60 minutes report on Fake news sites states there are "Liberal" fake news sites....

[Bill USA]

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 05:20 PM - Edit history (2)

.. leaving the viewer to complete the statement.. "they're not all Conservative sites"

What's "fake news"? 60 Minutes producers investigate

Well, is Pelley trying to leave viewers with the impression that there is a rough parity here??

The Fake News Checker site on it identifies 55 Liberal leaning sites it has determined are fake news sites. How many Conservatie leaning fake news sites? 263.



The PBI show All things Considered talked to the same Fake NEws purveyor 60 Minutes did. And they asked him about how well fake news went over with Conservatives and Liberals.

During the run-up to the presidential election, fake news really took off. "It was just anybody with a blog can get on there and find a big, huge Facebook group of kind of rabid Trump supporters just waiting to eat up this red meat that they're about to get served," Coler says.

How about with Liberals?...

"We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out."

[font size="3"] But this doesn't consider the volume of fake news items.[/font]

an analysis of Fake news popularity vs real news by Buzzfeed revealed Fake news beat out real news:

This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News On Facebook

From a very quick look at their data
it looks as if Conservative pandering headlines seem to outnumber those that might appeal to "Liberals" by about 7 to 1.

[Jonny Appleseed]

1. Fake news doesn't warp liberal's perception of reality

They usually realize as soon as they receive conflicting information from a reputable source, unlike the right, who just double down on their bullshit.

[Archae]

11. Oh REALLY??!!??

You know how many times I've seen "news" posted here from "March Against Monsanto," or "Natural News?"

[Jonny Appleseed]

12. But has it fundamentally distorted your values?

[Soundspace]

2. I appreciate it but that is way too many sites to try to go through

to find out something.

[BlueMTexpat]

3. The Fake News Checker

says this about DU:

Democratic Underground publishes information from a left biased position with an advocacy for liberal causes. The editorial content and headlines are often loaded with strong words to appeal to emotions and stereotypes. They may publish misleading reports, cite unverified sources, reference bogus reports and omit information that may damage their cause. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion and/or propaganda. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

It also calls DU "Untrustworthy News."

Read with an open mind. This news source is untrusted and controversial. These articles are for informational purposes only. Check the facts against multiple trusted news sources.

[yurbud]

5. what all these sites fail to mention is which sites they consider trustworthy

[yurbud]

6. would networks uncritically giving air time to politicians they know are lying count as "fake news"?

Or newspapers that publish war propaganda that even common sense should tell them is a childish lie?

[BlueMTexpat]

8. Very good question!

[Bill USA]

9. the site, Fake News Checker provides what I consider to be a starting point. I question comparing

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)

sites like DU which are forums for discussion/debate to sites which present themselves as news sources and who generate their own content.

The site only gives a description of the content of a given site, with conclusions -- without citing evidence or examples which substatiate their conclusions. This then is mere opinion devoid of supporting evidence. Thus the Fake News Checker site itself qualifies as a Fake News site. But, I believe it can be used as a starting point.


I thought DU could use a listing of Fake News sites, as a resource to help anybody who wants to be able to check on dubious cites. I started a Fake News sites, a Listing in Propaganda Debunking (Group). My intention was to have a listing to which DUers could post names of any Fake News site they found, along with the supporting evidence. This could be an article that makes a persuasive case that the nominated site is a Fake News purveyor, andor examples of Fake News items from the site.
[font size="3"]
... Who knows, as tool a for watching out for fledgling Fox News sites, if it was referred to by DUer's on other internet sites (e.g. Facebook), with a link, it just might add to DU's cachet, as one of the sites most hated by Conservatives and other Con-men. [/font]

[BlueMTexpat]

10. I question that comparison too ...

especially when most posters on DU take pains to link to sources with generally-accepted credibility.

[yurbud]

4. the more you know and the more sources you get info from, the easier it is to spot bullshit

the right relies on a handful of sources, all US oriented.

[yurbud]

7. that site seems to confuse opinion with fake news