FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[finnbow]

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

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.

[bobabode]

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.

Hell, the Twitter prez loves the National Enquirer along with any other bag o' hammers news source that catches his eye. The pendulum has swung once again and now the far right morons are in charge. I hope these idjits don't get us in a shooting war with China.

Welcome to the Confederate States of Idiocracy.

[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 finnbow

Dunno. Do your own research and refute it with facts (if you, unlike the Trump campaign, belief that facts actually exist).

So the graph could be fake news.

[whell]

Originally Posted by nailer

So the graph could be fake news.

Bingo!

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Dunno. Do your own research and refute it with facts (if you, unlike the Trump campaign, belief that facts actually exist).

I'd love to refute it with facts if you could point me to the answers to my question about something that you want me to simply assume is "fact". Well, how convenient for you. You posted it, but refer any questions about it to someone else? Pathetic.

Frankly, what you've done is posted "fake news" to support your claims about "fake news". And when challenged about your source and their methodology, you're clueless about it.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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.

Your assumption, based on zero facts. Could easily have been the Media Matters types clicking on all that stuff so they could be prepared to post endless blogs about it.

For that matter, as John loves to suggest, it could have been a "false flag" operation.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Your assumption, based on zero facts. Could easily have been the Media Matters types clicking on all that stuff so they could be prepared to post endless blogs about it.

For that matter, as John loves to suggest, it could have been a "false flag" operation.

Here ya go.

But those sites, among the more than a dozen registered by Mr. Latsabidze, were busts. Then he shifted all his energy to Mr. Trump. His flagship pro-Trump website, departed.co, gained remarkable traction in a crowded field in the prelude to the Nov. 8 election thanks to steady menu of relentlessly pro-Trump and anti-Clinton stories. (On Wednesday, a few hours after The New York Times met with Mr. Latsabidze to ask him about his activities, the site vanished along with his Facebook page.)

“My audience likes Trump,” he said. “I don’t want to write bad things about Trump. If I write fake stories about Trump, I lose my audience.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/wo...n-georgia.html

You Trumpinistas are quite something. Trump himself frequently uses fake news from the stump (e.g., thousands of Muslim celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, 3 million illegal votes in California), he praises one of the craziest conspiracy theorists in the the land (Alex Jones), his National Security Advisor (and son on transition staff) tweets the fake news story that resulted in a pizzeria being shot up, he appoints the editor of Breitbart to his White House staff, and fake news generators admit to targeting Trump supporters exclusively and you throw your lot in with Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes who says "There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."

I'm beginning to wonder what it is that Trump must do or say for you to object to it.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Here ya go.

But those sites, among the more than a dozen registered by Mr. Latsabidze, were busts. Then he shifted all his energy to Mr. Trump. His flagship pro-Trump website, departed.co, gained remarkable traction in a crowded field in the prelude to the Nov. 8 election thanks to steady menu of relentlessly pro-Trump and anti-Clinton stories. (On Wednesday, a few hours after The New York Times met with Mr. Latsabidze to ask him about his activities, the site vanished along with his Facebook page.)

“My audience likes Trump,” he said. “I don’t want to write bad things about Trump. If I write fake stories about Trump, I lose my audience.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/wo...n-georgia.html

You Trumpinistas are quite something. Trump himself frequently uses fake news from the stump (e.g., thousands of Muslim celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, 3 million illegal votes in California), he praises one of the craziest conspiracy theorists in the the land (Alex Jones), his National Security Advisor (and son on transition staff) tweets the fake news story that resulted in a pizzeria being shot up, he appoints the editor of Breitbart to his White House staff, and fake news generators admit to targeting Trump supporters exclusively and you throw your lot in with Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes who says "There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."

I'm beginning to wonder what it is that Trump must do or say for you to object to it.

Hey Finn, you're priceless in this thread, and you're doing a great job demonstrating how an average American like you can create "fake news". Pulling Hughes quote out of context is using fine technique for the creating of fake news.

Hughes was actually stating that there was no such thing as facts anymore to individuals on both sides who hold strong positions about politics. Doesn't take a PhD. to notice this. Just spend a few minutes in a forum like this for example and you'll see both sides sometimes interpreting facts in a way that support their positions.

That's exactly what you just did with her quote: pulling it out of context in an attempt to make it sound like she was saying something more like: "Facts??! We don't need no stinkin' facts." That not at all what she said or implied, but that didn't stop you from an attempt to create your own bit of fake news.

See the great service that this thread is providing?