FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Legitimate news stories outperformed the fake ones in the early months of the 2016 election campaign. But in the last three months, fake news sources saw their engagement surge. There’s a clear partisan dimension to this story. According to Silverman, 17 out of the 20 fake news stories had information favoring Donald Trump.

You sourced that graph from....ummm....Vox, not an exactly unbiased source of news and a contributor to the hyperbole that accompanies "fake news".

However, maybe you can help me out here a bit. Who at Vox, or their source "BuzzSumo" gets to decide what is / is not fake news with sufficient clarity that they can measure and graph it?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You sourced that graph from....ummm....Vox, not an exactly unbiased source of news and a contributor to the hyperbole that accompanies "fake news".

However, maybe you can help me out here a bit. Who at Vox, or their source "BuzzSumo" gets to decide what is / is not fake news with sufficient clarity that they can measure and graph it?

Dunno. Do your own research and refute it with facts (if you, unlike the Trump campaign, belief that facts actually exist). I've read and seen several interviews with fake news generators, many of whom are non-partisan and only in it for the money. They started out posting equal amounts of pro-Trump (or anti-Hillary) and pro-Hillary (and anti-Trump) fake news, but the fake news directed at pro-Hillary people didn't generate anywhere near as many clicks (from which they get paid by online advertisers) as from the pro-Trump (or anti-Hillary) crowd (up to a factor of 10X). So, therefore they simply posted pro-Trump/anti-Hillary stuff because Trump fans seem less capable of discriminating fact from fiction and ate that stuff up.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by whell

You sourced that graph from....ummm....Vox, not an exactly unbiased source of news and a contributor to the hyperbole that accompanies "fake news".

However, maybe you can help me out here a bit. Who at Vox, or their source "BuzzSumo" gets to decide what is / is not fake news with sufficient clarity that they can measure and graph it?

It's a conjecture graph. It looks cool, supports the point being made and begs many a question.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And the primary purveyor of this particular trash is InfoWars' Alex Jones, a friend of Trump's whose reputation Trump refers to as "amazing" and who one of the very first people to receive a phone call from Trump after the election.

Here's another factoid for you:

Legitimate news stories outperformed the fake ones in the early months of the 2016 election campaign. But in the last three months, fake news sources saw their engagement surge. There’s a clear partisan dimension to this story. According to Silverman, 17 out of the 20 fake news stories had information favoring Donald Trump.

This old news has new relevance in the light of recent revelations re the Russians’ widespread use of social media to influence the election in Trump’s favor. Just how much of this fake news was generated by the ruskies, and fed to the InfoWars idiot?

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Chicks

This old news has new relevance in the light of recent revelations re the Russians’ widespread use of social media to influence the election in Trump’s favor. Just how much of this fake news was generated by the ruskies, and fed to the InfoWars idiot?

The Ruskis spent pre-election on Facebook about a measly $50.000.

What is generally missing from the MSM is the corrupting and corrosive effect of massive sum of Russian money 'slushing' around in the West. This money has corrupted Politicians of all stripes.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Nothing to see here, eh Mike?

'Feds: Woman made death threats to Sandy Hook victim’s parent'

"MIAMI — A Florida woman has been charged with making death threats against the parent of a child who died in the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre because she thought the attack was a hoax, federal authorities announced Wednesday.
Lucy Richards, 57, of Tampa was arrested Monday after a grand jury indictment on four felony counts of transmitting threats, the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.684ba976b640

Interesting that you linked to this article. Its an excellent example of WaPp creating fake news. Here's what the article wants you to believe:

A post apparently written by Tracy maintained that Sandy Hook was faked, that no one was killed and that “local co-conspirators” were paid to pretend to grieve their young children.

That claim is not made by the parents, and in fact the professor in question has never claimed that the Sandy Hook shootings didn't occur, never claimed that "no one was killed." Why would WaPo make that claim?

I'm not saying that the folks who question the information that was reported about the Sandy Hook shooting. I've never met him or seen him on news, but from what I've read I strongly believe that Professor Tracy is a crank. There are plenty of conspiracy theorists out there, and Wapo seems to be playing pretty fast and loose with the facts.

Fake news? Yeah, I think so. Is Tracy blameless here? Well, when you push a stick into a hornets nest, you'd better assume you might get stung, or you're and idiot.

Tracy was an idiot to send a certified letter to the Pozner family demanding for them to prove that one of the photos that were circulating out there of the shooting victims was really their son. What the WaPo story doesn't mention is that one of those same photos showed up a photo montage of kids killed in a Taliban school bombing in Pakistan. That montage is what got the Tracy - again I think the guy is a crank - fired up, and why he sent a letter to the parents, thus stirring up the hornets nest.

To me, seems like some key points for WaPo to leave out, especially since Tracy's beef is not whether or not Sandy Hook occurred, but with the reporting of it, and how the inconsistencies in reporting fueled his...ummm...interesting ideas that there was an effort to embellish or omit reporting on elements of the shooting in an effort to push gun control legislation.

If you're interested, here's the video that is Tracy is connected to.

There! Service provided: fake news addressed.

[donquixote99]

The crazy thing in that graph is the lack of resurgence of interest in the mainstream media as the election neared. Instead the fake stuff, with glitter and button-pushing, effectively captured the bounce.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The crazy thing in that graph is the lack of resurgence of interest in the mainstream media as the election neared. Instead the fake stuff, with glitter and button-pushing, effectively captured the bounce.

Fake news is more entertaining.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Fake news is more entertaining.

Yes. Often not in so good a way....

[finnbow]

And now the Pope speaks out against fake news in very strong terms.

Media that focus on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement, Pope Francis said in an interview published on Wednesday.

Francis told the Belgian Catholic weekly "Tertio" that spreading disinformation was "probably the greatest damage that the media can do" and using communications for this rather than to educate the public amounted to a sin.

Using precise psychological terms, he said scandal-mongering media risked falling prey to coprophilia, or arousal from excrement, and consumers of these media risked coprophagia, or eating excrement.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/08/pope-...liticians.html