Skip to main content
Update
The boards are getting a new home!

We're pleased to announce an update is coming to the community boards.

Sunday, September 25th: We are migrating the boards to a new platform. The site is currently in read-only mode and we will bring it back online as soon as the migration is complete.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
Compare the outrageous and/or inflammatory front-page headlines on the following web sites and see whether some should be labeled "fake news" and others "legitimate journalism," or whether they all deserve the same label, fake or legitimate:

http://www.breitbart.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

https://www.rt.com/

http://www.politico.com/

When it gets to the point where Internet censorship becomes widespread, it will be very difficult to identify which web sites are legitimate journalism and which are fake news.

In reality, every one of them could legitimately be labeled "propaganda," and should be provided the same equal access to the public.



Cross-post from the CampFIRE
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The most discredited formerly "legitimate" site is CNN. Wikileaks revealed its clear bias toward DNC and its bizarre announcements about wikileaks make clear it is not a legitimate news organization.

VQ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The most discredited formerly "legitimate" site is CNN. Wikileaks revealed its clear bias toward DNC and its bizarre announcements about wikileaks make clear it is not a legitimate news organization.
_______________________

Anyone not noticing that Candy Crowley was not let go after her lying to protect the Democrat in a debate where he was caught in a bad situation might NEVER consider CNN as compromised.

That the fix was in from CNN after what she did, with no price attached could not have been more obvious. Not expecting them to get even more bold with their malfeasance was silly.
Print the post Back To Top