Fake news sites: a listing
I think it would be very helpful to have a listing of all fake news sites. this is too big a job for one or two people to ttake on. So, I propose DU have one here.
I've read a number of articles on fake news sites and I'll start off this list with one nobody has mentioned: Fox News. I propose that each indentified fake news site be offered with a comment to this OP. That way interested parties can click on this thread and the list of comment titles would be the list of fake news sites. Now under each comment DUers can add whatever criticism or additions to what information was provided to support the comments nominated fake news site.
I'm going to start things off with the BIGGEST fake news site which, remarkably, was not mentioned in any of the articles about fake news sites.
but this site hits all places that feature satire that's taken seriously by dumb people as well as outrageously fake news.
Yes, there's false equivalence there, but it also alerts to small sites we might not have considered, especially those identified with a black line (conspiracy) and red line (right wing).
have with this is that DU publishes comments, opinions of tens of thousands of people daily. Each of these posts are subject to review and criticism by other DUers. DU does not produce content of their own.
I realize Facebook is considered a fake news site because it has published fake news on it's platform. But I think we should be looking at sites which produce fake news content of their own.
I don't know if you should be listing a discussion forum which by design is set up for other participants to review and criticize posts by members.
the title on this page is: Unstrustworthy News Sources With Left Political Bias
subtitle: Sites Known For Promoting A Left Wing Bias
the title on this page is: News Sources With Right Wing Political Bias
subtitle: Sites Known For Promoting "Alternative Facts" And A Right Wing Bias
Title: Unstrustworthy News Sources With Conspiracy Bias (don't know if these are Right/Left bias. Would like to know how many in each category or if it does not fit in a Political category)
Subtitle: Sites Known For Promoting "Alternative Facts" And Conspiracy Theories
A black stripe and a red stripe together indicate conspiracy sites, right bias.
I didn't see any left wing conspiracy sites but it was late when I saw the site and my vision isn't great even when I'm rested.
I did see light blue/yellow sites, which mean satire with a left bias, something that makes sense. Right wingers lack an appreciation for satire.
I do agree the language is loaded there. However, it's a place to start if you don't recognize the source for a story that's too good or bad to be true.
96% Believe the economy was doing great when Barack Obama took office.
84% Believe the Tea Party is a grassroots movement without any corporate sponsorship.
94% Believe the Constitution mentions Jesus Christ as Americas savior.
74% Believe that unemployment is higher now than it was during the Great Depression.
.. they did not have an opinion on.
... I would rather see the ratings for just FOX News - cable, but this is what I found.
59% of the statements were rated Mostly False (21%), False (29%) or Pants on Fire (9%).
Thoughts off the top of my head:
First, you may want to provide some guidelines.
Do you define "fake news" as
provably false? Unsourced? Biased?
Then, what percentage of "fake news" qualifies it as a fake site? 100% fake, about 50%? 1%?
Is there some objective data out there that has this information? How else do you determine if those qualifications are met?
I suppose you can then set a minimum number of DU to unanimously agree on fake news sites. For example, if 50/100/150 DU unanimously agree that Breitbart is a fake news site, then it goes on the list.
news site .. and then include evidence and supporting arguments. For many the supporting argument would be a legitimate article from a known news/analysis site which makes the argument that the site is a purveyor of fake news.
Then each nominated site, with evidence/argument would be considered by each DU member as Fake news or not based on their own evaluation of the evidence. Each person reading the comment could comment in the affirmative or in opposition as they felt moved to.
I guess you could say it's a less formal, or less structured way of accomplishing what you outlined.
This site too can be examined for legitimacy of methodology, just as the sites it lists can be.
Media Bias/Fact Check
Sites are listed under various parameters, Left or Right bias, Questionable Sources and more (see below). People can submit a site for review. The organization does a review of that sites content and makes determination of presence of bias and how extreme the bias is. Once a site is on a list, visitors can vote on the site listed as to how moderate or extreme it is. This has the problem, of course, of how biased are those voting on the site in question and how representative is the sample of voters (weighted too much to one side or the other).
They have lists of sites (and television networks) arranged by several categories:
They also explain their methodology at METHODOLOGY
Once MBFC makes it's evaluation of a site and places it in a site list, visitors vote on any site listed as to bias. Visitors can submit sites for review, and the site asks for feedback.
Here's it's statement above each of the lists of sites showing Left Bias
THe statement for Right Bias list is the same:
THey have an interesting statement about: The seven deadly sins of statistical misinterpretation, and how to avoid them
They include information about the Media Bias/Fact CHeck at About
MBFC News follows a strict methodology for determining the biases of sources. Dave Van Zandt is the primary editor for sources. He is assisted by a collective of volunteers who assist in research for many sources listed on these pages.
MBFC News also provides occasional fact checks, original articles on media bias and breaking/important news stories, especially as it relates to USA politics.
MBFC News was founded by Dave Van Zandt in 2015. Dave studied Communications in college and over the years has focused on personal research in media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting.
Our Valued Contributors
Dennis Kelley- Research
Michael Allen- Research
Faith Locke Siewert- Research
And all the people who submit sources and question our ratings. Your feedback is vital.
Fake security site Media Bias Fact Check is just one guy running a malicious scam
Amid the growing concern about the veracity of online news outlets, various internet users have begun to scrutinize what they read more carefully to make sure its not fake news before trusting it. And thats a good thing. But theat paranoia has also created an opportunity for scam artists to maliciously create confusion for their own personal amusement or agenda. Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called Media Bias Fact Check which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.
One look at the Media Bias Fact Check website reveals it to be something that looks like it was created in 1995. Some independent news outlets (including this one) tend to have a bare bones look and feel about their design, in fitting with their non-corporate media parameters. But the site Media Bias Fact Check is trying to position itself as some kind web security firm or media authority, and any scrutiny of the site reveals it to be far from it.
Despite claiming in its tag line to be The most comprehensive media bias resource, the site turns out to simply be one guy named Dave Van Zandt who posts whatever he feels like. He claims to use a strict methodology for assigning bias ratings to various news outlets, but his ratings typically read like the gibberish one might find in an unmoderated comment section in the worst corners of the internet.
For instance, when it comes to Daily Kos, a widely respected political news site, Van Zandts rating consists of Not a credible news source. Blatant left wing bias that is written by bloggers who wont even use their real names. Requires fact and source checking. One of the worst sources on the internet. Thats it; thats his entire rating. To back up his personal opinion of Daily Kos, Van Zandt provides literally nothing in terms of examples or sources. His rating of Kos consists merely of his own brief and unsubstantiated opinion. And then bizarrely, after telling his audience that Kos is biased, he posts a poll asking the public whether Kos is biased.
a great site on navigating World with FAke news. the site mentions Media Bias/Fact Check as a source of info on FN.
Reports from Harvard and other universities:
Fake news and the spread of misinformation
From the Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School, links to peer-reviewed articles.
NiemanReports: Election '16: Lessons for Journalism
From the Nieman Foundation at Harvard; several articles on fake news and news literacy
Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning
Stanford University study on high school and college students (lack of) news literacy
Lies, Damn Lies and Viral Content: How News Websites Spread (and Debunk) Online Rumors, Unverified Claims and Misinformation
Report from Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University
Selected News Articles:
Media's Next Challenge: Overcoming the Threat of Fake News (New York Times)
For the 'new yellow journalists', opportunity comes in clicks and bucks (Washington Post)
This Analysis Shows How Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News On Facebook (Buzzfeed)
Sites for Journalists:
Fact-Checking Sites and Plug-Ins
Media Bias/Fact Check
Washington Post Fact Checker
BS Detector (Chrome, Firefox, Safari)
Fake News Alert (Chrome)
This is Fake (Chrome, for Facebook feed)
Tips for Analyzing News Sites
Tips for analyzing news sites, and an informal list compiled by Dr. Melissa Zimdars, Assistant Professor at Merrimack College.