Wanted : A Better Quality of Fake News

[Berries]

There is only one source of the truth - Sunday Sport.

[Ixion]

Daily, at the moment :

Stuff
NZHerald (though no longer if they continue with their new crappiness)
Al-jazeera
Sputnik
RT
BBC
Washington Times
The Register
Breitbart
Politico
PressTV
Haaretz
Palestine Chronicle

And an assorted bunch of blogs

Believe none of them. They all lie. The lies sometimes cancel out.

[mashman]

WTF!!!!!! Just read any headline and create your own story instead of reading it. Can't get any more fake than that.

[oldrider]

North Korea Provocation:

The Background and Context You’re Not Being Told http://freedom-articles.toolsforfree...on-background/

The source I know nothing about, the content is much as I remember it. - you be the judge. - MSM only tells you about carefully selected details.

It was China and the USSR that kept the USA (and it's allies) at bay much as Russia is doing in Syria today - the Korean war is officially still on!

[YellowDog]

Current and upto the minute news, is very improtant to me. I always start my day be reading the New Zealand Herald

If it's not in our Herald, it never happened!

Honest, accurate, free of any political influence, and truly impartial

[aws]

There is pretty good research out there that suggests that we all tend to place more trust in reporting that aligns with our predetermined views. And thus we tend to read more from sources that echo our own views.
This is always portrayed in a negative way as if we are unwilling to change our view even when presented with evidence to the contrary. However I believe that the reverse is just as true, and news media tend to report mostly on things which align with their own biases, and that also colors the way they present their stories. That is how two different media outlets can report the same thing with completely different results - and that's where alternative facts come from.
I don't think there is an answer to where you can get unbiased reporting - I don't think it exists.

Oh and as far as the US moaning about Russia interfering in their election - that's a bit rich coming from them. I'd be pretty confident that they have a whole agency dedicated to influencing elections all over the world.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Voltaire]

There is only one source of the truth - Sunday Sport.

Is the Sunday Sport still going?

I got all the big stories from the late 80's early 90's there.

I'll always remember the day they found Elvis alive working in a chip shop in Dorset, and of course one of the greats the London Bus found on the moon.

More great investigative journalism was found on pages 3 5 and often 7

Edit:



Oh....it was a WW2 bomber found on moon, the bus was found at the South Pole

Apologies for spreading fake news.

[Swoop]

Current and upto the minute news, is very improtant to me. I always start my day be reading the New Zealand Herald

I would like to invite the Harold to decide what it wants to be.

Currently it is taking over the topic areas that The Woman's Weekly has based its publication on (gossip, fashion, who's shagging who, recipes). Then it attempts to compete with "social media" ("Send us your stories" "If you know anything more about this incident/topic get in touch").

The Harold. A very important source of "news"...
However it IS better than "Stuff". That bunch of retards take journalism standards to a whole new level (low level, that is!).

There is pretty good research out there that suggests that we all tend to place more trust in reporting that aligns with our predetermined views. And thus we tend to read more from sources that echo our own views.

Conformational bias.
Exactly what we see from one of our regular posters, who excels at supplying links which back up his bizarre stance.

[EJK]

However it IS better than "Stuff". That bunch of retards take journalism standards to a whole new level (low level, that is!).

The Opinion: articles are a pure gem innit?

Ah, sometimes Stuff fucks it so bad the comments section provide better info.

[ellipsis]

Is the Sunday Sport still going?

I got all the big stories from the late 80's early 90's there.

I'll always remember the day they found Elvis alive working in a chip shop in Dorset, and of course one of the greats the London Bus found on the moon.

More great investigative journalism was found on pages 3 5 and often 7

Edit:



Oh....it was a WW2 bomber found on moon, the bus was found at the South Pole

Apologies for spreading fake news.

...the last time I was an avid reader of any publication, apart from the Beano, was when 16 year old Samantha Fox showed us her tits on page three of the Sun, regularly...



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...d-holiday.html

[Swoop]

The Opinion: articles are a pure gem innit?

Ah, sometimes Stuff fucks it so bad the comments section provide better info.

I note that the Harold has disabled its "reader's comments" section at the end of each bit of "news". At times it was becoming a cross between arsebook and Woman's Weekly...

[pritch]

Conformational bias.

That's it. Who knew that people would turn the 'Net into a giant echo chamber? Even though I'm aware of this, and would sometimes read the Telegraph in an effort to even things up, there's no way I'm going to turn into a regular reader of The Sun, The Mirror, or The Daily Mail. If I have developed a list to port so be it.

[Banditbandit]

There is pretty good research out there that suggests that we all tend to place more trust in reporting that aligns with our predetermined views. And thus we tend to read more from sources that echo our own views.
This is always portrayed in a negative way as if we are unwilling to change our view even when presented with evidence to the contrary. However I believe that the reverse is just as true, and news media tend to report mostly on things which align with their own biases, and that also colors the way they present their stories. That is how two different media outlets can report the same thing with completely different results - and that's where alternative facts come from.
I don't think there is an answer to where you can get unbiased reporting - I don't think it exists.

Oh and as far as the US moaning about Russia interfering in their election - that's a bit rich coming from them. I'd be pretty confident that they have a whole agency dedicated to influencing elections all over the world.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Yes. Everything that is ever said or written is said or written from one perspective ... and if it does not agree with the perspectives of the receiver it is "Fake News".

Fake News was news that was generated mainly from East European countries and had nothing to do with reality - but now "fake News" is anythign that does not agree with the receiver's perspective.

While you're trashing newspapers etc, would you consider this "fake news'?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...longheld-dream

[oldrider]

Yes. Everything that is ever said or written is said or written from one perspective ... and if it does not agree with the perspectives of the receiver it is "Fake News".

Fake News was news that was generated mainly from East European countries and had nothing to do with reality - but now "fake News" is anythign that does not agree with the receiver's perspective.

While you're trashing newspapers etc, would you consider this "fake news'?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...longheld-dream

That really says a lot about our school system when they turn out a product like that - his dream was to ram a police squad car! Sheesh!

[aws]

Yes. Everything that is ever said or written is said or written from one perspective ... and if it does not agree with the perspectives of the receiver it is "Fake News".

Fake News was news that was generated mainly from East European countries and had nothing to do with reality - but now "fake News" is anythign that does not agree with the receiver's perspective.

While you're trashing newspapers etc, would you consider this "fake news'?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...longheld-dream

Fake news seems to cover the whole spectrum from actual made up stories, to stories reproduced from social media feeds without proper editorial checking, to sensationalised stories about nothing important, to just plain biased reporting on issues.

"Alterative facts" was a buzz term coined during the US election which MSM seem to consider synonymous with fake news. But I think it is more related to personal biases influencing how the facts are interpreted. It is about which facts an outlet chooses to present. And that's where you'll find different news outlets presenting facts that reflect the beliefs of their organisation.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric about journalists being there to present the news in an unbiased way. Maybe that was once the lofty goal, but these days media outlets are there to make money. And to make money, the news needs to be interesting - it needs to have an angle - an angle that will appeal to their target readership.

Many outlets also seem to think that it is their duty to make the news and influence public opinion - I recall one journalist at the last general election lamenting on how the polls hadn't changed "no matter what they said about the government".

The upshot of all this is you either read your favourite source safe in the belief that there are others who share your views, or you read widely and critically and try to understand the motivations behind the views being presented.

Best of luck to you!

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk