The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on March 26, 2017, 10:43:15 PM
-
Quixote1818 (19,331 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028857074
Should DU have an alert or policy for posts with suspected fake news sources?
On occasion (including tonight) I see a post that sounds awesome for our side but they are filled with comments saying "fake news site". I would not care too much but often they get huge numbers of recommendations and anyone not looking at the comment section might take it at face value.
I am wondering if DU should come up with some kind of guidelines for sites widely accepted as fake or news sites set up as click-bate even if the article may have quite a bit of truth to it?
Or is it better to allow most anything left-leaning as long as commentators can point out it is probably fake?
Examples of sites that are suspect:
Bipartisan Report https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bipartisan-report/
Palmer Report https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/palmer-report/
7
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Star Member Ms. Toad (14,497 posts)
4. Absolutely.
I am appalled that a completely bogus story has 50 (or more) recommendations, and has survived at least one jury. The author has returned, acknowledged the many objections, but has left it standing.
It continues to get "attaboy" posts and more recommendations - with many apparently not reading the comments pointing out that it is fake news. We should be able to identify, and get rid of, fake news, so that we don't risk the same kind of lack of credibilty the other side has.
(Already posted a request in the Ask the Admin forum.)
Star Member Raine1967 (11,010 posts)
8. We should all be responsible for anything we read here at DU, ESP in GD.
LBN has a pretty rigorous guideline, GD not so much.
Anytime I see a link that I know deserves further research, I do so.
I have seen some VERY suspect things at FDL (back in the day) as well as links from Kos.
On a personal note, I disregard tweets from the like of Greenwald. I like politicusUSA while some do not.
I am reluctant to bring my own blog to DU lest I am accused of spreading fake news.
I guess I am saying is that this could be a very slippery slope.
ColemanMaskell (693 posts)
13. Link to an extensive list of fake (and satire) new sites
Link to list of 376 sites deemed not credible news (includes Breitbart, Borowitz, and Bipartisan Report)
http://www.fakenewschecker.com/
Also lists recent fake stories here:
http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news-articles
Fake News Within Past 48 Hours (actual list too long to cut-and-paste here -- just for the last 48 hours)
:whatever:
Star Member NRaleighLiberal (41,526 posts)
14. you do note DU is on that list as well? colored bars but no legend? Just seems like a random catch all.
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Star Member Hekate (42,045 posts)
19. Pass your OP on over to Ask the Admins so they can consider it.
It's a good idea.
:stoner:
-
Star Member Ms. Toad (14,497 posts)
4. Absolutely.
I am appalled that a completely bogus story has 50 (or more) recommendations, and has survived at least one jury. The author has returned, acknowledged the many objections, but has left it standing.
It continues to get "attaboy" posts and more recommendations - with many apparently not reading the comments pointing out that it is fake news. We should be able to identify, and get rid of, fake news, so that we don't risk the same kind of lack of credibilty the other side has.
(Already posted a request in the Ask the Admin forum.)
Look. Around. You.
Questions?
Star Member NRaleighLiberal (41,526 posts)
14. you do note DU is on that list as well? colored bars but no legend? Just seems like a random catch all.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/shm1.gif)
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
Star Member Hekate (42,045 posts)
19. Pass your OP on over to Ask the Admins so they can consider it.
The DU equivalent of the Congressional practice of sending a bill to a committee so it will die in silence and darkness.
-
Star Member NRaleighLiberal (41,526 posts)
14. you do note DU is on that list as well? colored bars but no legend? Just seems like a random catch all.
OOF!
:rofl:
-
(http://www.fakenewschecker.com/sites/default/files/styles/adaptive/adaptive-image/public/demographics/Screenshot%202016-11-27%2010.07.30.png?itok=NlhY2Jxf)
As we all know,just a bunch of old white people.
-
Star Member NRaleighLiberal (41,526 posts)
14. you do note DU is on that list as well? colored bars but no legend? Just seems like a random catch all.
:rotf: :lmao: :rotf: :lmao: :rotf:
Democratic Underground publishes information from a left biased position with an advocacy for liberal causes. The editorial content and headlines are often loaded with strong words to appeal to emotions and stereotypes. They may publish misleading reports, cite unverified sources, reference bogus reports and omit information that may damage their cause. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion and/or propaganda. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.
Looking over the two sites, briefly, the built-in bias seems to be in the reliably liberal range of the spectrum. In that light, FakeNewsChecker's listing of DU seems to mean that they hate how loony DU makes liberals look.