quote:

Recently Google and Facebook announced that they would be cracking down on ‘fake news’ sites that routinely make the rounds on social media with salacious headlines and outlandish stories. Many people rejoiced. We’ve all been annoyed by some ridiculous headline shared hysterically by a friend or family member.

“Obama to Imprison All White People!”

“Michelle Obama Says She Wishes America Would Catch Fire and Die!”

“George Bush Says He Hopes to Own Slaves One Day!”

It is supremely annoying that anyone makes those headlines, let alone shares them.

On Wednesday the L.A.Times published a compilation of ‘fake news’ sites written by an assistant professor at a Massachusetts college. Melissa Zimdars included a lot of verified ‘fake news’ sites, including Addicting Info and Being Liberal. Sadly she also included a few very established and legitimate news organizations as well.

Zimdars’ claims that not all of these sites are fake news. Some are identified as only using ‘misleading’ or ‘click-baity’ headlines. Of course, Redstate doesn’t belong in any of these categories, but it did not stop her from lumping us into one big “FAKERS WHO FAKE WRITE ABOUT FAKE THINGS!” category. As my colleague at Redstate points out, isn’t it funny that Buzzfeed – the originators of the click-bait headlines – are not on this?

Zimdars includes conservative media giants IJReview, The Blaze, and Redstate – all organizations that provide aggregate reporting and opinion pieces. Having worked for all three organizations at one point or another, I can say with full certainty that not one is a ‘fake news’ site – or even misleading.

In fact, RedState writers go to great lengths to debunk false stories they find in the media. RedState has produced some of the top conservative talents, including former Editor-in-Chief Erick Erickson, and regularly features articles submitted by members of the House and Senate and from presidential candidates. The RedState Gathering is covered by major media, and has top caliber speakers and was even the site of the announcement of a Presidential campaign (Rick Perry.) RedState content is regularly featured in the mainstream press and has been quoted frequently by even such old-school journalism outlets as The New York Times many times this year alone.

IJReview is based in Washington D.C. and has a very strong and lucrative relationship with Facebook, even teaming up with the social media behemoth to produce one of the primary debates. Their reputation on Capitol Hill is well-known, and politicians and high-profile media personalities regularly contribute guest posts.

The Blaze provides a lot of opinion pieces some people like Zimdars might disagree with, but they most certainly do not post ‘fake news’ or even misleading headlines. MSNBC regularly produces sensational headlines that aren’t backed up by the research but funny enough; they are nowhere on this list. No mainstream liberal reporting agency is on this list.

Zimdars’ list is making the rounds today, and it is outrageous. She needs to put herself on her list, as it is salacious and irresponsible and just a click-bait piece. The L.A.Times needs to be on this list for publishing it! Shame on you all.

Zimdars’ lack of perspective is dangerous. It affects the lives of good, hardworking writers who excel at bringing the latest news and opinion to their readers. This is not a game; this is our livelihood.

And the Los Angeles Times used a misleading combination of screenshot and text in a tweet about “fake” news, compounding the problem.

The L.A.Times and Zimdars owe our organization and others mentioned an apology and a retraction. I demand both, as an op-ed writer dedicated to honesty in opinion and reporting.

I hate the fake news sites as much as the next person, but I am incredibly leery of the powers-that-be at Google and Facebook having the power to block what they consider fake news. Someone has to make the judgment about what is fake, and that someone will come to the table with their ignorance and bias. That is extremely dangerous for good, honest writers who work for organizations like Redstate – conservative organizations that might not portray the same point of views as the 21-year-old college intern deciding what’s “fake” in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"That Fake List of “Fake” News Sites Is An Actual Problem"

quote:

Recently Google and Facebook announced that they would be cracking down on ‘fake news’ sites that routinely make the rounds on social media with salacious headlines and outlandish stories. Many people rejoiced. We’ve all been annoyed by some ridiculous headline shared hysterically by a friend or family member.

“Obama to Imprison All White People!”

“Michelle Obama Says She Wishes America Would Catch Fire and Die!”

“George Bush Says He Hopes to Own Slaves One Day!”

It is supremely annoying that anyone makes those headlines, let alone shares them.

On Wednesday the L.A.Times published a compilation of ‘fake news’ sites written by an assistant professor at a Massachusetts college. Melissa Zimdars included a lot of verified ‘fake news’ sites, including Addicting Info and Being Liberal. Sadly she also included a few very established and legitimate news organizations as well.

Zimdars’ claims that not all of these sites are fake news. Some are identified as only using ‘misleading’ or ‘click-baity’ headlines. Of course, Redstate doesn’t belong in any of these categories, but it did not stop her from lumping us into one big “FAKERS WHO FAKE WRITE ABOUT FAKE THINGS!” category. As my colleague at Redstate points out, isn’t it funny that Buzzfeed – the originators of the click-bait headlines – are not on this?

Zimdars includes conservative media giants IJReview, The Blaze, and Redstate – all organizations that provide aggregate reporting and opinion pieces. Having worked for all three organizations at one point or another, I can say with full certainty that not one is a ‘fake news’ site – or even misleading.

In fact, RedState writers go to great lengths to debunk false stories they find in the media. RedState has produced some of the top conservative talents, including former Editor-in-Chief Erick Erickson, and regularly features articles submitted by members of the House and Senate and from presidential candidates. The RedState Gathering is covered by major media, and has top caliber speakers and was even the site of the announcement of a Presidential campaign (Rick Perry.) RedState content is regularly featured in the mainstream press and has been quoted frequently by even such old-school journalism outlets as The New York Times many times this year alone.

IJReview is based in Washington D.C. and has a very strong and lucrative relationship with Facebook, even teaming up with the social media behemoth to produce one of the primary debates. Their reputation on Capitol Hill is well-known, and politicians and high-profile media personalities regularly contribute guest posts.

The Blaze provides a lot of opinion pieces some people like Zimdars might disagree with, but they most certainly do not post ‘fake news’ or even misleading headlines. MSNBC regularly produces sensational headlines that aren’t backed up by the research but funny enough; they are nowhere on this list. No mainstream liberal reporting agency is on this list.

Zimdars’ list is making the rounds today, and it is outrageous. She needs to put herself on her list, as it is salacious and irresponsible and just a click-bait piece. The L.A.Times needs to be on this list for publishing it! Shame on you all.

Zimdars’ lack of perspective is dangerous. It affects the lives of good, hardworking writers who excel at bringing the latest news and opinion to their readers. This is not a game; this is our livelihood.

And the Los Angeles Times used a misleading combination of screenshot and text in a tweet about “fake” news, compounding the problem.

The L.A.Times and Zimdars owe our organization and others mentioned an apology and a retraction. I demand both, as an op-ed writer dedicated to honesty in opinion and reporting.

I hate the fake news sites as much as the next person, but I am incredibly leery of the powers-that-be at Google and Facebook having the power to block what they consider fake news. Someone has to make the judgment about what is fake, and that someone will come to the table with their ignorance and bias. That is extremely dangerous for good, honest writers who work for organizations like Redstate – conservative organizations that might not portray the same point of views as the 21-year-old college intern deciding what’s “fake” in the first place.

http://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2016/11/16/la-times-publishes-list-fake-news-sites-names-redstate-ijreview-blaze/

meanwhile, we can wait for some clever in his own eyes comrade to decry fox news too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Can't anyone simply judge the content instead of the source and then use the right keywords and names in their own internet search to get different slants on it and figure out the truth is usually somewhere in the middle ?

I can and I am a highschool dropout. I am self educated. I can do a square root longhand, can you ? I can tell you how the engine control module in your car works, can you ?

I come from a family of arguers and they were not 100 % honest either.

I haven't been to American Free Press for a while because they took out the external links. I guess they want to know who wants to read THEIR content. Not unreasonable. But they got some good writers and a hell of a real conservative bent on it. Which I like actually except for the religion part. But from them I can get names and I can put those names into Google and get results all over the place. And when CNN, BBC, RT and PressTV all concur on most things, you are fairly close to the truth. I don't even bother anymore. I already know what they want to tell me. All they can tell me is if someone got killed or some shit like that. Thopugh I do have to admit that I thought Clinton was going to win, but by a very small margin. Look what happened, she got the populous vote by a very small margin but but slick Donny got it by using good strategy. And I never watched any of their speeches. So I got it right but worng, she got 2 million more votes but he got a ton more electoral votes. Who is wrong ?

But as far a news sites, I think I am going to start going with The Onion.

T^T