Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Hmmm....is this a fake news article??

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    478
    Chicken lady, most of the oil is still under the frozen creek, and no recovery attempts will be made till the thaw. In the meantime, oil may well be seeping its way downstream toward human drinking water supplies. It's probably also killing a large number of aquatic organisms as well as fouling spawning beds. There are serious environmental concerns beyond human drinking water.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,693
    Since NYT seems to have specialized in fake news over the election year, with HRC having a what, 90% chance of winning the election,
    How in heaven's name would this be "fake" news?? An incorrect prediction, perhaps - but she DID win the popular vote, with over 2 million more votes than Trump. Do you accept only the "news" you want to hear? Do you believe everything that comes out of someone's mouth, or is printed online? Are you aware that there is a verified fake news industry out there:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fa...g-lies-n692451
    Buzzfeed reported on it this fall, but the mainstream media now seems to have "discovered" it. Don't believe everything you hear, just because you agree!

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    7,454
    If you read the Podesta emails, there are several instances where news media is taking its marching orders from the campaign. I think in those instances, you are reading fake news.

    Here's another source of concern for me:

    http://www.accuracy.org/release/cia-...shington-post/

    So it seems to me that Bezos has a real conflict of interest here, and he owns the Post.

    Thus leading to the potential for fake news.

    Anyway, that's the way I see it, and why. You obviously have a different view, and I appreciate that. I think we can just agree to disagree.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    4,192
    Suzanne, that was not me being cavalier, that was me mocking the general response to the leak.

  5. #15
    Senior Member CathyA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    9,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanne View Post
    Cathy, I think you may have misunderstood. The figure of 4,600 is barrels of oil. That's still 179,000 gallons of oil.
    Suzanne.....you're right. I misunderstood that in one article they were talking about gallons and in the next it was about barrels. Still, a horrible accident that was true. The damage potential is always great with an oil leak.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    9,656
    The whole fake news meme, which I might try to give more benefit of the doubt if it was so, would be more believable if legitimate news sources weren't being slammed as "fake news" recently. That almost discredits the fake news meme itself. If the fake news meme wanted to discredit itself it couldn't do a better job! When most legitimate sources of real criticism of the status quo get slammed as fake news (in some cases the kind of sources that have been consistently right over the decades when the MSM wasn't about the whole lies and folly of the Iraq war for instance. So places that have EARNED high credibility by virtue of having seen through the lies and been right (even though you should trust nothing entirely) are suddenly "fake news".

    Of course just because things are falsely being accused of being fake news does not of course mean fake news does not exist (will the real fake news please stand up). But I think the term has become too broad to be meaningful. What seems to be going on is legitimate sources of information (again trust nothing entirely) are being slammed as fake news, meanwhile actual fake news does exist but it is uncertain at all how broad it's influence is or how many people are paying any attention to it.

    Meanwhile so called legitimate sources like the AP whom I don't think is necessarily making up news all the time or anything, completely ILLEGITIMATELY interfere with democratic elections in attempts to sabotage them that are worthy of any Putin (if Putin does indeed interfere). Right here in the U.S.. Posting stories that Clinton had won based on pretty much nothing right before the California primary was unethical in the EXTREME. It was an attempt to throw an election (whether the results would have been the same regardless does not negate that it was an unethical attempt to influence an election). I was just shocked when that happened.

    On a separate topic: CIA influence. Yea the CIA influences media at times, no I don't know when they are doing so, but it's well documented. Truthfully I suspect the CIA has done much to shape modern American political understanding but that all dates back to mid last century. It seems they funded gobs of people from Arthur Schlesinger, to Hannah Arendt, to George Orwell (really), to lightweights like Gloria Steinem. And I could be wrong on this. Ack fake news! Yea I go by what seems to be the best understanding I have at anything at the moment. But if the CIA can fund and still not totally corrupt the message maybe so can Russian intelligence, but that's different that just making up facts out of whole cloth like maybe Dmitri does.

    And as per the story Dmitry isn't even getting funding from Russia but from Trump supporters - way way way too much stuff is being conflated lately - fake news, real criticism, leak sites (wikileaks), Russian backing etc. when the connections seem tenuous or just not there period.
    Trees don't grow on money

  7. #17
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,489
    I think when you see a bunch of stories about Ms. Clinton being a serial killer or a drug runner, with juicy details, you can pretty much assume it's fake news.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    7,454
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    I think when you see a bunch of stories about Ms. Clinton being a serial killer or a drug runner, with juicy details, you can pretty much assume it's fake news.
    Similarly, when you watch a presidential debate, when the questions have been secretly fed to the candidate in advance, you can pretty much assume you are watching fake news.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •