The Lame-Stream Media are the champions of Fake
News. The vast majority of our big-city newspapers and TV news programs have
been spewing liberal propaganda for decades. In the 1950s and 1960s big cities
typically had 2 newspapers, one liberal and one conservative, but media
consolidation ended the conservative newspapers.
Media liberal bias also included news blackouts
for issues the media didn’t want the public to know. It was clear that the
media and the politicians didn’t want to talk about UN Agenda 21 after it was
released in 1992. It they had covered it, the scheme would have caused
opposition to it. So, they called it a “conspiracy theory”, despite the fact
that you could buy a copy of the UN Agenda 21 book direct from the UN. If you
got one and read it, you would see a horror show about a one-world government,
run by an oligarchy, fronted by the UN bureaucracy, with appointed, unelected
governance like the Soviet Union. All of our current and historic nation states
would be abolished, the global population goal would be set at 500 million,
leaving us to wonder how they would reduce our current 7 trillion
population. The government would own and
control everything. There would be no
private property or freedom of speech or movement. Our population would live in
government apartments in transit villages. Single family homes and cars would
be restricted to “government rulers”. The Wilding Project would give the land
back to the wild animals. It’s right out of a science fiction movie and it
hides in plain sight. But only a handful of sites have this information. Then we see new TV shows like “tiny house”
and “naked and afraid” that suggest that our economic decline is assured.
We’ve seen articles about “false flags” that
question the Sandy Hook school shooting, because there was a news blackout and
no funerals. We’ve seen articles about the HAARP weather weapon and the
Chemtrails and the low pressure area that sucked Hurricane Sandy into New
Jersey, but we also read where the HAARP program was closed and we haven’t seen
Chemtrails lately. We have seen articles about news blackouts in Europe where
rape by refugee stories were suppressed. There is no end to the reader
skepticism aimed at the media.
The Fake News moniker was invented by the “media” to attack
conservative news sources. See below:
Google
and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News Sites
Over the last
week, two of the world’s biggest internet companies have faced mounting
criticism over how fake news on their sites may have influenced the
presidential election’s outcome.
On Monday,
those companies responded by making it clear that they would not tolerate such
misinformation by taking pointed aim at fake news sites’ revenue sources. Google
kicked off the action on Monday afternoon when the Silicon Valley search giant
said it would ban websites that peddle fake news from using its online
advertising service. Hours later, Facebook, the social network, updated the language in its Facebook
Audience Network policy, which already says it will not display ads in sites
that show misleading or illegal content, to include fake news sites.
“We have
updated the policy to explicitly clarify that this applies to fake news,” a
Facebook spokesman said in a statement. “Our team will continue to closely vet
all prospective publishers and monitor existing ones to ensure compliance.”
Taken
together, the decisions were a clear signal that the tech behemoths could no
longer ignore the growing outcry over their
power in distributing information to the American
electorate.
Facebook has been
at the epicenter of that debate, accused
by some commentators of swinging
some voters in favor of President-elect Donald J. Trump through misleading and
outright wrong stories that spread quickly via the social network. One such
false story claimed that Pope Francis had endorsed Mr. Trump.
Google did
not escape the glare, with critics saying the company gave too much prominence
to false news stories. On Sunday, the site Mediaite reported that the top result on a
Google search for “final election vote count 2016” was a link to a story on a
website called 70News that wrongly stated that Mr. Trump, who won the Electoral
College, was ahead of his Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, in the popular vote.
By Monday
evening, the fake story had fallen to No. 2 in a search for those terms. Google
says software algorithms that use hundreds of factors determine the ranking of
news stories.
“The goal of
search is to provide the most relevant and useful results for our users,”
Andrea Faville, a Google spokeswoman, said in a statement. “In this case, we
clearly didn’t get it right, but we are continually working to improve our
algorithms.”
Facebook’s
decision to clarify its ad policy language is notable because Mark Zuckerberg,
the social network’s chief executive, has repeatedly fobbed off criticism that
the company had an effect on how people voted. In a post on his Facebook page
over the weekend, he said that 99 percent of what people see on the site is
authentic, and only a tiny amount is fake news and hoaxes.
“Over all,
this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in
one direction or the other,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote.
Yet within
Facebook, employees and executives have been increasingly questioning their
responsibilities and role in influencing the electorate, The New York Times reported on Saturday.
Facebook’s ad
policy update will not stem the flow of fake news stories that spread through
the news feeds that people see when they visit the social network.
Facebook has
long spoken of how it helped influence and stoke democratic movements in places
like the Middle East, and it tells its advertisers that it can help sway its
users with ads. Facebook reaches 1.8 billion people around the globe, and the
company is one of the largest distributors of news online. A Pew Research
Center study said that nearly half of American adults rely on Facebook as a
news source.
Google’s
decision on Monday relates to the Google AdSense system that independent web
publishers use to display advertising on their sites, generating revenue when
ads are seen or clicked on. The advertisers pay Google, and Google pays a
portion of those proceeds to the publishers. More than two million publishers
use Google’s advertising network.
For some
time, Google has had policies in place prohibiting misleading advertisements from its system,
including promotions for counterfeit goods and weight-loss scams. Google’s new
policy, which it said would go into effect “imminently,” will extend its ban on
misrepresentative content to the websites its advertisements run on.
“Moving
forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate or
conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content or the primary
purpose of the web property,” Ms. Faville said.
Ms. Faville
said that the policy change had been in the works for a while and was not in
reaction to the election.
It remains to
be seen how effective Google’s new policy on fake news will be in practice. The
policy will rely on a combination of automated and human reviews to help
determine what is fake. Although satire sites like The Onion are not the target
of the policy, it is not clear whether some of them, which often run fake news
stories written for humorous effect, will be inadvertently affected by Google’s
change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ban-websites-that-host-fake-news-from-using-its-ad-service.html?_r=0
Liberals Trying to Label Conservative Media as “Fake News” Onan Coca
We’ve been forced to talk about the idea of “fake news” in recent days, due largely to the crush of pressure from the left following Donald Trump’s “surprising” election victory.
Liberals, searching for the nearest
scapegoat (that doesn’t have anything to do with them) have latched on to the
“right-wing” media as the reason for Hillary Clinton’s spectacular collapse.
For them it is more likely that conservative websites publishing “fake news”
caused Clinton’s downfall than it is that they made a mistake in letting the
DNC select the most corrupt, untrustworthy candidate in recent memory.
They don’t care about the WikiLeaks releases,
they don’t care about the undercover video from Project Veritas proving that the Democrat Party was
involved in illegal electoral behavior, they don’t care that the DNC rigged the
primary for Hillary Clinton, they don’t care that the media was found to be
working with the Democrat Party in an effort to win the election.
Nope. They care about conservative
websites running content that they disagree with. Which is why they’ve started
labeling us all “fake news,” whether or not the moniker is accurate.
For example:
CNN ran this story on Wednesday saying that Trump supporters were
considering boycotting Pepsi over comments that the CEO of the company never
actually made. If I were a fact-checker I’d rate this story as half-true and
the CNN story as “fake.” CNN complained that several sites said that PepsiCo’s
CEO Indra Nooyi told Trump supporters to “take
their business elsewhere.” (She
never said this.) Based on these four words, CNN argued that the entire Nooyi
as anti-Trump story was “fake.”
However, any reader of Constitution.com knows that this CNN story is just plain
wrong. Sure, the fake quote may have swayed some folks, but there is more to
this story and Nooyi’s disdain for Trump and his supporters than CNN (and Brian
Stelter) let on. In the interview in question, Nooyi makes clear what she
thinks of Mr. Trump and his supporters, and we reported on it at Constitution.
Here’s the money quote from Yahoo! Finance: PepsiCo’s
CEO said the election of Donald Trump as president was terrifying her
employees.
“I had to answer a lot of questions from my daughters, from our
employees. They were all in mourning,” PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi told Andrew Ross
Sorkin at The New York Times’ DealBook
conference on Thursday. “Our employees were all crying,”
she said. “And the question that they’re asking, especially those who are not
white, ‘Are we safe?’ Women are asking, ‘Are we safe?’ LGBT people are asking,
‘Are we safe?’ I never thought I would have to answer those questions.”
That quote alone is enough to cause Trump’s
supporters to boycott Pepsi. In fact, Yahoo’s title to their story would
probably be enough – “PepsiCo CEO: Employees are scared
for their safety after Trump’s Election”.
Consider the implications of her
comments. Why would PepsiCo’s employees be scared? They can’t be scared that
they’ll be deported – they have jobs at PepsiCo, so they must be legal
residents or citizens. So what fear does Donald Trump and his supporters instill
in them? The reality is that while Nooyi may never have said that she wanted
Trump supporters to “take
their business elsewhere,” what
she did imply with her comments was far worse.
Here’s another example of “Fake News” this time from NBC: Check out this headline: As
Trump Leaves Press Behind for Steak Dinner, Incoming Admin Already Showing Lack
of Transparency.
Donald Trump took his family out for
dinner on Tuesday night after the Secret Service had told the press who were
following him that he was in for the night. The decision to go out to dinner
prompted NBC to say that Trump was “already showing” that his administration
would lack transparency. While the title might be discounted as simply foolish,
consider that this is the same media that allowed Hillary Clinton to hide for
the better part of two years as she simultaneously campaigned for the
presidency. Trump has allowed an unprecedented amount of public access into his
life, but the first time he goes to dinner without the press… he’s excoriated
for not being “transparent” enough. But don’t worry, NBC doesn’t do “fake
news,” only the right wing media does.
Just in case you think these are
cherry-picked, here are some more examples of the main stream media posting
“fake news” by using clickbait headlines, false headlines, burying the lede,
and other “fake news” methods.
·
One
of the more famous “fake stories” from the recent presidential campaign argued that Mr. Trump mocking a disabled
reporter.
Sadly, for the media, it only looked as if Trump was mocking him if you edited
the video footage just right.
·
CBS caught editing Bill Clinton’s comments
about Hillary Clinton’s health.
·
The New York Times announcing Donald
Trump’s election victory used this headline to lead their paper, “Democrats,
Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency.” The
headline was so terrible that even the folks at MSNBC were shocked and
disgusted.
·
Here’s the AP with a story titled, GOP Lawmaker: FBI gave immunity
to top Clinton aide. Sounds
innocuous enough… until you dig down to the 22ndparagraph (out of 25
paragraphs) and learn that President Obama had been emailing Clinton on her
private server! Something the President said he had no knowledge about.
·
Many
different mainstream news sources have been reporting on the “surge” of hate crimes in 2016. Only problem…
no such “surge” has occurred.
·
Here’s one from the Washington Post back in May. They had
just conducted a poll showing Donald Trump with a 2-point lead over Hillary
Clinton but decided to go with this headline for the piece: Poll: Election 2016 shapes up as
a contest of negatives. Weird, right? The big
story was that Trump had overtaken Clinton in their poll, but instead WaPo
chose to focus on… the negatives.
·
Here’s
a story that almost every major media organization ran some version of – Trump tried to get his kids security
clearance.
The only issue with this story is, that again, almost every major media organization
ran with – is that it never actually seems to have happened.
·
Remember
when CNN used a misleading headline to tie Donald Trump to
shock-jock Howard Stern?
·
ABC basically invents the idea that Newt
Gingrich agreed with Mitt Romney about Romneycare.
·
A bunch of main stream media sources published headlines
about a Palestinian terrorist attack that forgot to mention the terrorists.
·
Just
last year NBC argued that “free” college was “a goal everyone
can agree on.”
·
How
about the time that the NY Daily News cover compared NRA president
Wayne LaPierre with 5 different murdering terrorists?
·
When
the main stream media sees ethics problems with conservatives who do business with
foreign entities, but never seemed that concerned with Hillary Clinton and the
Clinton Foundation’s activities.
·
CNN
runs a story about a professor predicting Donald Trump’s impeachmentjust days after Mr.
Trump wins the White House. This is the definition of “fake news,” isn’t it?
These are just a few, and probably not
even the best examples. The point is that when it comes to calling out “fake
news” websites, the mainstream media is the proverbial pot calling the kettle
black.
http://constitution.com/liberals-trying-label-conservative-media-fake-news/
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment