Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
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
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
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.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |