Fake News Dump

Guy Sajer

Is there any collection of these so called fake news with verified evidence so we can all see what news is really fake? And not a he said she said that they said.

Media is full of these accusations and discussions but there is never any evidence. It seems that anything bad that comes out regarding a politician is labelled as fake news without any proof.

The picture Im getting is that governments accept that they can't stop criticsm by restricting freedom of speech but instead have now decided that they can put that criticism in doubt by claiming this is fake.

ScumLord

Are any politicians other than Trump and his cronies claiming news is fake?

It's funny that mainstream media has been letting its standards slip for years. I wouldn't go as far as calling them fake news, just poor quality and sensationalist. They've gotten so poor at doing the news that actual fake news outlets have credibility calling the mainstream fake news.

But I don't think it's fair to claim that politicians are now dismissing any news they don't like as fake news, it's only a particular type of politician that does that.

Galway_Old_Man

Well a nice example from my lunch time read today - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/14/wealthy-retire-austerity-pensioners-work

In 2015 Google paid €47m tax in Ireland on €22bn sales revenue. That’s a 0.21% tax rate. It means the average wage earner unfairly bears the burden of society.

Sounds outrageous, doesn't it? Except it's not correct. You don't pay tax on total revenue. In fact Google's tax-able revenue in this case was E341m. Of course you realise that the Guardian has an axe to grind and its own biases, so they need to play up to the base.

skankkuvhima

ScumLord wrote: »

Are any politicians other than Trump and his cronies claiming news is fake?

Only 1 hour ago you have mentions of fake news on RTE

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0214/852521-french-election/

So it's not just "Trump and his cronies" claiming news is fake. French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron is also making this claim.

whiskeyman

dailymail.co.uk sums it up for me...

ScumLord

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

Sounds outrageous, doesn't it? Except it's not correct. You don't pay tax on total revenue. In fact Google's tax-able revenue in this case was E341m. Of course you realise that the Guardian has an axe to grind and its own biases, so they need to play up to the base.

There's a link in that article to another that's specifically about google's profits.

Google Ireland Limited is one half of the search group’s so-called “double Irish” tax structure. Although Google reported booming revenues, its taxable profits were only €341m. This profit figure was small in large part because the company had to meet administrative expenses of €16.9bn.

The €341m number is still a fiddle on google's part. Why shouldn't they pay tax on that other €16bn?

I'm not opposed to letting google off on some tax if they create jobs here, but I don't know that they create enough jobs for Irish people that would allow them such a large tax break.

skankkuvhima

Here is another example of fake news

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-woman-dies-medical-treatment-iraq-return-prevented-a7556371.html

From the article

A woman who lived in America since 1995 has died a day after being turned away from the US as a result of Donald Trump’s executive order to ban people from seven predominantly Muslim countries, according to reports.

Later updates http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/233053942-story

The leader of a mosque in Dearborn has confirmed to FOX 2 that a man who claimed his mother died in Iraq after being barred from returning to the United States under a ban instituted by President Trump this weekend, lied to FOX 2 about when her death occurred.

Galway_Old_Man

ScumLord wrote: »

There's a link in that article to another that's specifically about google's profits.

Yes, which makes the real numbers omission all the more telling. Let's be honest here, the vast majority of online readers won't click and their paper based majority readership won't have the option to.

The €341m number is still a fiddle on google's part. Why shouldn't they pay tax on that other €16bn?

Look, I'm no here to defend Google. So I'm not. That's not the point. The article could have put in the correct figures, made reference to your point, but they didn't. They went with wrong figures deliberately to play to their crowd and stir up the angry part of the brain.

wes

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Here is another example of fake news

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-woman-dies-medical-treatment-iraq-return-prevented-a7556371.html

From the article



Later updates http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/233053942-story

Thats not fake news......... People got bad information, and it was later reported to be false.

Fake news is deliberate fabrication of a news story, and not someone making a mistake.

Noddyholder

So false news is not fake news, who really believes any of the media outlets anywhere? They all have an agenda & bias one way or another, Whatever happened to media reporting the news, just as it is?

The Backwards Man

News is biased by its very nature

'The cat was stuck in the tree'
'The cat was trapped in the tree'
'Clawed animal ravaged tree'

ScumLord

Noddyholder wrote: »

So false news is not fake news, who really believes any of the media outlets anywhere? They all have an agenda & bias one way or another, Whatever happened to media reporting the news, just as it is?

That probably never happened. There's probably always been a bias, and it was probably more open about it in the past.

There's always the possibility they've made a mistake, especially these days when people start crying cover up if they haven't reported on something within an hour of it happening.

I think this is another case of the consumer ruining things. The consumer bought sensationalised news because it was more entertaining so the market followed that trend. If someone opened a news outlet that only reported facts and took time to fact check everything people would probably find it boring and ignore it.

the fact of the matter is it probably takes days/weeks/months to get to the truth of many stories but the media have moved on by that time and nobody cares anymore.

somefeen

Does anyone know that story about the horse race during the cold war?
The American media reported that the American horse came second while the Russian horse came second last.
They omitted the fact that there was only two horses in the race.

Love to know if it actually happened, but I think the story shows that its not made up facts we need to worry about. Its the omission of details and selective reporting that's the problem. Blatant lies are a lot easier to spot and only fool people who have already made up their minds.

Not exactly fake news but a pro-Trump article with an anti-Trump headline. I saw it on facebook and apparently, I'm the only one who bothered to read it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/japan-prime-misiter-shinzo-abe-donald-trum-p-improve-russia-relations-valdimir-putin-us-president-a7579166.html


Gonna be some major shocks in 2020.. "But everyone I didn't delete on Facebook hates Trump!!!!"

learn_more

Guy Sajer wrote: »

Is there any collection of these so called fake news with verified evidence so we can all see what news is really fake? And not a he said she said that they said.

Media is full of these accusations and discussions but there is never any evidence. It seems that anything bad that comes out regarding a politician is labelled as fake news without any proof.

The picture Im getting is that governments accept that they can't stop criticsm by restricting freedom of speech but instead have now decided that they can put that criticism in doubt by claiming this is fake.

You talk like you expect there should be some watchdog that seeks out fake news and presents that evidence to you neatly on some website. There is no such organization and it would cost time and money and who would pay for it.

During the presidential campaign (US) the Clinton side ran a website called something like 'fact checker' that did just that which would have been paid for in part from their campaign donations. That would have taken considerable effort just for that. Imagine the effort it would take to combat all fake news that ever exists the world over.

To insinuate that fake news is not fake news because you can't find evidence to the contrary is a bit silly.