This isn’t exactly surprising. The Times continues to lose market share to sites like Breitbart. It’d love a boycott of its competition. (What was it NYT? Profits were down what? 95% last quarter?) The New York Times has also colluded with the Democrats in the (recent) past as we’ve reported in this space.
Brexit, Trump, and the Italian referendum this month have shown pretty clearly that the global middle class has had about enough. However, the people who have long run the political show aren’t happy about this bourgeois revolt. Indeed as the “deplorables” have gained their voice the (old) powers that be are crying out for censorship. That, not Russian hacking, is what the “fake news” meme is all about. The crony media system, a partnership between government and the media corporations is breaking down and people like Obama,
The term “fake news” should pretty much always be in quotes. “Fake news,” probably for the most part is code for news that reflects poorly on the powers that be. Fighting “fake news” isn’t about fighting conjured rumors or false stories. It’s about controlling the conversation.
Facebook is a private company and it can do what it wants. Facebook has also been for the most part a good company to work with as far as ACC is concerned. But to rely on Snopes, The Washington Post, and ABC to determine what is real news and what is “fake” news is ridiculous. Snopes is often just flat out wrong and is always biased toward statist, establishment news. It is not some independent arbiter of information, it is an ideological tool.
This is an article that needs to be read.
I’ve been watching the “fake news” nonsense very closely. It seems to be a mix of partisans looking for a reason, any reason, why so many people just rejected Hillary and by extension Obama when in their opinion Clinton was clearly the superior choice, (Remember the whole email private server thing, and the Clinton Foundation money, and the quarter million dollar “speeches” to the bailout banks, and the get out of jail pass from Comey, and the rigged primaries,
It is very interesting that the publications pushing the “fake news” nonsense are in decline. It is also interesting that for the most part the “fake news” nonsense is itself FAKE NEWS.
I have serious issues with Warren Buffett but when he sold The Washington Post to Jeff Bezos I sensed that it was probably a good move for Buffett. Originally Buffett bought The Post because it was the chosen news source within the power circles of Washington DC. In addition to this important factor Washpo had a strong readership based in a wealthy city. Good for ad revenue. There was deep value in the publication. But, to Buffett’s credit he probably sensed the winds shifting (even if he did think Hillary was going to win) and sold The Post when he could before the real serious decline in value became too obvious and too expensive even for someone who wanted to revamp the newspaper for delivery on Kindle devices.
(From The Tenth Amendment Center)
Anyone with an ounce of sense and access to the Internet should be able to ferret out the truth and lies in these stories with some basic research. That these stories flourish is largely owing to the general gullibility, laziness and media illiteracy of the general public, which through its learned compliance rarely questions, challenges or confronts.
Then there’s the more devious kind of news stories circulated by one of the biggest propagators of fake news: the U.S.
You have probably seen the list of “fake news sites” created by Merrimack College assistant professor Melissa Zimdars that has been making the rounds. But it isn’t a list of “fake news” sites, it is a list of sites that challenge the official narratives put forth by outfits like The New York Times and PBS. At least this is true for many of the sites.
For instance sites like Zerohedge and LewRockwell.com were both on the list which is total nonsense.