WND, Breitbart, TownHall, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, Faux, Daily Caller, InfoWars, you are on notice.

There is a list on the website that Lee posted already

 

I'm not responsible for people making false assumptions. But nice try. I provided the link to the site so anyone could research it.

 

I see fake news in a very basic manner. For me it is the absence of journalistic standards, as genuine journalism will always give both sides to an issue or story, or more than two sides if more than two sides exist. And so, regardless of the example that one might give you, it would have to meet that basic requirement in order to determine if it were actual journalism, or propaganda. Propaganda will always give only one side, and ignore contrary voices, in order to get one to believe the one side is the only side and therefore the truth.

Now, I can get both sides of an issue or story, if it is featured on CSPAN. They will have one guest with one belief, and people can call in to ask that persons questions, and then this will be followed up by another guest who does not agree with the first guest. So, you will get both sides, not just one side, and then one must use one's education and brain in order to determine where the truth lies, if there is some truth to be found.

Once upon a time, federal regulations required that both sides be presented, for we were wise enough to know that partisanship does not want journalistic standards. For partisans, by their nature, want to bring people on the fence to their side, of their beliefs. And perhaps we wanted people to actually use their own brains, instead of being told what to think? For being told what to think, while leaving out contrary voices, is in fact, basic propaganda.

One wonders by your question if you were even aware of journalistic standards and how that is a means test for journalism over propaganda? Many people are clueless about this issue.

If you approach any news outlet, being very aware of the tactics used in propaganda, intensely aware, and also very aware of journalistic standards being used or not being used, you have the tools one needs in order to discern what you are actually looking, reading, or listening to. It is really that simple. And I would say if you consistently brought these two things to the table, you personally would be shocked as to what you are actually hearing or seeing. And there would be little doubt of it. That so few besides myself brings this up surely is evidence that few really care about real journalism, nor do they care about propaganda unless it is being used against their partisan beliefs.

And since so many of us take editorials, partisan, biased editorials as gospel, the best thing our gov't could do for our own people is to regulate this, and require than any editorial comes with another contrary voiced editorial right below it. While never forgetting the various tools of propaganda that are classic. And if you see these propaganda tactics used by the author, you should immediately dismiss it as not being worthy of serious consideration. For the bastard is trying to condition your thinking, using deception. And you have a partisan, ideologically driven lying son of a bi*tch, trying hard to condition you, with deception. I don't think modern partisanship can exist without deceptive propaganda, generally speaking.

 

[To recoup the investment, NewsGuard will try to license its reviews and nutrition labels to search and social networking platforms. These platforms, like Google (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), Facebook, and Twitter, have come under severe scrutiny for allowing so-called "fake news" to spread.

Brill is reluctant to talk about specific talks with the tech companies, but when asked if there are any signs the companies will pay up, he said yes.

"We're asking them to pay a fraction of what they pay their P.R. people and their lobbyists to talk about the problem," he said on "Reliable Sources."]

This smells a bit fishy to me, I can't tell if Newsguard is another media filtering device or a shakedown of Big Tech, offering them the appearance of legitimacy for Big Techs filtering.

 

The country would be far, far, far, better off if the Fairness Doctrine had not been repealed by Reagan. We should all be working to bring it back. Shortly thereafter conservative talk radio exploded and Faux began broadcasting.

 

The Right ALWAYS accuse others of what they do themselves!

YOU didn't see it simply because YOU didn't look!
https://newsguardtechnologies.com/our-investors/

 

I think there's obviously a place for a true, independent (and not government funded, as Democrats are trying to do in California) news source truth aggregator.

This would hopefully eliminate the "news" stories you cited, as well as forcing the leftist mainstream media to be a bit more circumspect in their reporting.

What do I mean by this?

One of the reasons for such horrible, biased and fact-challenged reporting from the mainstream news agencies is their rush to be first; from CNN reporting about the Japanese fish feeding scandal committed by Trump to his removing the bust of MLK from the Oval Office, the mainstream media in many cases has become just as unreliable as the obvious fake news sources on the right. The only difference; while the mainstream news agencies eventually correct their errors, the fake news sites don't.

But I've noticed here that many on the left, after seeing the original fake news about Trump's fish feeding or removing the MLK bust or Sarah Palin being responsible for the Gabby Gifford shooting, have no idea they originally consumed fake news because they never saw the correction. And many here reject respected platforms such as National Review in their desire to banish information that disagrees with their own political outlook.

You bring up a great point about a fact checking organization proving why a story is false; this is missing from many current 'fact check' sites.

I think everyone would agree a non-government, respected organization is needed to be a truly accurate 'fact checker' that is independent of left, right or corporate media. How we get there, and how it pays for itself, is the key...

 

I agree, along with the deregs of clinton which allowed the rise of the 6 huge corporate owned news outlets known as MSM. Wisdom is what created those regulations in the first place, and ignorance is what deregulated them. Same with the banks. They were regulated because you cannot leave a banking system up to the greed of bankers, and our regulated banking system was very sound for decades. We only saw the banking system become risky after deregs. A sound banking system, but less profitable for the big banksters, turned into casinos, with higher risks, which means higher profits. And this led to major universities creating courses that aided in the creation of exotic instruments of profits, involving a sector of our economy which produces nothing, and just shuffles money around. It also saw the rise in power of the big banks, usurping large corporations as being the most powerful lobby on K Street. It financialized like never before a sector in our economy. Giving the banksters much more power than seen since we regulated them to give america a sound banking system. With this new found power of the big banks being tremendously involved in the newest scheme to create greater income disparity that I call slave labor globalism.

 

Salon is one of the most predictably craven { Unamerican } sites
in America.They basically exist to take any news story and turn it
on it's side in order to prove how proud and unabashed liberal they are.
Funny that Joan Walsh is a supposed diehard San Fransico
Giants fan.Who recently was let go from her role as Regular
at MSNBC.
I was instrumental in helping expose her Salon - Letters -
message board.By use of satire.This was around the time she was
using her book { almost finished } as cushy excuse for not defending
her site and her crowd of toadies enough on their - Letters - board.
She is so utterly predictable.Especially when on - Hardball -.
Uses the same words to feign dismay and shock.
Kinda like the Bad Reagan.Ron Reagan jr. { son of President Reagan }
and regular on - Hardball -. The guy's a complete twirp.
Makes perfect sense.He was an Air America host.

 

The link lists the investors.

When they rate a liberal newspaper lowly you will be singing their praises.

To already have your defense before the first review reeks of fear.

 

That was quite the rant. Apparently you are against everything that the GOP stands for but support their agenda nonetheless.

What does any of that have to do with the death of the Fairness Doctrine?

 

The bolded statement is a cheap shot that I COULD say was given because of your lack of evidence to prove your point and answer my question. Your post states the obvious so how about this. Give an example of "true" journalism from the past that would meet your standards.
The point I'm making is the press has ALWAYS been biased, particularly in editorials (that's what they are supposed to be-an opinion) which is why Fox is so dangerous. They have only 90 minutes of 24 hrs devoted to news and a lot of that is fiction (Muslum immigrants raped a HS girl). The rest is opinion that people take as fact.

 

My understanding is that they will be rating individual stories not news outlets

 

George Soros and the People's Republic of China.

 

I absolutely agree the desire to be first is the culprit in some inaccurate reporting. I guess what I'd say about the stories you mentioned is they are harmless by comparison to the false impression conservative sites have permanently left with their audience like the lies about Obama's birthplace and ACORN.

 

Since you made it up, obviously you think it's pretty funny!

 

I get it .Like how the Networks were The First to Report on Obama's
Illegal Operation - Fast & Furious -.
Or when his AG { Eric Holder } was found in Contempt
of Congress { The Only Active cabinet member ever }.
Or when Obama was caught Paying Ransom to the Iran regime
for American prisoners.Millions in hard cash in the dead of night aboard
a cargo plane.
Or like how Obama was Interviewed as to what he was doing the
night of the Benghazi attack.
Or like now and how Obama is being taken to task for being
outted as a Liar ... Again.He did and has Spied on Americans.
In particular Trump and those in his orbit.

 

LOL? If you think the garbage you repeat and make up on this site is mainstream, you need to adjust your tinfoil hat.

 

Your defense is that it's not your fault that people believed you?

You're right. You have given us plenty of reasons to have known better.

 

I did not mean it as a cheap shot, given the number of people who have no idea in regards to journalistic standards, and the techniques of propaganda. You just took it in the worst possible manner.

There is certainly no lack of evidence that journalistic standards are largely missing in MSM coverage. I figured if you knew about those standards, you would need no help in verifying what I posted. Same with propaganda, discerning it by knowing the classic propaganda techniques in use today. If you know about both, and spend even an hour surfing the various news outlets, it becomes self evident. They are very glaring for the people who look for them. And if one spent a week, in observation, it would be very obvious. For it is prolific and as common as the name, "Jones"

So one can verify this for oneself, and if you want to be entertained you could even list who are the worst offenders. No way in hell am I just making stuff up, and I have listened to a couple journalists make the same claim, one of them being Greenwald. He even dissected one of the good journalists at the Intercept, in a face to face confrontation, laying out specifically the man's flawed journalism on a particular story that the fellow was apparently being partisan about. And forsaking journalistic standards. It is just too easy to do, and it is even perhaps human nature to do it, hence the creation of standards. I have seen Greenwald pick apart several of these talking heads in MSM, bringing to light their refusal to use standards in their journalism. And since these people know of these standards, it is hard for them to spin their way out of facts in regards to what this one standard is. So, you generally get excuses for these fake journalists will not admit they broke the rules for journalists. I find it highly entertaining and like to see fake journalists get called out for their sin against journalism.

 

I couldn't have hoped for a better example of stories that prove my point. Thank you so much.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/250575-report-clears-holder-hits-doj-atf-officials

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-calls-400-million-payment-iran-ransom/

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac.../no-obama-not-facing-indictment-spying-trump/

 

You need a remedial English class for comprehension skills. Information about the site is readily available by clicking the link I provided. If people are too lazy to do so........not my problem.

 

The old flip play ... huh.
I've been exposing this Democrat tactic for years here at
PF.Yer a little late bub.
It won't work.The desperation is getting raw now.
Won't be long before Liberals and Democrats alike seek
the couch { Psychiatrist }. The human mind can only use
tricks for so long.Then the Trick turns on them.
Like a spurned lover.

 

I've been reading up on News Guard and surely, it is something America needs!!

 

Everything that doesn't support the alt-left narrative is made up. Yes I know.

Do you have anything else to bleat about?