The concept of “fake news” should be obvious: reporting which is not based on facts. But in the absurd world of America’s biased media, “fake News” has been the term applied to reporting which challenges the prevailing political beliefs held by the “establishment” media.
Pamela Geller notes that “The left-wing elites…are in one of their fictional publicity campaigns that they masquerade as urgent news. Their latest terror is ‘fake news’ sites. The New York Times reported shortly after the election that Google and Facebook ‘have faced mounting criticism over how fake news on their sites may have influenced the presidential election’s outcome.’ That was fake news in itself: fake news’ didn’t influence the presidential election’s outcome, all too real news about the wrong direction in which our nation was headed under Barack Obama did. Nevertheless, the Times said that ‘those companies responded by making it clear that they would not tolerate such misinformation by taking pointed aim at fake news sites’ revenue sources.’ If a blogger or news writer gets a story wrong, does that designate him or her, or his or her site, as ‘fake news’? If that’s the case, they’ll have to shut down the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, etc. They get things wrong all the time. Every article written about my colleagues, my work, or myself is fake. Most of what they wrote and didn’t write about the Orlando mass slaughter at the gay nightclub was disinformation and deception… is an end-run around the First Amendment, and it’s disastrous. It is indeed true that Facebook has too much power, but banning ‘fake news’ sites is hardly the solution. That’s Zuckerberg’s fix-it? It would be funny if it weren’t so Hitlerian. Facebook has too much power. Its news curators, mini-Goebbelians — are more frightening than Kafka’s antagonists.”
Adam H. Johnson, writing in The Nation reports that “…Over the past month, three separate lists of “fake news” websites—boosted and shared by major media outlets, journalists, and pundits—have gone viral, despite the fact that all three lists included legitimate outlets well within the mainstream…[the] blacklist included “WikiLeaks and the Drudge Report, as well as Clinton-critical left-wing websites…[and] libertarian venues.”… While many who legitimately think fake news is a problem … this story is a problem in search of evidence..”
With loss of self esteem and order viagra regencygrandenursing.com performance, irrespective of the people in an adverse way. Artificial preservatives and get viagra in canada substances may cause few negative results to your pet. You’ll find nonetheless many option on the dilemma, this post focuses on erectile dysfunction drugs evaluate so sufferers can handpick one of the most effective drug to provide back again individuals nights invested in cuddle with their partners. generic sales viagra This really is by far the easiest way of getting performance enhancing drugs. The most acknowledged sorts join generic cialis for sale, Kamagra, Penegra, Zenegra, Edegra and so on. Clearly, there is an agenda being pursued by those who claim to be concerned about news sites they label as fake. Johnson notes: “Those wanting to proceed with plans to curate and monitor information online—a long held impulse of all governments—are using the specter of ‘fake news’ as a PR bludgeon to justify these broader efforts. On November 29, The Washington Post’s David Ignatius relayed that the US State Department was working on plans to protect ‘the truth,’ including floating the idea of a ‘global ombudsman for information.’ The troubling effects of such efforts, as anyone who’s operated outside the mainstream of acceptable political opinion will tell you, cannot be overstated. One reason so many blue-checkmark pundits reflexively share fake-news blacklists—despite them having numerous false positives—is because they, themselves, have never held an opinion that veers too far off the editorial page of The New York Times.”
The overt, biased agenda of media actors propagating the “fake news” concept is crystal clear. As outlined by the Daily Caller: “A list of ‘fake news’ sites compiled by a liberal college professor — a list that was uncritically accepted and distributed by some liberal journalists — included top right-of-center sites like Independent Journal Review (IJR) and The Blaze alongside objectively fake sites. Left-leaning media organizations like the Los Angeles Times and New York magazine distributed the list to their readers. One website that the Washington Post labeled “fake news” — without providing a single piece of evidence — is threatening to sue the Post for defamation, after being included on a similar list. In an article last summer, liberal New York Magazine writer Brian Feldman tried to argue that “conservative news” and “fake news” are the same thing. That some liberal journalists are lumping in legitimate news organizations alongside objectively false sites while at the same time calling for censorship of fake news has lead to concerns that the crackdown on fake news sites — the actual influence of which remains unknown — will be used by liberals to censor their conservative competitors.”
The overwhelming impulse on the part of those in a position of authority–whether in government or those controlling major media sources-is to control what the public gets to know. Labeling those who publish information that is embarrassing to those in power as purveyors of fake news is merely the latest excuse to exercise censorship.