Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

riversedge

(70,092 posts)
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 06:33 PM Dec 2016

HILLARY CLINTON: The 'epidemic of malicious fake news' is a 'danger' that must be 'addressed quic

Source: businessinsider


Oliver Darcy

31m


.........Let me just mention briefly one threat in particular that should concern all Americans, Clinton said at an event honoring outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike especially those who serve in our Congress.

Clinton said it was now clear the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda could have real-world consequences.

This isnt about politics or partisanship, she said. Lives are at risk. Live of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.

Clinton continued: Its a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly. Bipartisan legislation is making its way through Congress to boost the governments response to foreign propaganda and Silicon Valley is starting to grapple with the challenge and threat of fake news.

..........................

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-fake-news-trump-election-2016-12




Bros4Hillary ‏@Bros4Hillary 40m40 minutes ago

Perfect captioning.








3:52 PM - 8 Dec 2016

https://twitter.com/Bros4Hillary/status/806979891019161600
43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HILLARY CLINTON: The 'epidemic of malicious fake news' is a 'danger' that must be 'addressed quic (Original Post) riversedge Dec 2016 OP
They might start by taking a hard long look at fox news. That's where it started. shraby Dec 2016 #1
Hear, hear! Raster Dec 2016 #3
They need to shut down right-wing hate radio GreydeeThos Dec 2016 #5
If only. Nt JudyM Dec 2016 #16
That's definitely when it hit the mainstream. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #6
I'm not trying to be a smart ass, volstork Dec 2016 #17
Why is no one taking on these outlets? Nwgirl503 Dec 2016 #25
IMO it started 9 years before fox started, when reagan killed the fairness doctrine certainot Dec 2016 #26
agreed and what can we do? lancelyons Dec 2016 #28
have to do more than that to stop him before he gets in certainot Dec 2016 #29
A few weeks ago-there were a few articles saying Trump would end Net neutrality... riversedge Dec 2016 #33
limbaugh says he will which means he's ben given the job to sell it certainot Dec 2016 #34
Words of wisdom from our REAL president-elect. tenorly Dec 2016 #2
Yep! She's my President! True_Blue Dec 2016 #35
asbad as fox news is DonCoquixote Dec 2016 #4
Zuckerberg's decision to disseminate/profit from fake news is not a first amendment issue. PSPS Dec 2016 #8
Facebook cannot monitor every single post that is made xor Dec 2016 #39
Reddit and 4chan, too. LisaM Dec 2016 #9
The first step for people is to identify and call out fake-news purveyors Hortensis Dec 2016 #7
It's gotten to where we need consumer protection, as with food labeling, etc. Except that it only JudyM Dec 2016 #19
I agree entirely. Hortensis Dec 2016 #20
Thom Hartmann had an interesting take on this today, before we become truth police rurallib Dec 2016 #10
Washington Post had an OpEd that listed a bunch of sites like that as fake LisaM Dec 2016 #11
The DU is full of fake news. Indydem Dec 2016 #24
I agree with you 100% xor Dec 2016 #41
Better take care of the fraudulent election strategies the Repugs are doing first. The 26% backwash diane in sf Dec 2016 #12
K&R JHan Dec 2016 #13
I said the same thing in a rant this morning! Baitball Blogger Dec 2016 #14
Thanks for the link. I missed it. riversedge Dec 2016 #22
What about the challenge of "real" news too. nt JCanete Dec 2016 #15
There's malicious fake news right on prime time, and nationwide cable. BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2016 #18
A few other comments about Hillary's speech here... riversedge Dec 2016 #21
Well, Hillary. Maybe if your large donors got together and bought a tv station KittyWampus Dec 2016 #23
Fake news has been around since Rush Limbaugh and earlier including Fox News. lancelyons Dec 2016 #27
I understand Hillary's point but I prefer to be my own filter NWCorona Dec 2016 #30
Not everyone is like you - most people literally read headlines Justice Dec 2016 #38
republicans fox and their birther crap, started the lie news. Sunlei Dec 2016 #31
Pope Warns Media Over Sin Of Spreading Fake News, Smearing Politicians riversedge Dec 2016 #32
Now about that shadow government... lonestarnot Dec 2016 #36
Thank you, Rivers! Good on Hillary winner of the Popular Vote! Cha Dec 2016 #37
You bet. Glad she is speaking out on this important issue. riversedge Dec 2016 #40
People believe that crap because they want to believe it. killbotfactory Dec 2016 #42
And tomorow you'll wake up and find that everything that doesn't support the status quo is "fake" Taitertots Dec 2016 #43

Raster

(20,998 posts)
3. Hear, hear!
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 06:39 PM
Dec 2016

Fox News is the granddaddy of fake news, and was never adequately addressed because it also served as the propaganda arm of the GOP.

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)
5. They need to shut down right-wing hate radio
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 06:48 PM
Dec 2016

Rush Limbaugh has been polluting the AM band with disinformation for 25 years.

TwilightZone

(25,428 posts)
6. That's definitely when it hit the mainstream.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 06:49 PM
Dec 2016

It opened the door for Facebook, et al, to become echo chambers for the chronically fact-challenged.

volstork

(5,399 posts)
17. I'm not trying to be a smart ass,
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 07:42 PM
Dec 2016

But who is "they?"
Who will/should be tasked with shutting down fox and conservative talk radio?
What actions can we as individuals take (other than boycotting sponsors) to hasten the demise of these poisonous institutions?

Nwgirl503

(406 posts)
25. Why is no one taking on these outlets?
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 09:15 PM
Dec 2016

Limbaugh, Jones, Briebart, Infowars, Fox, 90% of the shit CNN and other networks spew. When these "sources" are the only source some people have, someone has to stand up and call it out. On a global level. Where are the nefarious backers Clinton supposedly had? For someone who had the reach she was supposed to have had, I'm disappointed that these outlets have had such control of the narrative.

 

certainot

(9,090 posts)
26. IMO it started 9 years before fox started, when reagan killed the fairness doctrine
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 09:33 PM
Dec 2016

in 1987, and the right started buying up all the loudest radio stations in the country and put guys like limbaugh on them.

talk radio is what made fox, and now trump, possible

they put carnival barkers on every corner and stump in the country yelling at liberals that their sisters were whores, their brothers thieves and their ideas treasonous. the left liberals dems responded by beginning a 30- year period of covering their ears and walking by, ignoring it while a few hundred dipshits hiding behind call screeners kicked our ass over and over.

fox is the visual icing on the lie turd pie of talk radio. it can't do the unnoticed unchallenged repetition needed to sell the alternate reality that made trump possible. take the millions of illegal voters lie. they've been using non existent voter fraud lies big time since 2000 to sell their voter suppression but ramped it up this summer to say 2mil illegal aliens were getting drivers licenses from obama and dems so they could vote. why the fuck doesnt the dem party know that and why didn't they respond to it. and even after the fact why didn't dems in media respond to trump and hacks repeating the lie with something like "well, limbaugh's been saying that for months but it's a lie" etc.

thirty years of that and now there's fake news on the internet? guess what- on nov 29 limbaugh assaulted net neutrality explaining trump needs to end it because it allows govt to control the internet!!! him saying it means trump is planning it. limbaugh's imbecile audience knows he means liberal big govt so they'll help by screaming at their reps when it comes up. he explained, like he did 20 yrs ago to deregulate media, that competition will lower prices! and they'll believe him because the left has no clue what those stations are screaming all day, don't care, give it a free speech free ride, and ignore it while it kicks their ass.

hillary called it a vast rw conspiracy and everyone laughed at her

and still there is no organized response, with purists hammering away on their tenth made-by-slave-labor computing device in 2 years complaining about how their reps lost track of some of their unicorns and hillary and bill tried to make more than civil service money, looking at the prospect of SS protection the rest of their lives from dittoheads who thought they were running a child sex slave opertation under a pizza joint.

worse than that probably 1/3 of the 1200 or so stations kicking our ass, many of the loudest ones, depend on our university sports to attract advertising!

if you know any activists, groups, newspapers at those universities send them this:

xxxxxxx

Your school is on a list of 88 universities at republiconradio.org that broadcast sports on 257 of Rush Limbaugh’s 600 radio stations. They could also be called Trump radio stations.

Your university is not only mocking it’s own mission statement, it is undermining the interests of most of its students, faculty, employees, and surrounding communities.

That makes your own school a legitimate place to protest any issue related to the Trump agenda.

Many of those relationships began prior to the 90’s, before they all began broadcasting propaganda for one party. There is no reason for those schools not to start looking for apolitical alternatives immediately.

The school administration will claim that it does not make business decisions based on politics.This is a question all those schools need to ask: If a radio station went to KKK programming would the university still let its mascot be used to sell a KKK agenda?

Those stations weigh in on elections for university regents and selection of administration including presidents and chancellors - is there a conflict of interest?

All of those stations will continue to deny global warming, deny reproductive rights to women, excuse racism and homophobia, and promote and excuse the Trump agenda. Republicans want to privatize public education, social security, and the post office. Their policies will raise college tuition. They want to reverse gains in health care reform. They want to end net neutrality. Those stations will be cheerleaders for the next war, as they were for the last one.

The station pays a licensing company a fee and the school gets a part of that. The station then gets to use the school logos, mascot, and community standing to attract advertising revenue. It gets to declare things like “850 KOA, home of the Buffs,and Rush Limbaugh!” Compared with TV licensing revenue talk radio stations pay very little.

Advertising revenue is used to fund station operating costs and pay for the national and local talk show hosts that broadcast from them most of the day.

Except for occasional innocuous programming all of those stations operate exclusively for the benefit of the Republican Party. They are coordinated with national and state GOP and their allied think tanks

If Trump would pay $1000/hr for a radio ad, 1200 nationwide stations x 15hrs/day x 5 days/week are worth about $5BIL/yr FREE for Trump. 255 x $75,000 = $19,125,000/WEEK FREE for Trump, or about $1BIL/yr endorsed by institutions of higher learning.

Those stations, licensed to operate in the public interest, are heavily dependent on the schools they parasitize and they all:
- deny global warming and science
- use public airwaves to sell voter suppression legislation
- use and excuse racism, misogyny, homophobia, and hate to divide communities
- work to deny reproductive rights for women and access to contraception
- fight environmental regulation, push fracking, and always support fossil fuel solutions over renewables
- fight to defund and privatize public education, attack teachers and work to lower their salaries, attack their unions, push voucher solutions and standardized testing, and obstruct efforts to lower student debt
- fight efforts to increase minimum wage
- undermine the economic and environmental interests of their communities
- use public airways to repeat propaganda that is demonstrably false and continue to lie after being corrected
- use public airwaves but use call screeners to exclude dissenting callers

How much revenue does the licensing company pay for radio broadcasting portion compared to the TV portion? Could donors make up the difference if there is a monetary loss? If there is a loss, how does it compare with the harm it is doing to its own principles, funding, students, and surrounding communities?

Are they violating their 501c3 tax exempt status? Here’s the IRS rule for political activity:
“Political activity. -  If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements.”

No university has a good excuse not to reexamine it’s relationship with partisan radio stations and look for apolitical alternatives. If an existing contract cannot be voided without penalty, can donors be found to cover it?

Any university, state or private, supporting Republican talk radio is shooting itself in the foot, demeaning its mission statement and professed goals and values, and harming its students’ futures.

Here is that list of universities ($1000 x 15hrs/day x 5days = $75,000/week):

ALABAMA 8 $600,000 Auburn 3, Alabama 2, Southern Alabama 2, Troy 1
ARIZONA 1 $75,000 Arizona St. 1
ARKANSAS 3 $225,000 Arkansas 3
CALIFORNIA 5 $375,000 San Jose State 2, USC 2, Fresno St. 1
COLORADO 4 $300,000 Air Force 2, Colorado 1, Colorado State 1
CONNECTICUT 1  $75,000 Connecticut 1
FLORIDA 20 $1,500,000 Florida 10, Florida St. 4 Miami 2, South Florida 2, Central Florida 2
GEORGIA 14 $1,050,000 Georgia 7, Georgia Tech 5, Georgia Southern 2
IDAHO 7 $525,000 Boise St. 4, Idaho 3
ILLINOIS 7 $525,000 Illinois 7
INDIANA 11 $825,000 Notre Dame 6, Purdue 4, Indiana 1
IOWA 5 $375,000 Iowa 4, Iowa St. 1
KANSAS 4 $300,000 Kansas St. 2, Kansas 1, Wichita St. 1
KENTUCKY 3 $225,000 Louisville 2, Kentucky 1
LOUSIANA 3 $225,000 LSU 2, La.-Monroe 1
MARYLAND 2 $150,000 Maryland 2
MASSACHUSETTS 1 $75,000 Boston College 1
MICHIGAN 19 $1,425,000 Michigan St. 11, Michigan 7, Western Michigan 1
MINNESOTA 4 $300,000 Minnesota 4
MISSISSIPPI 6 Mississippi St. 3, Mississippi 2, Southern Miss 1
MISSOURI 6 $450,000 Missouri 6
NEBRASKA 6 $450,000 Nebraska 6
NEVADA 1 $75,000 Nevada 1
NEW JERSEY 2 $150,000 Rutgers 1, Seton Hall 1
NEW MEXICO 3 $225,000 New Mexico 2, New Mexico St. 1
NEW YORK 7 $525,000 Syracuse 6, Army 1
NORTH CAROLINA 16 $1,200,000 North Carolina 8, North Carolina State 3, Duke 3, East Carolina 2
OHIO 10 $750,000 Ohio St. 6, Toledo 1, Dayton 1, Bowling Green 1, Xavier 1
OKLAHOMA 5 $375,000 Oklahoma St. 3, Oklahoma 1, Oral Roberts 1
OREGON 12 $900,000 Oregon St. 7, Oregon 5
PENNSYLVANIA 14 $1,050,000 Penn St. 11, Pittsburgh 2, Temple 1
SOUTH CAROLINA 4 $300,000 South Carolina 2, Clemson 2
TENNESSEE 7 $525,000 Tennessee 4, Memphis 3
TEXAS 16 $1,200,000 Texas A&M 9, Texas Tech 4, Texas 1, Texas Christian 1, Baylor 1
UTAH 1 $75,000 Utah St. 1
VIRGINIA 6 $450,000 Virginia Tech 5, Virginia 1
WASHINGTON 6 $450,000 Washington 5, Washington St. 1
WEST VIRGINIA 2 $150,000 West Virginia 1, Marshall 1
WISCONSIN 5 $225,000 Wisconsin 5

There is no excuse for any school to support Trump radio.

 

lancelyons

(988 posts)
28. agreed and what can we do?
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 10:01 PM
Dec 2016

I agree with most of what you say.

I am also blown away that democrats have stood and watched as this fake news continues all around them being powerless to do anything about it.

Normal media outlets dont waste time checking in on these or giving them time so they just keep getting spread.

Its amazing that a person like Hillary who has done alot of great things in service of the community and country yet you would think she was almost the second coming of the devil. Obama was devil the past 8 years.

What are we going to do?

The one thing we can do is VOTE and speak out.

 

certainot

(9,090 posts)
29. have to do more than that to stop him before he gets in
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 10:21 PM
Dec 2016

and if he gets in then we have to do whatever we can to get house and senate in 2 years.

dems have to go on the offensive, do something different - gotv isn't enough

trump rode rw radio into the white house and it will be instrumental for doing everything they plan

anything trump can be protested at those universities. if dems get those unis talking about dropping their support for trump radio the gop will freak out, media will notice, and trump will lose its most important weapon

dems will get house and senate

riversedge

(70,092 posts)
33. A few weeks ago-there were a few articles saying Trump would end Net neutrality...
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:06 AM
Dec 2016

They came and went--I did not hear anything about it on the tube but might have missed it. I was alarmed at the time. Seems it is under the radar but I am sure it will raise its ugly head soon.


....thirty years of that and now there's fake news on the internet? guess what- on nov 29 limbaugh assaulted net neutrality explaining trump needs to end it because it allows govt to control the internet!!! him saying it means trump is planning it......................

 

certainot

(9,090 posts)
34. limbaugh says he will which means he's ben given the job to sell it
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:15 AM
Dec 2016

here's from limbaugh's nov 29 show :

it's such a bunch of bullshit but he'll keep working it for months and sell it like they did media deregulation, electronic voting, and citizens united

limbaugh:

And while net neutrality may not be front and center today, it's going to be once Trump's inaugurated and his FCC starts fixing the things Obama broke.


What's gonna happen is, sometime down the road this net neutrality thing is gonna blow up, and you're say, "Yeah, yeah, I know about that. Rush talked about that a couple months ago." That is gonna be your reaction to it.  Now, I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this right now, but it is key because what we do here is expose the left.  We deconstruct them and expose them.  They are ruining this country, and they're doing it under the guise of transforming it and "modernizing" it and ridding it of the baggage of the founding.
It's horrible what they have been doing, and they have been doing it at every level of government and society and culture.


Net neutrality is a big deal to the left because it puts the government in charge of the internet. It puts the government in charge of content. It lets the government choose what you can watch and what you can't watch and what you pay for it.  And that's bogus.  In the name of competition, they want to take competition away from the net.  They're leftists.  They lie to you about what they want to do.  And some of...
Like these little tech bloggers may even be dupes.  They may not even know what they're doing.  They just think they do.  So when they talk about net neutrality promoting competition, who knows; they may actually think that it does.  But it doesn't.


Net neutrality rules are anti-consumer and anti-competitive.  By definition, liberals don't believe in competition, and you know that.  Competition is the root of all evil, as far as leftists are concerned, 'cause there are winners and there are losers, and the losers are sad and disappointed, and that's unacceptable. So everything must be the same.  Nobody can have more than anybody else.
Nobody should be able to offer anymore than anybody.
Nobody should have to pay more than anybody else. Nobody should make more than anybody else. Everything is supposed to be the same. It's the only way it's fair. It's the only way feelings don't get hurt.  So when circumstances like that exist, they call that anti-competitive.  Anti-competitive means they can't afford it.


But you are gonna be hearing about this because Trump is going to get rid of net neutrality.  His FCC is gonna broom it.  And when that happens, you're gonna hear caterwauling like you haven't heard caterwauling, right along the lines I have been describing.  And when it happens you're gonna be able to say, "I know about this.  Rush told me about this all the way back in December."  Actually, November.

tenorly

(2,037 posts)
2. Words of wisdom from our REAL president-elect.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 06:38 PM
Dec 2016

The rest is just babbling from an usurper installed by computer hackers and foreign dictators.

DonCoquixote

(13,616 posts)
4. asbad as fox news is
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 06:44 PM
Dec 2016

the problem has gone on to the next stage thanks to facebook, where a pizza parlor in DC has been terrorized by people thinking Hillary is running a satanic paedophilic sex temple there. Think I am joking?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/12/04/d-c-police-respond-to-report-of-a-man-with-a-gun-at-comet-ping-pong-restaurant/?utm_term=.301e5ccab3cc

sorry to say, while I love free speech, Zuckerburg may need to be taken to the woodshed.

PSPS

(13,580 posts)
8. Zuckerberg's decision to disseminate/profit from fake news is not a first amendment issue.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 07:03 PM
Dec 2016

He has full control over what appears on his product (Facebook.)

xor

(1,204 posts)
39. Facebook cannot monitor every single post that is made
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:39 AM
Dec 2016

It is also a difficult line when it comes to determining what is considered harmful enough to be a candidate to be censored. Since any large site like facebook needs to have an army of people reviewing posts (even more if every post is reviewed), that means there needs to be some sort of clear cut rules for determining what is acceptable and what isn't. When I try to think of ways I would approach such a problem, I find it very difficult to come up with satisfactory ideas that would be effective.

And even if facebook/twitter/whatever did come up with a perfect solution to these problems, then something else will pop up to cater to them. In fact that's why there are several similar sites to facebook and twitter that have become popular among those types (gab.com ?I think?) So in those cases the only options would be to compel the hosting companies or ISPs providing internet connections to shut such sites down, but I don't see that being a viable or even ideal option.

I think the real problem is the people. Us. Why are people so willing to shutdown all critical thought? Is it stupidity? Pure hatred for "the other side"? Are we not teaching people how to think logically? I think we need to figure that out more than anything else. Everything else is just bandaid that doesn't address the real issue.

LisaM

(27,794 posts)
9. Reddit and 4chan, too.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 07:10 PM
Dec 2016

I think this particular piece of nasty took hold on those two sites, though I think Reddit ultimately took down the thread.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
7. The first step for people is to identify and call out fake-news purveyors
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 06:53 PM
Dec 2016

for what they are, both individuals and individual media, whenever they appear. Make their names synonymous with lies so that others know and would be embarrassed to quote them.

Those still watching CNN and MSNBC might start identifying those appearing there, for instance and posting them here. Shows that give the lies of interviewees national exposure without calling them out. Identify dishonest "lying heads." I've read that CNN has also fake news purveyors on payroll as part of playing to a wide audience. Not that they call them that, of course.

Identify conscientious media and individuals who can be recommended to others.

JudyM

(29,204 posts)
19. It's gotten to where we need consumer protection, as with food labeling, etc. Except that it only
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 07:46 PM
Dec 2016

impacts our democracy, not (directly) our health. Broadcast licensing needs more robust terms, if masquerading as a news source there currently are no consequences.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
20. I agree entirely.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 07:52 PM
Dec 2016

If we let this go on, its enemies will destroy our democratic republic, only a matter of time. We know that now.

rurallib

(62,387 posts)
10. Thom Hartmann had an interesting take on this today, before we become truth police
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 07:17 PM
Dec 2016

that is if I understood what he said correctly.

Among sites that have been accused of being fake news have been sites like dailykos and talkingpointsmemo. So who will police what is and what isn't fake?

Giving power to somehow adjudicate what is and isn't fake to a Trump administration would be giving them the power to control information.

Now they will try to do that anyway by distorting systems that are in place now.

If we give power to somehow judge what is fake, good guys will not always be the judges. As we have seen, the American public can be manipulated to vote against their best interests all the time.

LisaM

(27,794 posts)
11. Washington Post had an OpEd that listed a bunch of sites like that as fake
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 07:20 PM
Dec 2016

it was pretty roundly scoffed at (the report). It was comparing apples and oranges.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
24. The DU is full of fake news.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 08:23 PM
Dec 2016

But it keeps getting circulated as fact. Despite the fact there is no evidence to support it.

Ex: MIHOP, 2004 Ohio Hack, 2016 WI/MI/PA hack, Siegelman, etc.

Look for it to get shut down.

xor

(1,204 posts)
41. I agree with you 100%
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:28 PM
Dec 2016

I'd even say that fake news and it actually being something that cause real problems is just a symptom of a much larger issue.

Before the election I read a story posted on facebook that said it was a smoking gun to prove Hillary Clinton and Podesta had discussions in which they admitted to creating ISIS and funding it directly. That's pretty much exactly what the headline said. They then posted a small excerpt from the wikileak emails in which they claim were from Clinton and Podesta. They highlighted a small portion of the text which discussed funding of ISIS, but it didn't really say what they claimed. Then if you read the entire email from the wikileaks site, it became even more apparent that it didn't say what the article claimed. And that's even if you accept wikileaks email dump as a valid source (I find it questionable)

Despite these fact, there were people just running with it. Tens of thousands of comments from people who did not analyze or validate the information they were being given. They just accepted it because it fit what they wanted to hear. Trying to point this out was futile because it was either ignored, or attacked with irrelevant nonsense unrelated to subject. The fact people are unwilling to step back and look at things critically is the problem, and will continue to be the problem even if some how magically got rid of all fake news site on the internet.

diane in sf

(3,913 posts)
12. Better take care of the fraudulent election strategies the Repugs are doing first. The 26% backwash
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 07:22 PM
Dec 2016

population only 'won' this election through strategic cheating in a few key swing states by the Republican party. We need to address crooked, defective, hackable machines, crooked election officials like that witch in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, voter ID laws, Cross-Check, gerrymandering, machine and polling place shortages in Democratic areas, shortening of polling times and dates, discarding of mail-in and provisional ballots, etc.

The Repugs are doing everything they can to steal elections and the Democrats have not addressed this, even after the two bush sElections. To me this is an inexplicable outrage.

Why will the Democrats not tackle this stuff???!!!!!???????!!!!!
You would think they don't care if they win.

They may not, but as one of the peasants who's going to need my Social Security and Medicare, I care a lot.

A 50 state strategy on the part of the DNC would be a good start on addressing state level election fraud.

BlancheSplanchnik

(20,219 posts)
18. There's malicious fake news right on prime time, and nationwide cable.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 07:45 PM
Dec 2016

I want rules against news media malicious lying.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
23. Well, Hillary. Maybe if your large donors got together and bought a tv station
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 08:09 PM
Dec 2016

and a radio station and made sure it was accessible to every tv and radio... and pushed to have them broadcast to Armed Services and on tvs in waiting rooms...

 

lancelyons

(988 posts)
27. Fake news has been around since Rush Limbaugh and earlier including Fox News.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 09:47 PM
Dec 2016

Fake news has been around since Rush Limbaugh and earlier including Fox News.

These guys have been peddling conspiracy theories and fake (unverified) news for years and have millions of Americans brain washed. In addition, Farleigh Dickinson University did a study and found that Feaux news viewers were less informed than folks that watched no news at all.

[link:http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/01/30/does_watching_fox_news_make_you_less_informed.html|

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
30. I understand Hillary's point but I prefer to be my own filter
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 10:50 PM
Dec 2016

People just need to realize that Jason from Facebook isn't a reliable source.

riversedge

(70,092 posts)
32. Pope Warns Media Over Sin Of Spreading Fake News, Smearing Politicians
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 11:56 PM
Dec 2016

I missed this yesterday.




Pope Warns Media Over ‘Sin’ Of Spreading Fake News, Smearing Politicians
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-blasts-sin-of-fake-news_us_58484584e4b08c82e8892eb2

Spreading Disinformation is “the greatest damage that the media can do.”
12/07/2016 12:33 pm ET


Stefano Rellandini / Reuters

?cache=lyzxg89f5x

Pope Francis speaks as he leads a consistory ceremony to install 17 new cardinals in Saint Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican November 19, 2016.

Media that focus on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement, Pope Francis said in an interview published on Wednesday.

Francis told the Belgian Catholic weekly “Tertio” that spreading disinformation was “probably the greatest damage that the media can do” and using communications for this rather than to educate the public amounted to a sin.

Using precise psychological terms, he said scandal-mongering media risked falling prey to coprophilia, or arousal from excrement, and consumers of these media risked coprophagia, or eating excrement.
..............

“I think the media have to be very clear, very transparent, and not fall into - no offence intended - the sickness of coprophilia, that is, always wanting to cover scandals, covering nasty things, even if they are true,” he said.

“And since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, a lot of damage can be done.”......................

riversedge

(70,092 posts)
40. You bet. Glad she is speaking out on this important issue.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:14 PM
Dec 2016




Hillary Clinton calls fake news 'an epidemic' with real world consequences

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/hillary-clinton-fake-news-epidemic/index.html?sr=fbCNN120916hillary-clinton-fake-news-epidemic1215AMStoryLink&linkId=32124804


By Dan Merica, CNN

Updated 8:00 AM ET, Fri December 9, 2016

How did 'pizzagate' inspire violence?

................"After a few weeks of taking selfies in the woods I thought it would be a good idea to come out," Clinton joked. "And I am very grateful to Harry for inviting me to be part of this celebration."

Clinton heralded Reid, who is retiring after first being elected in 1986, as a man who never lost his touch with his hard-scrabble home in rural Nevada.

"No matter how high he rose here in Washington," Clinton said, "he never lost touch with the people and values he grew up with back in Searchlight."

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that Hillary Clinton spoke with the owner of Comet Ping Pong. They have not spoken.

killbotfactory

(13,566 posts)
42. People believe that crap because they want to believe it.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:39 PM
Dec 2016

I wish people weren't so juvenile and petty, but...

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»HILLARY CLINTON: The 'epi...