Fake news sites

inb4 not CNN

File: Rotham_1400.jpg (139KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 640x427px

>>133948010
BBC
New York Times
Washington Post

>>133948010
CNN

>>133948010
Buzzfeed

Snopes

Mother Jones

File: 14902963162690.jpg (33KB, 420x673px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 420x673px

>>133948083
But when they use that phrase what sites do they talk about?

All that shit seems stupid to me since everybody of them use abstract terms without concrete things.

>>133948418
The most specific example are sites that create/report news solely for generating internet hits. For example Buzzfeeds Trump dossier, the Balkan shitposter who created fake articles to cause outrage during the 2016 Election etc etc

But if you want examples of fake news in supposed reputable establishments then the ones I have listed have most certainly engaged in such practices in a more refined fashion.

>>133948418
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/8/1497827/-Amazon-s-CEO-amp-The-Washington-Post-Team-Up-to-Smear-Bernie-Sanders-16-Hit-Pieces-in-16-Hours
It's the agenda, the goals, the alterior motives that these news corps put into their work that undermines their credibility and integrity, lending themselves to the quality of being "fake news"

>>133949780
And here's the archive https://archive.is/nEoSu

>>133948010
The biggest one is probably factcheck.org

The faggots are heavily biased in their "facts" checking. Something that is obviously true will be said to be mostly false, by literally stretching the truth to its limit, and try to fit it to their liberal agendas.

Now if liberals are caught in a lie, the opposite happens, they stretch out the statement to the limits, to make it look like a half truth.

RT is fair and balanced.

I have seen them interview people on the far left and right. They let them talk in there own words. I like that a lot.