The OFFICIAL Fake News Thread


Locutus
#1
yeah, I know eh.

the fake news narrative is just another shot at the "they're stupid" part of nonprogressives are "racist and stupid" narrative. progressives, academics and journalists are unable to give up on smugness, snobbery and bigotry.



Buzzfeed is coming under fire for the methodology of its Facebook exposé.

The presidential election proved to be fertile ground for the growth of fake news stories. As people became annoyed by tall tales such as “Pope Francis Endorses Donald Trump for President” popping up in their Facebook feeds, the mainstream media decided it was time to fight back. As calls for action from Facebook grew louder, Buzzfeed released a bombshell report: Fake news outperformed real news on Facebook in the final months of the election. This was then widely taken as fact, but it turned out to be, well, untrue.

As Tim Carney reports at the Washington Examiner, Buzzfeed’s research methodology was a mess (external - login to view):
The BuzzFeed study looked only at the top 20 election stories, in terms of engagement, by fake websites and compared it to the top 20 election stories from a tiny list of mainstream sites. The list included left-leaning opinion-heavy outlets like Huffington Post and Vox. . . .

So the “Real News” numbers are from an incomplete, odd, and unexplained subsample of the media.
Buzzfeed narrowly defined “real news” to exclude widely read sources such as Yahoo News, Reuters, the Daily Mail, Associated Press, and all newspapers outside New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. This skewed sample undermines Buzzfeed’s claim that fake news “outperformed” real news on Facebook, since it hides the total amount of traffic that real news sources received, furthering the idea that mass exposure to false stories led to Donald Trump’s election.

Since Buzzfeed published the story, its author Craig Silverman has acknowledged that the data are not perfect, and he stated on Twitter that no one should conclude fake news won the election for Trump. But he stands by the conclusion that fake news saw “bigger engagement” than real news during the campaign. This narrow definition of “engagement” is misleading (external - login to view), to say the least.


more


Buzzfeed & Facebook Fake News: Study Methodology Questioned | National Review (external - login to view)


Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors - Small Dead Animals (external - login to view)



#infonewstainment

https://www.google.ca/search?q=lames...KGAssQ_AUIBygC (external - login to view)
Last edited by Locutus; Nov 26th, 2016 at 06:08 AM..
 
Cannuck
+1
#2
Non-progressives aren't racist. Racists are racists. I'm neither a progressive nor a racist. You need to stop being so silly
 
pgs
+3
#3  Top Rated Post
Nobody cares what you think , if you even do .
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#4
This thread is as phoney as a two dollar coin!
 
Cannuck
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

Nobody cares what you think , if you even do .

You know what everybody thinks? Very impressive. Are you related to The Amazing Kreskin?
 
davesmom
+2
#6
The media benefits when they keep stirring up emotions and they will print anything to get the desired reaction from the public.
People should think carefully about what they read and hear and not blindly accept everything that is reported.
 
Cannuck
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by davesmomView Post

The media benefits when they keep stirring up emotions and they will print anything to get the desired reaction from the public.
People should think carefully about what they read and hear and not blindly accept everything that is reported.

You mean Clinton isn't a crook?
 
Danbones
+1
#8
at least read the headline
Fake News About Trump Continues Unabated
Left Wing ***** Media Will Not Change Course
www.moonofalabama.org/2016/11...-unabated.html (external - login to view)
this means you
lol
Last edited by Danbones; Nov 18th, 2016 at 09:25 PM..
 
Remington1
#9
If anything, this makes us aware that many news article are lies. I believe that news agencies should be held accountable for knowingly publishing non-facts to deceive their readers!! It should not be the readers responsibility to have to fact-check everything, it would take forever.
 
tay
#10
David Sirota: Was it "fake news" when our Most Serious Media Outlets pushed the Iraq/WMD myth?

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/stat...977152?lang=en (external - login to view)
 
Curious Cdn
+2
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

David Sirota: Was it "fake news" when our Most Serious Media Outlets pushed the Iraq/WMD myth?

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/stat...977152?lang=en (external - login to view)

It was totally msnufactured, along with the "Orange alert, Red alert" terrorist alarm thing that ran with it. Every pronouncement about Saddam and his arsenal of WMDs was accompanied with a ratcheting up of the alert system ...
"Colin Powell has identified mobile biological warfare labs ORANGE ALERT!! ORANGE ALERT!! "Donald Rumsfeld announces that we"re going to get them." RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! (...visualizing Saddam's palsied hand hovering over the big, red "Launch" button).

"Ya see Billy-Bob! Saddams got somethin real bayad! Thars another RED ALERT!"
 
Locutus
#12
it's a little different now with FB, twitter and all the rest of that sh!t. every moral and intellectually superior 'media' outfit with a twitter account gags to have it's feed read and disseminated as gospel.

anyway morans, seek yer own info and use half a brian won't you.
 
Cannuck
+3
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

seek yer own info and use half a brian won't you.

Brian who?
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

it's a little different now with FB, twitter and all the rest of that sh!t. every moral and intellectually superior 'media' outfit with a twitter account gags to have it's feed read and disseminated as gospel.

anyway morans, seek yer own info and use half a brian won't you.

I'll bet that YOU thought there were WMDs in Iraq.
 
Cannuck
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

I'll bet that YOU though there were WMDs in Iraq.

That's not fair
 
Locutus
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

I'll bet that YOU though there were WMDs in Iraq.

heh.
 
Curious Cdn
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

That's not fair

Just measuring ...

A few years from now, it'll be "I bet that you thought Trump was going to be an improvement"

Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

heh.

I have a tablet and fat fingers.

What's your excuse?
 
Jinentonix
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

I'll bet that YOU thought there were WMDs in Iraq.

Uh, there were. I guess YOU missed the part where they found around 2000 chemical warheads. I guess YOU missed the part where the US (and Britain) provided Iraq with chemical weapons capability back in the '80s.
 
Cannuck
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by JinentonixView Post

Uh, there were. I guess YOU missed the part where they found around 2000 chemical warheads. I guess YOU missed the part where the US (and Britain) provided Iraq with chemical weapons capability back in the '80s.

We all know the media fakes stuff
 
Tecumsehsbones
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

I'll bet that YOU thought there were WMDs in Iraq.

We knew there were. We had the receipts.
 
Johnnny
#21
I read that people were fooled because people erronously believed that the pope suppourted trump, and that is the problem. The problem because 100,000 people shared the story.

But they ignored the part where the majority of the media said that Hillary was garunteed to win which might have made too many people comfortable and they couldnt be too ****ed to vote.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by JohnnnyView Post

I read that people were fooled

*snicker*
 
Johnnny
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

*snicker*

Im a millenial, im still learning

But yea i thought Hillary was going to win also
 
Durry
+2
#24
There has to be a better way for the public to be able to recognize true factual news media organizations.

Btw, did you all notice Peter Manbridge from the CBC almost cried when he realized Trump was going to win when he was reporting the news from Washington.

Sheesh, and we pay this Letiy with our tax money.
 
Curious Cdn
#25
people erronously believed that the pope suppourted trump,

Good, god. Who is THAT thick? Perhaps, the same people who think that Trump is going to "clean up" Wall Street.

He'll clean up, alright.
 
Cannuck
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by DurryView Post

There has to be a better way for the public to be able to recognize true factual news media organizations.

Btw, did you all notice Peter Manbridge from the CBC almost cried when he realized Trump was going to win when he was reporting the news from Washington.

Sheesh, and we pay this Letiy with our tax money.

I Don't watch CBC.... it's for leftards
 
Johnnny
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I Don't watch CBC.... it's for leftards

I read it and ctv and cnn. But i like cbc for the comments section. Usually the financial post provides an alternate view to the cbc. But i also like infomine because for the most part it doesnt usually get political.
 
Durry
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I Don't watch CBC.... it's for leftards

Well you gotta watch it once in awhile to see how your tax money is being squandered.....and to see them cry now that Trump is in.
 
Cannuck
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by DurryView Post

Well you gotta watch it once in awhile to see how your tax money is being squandered.

No you don't
 
Locutus
+1
#30
Paul Joseph Watson Verified account ‏@PrisonPlanet

Actual fake news list.

 

Similar Threads

3
Fake news from CBC
by Locutus | Jan 31st, 2017
0
What about ‘fake news’?
by 10larry | Jan 5th, 2017
0
VNRs and fake news....
by mabudon | Apr 13th, 2006
no new posts