Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That problem resided with Richard Nixon his aide Roger Ailes come up with the idea of a non stop propaganda broadcast. Where you would only hear one side of the story back then something Richard Nixon needed badly.
When people see news they associate it with the channel it is on the news used to be factual and not convoluted with opinion.
I think the 9/11 conspiracies were just conspiracies. If the conspiracy theory videos were political, I think they would have been farther right, with a center-right republican party back then. Generally speaking, the far-right anti-establishment is a bit more confrontational, less educated, and lawless. The far-left anti-establishment is progressive and wants to take money out of politics.I really find it funny how there was zero outrage about "fake news" at a time when people were putting out non stop bullshit relating to george Bush being directly behind 9/11 and all of the "jet fuel cant melt steel beams" stuff was being pumped out and nauseam. Only when Hillary lost an election did these people start caring about fake news.
Yeah, you never hear much criticism about my favorite fake news story of all, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, popularized by the New York Times.I really find it funny how there was zero outrage about "fake news" at a time when people were putting out non stop bullshit relating to george Bush being directly behind 9/11 and all of the "jet fuel cant melt steel beams" stuff was being pumped out and nauseam. Only when Hillary lost an election did these people start caring about fake news.
Youtube: drown them both, problem solved!The far-right anti-establishment is a bit more confrontational, less educated, and lawless. The far-left anti-establishment is progressive and wants to take money out of politics.
Eh, we spent so much time hemming and hawing about whether to invade, they could easily have moved the wmd if they existed, to another country. It was months before we finally moved in.Yeah, you never hear much criticism about my favorite fake news story of all, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
Nope (had to look it up) but tabloid journalism does.Tell me sir, have you ever heard of the phrase yellow journalism and newsman William R. Hearst?
Well the point is the New York Times reported on it with no evidence, no sources. Combine that with no hard evidence, no WMDs and that's not journalism, that's propaganda.Eh, we spent so much time hemming and hawing about whether to invade, they could easily have moved the wmd if they existed, to another country. It was months before we finally moved in.
Google and Facebook either need to be a free and open platform or a news company. This fine line they are walking will not work and I expect a court decision at some point to clear this up. When they pick what news is real or fake they are now a news aggregation service which has an entirely different set of rules and laws.
The Russians also started another US political attack aimed at the midterms, which might have something to do with the timing. Again I don't think this is targeting mainstream media at all, they can't just go removing Fox News and CNN videos without major consequences.
I really find it funny how there was zero outrage about "fake news" at a time when people were putting out non stop bullshit relating to george Bush being directly behind 9/11 and all of the "jet fuel cant melt steel beams" stuff was being pumped out and nauseam. Only when Hillary lost an election did these people start caring about fake news.
Yeah, you never hear much criticism about my favorite fake news story of all, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, popularized by the New York Times.
Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it a fact. A fact is something that can be verified and tested if it is actually true or not. Opinions are conclusions drawn by somoene based on their world view. But one's world view isn't necessarily fact based. And even if it is based on fact, if you don't have all the necessary facts your conclusion can be incorrect, regardless of being based on facts that are verified. Opinions are extensions of facts. Fact A + Fact B = conclusion C. Even if A and B are both verified truths, that doesn't make C a fact yet. C can be proven to be a fact but it has to be verified on it's own and not only asserted trough A and B.All opinions are based on facts. If you are forming opinions based on things YOU don't believe are accurate or true, then you got some core problems ("you" being general).
The variation is the people, not the facts. Facts are by nature invariable once they are proven to be facts. It's people's understanding of and inerpretation of facts that is the variable. And some people just don't have the necessary tools to interpret facts correctly and within the appropriate context.The variation is the facts and truths. And those come from interpreting the world around you. Two people can view that same event, form opposing opinions and BOTH be using the facts. Then it gets into the really slippery stuff, like are facts really that important. Is truth really that important. Do people believe facts if they don't align with emotion or rationality, thus begging the question, which has more weight on a decision. People are complicated. So fucking complicated.
I think you're confused about what I'm saying. I'm saying the New York Times was complicit in trying to convince the public to take us into the Iraq War, despite having no evidence and no stated sources. THAT never seems to be brought up in the discussion of "fake news." The point here is even mainstream news can and has been compromised for fact checking.Apparently you can tell when someone on the internet is a dog. You two have the memory retention of one, anyway. You seriously don't remember "Bush lied people died"? And 9/11 conspiracy theorists get mocked in public every time they show up in the media. I just wish that kind of crazy was as rare now as it seemed back then.
I really find it funny how there was zero outrage about "fake news" at a time when people were putting out non stop bullshit relating to george Bush being directly behind 9/11 and all of the "jet fuel cant melt steel beams" stuff was being pumped out and nauseam. Only when Hillary lost an election did these people start caring about fake news.
Nope (had to look it up) but tabloid journalism does.
I would have loved to see Robin Williams as president with morning addresses in the style of "Good Morning Vietnam!"Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this shit. That's why there are only two people I would ever want in office. George Carlin or Robin Williams, but sadly both these legends are dead and hated the government with a sincere passion.
SPLC is fake news.Just let the Southern Poverty Law Center handle all the story vetting, and things will be fine.
I mean, they're Southern, so they can't be leftists, but they're supporting the poor, so they can't be right-wingers, and they're a law center, which implies lawyers, and we know we can trust those folks implicitly.
Therefore, they're the most unbiased and reliable vetting organization in the country. Must acquit.
90% of Fox's shows at 'analysis/opinion/editorial talk shows'. They are like are the current events & 'professional' version of Oprah or the VIEW. For actual news that occurs when they cut away during those shows. I think they have a handful of hour long News blocks mostly during the day. Just seems pretty clear to me with I'm looking at someone who is not trying to pretend to be something other than a pundit with Fox New. The problem is CNN they do analysis/opinion/editorialize interweaved with an uninterrupted "Newsie" atmosphere and their news segments.Once news became entertainment, it all became a toss up whether what was being told was accurate or not. 'If it bleeds, it leads" became the standard by which our news media judged something reported, rather than if it was entirely thorough and accurate. This started back when Roone Arledge went from sports to news director at ABC news and made it just another show instead of news. As their ratings increased, other news outlets followed suit. Today, it's impossible to even have two sources to determine what's real and what isn't. I started out reading the NY times as a teen, believing it to be presenting facts. By the 80's I added the Wall Street Journal to get a capitalist's opinion of what was going on. But the times had a reporter who knowingly plagerized his work in school, yet the times kept him on, essentially telling it's readers that it didn't care about the integrity of it's reporters. Now the Journal is owned by the same company that runs the NY Post and the Fox network.
So we no longer have anything to rely on, as always being accurate. it's all potentially fake news. I know that Fox and friends, as well as Hannity is full of it. I expected that from them. At the moment, they are countered by Chris Wallace and Shep Smith, who seem to have a better grasp on reality. Same with how MSNBC and CNN need their better reporters to counter Lawrence ODonnell and Rachel Maddow, both of whom I have personally caught twisting facts right on video, and can't understand why they are still on the air. Is it because they do opinion pieces? How does a news channel manager live with himself allowing this crap on the air? Brian Williams is another. He got caught making up stories and presenting them as truth. After that, no one can trust him without having to fact check whatever he says, with another reporter. So basically everything he says is worthless. Yet, he still sits at the desk at MSNBC, helping to make it, too, seem like a news outlet that doesn't care about facts or it's reputation as a reliable news source.
We no longer have news companies owners who care about being viewed as honest businessman willing to stand up for what is true. Everything is done ONLY for profits now.
It's all potentially fake news. So youtube is as good a source, as anything else.
I think the 9/11 conspiracies were just conspiracies. If they were political, they would have been far right, with a center-right republican party back then. The far-right anti-establishment is a bit more confrontational, less educated, and lawless. The far-left anti-establishment is progressive and wants to take money out of politics.
I think the youtube changes are because of the amount of disinformation has grown exponentially over the past 4 years, and everyone is focusing on the problem now. If they let it continue, they will lose advertisers and end users. The Russians also started another US political attack aimed at the midterms, which might have something to do with the timing. Again I don't think this is targeting mainstream media at all, they can't just go removing Fox News and CNN videos without major consequences.
The conspiracy theories were saying how the government planned 9/11. Anti-government has some far-right ideologies if you were to attribute this politically. Or you can dismiss it as random conspiracy theorists and attention seekers as I have. I'm sorry if that hurts your ring wing political view point.Wait, what? What does that even mean? If they were political, they would have been "far right?" WHa? How?/ What? "The far left establishment is progressive and wants to take money out of politics." Jesus christ, you really are living in la la land, aren't you?
Show me any evidence that the amount of misinformation has grown "exponentially" over the last 4 years. There has always been misinformation, and that misinformation was front in center during the Bush years. Yeah, I don't like Bush either, but if you believe that GWB planned 9/11 or knew it was going to happen ahead of time and wanted it to happen you are an insane person, and yes left wing people were pushing this left and right.
You really just believe whatever bullshit MSNBC tells you, don't you?
By the way, here is a poll of democrats and 22.6% of democrats believed that it was very likely that the US government was either behind 9/11 or at least knew about it and planned for it to happen. Another 28% of democrats said it was "somewhat likely."
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-...n-half-of-democrats-believed-bush-knew-035224
----------------------------------------------------------
"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" the poll asked.
A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was "very likely." Another 28.2% called it "somewhat likely."
That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks."
--------------------------------
9/11 conspiracy theories FLOODED the internet during this period. And nobody on the left was worried about fake news then.
How about they get rid of clickbait videos?
You know the type with red circles or arrows pointing at something.
You know how you know the Russia Narrative is purely political.
No, alternative facts are not opinions. Alternative Facts means one side is rejecting what the other side is reporting. So say you have this situation:
Side 1: Reports on a topic, get things 90% accurate, but omits key information.
Side 2: Reports on a topic, gets things 45% accurate and also omits key information.
Both sides report the other as having "alternative facts."
In other words, it's a shit show.
Far Right are not anti-government. They are extremely authoritarian, you need government for that. OTOH I've never agreed with what is called the "Far Right" being in that position. Anti-government or Small Government is Right-Leaning or libertarian. Anti-government is actually 'anarchist' which is what the ultra Far Left likes to travel under these days. It's more nebulous and less corny than calling yourself a revolutionary.The conspiracy theories were saying how the government planned 9/11. Anti-government is a far-right ideology if you were to attribute this politically. Or you can dismiss it as random conspiracy theorists and attention seekers as I have. I'm sorry if that hurts your ring wing political view point.
Why aren't they against just plain Money in politics? Why is corporate money more corrupting than the money from the rich dudes that own, lead, and profit from corporations? Corporations are shells for the will of the rich that own and profit from them. Any nefarious dealings with politicians concerning corporations likely happen at the owner level. A corportaion keeps too many records. It's sort of moot anyway, corporations give equally to both sides if not more to the side they're suppose to be more afraid of. I'm pretty sure people say corporate money to excuse the immense piles of cash the Democrats seem to collect but criticize the immense piles of cash the republicans collect due to false reputations of each. Pro-tip: they both get their money from the virtually the same people.The far-left is against corporate money influencing corrupt politicians, and believes that people should be elected to represent the interest of the people, not corporate interests (anti-corporation).
The conspiracy theories were saying how the government planned 9/11. Anti-government is a far-right ideology if you were to attribute this politically. Or you can dismiss it as random conspiracy theorists and attention seekers as I have. I'm sorry if that hurts your ring wing political view point.
The far-left is against corporate money influencing corrupt politicians, and believes that people should be elected to represent the interest of the people, not corporate interests (anti-corporation). You would have to take a few twists and turns to say Bush did 9/11 because some company or enemy of the state donated a million dollars to his campaign contributions, or because his company would personally benefit. I don't remember that being the narrative. On all sides, there are gullible people who believe in conspiracy theories that you can poll. However, not all conspiracy theorists are politically motivated, some are just conspiracies. That was my point.
I don't believe the conspiracy videos were politically motivated.Far Right are not anti-government. They are extremely authoritarian, you need government for that. OTOH I've never agreed with what is called the "Far Right" being in that position. Anti-government or Small Government is Right-Leaning or libertarian. Anti-government is actually 'anarchist' which is what the ultra Far Left likes to travel under these days. It's more nebulous and less corny than calling yourself a revolutionary.
Why aren't they against just plain Money in politics? Why is corporate money more corrupting than the money from the rich dudes that own, lead, and profit from corporations? Corporations are shells for the will of the rich that own and profit from them. Any nefarious dealings with politicians concerning corporations likely happen at the owner level. A corportaion keeps too many records. It's sort of moot anyway, corporations give equally to both sides if not more to the side they're suppose to be more afraid of. I'm pretty sure people say corporate money to excuse the immense piles of cash the Democrats seem to collect but criticize the immense piles of cash the republicans collect due to false reputations of each. Pro-tip: they both get their money from the virtually the same people.
Wow, you are seriously a moron. You are just defining things narrowly in a manner that suits your worldview. You are seriously saying that, by definition, to be anti government is right wing, therefore 9/11 conspiracy theories are right wing? Seriously, are you a small child? So you're saying 50% of the DEMOCRATS polled above in the link I gave were "right wing?" I'm actually baffled.
Equally baffling is your view that the far left is simply against money in politics. I'm really not in favor of corporate money in politics, so according to you, I'm far left? Dude, you clearly have no idea who the far left is. That, or you are purposely trying to spread some sort of lie.
If I were to interpret what he was saying, I don't think he means being against money in politics is EXCLUSIVE to the far left, of course people in other camps can be against it also. I think what he meant is being against money in politics is part of what defines the far left. In other words, if you're on the left, but are okay with money as speech, or giant donations from any one source, that automatically means you're NOT on the far left, since that's one of the biggest issues that separates the far left from the establishment left.Equally baffling is your view that the far left is simply against money in politics. I'm really not in favor of corporate money in politics, so according to you, I'm far left? Dude, you clearly have no idea who the far left is. That, or you are purposely trying to spread some sort of lie.
I really find it funny how there was zero outrage about "fake news" at a time when people were putting out non stop bullshit relating to george Bush being directly behind 9/11 and all of the "jet fuel cant melt steel beams" stuff was being pumped out and nauseam. Only when Hillary lost an election did these people start caring about fake news.
I think the 9/11 conspiracies were just conspiracies. If the conspiracy theory videos were political, I think they would have been farther right, with a center-right republican party back then. Generally speaking, the far-right anti-establishment is a bit more confrontational, less educated, and lawless. The far-left anti-establishment is progressive and wants to take money out of politics.