Reply With Quote
Obama quietly signs the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act in to law.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/2943/text
http://ijr.com/2016/12/764170-buried...ust-signed-it/
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Obama quietly signs the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act in to law.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/2943/text
http://ijr.com/2016/12/764170-buried...ust-signed-it/
Game over then. A lot of folks saw this last act from B.O. coming. Us loony toons won't much longer be able to enlighten folks by googling and screaming "Look! See!..."Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R
You can almost see the strings on Obama in that second link...
GettyImages-630109420-1024x683.jpg
They have been airbrushed out
I cancelled my Times subscription yesterday.
The sarcastic dweeb on the other end of the phone who wouldn't take no for an answer said that in the era of fake news, it is "always important to get some high quality reporting".
They have blatantly trained these customer service people to bring up certain things so as to keep you interested. It used to take 2 minutes cancel. Then they went through a revamp of their website etc.
You should have told him the reason why you were cancelling was to avoid fake news
I did say that that is the problem and the times isn't know for real news.You should have told him the reason why you were cancelling was to avoid fake news
But I should have said more.
He was the most annoying customer service worker I have ever experienced.
I said this conversation has been going on for 9 minutes and I really just need it cancelled. He said no, it has been going on for 7 minutes and 43 seconds.
Even though I was staring at 9 minutes on my phone.
"BBC sets up team to debunk fake news"
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...bunk-fake-news
To say that boils my piss is really an understatement.
"The BBC is to assemble a team to fact check and debunk deliberately misleading and false stories masquerading as real news.""BBC sets up team to debunk fake news"
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...bunk-fake-news
To say that boils my piss is really an understatement.
It's about time they sorted out the BBC, as it was becoming a bit of a joke!
The guardian picking and choosing what has a comment section is why I don't read it."BBC sets up team to debunk fake news"
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...bunk-fake-news
To say that boils my piss is really an understatement.
Was? still is, they are not sorting out the bbc, just everyone else, if they were they would be talking about this fakery
They know what kind of comments they would get on a story like this that's why.
Was? still is, they are not sorting out the bbc, just everyone else, if they were they would be talking about this fakery
I don't know why you wasted money on that. It is rubbish compared with how it was 25 years ago. Instead of intellectual heavyweights like Brian Walden and Bernard Levin you now have lightweights filling up the columns with mundane comments about shopping or about what they had to eat last week. The only people worth reading are Matthew Parris and Melanie Phillips.
If you want to keep up with current events then just ask your questions on this forum and look at the replies by the more intelligent posters and their answers will tell you what's really happening. If you don't know who the intelligent posters are then just look at the avatar. If the avatar suggests virtue signalling – e.g. a picture of Paul Robeson – then the poster will be a foolish windbag. Ostriches, babies and Gareth Bale are all good avatars.
Why are you asking if others think a website is "reputable" or not? If they say it is, you would then need to ask if the people who recommended it are reputable or not!
The OP has the opinion that Main Stream Media is bad, and the media she reads is good and trustworthy. Nothing wrong with that at all.
However, where the OP is conflicted is where she preaches on telling people that Main Stream Media (BBC/CNN) are fake news peddlers. She is contradicting herself by doing the exact same thing that Main Stream Media (like Facebook/Twitter) are now doing... telling people what to believe and what not to believe.
My rule. Read news items from as many different sources as possible. Look at the evidence, consider the gaps in evidence and form your own opinion.
It would be absolutely crazy to believe your favourite site (whether that is BBC or a "non-mainstream" source) is telling the truth all the time. Some of the preachers here are unwittingly falling into that exact trap.
FAKE NEWS. Packerman didn't say that did he?
So, what DO you use? It's all well and good telling people to avoid certain sites, but you should really provide alternatives.
That is what I do, I'm not telling anyone what to believe, I'm just saying what I believe, I don't care if people agree or not.
I posted a factual statement regarding a huge CP ring that was discovered on Twitter, and the only action they took was to ban the person who had made the discovery and reported it. Also the MSM failed to make any mention of this discovery (or the recently exposed Norwegian CP ring).
Meanwhile Twitter had entered into the war on "fake" news by banning people and tweets that conflicted with their own views, i.e. a liberal agenda.
My post was then met with an ad hominem attack upon myself, which I consider to be an attempt to cast doubt on the original message.
That's brilliant - thanks for that. Thank goodness this board has self-appointed comic geniuses such as yourself and your aliases.
Somebody has allowed comments
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...-reality-check
Nice.
It looks like they've been rumbledNice.
It wont stop this though..It looks like they've been rumbled
http://www.thecanary.co/2017/01/17/b...n-pretty-ugly/
"The plans come after quite a media frenzy around ‘fake news’. False information around ground-breaking events in 2016, such as Brexit and Trump’s election, has caused concern. And media outlets are weighing in from every direction. The trouble is that some are quick to use the term ‘fake news’ when information is presented which doesn’t quite fit the wanted narrative. And some commentators are concerned that the BBC might be using the issue to instil a one-sided agenda by taking control of the narrative."
Posting Permissions
