Fake News and Conspiracy

[M-Albion-3D]

Google and Facebook published a list of fake news sites:

I find it a little hypocritical when the likes of Google and Facebook "publish" (boy, that sounds like an authoritative action) this list, so as to give the impression that they are the authoritative source of ALL that should be known.

I trust Google and Facebook about as much as I trust the list of Kim Jong-un's "places to go on vacation".

It just goes to show you....."you shouldn't trust everything you read!"

[M-Albion-3D]

Enter Fake News as Replacement for Conspiracy Theory?

Nov 18, 2016 8:08 AM

Via The Daily Bell


Barack Obama on fake news: ‘We have problems’ if we can’t tell the difference The US president denounced the spate of misinformation across social media platforms, including Facebook, suggesting American politics can be affected. -Guardian
Is fake news the new “conspiracy theory.” We’ve read that it may be, and it seems likely to us.


That’s because “conspiracy theory” has seemingly lost credibility as a way of dismissing anti-mainstream critiques, and it can be argued that “fake news” is being substituted.

We recently wrote about the decline and fall of “conspiracy theory” as an effective denigration of Deep State critiques. You can see the article here.

This make sense to us because the CIA was apparently responsible for disseminating the initial “conspiracy theory” meme, and “fake news” could certainly have been developed to take its place.

Secondly, as reportedly some 50 percent of Americans now believe in so-called “conspiracies,” it’s very obvious a elite replacement was needed.

Some caveats: Regarding this second point, it’s very likely that many more than 50 percent of Americans believe in conspiracy theories. And the substitution of “fake news” is a very unappealing alternative.


More:

President Barack Obama has spoken out about fake news on Facebook and other media platforms, suggesting that it helped undermine the US political process.

“If we are not serious about facts and what’s true and what’s not, if we can’t discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems,” he said during a press conference in Germany.

Since the surprise election of Donald Trump as president-elect, Facebook has battled accusations that it has failed to stem the flow of misinformation on its network and that its business model leads to users becoming divided into polarized political echo chambers.

Our mission is to cover elite memes – propaganda that scares people into giving more control to the government – and having Obama comment on “fake news” is part of a standard meme reinforcement.

The “fake news” meme is all over search-engine news and prominent people like Obama are speaking out about the meme and basically endorsing it.

But it all strikes us as rather desperate.

Conspiracy Theory is far less prone to analysis than “fake news.” It has persisted so long and been so successful because it is difficult to quantify a “conspiracy” and thus the dismissal cannot be either confirmed or denied.

“Fake news” however, lends itself to fact-checking. One may not wish for a variety of reasons to delve into “conspiracy theory,” but if someone is told he or she is espousing fake news, the resultant irritation may move that person to further research.

When we coined the term Internet Reformation, our idea was that the information available via the ‘Net would generate a gradual process of enlightenment – and an accretion of truth. In fact, this process is occurring, in fits and starts.

If “conspiracy theory” really has lost impact – and apparently it has – as a way of debunking criticism of the Deep State, this is certainly a setback for modern propaganda.

Additionally, “when it comes to “fake news,” the mainstream media is going to have to speak with one voice in order to disparage factual information.

But fewer and fewer people believe the mainstream media. Thus, if the media places its communicative muscle behind tarring certain cogent criticisms as “false,” it will likely only speed up the decline of mainstream credibility.

Conclusion: Of course, those in power could ban the Internet outright, but it’s probably too late for that – and wouldn’t work effectively in any case

[M-Albion-3D]

Case in point:

Conspiracy theorists claim this footage is proof UFO caused SpaceX rocket explosion

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/conspiracy-theorists-claim-footage-proof-8762665

[Garuda]

Yes, there is indeed a valid concern that genuine conspiracy research will be labeled 'fake news' and be dismissed.

That's why, in the list of fake news sites, I had said that I was reluctant. Some of those sites often have genuine information.
But they all have on more than one occasion published stories that were either entirely made up or so heavily altered / sensationalized that even the core truth can no longer be discerned. One example: a Chinese ufologist said in an interview that he believes we are being visited by extraterrestrials. And that suddenly becomes that the Chinese Govt. has officially disclosed the presence of aliens.

The list is meant as a 'caveat emptor' reminder that one has to extra vigilant in fact checking when relying on information from them.

And when it comes to the YouTube Channels, some of them even explicitly state that they're creating CGI, but still people post the videos as if they're genuine.

[M-Albion-3D]

Yes, there is indeed a valid concern that genuine conspiracy research will be labeled 'fake news' and be dismissed.

That's why, in the list of fake news sites, I had said that I was reluctant. Some of those sites often have genuine information.
But they all have on more than one occasion published stories that were either entirely made up or so heavily altered / sensationalized that even the core truth can no longer be discerned. One example: a Chinese ufologist said in an interview that he believes we are being visited by extraterrestrials. And that suddenly becomes that the Chinese Govt. has officially disclosed the presence of aliens.

The list is meant as a 'caveat emptor' reminder that one has to extra vigilant in fact checking when relying on information from them.

And when it comes to the YouTube Channels, some of them even explicitly state that they're creating CGI, but still people post the videos as if they're genuine.

I think by and large we are on the same page here, but would like to take this a step further. When this list of names are bundled together like we have here for "reference"", and blanket label them with this new buzz term "FAKE NEWS SITES" giving a sort of "subliminal credibility" on balance to the channels and news outlets refereed to as Main Stream Media (especially so soon after the loss of the MSM's prime election candidate) it does begin to look a little suspicious, would you not agree?

With almost all the TV stations, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC, SKY NEWS etc (with the possible exception of Fox and I say possible with emphasis) drowning out any sense of balanced coverage, in favor of the "Cabal's globalist bias", I think what we are beginning to now see unfold, is a two prong (pardon the subliminal comparison) approach to 1. causing unnecessary doubt to the final outcome of the election result, and 2. to create a new platform to propel ridicule in place of the soon to be debunked Conspiracy Theorist model.

What is important I believe here, (for Americans especially), is to peel back the layers of the onion and to understand just how these nefarious elitists are managing to play the so-called "left and right" of social divisions against one and other. Fundamental Orwellian philosophy to a progressively dumber population as each years passes by!

Just take a look at the status of the present MSM structure and see where the trend has been moving over the past 50 years.






I think Paul Watson summed it up quite nicely with this humorous rant....



The bottom line here is, we need to be extremely careful not to bundle independent investigative journalism where honest mistakes can be made, with obvious obnoxious websites only after a buck and regardless of truthful reporting.

There are several websites inappropriately listed "for reference" on this forum, which I feel quite certain are making a solid attempt at honest and truthful investigations either in addition, or contrary to the MSM.

[M-Albion-3D]

Whether or not you subscribe to the Brother Nathanael Foundation, he steps on some intriguing analysis here and highlights some of President Elect Trump's promises to disband the media monopoly that has stifled the American consciousness for far too long.

​

[calikid]

That is quite the list M-Albion-3D
Thank you for your opinion.

Seems the PEOTUS is still upset over his press treatment during the election.
However, because of the first amendment I suspect everyone of them will be around tomorrow regardless of being yelled at.

IMHO The new President will have to come to terms with the fact that millions of Americans sit down in front of their TV each night and depend on these talking heads for News.
Now that he has it out of his system, maybe something more constructive can be accomplished on the news dissemination front.
Going to be a long four years if we have to wait on Twitter feeds for Presidential decrees.

[newyorklily]

The war on the MSM begins.....and not a moment too soon!

http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/

So let's see here, do you think for one moment, any of these over inflated egotistical, over paid "anchors" will act independently to bring you the real news, when they are paid this kind of money or would it be more accurate to say that they will keep their mouths "moving" in a way, that spouts only what they are told to say?

Here are the real purveyors of "FAKE NEWS"!

Network/Cable Channel News Anchor/Host Salaries

Chris Wallace (FNC) - $1 million (moderator)
Jake Tapper (CNN) - $1 million + (moderator)
Major Garrett (CBS) - $1 million + (moderator)
Martha Raddatz (ABC) - $1 million + (moderator)
John Harwood (CNBC) $1 million + (moderator)
Mika Brzezinski (MSNBC) $2 million
Chris Cuomo (CNN) - $2.5 million (moderator)
Willie Geist (NBC) - $2.5 million
Erin Burnett (CNN) - $3 million
Steve Kroft (CBS) - $3 million
Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) - $4 million
David Gregory (CBS) - $4 million
Laurance O'Donnell (MSNBC) - $4 million
Ann Curry (NBC) - $5 million
David Muir (ABC) - $5 million (moderator)
Scott Pelley (CBS) - $5 million (moderator)
Katie Couric (Yahoo News) - $6 million
Megyn Kelly (FNC) - $6 million (moderator)
Maria Bartiromo (FNC) - $6 million
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) - $7 million (moderator)
Shepard Smith (FNC) - $7 million
Bret Baire (FNC) - $7 million (moderator)
George Stephanopoulos (NBC) - $9 million
Neil Cavuto (FNC) - $10 million (moderator)
Anderson Cooper (CNN) - $11 million (moderator)
Diane Sawyer (ABC) - $12 million
Brian Williams (NBC) - $13 million
Robin Roberts (ABC) - $14 million
Bill O'Reilly (FNC) - $20 million

Matt Lauer (NBC) - $25 million

Wow! I wish I was getting those salaries (though I prefer print). I studied some journalism in high school and college. Majored in it in college for a while but, since I couldn't pass a typing test of 40 words per minute, I had to drop it. It is a career I've never been able to get out of my system. I should do more blogging.

[Longeyes]

Seems like the action of a would be despot, crushing the freedom of the press because they don't print what the 'great leader' thinks. Checks and balances if he ends up throwing his wieght around like that in office - he will want to clamp down of free speech. Accusing them of lies? What a monster

[calikid]

Seems like the action of a would be despot, crushing the freedom of the press because they don't print what the 'great leader' thinks. Checks and balances if he ends up throwing his wieght around like that in office - he will want to clamp down of free speech. Accusing them of lies? What a monster

PEOTUS Trump did have a point about how the media predicted his loss. Obviously they were wrong and he is justified complaining about it.
IMHO he could have been more gracious about it, after all he did win and media has egg on their face.
PEOTUS does have a temper and is not afraid to let it show. Let's hope once he vents, we can move on to more productive things without holding grudges.
And maybe the media will take away a new feel for the need to make better predictions next time.