CDZ What News Checker Would You Trust?

[OldLady]

So lefties get to decide what is and is not real? Remind me how you would feel if a right leaning group tried that?

That's the goal of the entire ruse, the masses are to be programmed toward the absence of the concept of truth, everything is suspect, you cannot trust anyone outside your own silo. An utterly fractured, divided, distrustful and hateful population can never truly challenge the status quo.

Oh, and they do, but the system requires that the masses be also programmed to regurgitate that only that "other side" does that stuff.

How do we turn that around?

Stop lying.

Are you responding to someone I have on ignore?

 

[OldLady]

I am not sure what generation you belong to, but propaganda has been around ever since the printing press. The only weapon you have is development of critical thinking skills

I am slightly younger than the printing press, and I am fully aware of propaganda and about how to use critical thinking skills. That is why I am opposed to intentionally floated fake news on a site where millions rely on it for information.

So you SUPPORT shutting down CNN NBC and the big 3 for false advertising and lies on their news programs after they went in the tank for Hillary?

Link me to a bald lie concerning Hillary by NBC, please.

RetiredGySgt
Waiting for that bald lie by NBC or CNN if you prefer?

How about the fact she was supposedly ahead by many points in the polls? What would you call that?

Polls are predictions. Of something that hasn't happened yet. Predictions are not facts. Reporting the results of the polls, some of which DID show Trump ahead, is not lying.

 

[yiostheoy]

I trust AP, BBC, and PBS. The rest are all biased one way or the other. And this time around even Fox was disloyal to Trump.

 

[yiostheoy]

How about the fact she was supposedly ahead by many points in the polls? What would you call that?

Polls are predictions. Of something that hasn't happened yet. Predictions are not facts. Reporting the results of the polls, some of which DID show Trump ahead, is not lying.[/QUOTE]
Apparently LA Times got it right.

But nobody believes the LA Times.

 

[yiostheoy]

Yep, so the fact checkers are not to be trusted either. So, what you have is the government checking to see what is fact or what is not fact. That is pretty dangerous.

Yes, "fact checkers" are pointless, because someone has to then fact-check THEM, and on an on.

This is a cultural issue, and can't be fixed with band-aids.
.[/QUOTE]
PBS does really good fact checking.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am slightly younger than the printing press, and I am fully aware of propaganda and about how to use critical thinking skills. That is why I am opposed to intentionally floated fake news on a site where millions rely on it for information.

So you SUPPORT shutting down CNN NBC and the big 3 for false advertising and lies on their news programs after they went in the tank for Hillary?

Link me to a bald lie concerning Hillary by NBC, please.

RetiredGySgt
Waiting for that bald lie by NBC or CNN if you prefer?

How about the fact she was supposedly ahead by many points in the polls? What would you call that?

Polls are predictions. Of something that hasn't happened yet. Predictions are not facts. Reporting the results of the polls, some of which DID show Trump ahead, is not lying.

Wrong, purposefully LYING about what the polls really say is well LYING. It was obvious for months Hillary was not doing well by the fact NO ONE was coming to her events yet the MSM kept claiming she was miles ahead in the polls. Further they protected her from bad news as well. hiding or low balling bad information as the cycle continued. They were actively supporting her in reporting and actions. And you know it.

 

[OldLady]

I do get that. However, fake news sites are not that subtle.
Fake News Watch – Last updated: 01/18/2016
I am not objecting to opinion pieces. Say for example I decide to float a story in Facebook that the reason Barron Trump is not moving to D.C. is because he is learning disabled and is in a special program that can't be replicated.
That is entirely fake, as far as I know. Easily debunked--information from Barron's school or probably even his pediatrician could shoot this down in an instant. That is the kind of making stuff up some people are defending.

caveat emptor

consumer protection/truth in advertising

I am not spending money

Isn't information even more important than whatever you can purchase?
Or at least AS important?

material items like vitamins can be empirically quantified and I do not have the equipment to do the verification in a reasonable way, so government regs are useful.

News/information would be very hard to empirically or even objectively verify all the time by a government watchdog. It would be an extremely litigious, contentious, and costly endeavor not to mention the government itself is biased and has put out deliberately false information.

Since I am not spending money, and I can read several other sources that already are fact checking the news sources, we have a built in checks and balances mechanism and I see no need for yet another liberal type government intrusion.

I am not advocating for government intrusion. The internet sites can take care of it without the government getting involved. That's why I asked what fact checking organizations people trusted, if any, to give them feedback about news content on the internet. Television and print media can get their asses sued for bald faced lies. That's apparently not so on social media.

 

[OldLady]

So you SUPPORT shutting down CNN NBC and the big 3 for false advertising and lies on their news programs after they went in the tank for Hillary?

Link me to a bald lie concerning Hillary by NBC, please.

RetiredGySgt
Waiting for that bald lie by NBC or CNN if you prefer?

How about the fact she was supposedly ahead by many points in the polls? What would you call that?

Polls are predictions. Of something that hasn't happened yet. Predictions are not facts. Reporting the results of the polls, some of which DID show Trump ahead, is not lying.

Wrong, purposefully LYING about what the polls really say is well LYING. It was obvious for months Hillary was not doing well by the fact NO ONE was coming to her events yet the MSM kept claiming she was miles ahead in the polls. Further they protected her from bad news as well. hiding or low balling bad information as the cycle continued. They were actively supporting her in reporting and actions. And you know it.

So you are saying the polls actually said she was losing but the MSM lied to us and said she was ahead? That the MSM said "So and so reports Hillary Clinton ahead by 5 points" when in fact the poll said she was trailing by 5? If that were the case, why were they so friggin shocked when she lost? You'd think they would at least have been prepared if they knew the truth.
I can't buy that the MSM was making up numbers and not a single polling organization took them to task for it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So you SUPPORT shutting down CNN NBC and the big 3 for false advertising and lies on their news programs after they went in the tank for Hillary?

Link me to a bald lie concerning Hillary by NBC, please.

RetiredGySgt
Waiting for that bald lie by NBC or CNN if you prefer?

How about the fact she was supposedly ahead by many points in the polls? What would you call that?

Polls are predictions. Of something that hasn't happened yet. Predictions are not facts. Reporting the results of the polls, some of which DID show Trump ahead, is not lying.

Wrong, purposefully LYING about what the polls really say is well LYING. It was obvious for months Hillary was not doing well by the fact NO ONE was coming to her events yet the MSM kept claiming she was miles ahead in the polls. Further they protected her from bad news as well. hiding or low balling bad information as the cycle continued. They were actively supporting her in reporting and actions. And you know it.

You are completely inaccurate.

 

[eflatminor]

Me. I trust myself to understand the biases and leanings of various news sources and individuals reporting the news. I take in as many points of view as I care to and draw my own conclusion.

A radical concept for the group thinkers, I understand.

We are essentially consumers of the news, and news deserves the same protection of validity as any other product.

Bullshit. Speech is SPECIFICALLY protected. The effectiveness of a widget is NOT.

Good lord, stop with central planner worship!

It isn't legal for a vitamin producer to advertise that it will add 10 years to your life and they are not allowed to do it.

Are you really that sad? Do you really need a government bureaucrat to tell you this?

My God it must be painful to have such little confidence in your ability to make rational choices.

In any case, such claims need not be illegal, they only need be subject to litigious action if such a claim leads to actual damages. And hey, what do you know, we have that in the civil court system. Stated differently, we're covered. You really don't need nannies to tell you what you can and what you cannot put in your own body.

Why is news, which can be equally important in the choices we make, not subject to any sort of protections whatever, just because they are on the internet?

Try to focus. The manner of communication is irrelevant.

Good gravy...

 

[OldLady]

Me. I trust myself to understand the biases and leanings of various news sources and individuals reporting the news. I take in as many points of view as I care to and draw my own conclusion.

A radical concept for the group thinkers, I understand.

We are essentially consumers of the news, and news deserves the same protection of validity as any other product.

Bullshit. Speech is SPECIFICALLY protected. The effectiveness of a widget is NOT.

Good lord, stop with central planner worship!

It isn't legal for a vitamin producer to advertise that it will add 10 years to your life and they are not allowed to do it.

Are you really that sad? Do you really need a government bureaucrat to tell you this?

My God it must be painful to have such little confidence in your ability to make rational choices.

In any case, such claims need not be illegal, they only need be subject to litigious action if such a claim leads to actual damages. And hey, what do you know, we have that in the civil court system. Stated differently, we're covered. You really don't need nannies to tell you what you can and what you cannot put in your own body.

Why is news, which can be equally important in the choices we make, not subject to any sort of protections whatever, just because they are on the internet?

Try to focus. The manner of communication is irrelevant.

Good gravy...

Central planner worship? I believe I just posted that I'm not advocating the government do the fact checking. I am perfectly comfortable, however, with news articles that are FAKE being tagged as such, which is one of the steps Google is considering. They will link that decision to a fact check organization that explains why it has been determined "fake."
Does that sound more "free" to you?

 

[OldLady]

Me. I trust myself to understand the biases and leanings of various news sources and individuals reporting the news. I take in as many points of view as I care to and draw my own conclusion.

A radical concept for the group thinkers, I understand.

We are essentially consumers of the news, and news deserves the same protection of validity as any other product.

Bullshit. Speech is SPECIFICALLY protected. The effectiveness of a widget is NOT.

Good lord, stop with central planner worship!

It isn't legal for a vitamin producer to advertise that it will add 10 years to your life and they are not allowed to do it.

Are you really that sad? Do you really need a government bureaucrat to tell you this?

My God it must be painful to have such little confidence in your ability to make rational choices.

In any case, such claims need not be illegal, they only need be subject to litigious action if such a claim leads to actual damages. And hey, what do you know, we have that in the civil court system. Stated differently, we're covered. You really don't need nannies to tell you what you can and what you cannot put in your own body.

Why is news, which can be equally important in the choices we make, not subject to any sort of protections whatever, just because they are on the internet?

Try to focus. The manner of communication is irrelevant.

Good gravy...

Dial the passion back a bit. This is the CDZ

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It was 50/50 between Reuters and AP.

Are you sure about Reuters?

They routinely stage shots in war torn areas to try to heighten the emotional impact. During various skirmishes between Israel and Arab terrorists, they use props like children's teddy bears to insert into the photos they take after a terrorist firing position is targeted.

 

[OldLady]

It was 50/50 between Reuters and AP.

Are you sure about Reuters?

They routinely stage shots in war torn areas to try to heighten the emotional impact. During various skirmishes between Israel and Arab terrorists, they use props like children's teddy bears to insert into the photos they take after a terrorist firing position is targeted.

Where did you hear that? I have noticed, though, that almost all the shots are of children. Emotional strings noted.

 

[eflatminor]

Me. I trust myself to understand the biases and leanings of various news sources and individuals reporting the news. I take in as many points of view as I care to and draw my own conclusion.

A radical concept for the group thinkers, I understand.

We are essentially consumers of the news, and news deserves the same protection of validity as any other product.

Bullshit. Speech is SPECIFICALLY protected. The effectiveness of a widget is NOT.

Good lord, stop with central planner worship!

It isn't legal for a vitamin producer to advertise that it will add 10 years to your life and they are not allowed to do it.

Are you really that sad? Do you really need a government bureaucrat to tell you this?

My God it must be painful to have such little confidence in your ability to make rational choices.

In any case, such claims need not be illegal, they only need be subject to litigious action if such a claim leads to actual damages. And hey, what do you know, we have that in the civil court system. Stated differently, we're covered. You really don't need nannies to tell you what you can and what you cannot put in your own body.

Why is news, which can be equally important in the choices we make, not subject to any sort of protections whatever, just because they are on the internet?

Try to focus. The manner of communication is irrelevant.

Good gravy...

Central planner worship? I believe I just posted that I'm not advocating the government do the fact checking. I am perfectly comfortable, however, with news articles that are FAKE being tagged as such, which is one of the steps Google is considering. They will link that decision to a fact check organization that explains why it has been determined "fake."
Does that sound more "free" to you?

Couldn't care less what private organizations do, but that's not what you've advocated. You specifically stated news you think is fake should be "illegal". Private companies have no ability to enforce a law, only government.

So I call bull on your statism.

 

[eflatminor]

Me. I trust myself to understand the biases and leanings of various news sources and individuals reporting the news. I take in as many points of view as I care to and draw my own conclusion.

A radical concept for the group thinkers, I understand.

We are essentially consumers of the news, and news deserves the same protection of validity as any other product.

Bullshit. Speech is SPECIFICALLY protected. The effectiveness of a widget is NOT.

Good lord, stop with central planner worship!

It isn't legal for a vitamin producer to advertise that it will add 10 years to your life and they are not allowed to do it.

Are you really that sad? Do you really need a government bureaucrat to tell you this?

My God it must be painful to have such little confidence in your ability to make rational choices.

In any case, such claims need not be illegal, they only need be subject to litigious action if such a claim leads to actual damages. And hey, what do you know, we have that in the civil court system. Stated differently, we're covered. You really don't need nannies to tell you what you can and what you cannot put in your own body.

Why is news, which can be equally important in the choices we make, not subject to any sort of protections whatever, just because they are on the internet?

Try to focus. The manner of communication is irrelevant.

Good gravy...

Dial the passion back a bit. This is the CDZ

Yes, when you're losing a debate, change the subject. Works every time...

 

[OldLady]

Me. I trust myself to understand the biases and leanings of various news sources and individuals reporting the news. I take in as many points of view as I care to and draw my own conclusion.

A radical concept for the group thinkers, I understand.

We are essentially consumers of the news, and news deserves the same protection of validity as any other product.

Bullshit. Speech is SPECIFICALLY protected. The effectiveness of a widget is NOT.

Good lord, stop with central planner worship!

It isn't legal for a vitamin producer to advertise that it will add 10 years to your life and they are not allowed to do it.

Are you really that sad? Do you really need a government bureaucrat to tell you this?

My God it must be painful to have such little confidence in your ability to make rational choices.

In any case, such claims need not be illegal, they only need be subject to litigious action if such a claim leads to actual damages. And hey, what do you know, we have that in the civil court system. Stated differently, we're covered. You really don't need nannies to tell you what you can and what you cannot put in your own body.

Why is news, which can be equally important in the choices we make, not subject to any sort of protections whatever, just because they are on the internet?

Try to focus. The manner of communication is irrelevant.

Good gravy...

Central planner worship? I believe I just posted that I'm not advocating the government do the fact checking. I am perfectly comfortable, however, with news articles that are FAKE being tagged as such, which is one of the steps Google is considering. They will link that decision to a fact check organization that explains why it has been determined "fake."
Does that sound more "free" to you?

Couldn't care less what private organizations do, but that's not what you've advocated. You specifically stated news you think is fake should be "illegal". Private companies have no ability to enforce a law, only government.

So I call bull on your statism.

Alright. That's a point. But it doesn't require the government to do the fact checking, does it? Rather than "outlawing" fake news (which would be lovely but isn't going to happen), maybe the Google idea of fact checking and then tagging articles that are "fake" with a link to why it's fake would be more sensible. The article still gets to be seen and people who wish can believe it. Those who would prefer real news can read the fact check information and decide for themselves.

 

[OldLady]

Me. I trust myself to understand the biases and leanings of various news sources and individuals reporting the news. I take in as many points of view as I care to and draw my own conclusion.

A radical concept for the group thinkers, I understand.

We are essentially consumers of the news, and news deserves the same protection of validity as any other product.

Bullshit. Speech is SPECIFICALLY protected. The effectiveness of a widget is NOT.

Good lord, stop with central planner worship!

It isn't legal for a vitamin producer to advertise that it will add 10 years to your life and they are not allowed to do it.

Are you really that sad? Do you really need a government bureaucrat to tell you this?

My God it must be painful to have such little confidence in your ability to make rational choices.

In any case, such claims need not be illegal, they only need be subject to litigious action if such a claim leads to actual damages. And hey, what do you know, we have that in the civil court system. Stated differently, we're covered. You really don't need nannies to tell you what you can and what you cannot put in your own body.

Why is news, which can be equally important in the choices we make, not subject to any sort of protections whatever, just because they are on the internet?

Try to focus. The manner of communication is irrelevant.

Good gravy...

Dial the passion back a bit. This is the CDZ

Yes, when you're losing a debate, change the subject. Works every time...

Friendly reminder. I sometimes forget where I am, too.

 

[OldLady]

It was 50/50 between Reuters and AP.

Are you sure about Reuters?

They routinely stage shots in war torn areas to try to heighten the emotional impact. During various skirmishes between Israel and Arab terrorists, they use props like children's teddy bears to insert into the photos they take after a terrorist firing position is targeted.

Dogmaphobe that was a pretty serious accusation. Where did you hear it?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It was 50/50 between Reuters and AP.

Are you sure about Reuters?

They routinely stage shots in war torn areas to try to heighten the emotional impact. During various skirmishes between Israel and Arab terrorists, they use props like children's teddy bears to insert into the photos they take after a terrorist firing position is targeted.

Dogmaphobe that was a pretty serious accusation. Where did you hear it?

I read it several years ago, but I can't remember where.

Reuters, like most of Britain, is notoriously antisemitic in their coverage of issues relating to Arabs and Jews. If you would like to do your own research, I might start you off with this:

. Google

Two of the most common fallacies for which people fall are the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity. The fact that so many news agencies are biased against Jews has led far too many people to become antisemitic, themselves. In a world where there are a thousand Islamic voices to every Jewish one, the entire discussion has become warped by the sheer domination of the Arab point of view. Reuters is British. Antisemitism is rampant in Britain, and the Islamic influence is huge. They are beholden to Arab oil and so have become extremely pro-Arab in their reporting.