A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities

Oh, dear God.
Her supporters are some real jackasses.

>>90538
I always thought the intercept did some good work, but was horribly biased for the dems. Maybe there is hope in them.

>>90575
good goy, you took the bait!

now repeat after me:
I AM ENLIGHTENED
I AM ENLIGHTENED
I AM ENLIGHTENED
I AM ENLIGHTENED
I AM ENLIGHTENED
I AM ENLIGHTENED

>>90538
Anyone who reads this story with a critical eye can tell that it's fake. Nice try, alt.right

>>90615
Thank you for Correcting the Record!

>>90615

>It's only fake if it's Republican!

>>90623
see
>>90580
>Dimitri says he's earned at least $60,000 in the past six months — far outstripping his parents' income and transforming his prospects in a town where the average annual wage is $4,800. He is one of the more successful fake news pushers in the area.

>His main source of cash? Supporters of America's president-elect.

>"Nothing can beat Trump's supporters when it comes to social media engagement," he says. "So that's why we stick with Trump." >Dimitri says he's earned at least $60,000 in the past six months — far outstripping his parents' income and transforming his prospects in a town where the average annual wage is $4,800. He is one of the more successful fake news pushers in the area.

>His main source of cash? Supporters of America's president-elect.

>"Nothing can beat Trump's supporters when it comes to social media engagement," he says. "So that's why we stick with Trump."

>Even with the presidential contest over and Google and Facebook's plans to crack down on fake news makers, money continues to pour in.

>Posts about Hillary Clinton are also a hit — but only negative ones.

>"I have mostly written about her emails, what is contained in her emails, the Benghazi tragedy, maybe her illness that she had," Dimitri adds, but now he's moved on to headlines like: "Trey Gowdy Revealed His EPIC Plan To Imprison Hillary Now That Election's Over, SHE IS DONE!"

>Dimitri's sole aim is to make his stories go viral.

>His most popular headlines during the election included: "JUST IN: Obama Illegally Transferred DOJ Money To Clinton Campaign!" and "BREAKING: Obama Confirms Refusal To Leave White House, He Will Stay In Power!"

>The teenager is unrepentant about any influence his stories may have had on swaying public opinion.

>>90624
> The teenager is unrepentant about any influence his stories may have had on swaying public opinion.

The Left is going with a full-court press, trying to implement government control of speech on the Internet here in the U.S., the only place on Earth where free speech is constitutionally guaranteed.

Whether it’s called “hate speech” or “bullying” or the latest meaningless buzzword; “fake news”, the goal is to impose wholly undefined and open-ended censorship enforced by an alliance of government and corporate entities.

All to “protect” you…

And the Useful Idiots on Facebook and Twitter (and sadly, even a few here on 4chan) are demanding everybody join them in this suicide pact and cut their own throats, by letting Wall Street and Washington censor their speech.

"I remember landing under sniper fire."
— Hillary Clinton —

>>90627
>by letting Wall Street and Washington censor their speech.
related
>>90610

>>90628

Has Trump called for censorship of the Internet?

>>90629
see
>>88556
and
>>84836

>>90624
>investigation by buzzfeed

Trying to debunk real news with fakes news about fake news.

herewego.jpg

>>90659
The scary thing is there's little to no difference between Buzzfeed and something that used to pretend to have more journalistic integrity like CNN. If any of these outlets were actually interested in fighting fake news they'd have to put themselves out of a job.

>>90720
The Guardian has more journalistic integrity and it was a joint investigation with Buzzfeed. CNN is a news network, that's an apples and oranges comparison to a clickbait site like Buzzfeed.

>>90721
Any outlet that's pairing for a joint investigation with Buzzfeed (can't read this without laughing) is quite plainly showing they don't value journalistic integrity.

It's not apples and oranges. The past few years have made it abundantly clear these things are all the same, just to differing degrees of repugnant.

>>90724
Deaoite everything I at least I feel like I have a better chance I comung across real news these days then I ever did before, that's mostly do to my browsing habits though

>>90721
>The Guardian has more journalistic integrity and it was a joint investigation with Buzzfeed.
>joint investigation with Buzzfeed.
>with Buzzfeed.
This doesn't speak for their supposed integrity.

>CNN is a news network, that's an apples and oranges comparison to a clickbait site like Buzzfeed.
And yet they both reguarly pump out fake news.

>>90733
>And yet they both reguarly pump out fake news.
I think you're mistaking news that makes you mad for fake news. You're going to have a hard time convincing people outside of /pol/ that CNN is comparable to Buzzfeed. Cable news networks owned by entertainment conglomerates with actual reporters and freelance foreign correspondents are at least a whole level above internet clickbait sites staffed with writers and not reporters, like Buzzfeed or one of their conservative equivalents like WND or DailyCaller,

>>90737
Buzzfeed is in turn a level above The Epoch Times or Inquisitr or Vigilant Citizen, the Infowars-tier of fake news.

>>90737
Comparing CNN favorably to Buzzfeed is like comparing malaria favorably to ebola.

>>90737
>CNN doesn't pump out fake news
Wut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zZ3xN9xHwg

>>90746
First of all, nice racebait. Second, the CNN report isn't biased at all as the title card of the video claims. It's non-partisan if anything. Third, did you really think they were going to show the footage of her saying the word shit after every third word? Weak sauce, Anon. You can do better, there are better clips of CNN's faulty reporting, but you won't find anything that brings CNN down to the level of a clickbait merchant like Buzzfeed. Even Buzzfeed is still better than actual fake news sites like Abcnews.com.co

http://www.snopes.com/tag/abcnews-com-co/

>>90747
>defending CNN w/ snopes

Are you a bot?

Or are you just intentionally trying to come off as a parody?

>>90737
>You're going to have a hard time convincing people outside of /pol/ that CNN is comparable to Buzzfeed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

I think not.

I also don't think you're a parody. You're just in denial.

>>90754
It's astounding to me how in our mind you can conflate what a corporate cableTV news network does with what a clickbait news aggregator does. I'm forced to conclude that your attitude is typical of someone spending too much time in some right wing hugbox somewhere, be it /pol/, r/thedonald, or other.

>>90756
>It's astounding to me how in our mind you can conflate what a corporate cableTV news network does with what a clickbait news aggregator does.
It's astounding to me that you honestly believe CNN hasn't put out blatantly fake news stories and sensationalism most defiitley akin to the clickbaity shit Buzzfeed and other aggregators do, given that CNN essentially acts as an aggregator with commentary itself

>I'm forced to conclude that your attitude is typical of someone spending too much time in some right wing hugbox somewhere, be it /pol/, r/thedonald, or other.
And I'm forced to conclude that you are projecting, and at this moment are desperately running several threads on this board in order to push your phony "Russian hacking" narrative.

Please stop spamming /news/ with fake news.

>>90762
>It's astounding to me that you honestly believe CNN hasn't put out blatantly fake news stories and sensationalism most defiitley akin to the clickbaity shit Buzzfeed and other aggregators do, given that CNN essentially acts as an aggregator with commentary itself
You're talking about singular instances of getting their reporting wrong or jumping the gun in their speculating, and trying to compare that to teenagers in Macedonia who are running 150 different fake news URLs with site designs that copy legitimate news sites in order to fool people into believing the most outrageous lies possible for money.
>And I'm forced to conclude that you are projecting, and at this moment are desperately running several threads on this board in order to push your phony "Russian hacking" narrative.And I'm forced to conclude that you are projecting, and at this moment are desperately running several threads on this board in order to push your phony "Russian hacking" narrative.
I don't know what your deal is with projecting but even if I was then who the fuck cares? That doesn't make me wrong. And it isn't "my" Russian hacking narrative, it's the CIA's. See >>90743 .Go whine at them about your worldview being shattered, I have nothing to do with that.

>>90767
>You're talking about singular instances of getting their reporting wrong or jumping the gun in their speculating
Really? I haven't actually made any specific references. Could it just be that you're projecting again?

>and trying to compare that to teenagers in Macedonia who are running 150 different fake news URLs with site designs that copy legitimate news sites in order to fool people into believing the most outrageous lies possible for money.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't necessarily buy into Buzzfeed's investigation about fake news being echoed by news outlets thirsty for such articles to sell to their new market of "citizens concerned about fake news".

>I don't know what your deal is with projecting but even if I was then who the fuck cares?
At least you're coming to terms with it.

>That doesn't make me wrong.
Yes it does, it also shows how unstable you are.

>And it isn't "my" Russian hacking narrative, it's the CIA's.
Yes, the CIA has surely never lied or put out fake intelligence to start drama before. No sir.

>Go whine at them about your worldview being shattered, I have nothing to do with that.
Sure you do. You're part of the group of useful idiots regurgitating obvious propaganda because you're in denial about the election.
I don't need to whine at the, given that you all are the ones whining about fake "fake news" reports.

>>90768
>Really? I haven't actually made any specific references.
Well then kindly explain how in the fuck you got from Buzzfeed being as bad as Abcnews.com.co ?
>Could it just be that you're projecting again?
Could it be you just like typing the word projecting over and over?
>At least you're coming to terms with it.
Hokay sure, if it makes you feel better.
>Yes, the CIA has surely never lied or put out fake intelligence to start drama before. No sir.
Now you're starting to sound like one of the tinfoilfags we know and love here on /news/.
>Sure you do. You're part of the group of useful idiots regurgitating obvious propaganda because you're in denial about the election.
>useful idiots
Did you just come across Lenin or something? And what are we in denial about specifically? If anyone is in denial it seems you might be about who is saying Russians meddled with the election. Hint: it's the CIA.

>I don't need to whine at the, given that you all are the ones whining about fake "fake news" reports.
>you all
We're whining because you're being a retard by conflating and making a comparison analogous to the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony crime.

>>90771
>Well then kindly explain how in the fuck you got from Buzzfeed being as bad as Abcnews.com.co ?
Just as soon as you explain in detail all of those "singular instances" of such and such you were about to mention.
You clearly were about to launch onto a defense of something. Do you even know what?

>Could it be you just like typing the word projecting over and over?
It could. It could also be that you're actually projecting.

>Now you're starting to sound like one of the tinfoilfags we know and love here on /news/.
Sure, we can totally trust the CIA.
Iraq totally had WMD's,
We totally don't torture people in indefinite detention,
Hillary totally didn't traffic weapons and funds to ISIS as SecState
And you're totally not a lobotomite for believing any of that. Totally.

>And what are we in denial about specifically?
That the MSM, the biggest distributor of fake news, is whipping useful idiots like yourself up in a MacCarthy-ite frenzy to sell you your own denial about the election back to you, in the form of sensationalist news reporting.

>We're whining because we still can't accept the election results and will split hairs about how fake fake news really is in defense of a secret government report we're not allowed to read but are expected to take at face value because "muh Russians"
FTFY

>>90773
>You clearly were about to launch onto a defense of something. Do you even know what?
Yeah I thought you were the same guy from the other thread pointing to the time CNN didn't include the racebaiting clip in with the rest of their "peace in the hood" clip.

>It could. It could also be that you're actually projecting.
And does it get you or me a prize? Maybe a nice blue ribbon?
>Sure, we can totally trust the CIA
Do you think they are purposely lying about the russians?
>Iraq totally had WMD's,
What does Cheney's cherry-picked intellegegnce files from 1994 have to do with the CIA? Oh that's right, you're just parroting what Trump said on twitter. Sad!
>We totally don't torture people in indefinite detention,
Obama ended that, retard.
>Hillary totally didn't traffic weapons and funds to ISIS as SecState
Post a source or gtfo, newfag
>And you're totally not a lobotomite for believing any of that. Totally.
And you're not a /pol/tard for sounding exactly like a protoytypical one. Ssssuuuuuuure.

>>90775
>>90747
Why do you think a clip showing how CNN lies off its ass is racebaiting? Does any footage of an angry black woman count as racebaiting to you? Admittedly it's annoying in repeating its point, but all the clip is doing is showing how what CNN said and what the woman was saying were at complete odds with each other.

CNN didn't have to air the four letter words, but it also didn't have to completely lie and say she was calling for peace when she very obviously wasn't.

>>90779
>Why do you think a clip showing how CNN lies off its ass is racebaiting?
Yes, you are definitely *that* anon.

>>90781
I posted
>>90720
>>90724
>>90746
>>90779
So, what exactly is your point? I know it might seem an attractive prospect to your argument for everyone opposing it to be the same person, but I assure you, I can't stand rampant quotation fights.

>>90779
>>90782
okay, fair points, but:
>but it also didn't have to completely lie and say she was calling for peace when she very obviously wasn't.
Did you really expect them to promote what might possibly turn into a race riot? Did you really want them to give that women, who was obviously angry and bereived over the death of her lovevd one, a platform to incite further rioting and looting exactly when it wasn't needed? I mean, I know how /pol/ loves to watch a good chimpout but promoting racial tension isn't on CNN's agenda.

Besides, the fact that you even know about what she says after CNN cut off at all proves how irrelevant it is what CNN shows in the first place.

>>90783
Here's the tickler. They didn't have to air the clip at all. They could have watched it, made the same assessment you just did and said to themselves "This is a grieving sister saying stupid shit in front of a camera, leave it alone." Instead they chopped the clip to as short a length as possible to sell the idea that she was saying something that was in actuality the exact opposite of what she was. CNN twisting her words and then insulting everyone's intelligence when the truth came out incites more racial tension than not airing the clip at all or even being honest would have done. It makes it obvious CNN is more interested in showing racial tension in a very biased black and white, oppressor-oppressed dichotomy and not at all in telling people the truth.

CNN already promotes ideas that turn into race riots and a prime example exists in twisting the incendiary words of one woman into a dove-flanked call for peace because acknowledging the two-way street reality of racial tension in America violates their agenda.

You're moving the goalposts here and making the same excuses it and its supporters did back when the story was exposed. CNN lies. Stop trying to justify it as some sort of public service to completely misconstrue her words into something aligning with their ideology when if they really cared about tension, they would have canned that part of the segment altogether. CNN and networks like it are in no position to grandstand over "fake news," when they are the largest purveyors of such.

>>90538
just look at that nu-male in the background, you can just tell he's got limp wrists and not much testosterone

>>90785
>You're moving the goalposts here and making the same excuses it and its supporters did back when the story was exposed. CNN lies. Stop trying to justify it as some sort of public service to completely misconstrue her words into something aligning with their ideology when if they really cared about tension, they would have canned that part of the segment altogether. CNN and networks like it are in no position to grandstand over "fake news," when they are the largest purveyors of such.
If I was moving the goalposts I'd get back the the topic of the thread and that brazillian faggot jew Greenwald, Anon. I'm not doing that.

CNN does lie, but you are talking about like 1%-5% of the time, and trying to say they are the same as the actual fake news outlets like abcnews.com.co who lies 100% of the time.

The Media Research Center on the right and mediamatters on the left exist solely to demonize and blame media outlets on the opposite partisan side like CNN and Fox News, but >>90580 , actual fake news, is a couple of levels below that and I hope you understand the difference. The Macedonians are playing both sides for profit.

>>90788
Here's the problem, fake news only proliferates because the people who inhabit the spaces, companies and institutions that should care about veracity and truth have let things get as bad as they are.

When media giants like CNN and Fox so blatantly lie through their teeth, when Rolling Stone can print stories that a high school level journalism student can debunk, the atmosphere of what is or isn't truth gets completely muddled. MSNBC, Fox, CNN, they all paved the way for this "fake news," and post-fact era and now we're supposed to side with them now that they're no longer the sole beneficiaries of that dynamic and have lost control of their own monster?

I understand the difference, I just don't think the major media conglomerates are in any position to fight this new leviathan. The public doesn't trust them anymore and for good reason. We're witnessing the large scale failure of institutions all over the US because those running them fell in love with ideology over reality.

>>90789

I think a bit of the problem is we overblow the failures and don't show that they're outliers overall. After all, nobody talks about things running smoothly, we only put the outliers on the news (and even then the negative ones usually outweight the positive). We've been taken in by this idea that "because the experts were wrong, everything is a lie/experts are always wrong" which does nobody any good. We've reached the point where knowledge and experience are considered bad ("insider"), and that anyone on the "outside" must be good by default.

Despite the hate CNN gets here, they had a good editorial analogy on the issue: just because pilots make mistakes on occasion doesn't mean you fire all the pilots and select a random passenger to fly the plane.

>>90794
It's not that knowledge and experience are considered bad, it's that people see a system in which others advance despite having neither while still pretending to and therefore write off anyone labeling themselves experienced or knowledgeable on principle.

People see the system itself as having produced incompetence, corruption, blatant ideological bias and nepotism while labeling itself as proficiency, honesty, impartiality and fairness. It's not that they see those qualities as bad, they just don't trust the system that bills itself as one thing to represent the positive qualities they seek and so by that proxy someone outside of it represents a better prospect.

It's kind of like Soviet medals. At a certain point political allies of powerful officials started to accrue more and more medals to emulate the decorated persona of a valiant hero (war or otherwise) to the point where a war veteran with few bombastic medals was seen as an actual soldier unwilling to kiss political ass over doing their job correctly. It flips the conventional wisdom of "more medals = better soldier," on its head precisely because of the system's behavior and the resulting popular image.

>>90538
Mmm. The Trump camp did none of this of course.
Convenient how Clinton is the only bad goy in all these stories ?

>>90575
they've never shown bias towards anything but integrity and truth.

Weird that every second word out of Trump's mouth is a lie, yet his supporters don't seem to be as concerned as they are when Hillary does it

I wonder what that's about

>>90624
nowhere does this mention the story in question you lugenpresse shill

>>90633
>>90628
>>90624
>look at all my shill topics!
reminder that a bunch of far left subreddits are trying to colonize 4chan and /news/ & /his/ are their first targets, being relatively new and unreputed, so counternarrative is less obvious

>>90913
>>90914
t. far right extremist from /pol/ who thinks moderate republicans are socialists

>>90808
>Clinton is the only bad goy in all these stories
That is an inconvenient truth.

>>90571
>Her supporters
Ok.

>>90624
Fake news creator in California works for the Hillary campaign.

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

>>90944
Just because he voted for Hillary doesn't mean he worked for her campaign.

Also he clearly says multiple times that Pro-Trump and Anti-Clinton stories are by far the most popular kind of clickbait because Trump supporters have the most confirmation bias and will literally believe anything.

>>90945
Totally ignoring where he says he is registered as a pro hillary PAC.

>>90945
That's not what was said at all.

>>90946
Do you know what a PAC is? PACs don't work with campaigns.

Also you don't seem to get the fact that he could be Hillary's Campaign Chairman and it still wouldn't have changed that he only posted Pro-Trump, Anti-Hillary fake stories because Trumptards eat that shit up like candy. Sure his preferred candidate lost, but he was laughing all the way to the bank from the adsense money hundreds of thousands off Trumptards had enabled him to earn.

>>90949
>PACs don't work with campaigns.

Anyone got the Podesta email showing direct cooperation between a PAC and the Clinton campaign?

>>90972
Even if it exists, which I'm not saying it doesn't, it doesn't have anything to do with the Californian fake news spammer's PAC. One PAC =/= All PACs.

Also daily reminder:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-07/mega-donor-mercer-s-daughter-takes-charge-of-pro-trump-group

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-11/rebekah-mercer-daughter-of-major-donor-named-to-trump-role

>>90819
If you don't see the difference than that's telling all by itself. Clinton's lies are part of the powerful corporate-government apparatus. Trump's are the words of a moron opposed by nearly everyone. It really doesn't take much to see how one liar is preferable to another in that context.

>>90914
They're doing it hard to /qa/ because they think complaining there will accomplish anything.

>>90940
He's right though. I'm mostly center-left and I've noticed it too.

>>90977
>taking the "Delete /pol/" meme seriously

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--

>>90980
I generally don't, but when people from subreddits like GamerGhazi inhabit that place it starts to become apparent a lot of the memes are just Poe's law and there are quite a few serious about it.

>The phrase “Fake News” has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as “terrorism” and “hate speech”; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

The mainstream media is mostly a bunch of ultra-biased corporate fucks, but these people are acting like the MSM just made up that there are a ton of websites and individuals out there straight up making shit up. Infowars and Milo Yinnapolous wrote articles claiming that 3 million people voted illegally for Hillary and so many people blindly believe them even though the only evidence is literally "some nobody on Twitter said so"

You can be critical of the mainstream media but don't act like websites and facebook pages talking about how Obama's a Kenyan Reptilian demon cannibal from the future are totally unbiased and reliable.

Fake News are Liberal news

>>91038
the three million number is from an actual study, I wasn't actually aware infowars had picked up on it.

>>91045
Sure, a "study" that the "researcher" was able to conduct in only five days and conveniently refuses to release any of his data.

>>91038
>Obama's a Kenyan Reptilian demon cannibal

Do you get brownie points for that or is it just fun. I used to know a guy who would jokingly tell you the truth about some fucked up thibg he did then laugh along like it wasnt true. Something about telling people the truth without them knowing it is enjoyable to you isnt it?

>>91085
Come on, everyone knows that the Reptilians haven't been welcome in Kenya since 1902 when they were driven out by the Mutant Cyborgs. There's no way Obama could be a KENYAN Reptilian demon cannibal.

>>91073
pretty sure it was based on public data and projections from previous elections famalam

>>91169
>>91073
>>91045
What study are you guys talking about?

>>91201
One that doesn't actually exist.

>>91206
sure went from poorly conducted to nonexistentin a hurry. as a doctor I recommend you not mix your fake news anon, if you must imbibe stick to a single source.
>>91201
google points me towards this https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2016/11/illegal-immigrants-3-million-votes/ which I assume is what >>91038 is referring to.

>>90538
Not a libtard... but that website is worse then a supermarket tabloid.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet kids.

>>91207
>>91207
"Study" and "researcher" in quotation marks and "conveniently refuses to release any of his data" implies that there wasn't a study and he just pulled it out of his ass.

>>91209
Unless it's a picture with text over it shared on facebook. You can always trust those.

That bitch had most of news media on her side and still lost
Hillary face of Loser

>>91221
I love it when wingnuts ignore that most of the media is conservative now.

Or is some wingnut going to tell me that there is a television network somewhere on the planet that gets more viewers than drudgereport gets pageviews?

>>91233
>I love it when wingnuts ignore that most of the media is conservative now.
Is that why they're all pushing a phony Russian-hacker story?

>Or is some wingnut going to tell me that there is a television network somewhere on the planet that gets more viewers than drudgereport gets page-views?
Sounds like someone is salty that no one listens to the talking heads on TV anymore.
The monopoly on news and information has been broken, and if the MSM wasn't a pile of lying, propaganda-infused garbage, people wouldn't be tuning out in favor of alternative news sources.

Also, you keep using the word wingnut like you're a wingnut trying to find other wingnuts to do wingnut things with, like accuse the MSM of becoming conservative over night when they're still kicking their feet and whining over Trump.

>>91250
>Is that why they're all pushing a phony Russian-hacker story?
If by "pushing it" you mean reporting on what actually happened then sure.
>>Sounds like someone is salty that no one listens to the talking heads on TV anymore.
The monopoly on news and information has been broken, and if the MSM wasn't a pile of lying, propaganda-infused garbage, people wouldn't be tuning out in favor of alternative news sources.
lol, gb2/prisonplanet, Jeff Rense, the adults are talking ITT.
>Also, you keep using the word wingnut like you're a wingnut trying to find other wingnuts to do wingnut things with, like accuse the MSM of becoming conservative over night when they're still kicking their feet and whining over Trump.
Wingnut detected.

>>91211
yeah, gonna need a source for this claim you keep repeating.

>>91253
You're an awful shill
Fire this guy and stop trying to push "wingnut"

>>91278
>some /pol/tard is calling someone a shill again
If I only had a dollar for every time this happened, I'd have as much as Trump.

>>91283
>someone calling someone they disagree with a /pol/tard
Pot meet kettle.

>>91328
The difference between my argument and his is that you can fo to >>>/pol/ right now and see other /pol/tards calling each others shills for disagreement whereas the evidence of there being actual shills here is lacking.

>>91332
>evidence of CTR, reported on by the msm, is lacking

>>91393
The bar for who is a shill is extremely low for the average /pol/tard.

>>91408
the paid shills do exist though, the fucking receipts have been made public. your claim of lacking evidence is false.

>>91410
There was never any evidence they posted on 4chan beyond reddit screenshots where trolls told /pol/ what they wanted to hear.

Prove me wrong.

>>91411
>there was never any evidence if you discount the evidence

>>91412
The only evidence there is says /pol/ is a hive of Trump shills rather than CTR, and that if actual CTR shills posted on /pol/ regularly they would be shouted down with kekposting and Trump pics, which is probably why they don't even try.

In addition to that, most /pol/tards are slanted so far to the right themselves that they think any moderate republican or libertarian opinion is automatically the work of liberal shills.

And then on top of those others are the regular democrats and liberals who happen to not actually be shills but lean left nonetheless. They come to argue with /pol/ that every third /pol/tard gets triggered by the mere presence of.

>>91332
And you can go to any other board on this site and find assholes complaining about any opinion that's not to the Left as originating from a /pol/tard. There is no difference in your argument because it happens the same way. His "shill," is your "/pol/tard." Pot meet kettle.

>>91432
>And you can go to any other board on this site and find assholes complaining about any opinion that's not to the Left as originating from a /pol/tard.
Gee I wonder why that is. It couldn't possibly be a well earned reputation on /pol/'s part, right? Surely it's some liberal conspiracy of shills.
see >>91413

>>91450
You can make as many excuses as you want to validate your knee-jerk assumptions while vilifying someone else's but it's nothing more than transparent hypocrisy. You act as if /pol/tards have a supreme omnipresence on 4chan while shills do not when the reality is they both reside within these halls, but nowhere near to the extreme their enemies posit for rhetorical convenience.

I say again. Your /pol/tard is his shill. You both default on such terms using the kernels of truth to validate hyperbolic presumptions lobbed at anyone for whom you disagree because you want an argumentative shortcut to justify either pigeonholing them into a caricature or completely writing them off.

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

>>91667
Who do you think you are fooling, /pol/? Go whine about being persecuted on >>>/qa/

>>91675
You lost. Stop.

>>91676
>he thinks there is some kind of game being played
>>>/pol/

>>91678
>4chan in any shape or form isn't a game and is some how applicable to real life.

Wew

>>91682
Sorry, this board is about real life. You can't even post image macros here.

>>91675
The same dynamic that allows /pol/ users to shout shill at anyone they disagree with or even each other in order to skip having to come up with a coherent argument is the same one that allows you to do the exact same by accusing others of being /pol/tards despite them never having even been to the wasteland. You just proved my point for me.

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

>>91732
Here you go, they made a thread for you.
>>>/qa/881255

>>91733
If you actually read the post you're linking to that looks more like a thread for you and everyone else incapable of having a disagreement with someone without falling back on accusations of "/pol/tard!" That OP is saying something must be done about /pol/'s harassment, not that it's a victim of such.

And you're still proving my point with every post you make ignoring that you are not behaving any differently than the vaunted /pol/tards you hate so much.

>>91736
Read the thread, genius.

>>91737
Why? I'm not interested in defending /pol/'s honor because, again, I don't go there. That however hasn't stopped me from being labeled a /pol/tard repeatedly by people on all manner of boards because of even the slightest hint of an opinion for which they disagree.

To make a deal out of /pol/tards fighting phantoms at every turn by throwing accusations of shill at everything they dislike while ignoring the same propensity among people like yourself to do the same thing with /pol/tard is nothing more than hypocritical bullshit. You're not different than them in this dynamic, you're just operating under the dangerous assumption that your witch hunting, unlike theirs, is just and righteous and correct which blinds you to the hypocrisy of it all.

>>91740
>the same propensity among people like yourself to do the same thing with /pol/tard is nothing more than hypocritical bullshit.
lol, let's use just the latest example, shall we?

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_(conspiracy_theory) :
>The theory was then posted on the message board, Godlike Productions, and the following day, Sean Adl-Tabatabai (a former associate of professional conspiracy theorist David Icke), repeated the story on YourNewsWire, citing a 4chan post from earlier that year.[

>Around this time, Twitter and 4chan users started searching the leaked emails of John Podesta for food-related "code words" that supposedly revealed the existence of a sex trafficking operation.[12] For example, The New York Times reported that the phrase "cheese pizza" was thought by a poster to 4chan to be a code word for child pornography since they had the same initials.

One "side" in your little game is responsible for this shit while one "side" is not. The fact that you are too stupid to understand the difference when this has been demonstrated repeatedly over the course of the last five years is not mine or anyone else's fault but your own. You can on spouting memes about kettles and buzzword synonyms for hypocrisy but at the end of the day you're just another ignorant counterculture conservative whether you accept the /pol/tard label or not.

>>91742
News thread poster is too unintelligent to realize he is talking to two different people.

>>91742
And CTR shills made popular forums for political discussion nigh unusable during the last stretch of the election. I'm not saying /pol/tards don't engage in wild outlandish conspiracy theories. I'm saying to the average /pol/tard the verifiable existence of shills at one point in time justifies the immediate invalidation of any opposing opinion as representative of shilling.

You are not behaving any differently. You're taking the existence of /pol/tard virulent memery and using it as a justification to dismiss your rhetorical opposition even if they have nothing to do with /pol/. You're fighting shadows just like they are. You're using a boogeyman to paint everyone you disagree with as "one of them," instead of having to form coherent arguments. Your last line is pretty much an admittance that you don't care if your label throwing is accurate if it facilitates the ideological invective it's meant to achieve. You're happy labeling someone a /pol/tard just for having an opinion you don't like even if they have nothing to do with /pol/, the same way they behave with the shill label. You're acting as if your actions are suddenly righteous just because you say they are, again, just like /pol/tards excusing their own hypocrisies.

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

>>91823
>And CTR shills made popular forums for political discussion nigh unusable during the last stretch of the election.
They didn't do it here. The fact that you think they did proves me right about where you come from.

A boogeyman hides in the shadows waiting to strike when you've let down your guard. /pol/ is not a boogeyman when they continually shitpost eveywhere and you can go right now and see them in action.

The rest of your post is mostly damage control post and irrelevant non-sequiturs. It even features the same tired old kettle meme at the end. How quaint.

Let me know when you come off your allegedly neutral high horse and admit your obvious partisanship which allows you to imagine there is somehow a valid comparison to be made between /pol/'s shenanigans and everyone else's on 4chan.

>>91824
I never said they were on 4chan, that's an argument you thought I made and put it in my mouth. At the same time, do you think accusations of being a /pol/tard stop outside of 4chan too where CTR most certainly did have a presence?

You're excusing your own brand of lazy thinking while castigating a whole other set of it. Hypocrisy. You're proving that every time you call me a /pol/tard while I've never once tried to pigeonhole you into either camp of caricatures designed for easy thinking, lazy arguments and immediate dismissals. Your paranoia matches their own. Your false sense of righteous vigilance matches their own. Your proclivity to accuse anyone telling you you're acting like them of simply being an enemy in the first place so you can write them off matches their own.

I've never once pretended to be politically neutral. I wouldn't complain about even the vaguest of rightwing opinions being labeled those of a /pol/tard if I were. According to you >>91413 my center-right opinions would get me labeled a shill on /pol/. In the past on other boards that has gotten me labeled a /pol/tard and it's happening yet again here and now. You are acting just like them according to your very own logic and you're too blinded by your partisanship to see that.

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

>>90623
I think you're missing the irony that both sides have been very guilty of spreading news that is false. Liberals perpetuate and believe falsehoods that support their views and conservatives do the same. It's all fake, anon. All of it.

>>92197
>Dimitri says he's earned at least $60,000 in the past six months — far outstripping his parents' income and transforming his prospects in a town where the average annual wage is $4,800. He is one of the more successful fake news pushers in the area.

>His main source of cash? Supporters of America's president-elect.

>"Nothing can beat Trump's supporters when it comes to social media engagement," he says. "So that's why we stick with Trump." >Dimitri says he's earned at least $60,000 in the past six months — far outstripping his parents' income and transforming his prospects in a town where the average annual wage is $4,800. He is one of the more successful fake news pushers in the area.


>Even with the presidential contest over and Google and Facebook's plans to crack down on fake news makers, money continues to pour in.

>Posts about Hillary Clinton are also a hit — but only negative ones.

>"I have mostly written about her emails, what is contained in her emails, the Benghazi tragedy, maybe her illness that she had," Dimitri adds, but now he's moved on to headlines like: "Trey Gowdy Revealed His EPIC Plan To Imprison Hillary Now That Election's Over, SHE IS DONE!"

>Dimitri's sole aim is to make his stories go viral.

>His most popular headlines during the election included: "JUST IN: Obama Illegally Transferred DOJ Money To Clinton Campaign!" and "BREAKING: Obama Confirms Refusal To Leave White House, He Will Stay In Power!"

>The teenager is unrepentant about any influence his stories may have had on swaying public opinion.
>>90580

>>92207
You can keep spamming that quote all you want, but it's not going to absolve you or the people you sympathize with politically from being as much a contributor to the current situation as the people they love to demonize. The very network you're linking to there has had problems in the not too distant past with prominent journalists and anchors embellishing stories and making up facts itself.

The sad reality is, none of the outlets prattling on and on about fake news are in any position to do so. They threw away their credibility a long time ago. This is a monster they made and now they're being consumed by it.

>>92231
>muh apples and oranges comparison

>>90721
>The Guardian has more journalistic integrity
>Guardian
>journalistic integrity

>>92270
I didn't say it was the pinnacle of journalistic integrity, just that it had more than a true clickbait site like BuzzFeed, which in turn has more journalistic integrity than true fake news sites like YourNewsWire.com or 24newsflash.com

>>92278
It doesn't matter though. It doesn't matter if it's true that the Guardian has more integrity (and I'd say working with Buzzfeed for any reason heavily suggests otherwise) because the image of credibility is gone. If a friend of yours is caught in a big fat lie you don't tend to trust them anymore, even if what they say from that point on is truth. The fact large outlets and supposed quality journalists now find themselves equated to bullshit fabricators playing internet telephone is entirely their fault.

They called wolf too many times. They tried to hide obvious biases. They peddle divisive and fact-free editorials masquerading as informative pieces and suddenly they're surprised they're sharing intellectual and vocational space with a bunch of professional liars.

>>92369
Oh stop. You act like The Guardian is The Daily Mail. I'd bet dollars to donuts you couldn't name 10 things they've "cried wolf" about over the last 10 years.
>tried to hide their obvious biases
Are you even serious? They are one of the *only* major left-sided papers going up against TheTelegraph and TheTimesofLondon. And you're acting like they are some kind of clickbait tabloid with Page3 girls like TheSun or TheDailyMail.

>>92371
That point was directed at the media in general, not specifically at the Guardian, though again, the fact they're working with Buzzfeed at all shows they probably aren't taking their integrity as seriously as you say they do. I mean, the publication retracted at least a dozen or so articles just this year because they didn't vet the work of freelancers.

The fact you're trying to defend it as much as you are is partly why this situation has reached such a point. If you (and everyone really) took to their favorite media outlets the same scrutiny they have for obvious clickbait instead of blindly trusting that they'll never sink to that level then the currently massive credibility crisis likely wouldn't be anywhere near as severe or would even be nonexistent.

>>92381
I'm sorry that I'm not as cynical about the media as you are, Anon. Personally I think you've been misled about just how biased things are but I'm sure you think the same about me.

>>92386
Hey fuck you, get out of here. What the fuck are you doing here? This is my world. Fuck you. How did you get here? This is my world. This is my land. Get the fuck out. This is my tree world. You don't belong here. Get the fuck out of here. Who are you? Get out of here