Website Labeled ‘Fake News’ Threatens To Sue WaPo For Defamation

[DiAnna]

Anonymous sourcing wasn't always the problem that it is now. Back in the day, anonymous sources were a great way to get the scoop that would have been impossible otherwise (think: Deep Throat). Now it's just a way to release just about any scoop, and it's made it near impossible to distinguish the lazy journalists from the bona fide Woodwards and Bernsteins who are using anonymous sources for the right reasons.

But what distinguishes fake news from lazy news, is that one doesn't spend adequate time verifying the stories, and the other just...makes them up.

Yes, the difference being that the journalists knew who the sources actually were, and what access these sources had, i.e. "sources inside the investigation, sources inside the White House," etc. Nowadays anyone can tweet out a fabricated "Hillary trafficks children for sex out of pizza parlor" and idiots from DP et. al., make threads about it and continue to accuse Hillary of child sex abuse or murder all over the internet at the same time they insist that actual broadcast video that the entire world saw happen on live tv is fake news, because a fake video says that it is.

 

[Orly?]

Well that answers one question, at least: who the hell is the target audience for these fake stories?

If you have heard of pizzagate and have not looked into it in order to come to a conclusion on your own instead of just blindly believe what the media says, then you are an indoctrinated sheeple..

Verify everything..

Pizzagate jumps to a lot of conclusions and comes up with a crazy story that explains some weird stuff they found..

They found some weird stuff, it may have nothing to do with children period though the conspiracy jives with that direction, but they have picked up a sent and are onto something fishy..

Where pizzagate comes from the people aren't all actually idiots and some of them are some of the smartest people you will ever meet, they have been known to do some pretty good ****, like get internet to egypt when the gov shut it down on them, anonymous..

Something is going to be found out over this pizzagate **** watch, their is some interesting stuff, but the pizzagate conspiracy conclusion is just jumping to conclusions making up a story that fits some interesting findings..

Very slight chance they ARE pedos.. We know they are into some satanic **** for sure, many of the "elites"..

A lot of "groups" like gangs force their new members to do some pretty terrible stuff to join, that way they know that if they ever turn thier back on them or snitch that they have dirt to put them in the ground with..

Lot of gangs make you kill someone and have witnesses or commit other crimes.. When drugs get snuck into jail they make everyone that knows do some so they will piss dirty if they snitch.. It's like an insurance policy..

I wouldn't doubt the "elite" of the globalist agenda have a similar practice.. They are up to some bad stuff..

I wouldn't trust one of them to watch my dog.. We will see where it goes..

You sure can't go shootin up a pizza shop because of some crazy story though..

 

[Orly?]

Fake if George Lucas used cgi to create that entire video.

Fake news..

 

[Chillfolks]

Anonymous sourcing wasn't always the problem that it is now. Back in the day, anonymous sources were a great way to get the scoop that would have been impossible otherwise (think: Deep Throat). Now it's just a way to release just about any scoop, and it's made it near impossible to distinguish the lazy journalists from the bona fide Woodwards and Bernsteins who are using anonymous sources for the right reasons.

But what distinguishes fake news from lazy news, is that one doesn't spend adequate time verifying the stories, and the other just...makes them up.

I agree mostly. I think a lot of "fake news" is the result of not verifying a story. Someone gets a tip from an anonymous source and runs with it. I also think way too much news is written to pander to political views. The more you pander the further from the truth it is

I am sure some of it is made up but most just seems to be lazy political hacks looking for a quick buck.


Fake News is like porn, 20 years ago I
You had to search it out today it's on your phone

 

[Cardinal]

lol....Funny




Accuse? Or press charges....There is a difference



Are all blogs "fake"???? Or are they opinion?

My problem with bloggers is they're bound to nobody except what often ends up being a highly specific end of the political spectrum (even if that end is "crazy."). It's certainly not outside the realms of possibility that a blogger can attain genuine credibility, but those who work for a legitimate paper are held to a standard of journalism whereby if they knowingly report falsehoods, that can get them fired. If bloggers stayed to their "opinion" end of the pool, then fine, that's great. But when they wade out into reporting and they're not legitimate, usually you can expect bull**** that cites legitimate news sources that weave an entirely new narrative out of them, and at worst other they'll cite other bloggers. Where it gets really funny is when you have a bona fide conspiracy theorist whose blog will cite another conspiracy theorist's blog, and that conspiracy theorist's blog with then turn around and cite the first conspiracy theorist's blog.

So where do we stand? For one, we can't afford to retreat into fake or partisan sources. Just because the legitimate source of journalism has gotten lazy and relies on an ever increasing amount of click bait for revenue doesn't mean that thinkprogress, Breitbart, Hot Air and Daily Kos will correct the problem. And for God's sake, stay the hell away from news articles on Facebook. Facebook is one of the biggest purveyors of trash on the internet.

Second, it means that we have to be that much more scrutinizing of the legitimate news sources. Gone are the days when we could just take them at their word. Now we have to be automatically suspicious if anonymous sources are cited, if stories reflect our biases just a little too conveniently and if they seem intended to inflame our emotions. Also, we all have to be careful to read to the end of the article. The end of the article tends to contain all the boring facts that negate the first half of the article. And if the headline ends in a question, like "Did Trump really eat a schoolbus full of children?" the answer is always going to be "no."

But here are a few really important differences between legitimate sources an illegitimate sources:

1)legitimate news contains retractions and corrections pages.
2)employees for legitimate news sites can and will be fired for knowingly reporting falsehoods.
3)at the very least, legitimate news sources will contain the boring, negating information in the second half of their articles.

 

[Cardinal]

If you have heard of pizzagate and have not looked into it in order to come to a conclusion on your own instead of just blindly believe what the media says, then you are an indoctrinated sheeple..

Verify everything..

Pizzagate jumps to a lot of conclusions and comes up with a crazy story that explains some weird stuff they found..

They found some weird stuff, it may have nothing to do with children period though the conspiracy jives with that direction, but they have picked up a sent and are onto something fishy..

Where pizzagate comes from the people aren't all actually idiots and some of them are some of the smartest people you will ever meet, they have been known to do some pretty good ****, like get internet to egypt when the gov shut it down on them, anonymous..

Something is going to be found out over this pizzagate **** watch, their is some interesting stuff, but the pizzagate conspiracy conclusion is just jumping to conclusions making up a story that fits some interesting findings..

Very slight chance they ARE pedos.. We know they are into some satanic **** for sure, many of the "elites"..

A lot of "groups" like gangs force their new members to do some pretty terrible stuff to join, that way they know that if they ever turn thier back on them or snitch that they have dirt to put them in the ground with..

Lot of gangs make you kill someone and have witnesses or commit other crimes.. When drugs get snuck into jail they make everyone that knows do some so they will piss dirty if they snitch.. It's like an insurance policy..

I wouldn't doubt the "elite" of the globalist agenda have a similar practice.. They are up to some bad stuff..

I wouldn't trust one of them to watch my dog.. We will see where it goes..

You sure can't go shootin up a pizza shop because of some crazy story though..

It's just bull**** from 4chan.

 

[reinoe]

But what distinguishes fake news from lazy news, is that one doesn't spend adequate time verifying the stories, and the other just...makes them up.

How do you prove that "anonymous sources" are not just made up? ....beep boop.....

 

[j-mac]

My problem with bloggers is they're bound to nobody except what often ends up being a highly specific end of the political spectrum (even if that end is "crazy."). It's certainly not outside the realms of possibility that a blogger can attain genuine credibility, but those who work for a legitimate paper are held to a standard of journalism whereby if they knowingly report falsehoods, that can get them fired. If bloggers stayed to their "opinion" end of the pool, then fine, that's great. But when they wade out into reporting and they're not legitimate, usually you can expect bull**** that cites legitimate news sources that weave an entirely new narrative out of them, and at worst other they'll cite other bloggers. Where it gets really funny is when you have a bona fide conspiracy theorist whose blog will cite another conspiracy theorist's blog, and that conspiracy theorist's blog with then turn around and cite the first conspiracy theorist's blog.

So where do we stand? For one, we can't afford to retreat into fake or partisan sources. Just because the legitimate source of journalism has gotten lazy and relies on an ever increasing amount of click bait for revenue doesn't mean that thinkprogress, Breitbart, Hot Air and Daily Kos will correct the problem. And for God's sake, stay the hell away from news articles on Facebook. Facebook is one of the biggest purveyors of trash on the internet.

Second, it means that we have to be that much more scrutinizing of the legitimate news sources. Gone are the days when we could just take them at their word. Now we have to be automatically suspicious if anonymous sources are cited, if stories reflect our biases just a little too conveniently and if they seem intended to inflame our emotions. Also, we all have to be careful to read to the end of the article. The end of the article tends to contain all the boring facts that negate the first half of the article. And if the headline ends in a question, like "Did Trump really eat a schoolbus full of children?" the answer is always going to be "no."

But here are a few really important differences between legitimate sources an illegitimate sources:

1)legitimate news contains retractions and corrections pages.
2)employees for legitimate news sites can and will be fired for knowingly reporting falsehoods.
3)at the very least, legitimate news sources will contain the boring, negating information in the second half of their articles.

The only one I have a problem with is your #2....We have seen a pattern of journalists in several instances, get caught in totally false articles, yet NOTHING happens to them.....Also, if people were to go through what you outline here there would be less problem, but many don't have the time those of us on these boards have to research things...People are busy, and news outlets can, and do take advantage of that......

 

[OpportunityCost]

Can someone please identify for me the difference between fake news and printing only one side of a story?

 

[NeverTrump]

So, here's the question....What constitutes a "fake" news site? Is it just because a heavy hitter like the NYTimes, or WaPo says so? We are all about to find out.....What say you?

Uh this news site in the article is no better than my blog the difference is I try to remain objective...

 

[Hatuey]

Meh, its just a side effect of Liberalism and Globalism coming unraveled.

They're desperate and censorship is their latest attempt to stop the bleeding

How is labeling you a fraud censor you? For example, if I said you know absolutely nothing about evolution because you're still trying to prove Darwin wrong in the age of microbiology, you couldn't possibly begin to understand the complexity of evolution as we know it today.

If I said that, would that be censoring you? These pages are fake news. If another member of society calls them out as such, it's not censoring.

They're calling out a spade. The fake news pages are welcome to keep being spades.... but the only censorship here is coming from the people trying to call you out for being a fraud.

Again, the title of the thread is WaPo being sued because it said something somebody else didn't like.

How the **** can you get this so twisted?

 

[NonoBadDog]

I'd say it's any site that publishes "anonymous" allegations, ala "Clinton child sex trafficking ring headquartered in DC Pizza Parlor", then says basically, "prove it isn't true."

I started to follow that and the my thought was WTF? Really?

 

[NonoBadDog]

Well that answers one question, at least: who the hell is the target audience for these fake stories?

That goes to one's definition of fake news. Who is targeted by CNN, NYT, Politico, MSNBC, WaPo or HuffPo?

 

[j-mac]

Uh this news site in the article is no better than my blog the difference is I try to remain objective...

Ok, noted, but this up and coming attack of internet sites that are competing with established news outlets like NYTimes, and WaPo, threatening their readership in the wake of recent uncovered, unabashed bias during the election and in fact up to the present, I think is an attempt by a gasping, failing structure that can no longer compete with the likes of internet journalism, social media, and citizen watchdogs that expose their agenda's....

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Shouldn't the WaPo have given examples of such?

They did. They were reporting on the PropOrNot report whose link could be found in the article. They gave several examples.

Who makes that determination?

People's own objectiveness. Researches. "FactCheckers".

Should a government board be created to vet news stories and clear them for distribution?

No.

This link post the complaint. Care to read it ?
"Fake News" Site Threatens Washington Post With Defamation Suit, Demands Retraction | Zero Hedge

Never said I agree with the final conclusion of the PropOrNot study. Was simply answering the question found in the OP.
Saying that I do believe they got some sites or outlets that have published "fake news" stories in the past and some of these sites have quite the habit of doing it over and over again (*cought* InfoWars *cough* AmericasFreedomFighters *cough* PrisonPlanet). That being said, do I believe that there should be some government agency that should go in and shut them down? **** no.

 

[j-mac]

They did. They were reporting on the PropOrNot report whose link could be found in the article. They gave several examples.

From the OP article:

"“You did not provide even a single example of ‘fake news’ allegedly distributed or promoted by Naked Capitalism or indeed any of the 200 sites on the PropOrNot blacklist,” James A. Moody writes. “You provided no discussion or assessment of the credentials or backgrounds of these so-called ‘researchers’ (Clint Watts, Andrew Weisburd, and J.M. Berger and the ‘team’ at PropOrNot), and no discussion or analysis of the methodology, protocol or algorithms such ‘researchers’ may or may not have followed.”

Read more: Website Labeled 'Fake News' Threatens To Sue WaPo For Defamation | The Daily Caller

Now we know if this were concerning a poll site ran by liberals that came up with results that liberals agree with, then there would be endless calls of examining things like methodology, sample sizes, credentials of pollsters, etc...Not here though, why?

 

[Fenton]

Obama's unemployment numbers ? Fake news

 

[apdst]

They did. They were reporting on the PropOrNot report whose link could be found in the article. They gave several examples.


People's own objectiveness. Researches. "FactCheckers".


No.


Never said I agree with the final conclusion of the PropOrNot study. Was simply answering the question found in the OP.
Saying that I do believe they got some sites or outlets that have published "fake news" stories in the past and some of these sites have quite the habit of doing it over and over again (*cought* InfoWars *cough* AmericasFreedomFighters *cough* PrisonPlanet). That being said, do I believe that there should be some government agency that should go in and shut them down? **** no.

Maybe you should nominate Dan Rather to be a "factchecker".

 

[TheDemSocialist]

From the OP article:

"“You did not provide even a single example of ‘fake news’ allegedly distributed or promoted by Naked Capitalism or indeed any of the 200 sites on the PropOrNot blacklist,” James A. Moody writes. “You provided no discussion or assessment of the credentials or backgrounds of these so-called ‘researchers’ (Clint Watts, Andrew Weisburd, and J.M. Berger and the ‘team’ at PropOrNot), and no discussion or analysis of the methodology, protocol or algorithms such ‘researchers’ may or may not have followed.”

Read more: Website Labeled 'Fake News' Threatens To Sue WaPo For Defamation | The Daily Caller

The thing is if this criticism is considered defamation thats pretty broad. The report simply mentioned the PropOrNot study in broad terms in regards to a overall story about "Fake News" during the election cycle. The stories point was not to analyze PropOrNot's study down to the minute detail but was instead to cite the study as several studies that have since now been completed or are underway into the rise of "Fake News".

Now we know if this were concerning a poll site ran by liberals that came up with results that liberals agree with, then there would be endless calls of examining things like methodology, sample sizes, credentials of pollsters, etc...Not here though, why?

Im just going to repeat what I said to Fenton in my earlier post here: "Never said I agree with the final conclusion of the PropOrNot study. Was simply answering the question found in the OP.
Saying that I do believe they got some sites or outlets that have published "fake news" stories in the past and some of these sites have quite the habit of doing it over and over again (*cought* InfoWars *cough* AmericasFreedomFighters *cough* PrisonPlanet). That being said, do I believe that there should be some government agency that should go in and shut them down? **** no."

 

[j-mac]

The thing is if this criticism is considered defamation thats pretty broad. The report simply mentioned the PropOrNot study in broad terms in regards to a overall story about "Fake News" during the election cycle. The stories point was not to analyze PropOrNot's study down to the minute detail but was instead to cite the study as several studies that have since now been completed or are underway into the rise of "Fake News".


Im just going to repeat what I said to Fenton in my earlier post here: "Never said I agree with the final conclusion of the PropOrNot study. Was simply answering the question found in the OP.
Saying that I do believe they got some sites or outlets that have published "fake news" stories in the past and some of these sites have quite the habit of doing it over and over again (*cought* InfoWars *cough* AmericasFreedomFighters *cough* PrisonPlanet). That being said, do I believe that there should be some government agency that should go in and shut them down? **** no."

Oh wait...Why backpedal now? Your statement to me was that they did include examples, and now when I show you from the article that they didn't go into detail about anything like what they would have done for example to a poll taken by PPP, or Gallup etc.... then you want to come back and say that you never said it was anything more than criticism.....That's, frankly sir, bull.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Oh wait...Why backpedal now? Your statement to me was that they did include examples, and now when I show you from the article that they didn't go into detail about anything like what they would have done for example to a poll taken by PPP, or Gallup etc.... then you want to come back and say that you never said it was anything more than criticism.....That's, frankly sir, bull.

Again, this is what I said, "They did. They were reporting on the PropOrNot report whose link could be found in the article. They gave several examples."
The PropOrNot study does give examples: WikiLeaks BOMBSHELL: Hillary Directed Her State Dept Staff to Research Parkinson’s Drug | True Pundit
https://phibetaiota.net/2016/10/mon...n-colors-false-flag-attack-in-syria-possible/
BREAKING: WikiLeaks Reveals One Of Hillary Clinton?s STRANGEST Health Disorders... This Is HUGE
BREAKING: Obama Allows Nation's First SATANIC Ceremony At State Capitol In History... [WATCH]
Vladimir Putin Escapes New World Order Assassination Attempt - Your News Wire

And you're still missing the point where I say "Never said I agree with the final conclusion of the PropOrNot study. Was simply answering the question found in the OP."
Saying that, there are fake news stories cited in the study...

 

[j-mac]

Again, this is what I said, "They did. They were reporting on the PropOrNot report whose link could be found in the article. They gave several examples."
The PropOrNot study does give examples: WikiLeaks BOMBSHELL: Hillary Directed Her State Dept Staff to Research Parkinson’s Drug | True Pundit
https://phibetaiota.net/2016/10/mon...n-colors-false-flag-attack-in-syria-possible/
BREAKING: WikiLeaks Reveals One Of Hillary Clinton?s STRANGEST Health Disorders... This Is HUGE
BREAKING: Obama Allows Nation's First SATANIC Ceremony At State Capitol In History... [WATCH]
Vladimir Putin Escapes New World Order Assassination Attempt - Your News Wire

And you're still missing the point where I say "Never said I agree with the final conclusion of the PropOrNot study. Was simply answering the question found in the OP."
Saying that, there are fake news stories cited in the study...

Hmmmm....What was the cause of Hillary's collapse in NY? What was that metal object that fell out of her pant leg? Do you know?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Hmmmm....What was the cause of Hillary's collapse in NY? What was that metal object that fell out of her pant leg? Do you know?

:doh :lamo I dont know bud you tell me. Maybe she's actually a robot and some of her metallic endoskeleton fell apart.

 

[j-mac]

:doh :lamo I dont know bud you tell me. Maybe she's actually a robot and some of her metallic endoskeleton fell apart.

Or maybe due to her concussions prior, she had DVT problems in her legs that called for braces....Ya think?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Or maybe due to her concussions prior, she had DVT problems in her legs that called for braces....Ya think?

Could be. Or it could be lipstick, a cellphone, car keys, a mic pack, a crack pipe, a thumb drive (holding either deleted Benghazi e-mails or Donald Trump's tax returns), a mind control device, colostomy bag clip. All which have been peddled..

But can we get back on subject?