am

Fake News
ABC
BBC
Brietbart
BuzzFeed
CNN
The Daily Express
The Daily Mail
The Daily Mirror
The Telegraph
Fox News
Huffington Post
InfoWars
MSNBC
MTV
Natural News
Newsweek
The New York Times
Sky News
Smoloko
The Sun
The Times
Vox
The Washington Post
The Young Turks

Real News
KCNA
Maoist Rebel News
The Morning Star

:D
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:10 am

Well that's one sort of smart thing you have said.
If the circumstances make it such that you can't fuck a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than to let him get the keys to the car.
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8948
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:44 am

The trouble is that none of these are 100% good or 100% bad. They all run credible stories now and then, and all run bad stories sometimes too. Of course, there's a world of difference in degree between infowars or natural news (both mostly bullshit) and CNN or the BBC (both mostly legit).

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:55 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:The trouble is that none of these are 100% good or 100% bad. They all run credible stories now and then, and all run bad stories sometimes too. Of course, there's a world of difference in degree between infowars or natural news (both mostly bullshit) and CNN or the BBC (both mostly legit).
I would say find the least biased news source that you can find, then form your own opinons on the matter based on what you know/what general scientific consensus says.
If the circumstances make it such that you can't fuck a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than to let him get the keys to the car.
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

User avatar
miniboes
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1555
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: Netherlands

Post by miniboes » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:04 pm

RedAppleGP wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:The trouble is that none of these are 100% good or 100% bad. They all run credible stories now and then, and all run bad stories sometimes too. Of course, there's a world of difference in degree between infowars or natural news (both mostly bullshit) and CNN or the BBC (both mostly legit).
I would say find the least biased news source that you can find, then form your own opinons on the matter based on what you know/what general scientific consensus says.
I have a bit of a different approach. I like it when the outlet doesn't act like its neutral, because nobody is. Thus, I try to read both sides and weigh them against each other. Also, science and government publications > news.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:20 pm

miniboes wrote:
I have a bit of a different approach. I like it when the outlet doesn't act like its neutral, because nobody is. Thus, I try to read both sides and weigh them against each other. Also, science and government publications > news.
That actually sounds better. I'm just saying if you look at a neutral source (Wikipedia tends to be neutral), you can get the story without anyone putting it through their agenda. But I do agree you should look at both sides to see what each says. Plus it avoids confirmation bias.
If the circumstances make it such that you can't fuck a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than to let him get the keys to the car.
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sun Jan 15, 2017 6:34 am

RedAppleGP wrote:
miniboes wrote:
I have a bit of a different approach. I like it when the outlet doesn't act like its neutral, because nobody is. Thus, I try to read both sides and weigh them against each other. Also, science and government publications > news.
That actually sounds better. I'm just saying if you look at a neutral source (Wikipedia tends to be neutral), you can get the story without anyone putting it through their agenda. But I do agree you should look at both sides to see what each says. Plus it avoids confirmation bias.
I used to like Wikipedia, and I still do. However, it has a liberal bias, and is biased against communism, socialism and socialist republics like the DPRK.
;)
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:46 pm

miniboes wrote:
Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:04 pm
I have a bit of a different approach. I like it when the outlet doesn't act like its neutral, because nobody is. Thus, I try to read both sides and weigh them against each other. Also, science and government publications > news.
It is tiring when a news network pretends to be unbiased now. Good point.

Even shows like StarTalk on NPR go out of their way to show their politics, which really pisses me off when I want to listen about science. (Unless it's relevant) Of course these days, an online recipe for guacamole can turn into a political debate.

I will say for those in the states, HLN in the morning is decent for reporting stories while only slightly showing their political leanings. When the other networks only focus on the story of the day sometimes, HLN throws in some other news as well.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:19 am

I'd forgotten I made this thread. I think I'd move Maoist Rebel News to the "Fake news" category now as Jason Unruhe is an idiot when it comes to pretty much everything other than the DPRK.
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:23 am

miniboes wrote:
Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:04 pm
Thus, I try to read both sides and weigh them against each other.
To do this is very easy. Just listen to the big media outlets that have a monopoly on truth (e.g. BBC, Channel 4) which pretend to be impartial but secretly harbour a right-wing bias, and listen as well to the alternative media outlets that support the left (e.g. The Canary, The Morning Star). Don't bother with even further-right stuff (e.g. InfoWars) unless you are prepared to lose a couple of brain cells.
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests