Zukerburg's fight against fake news

[biscuit1953]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction. 

 

[HeDied4U]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

 

[LongGone]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

I googled and I can't find verification of this by any way of verifying this information. You would think that something this gigantic not being in actual news.

 

[qwerty]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

I googled and I can't find verification of this by any way of verifying this information. You would think that something this gigantic not being in actual news.

If it was Republicans it would be.... But the liberal fact checkers will be protected.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#459eb7d91e02

 

[LongGone]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

I googled and I can't find verification of this by any way of verifying this information. You would think that something this gigantic not being in actual news.

If it was Republicans it would be.... But the liberal fact checkers will be protected.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#459eb7d91e02

That is just a stupid statement. New agencies love news and if news will sell they will jump on it no matter who it is about. Conservatives think the news is bias and against them and Liberals believe the news is bias against them. Everyone has a bias but at the end of the day they want to sell news.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

I googled and I can't find verification of this by any way of verifying this information. You would think that something this gigantic not being in actual news.

If it was Republicans it would be.... But the liberal fact checkers will be protected.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#459eb7d91e02

That is just a stupid statement. New agencies love news and if news will sell they will jump on it no matter who it is about. Conservatives think the news is bias and against them and Liberals believe the news is bias against them. Everyone has a bias but at the end of the day they want to sell news.

No, that's silly. "The Man" is out to get me, and I'm the victim of "Big Media!"

 

[qwerty]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

I googled and I can't find verification of this by any way of verifying this information. You would think that something this gigantic not being in actual news.

If it was Republicans it would be.... But the liberal fact checkers will be protected.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#459eb7d91e02

That is just a stupid statement. New agencies love news and if news will sell they will jump on it no matter who it is about. Conservatives think the news is bias and against them and Liberals believe the news is bias against them. Everyone has a bias but at the end of the day they want to sell news.

Ah... The George Costanza philosophy......


https://youtu.be/vn_PSJsl0LQ


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/inside-the-beltway-liberal-media-bias-entrenched-f/

 

[LongGone]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

I googled and I can't find verification of this by any way of verifying this information. You would think that something this gigantic not being in actual news.

If it was Republicans it would be.... But the liberal fact checkers will be protected.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#459eb7d91e02

That is just a stupid statement. New agencies love news and if news will sell they will jump on it no matter who it is about. Conservatives think the news is bias and against them and Liberals believe the news is bias against them. Everyone has a bias but at the end of the day they want to sell news.

Ah... The George Costanza philosophy......


https://youtu.be/vn_PSJsl0LQ


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/inside-the-beltway-liberal-media-bias-entrenched-f/

So you are telling me that you really believe that the media is not driven by selling news? The mainstream news covered Benghazi, FBI email inquiry or even Obama's pastor. Has Fox News covered anything on Mikkelson?

 

[qwerty]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

I googled and I can't find verification of this by any way of verifying this information. You would think that something this gigantic not being in actual news.

If it was Republicans it would be.... But the liberal fact checkers will be protected.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#459eb7d91e02

That is just a stupid statement. New agencies love news and if news will sell they will jump on it no matter who it is about. Conservatives think the news is bias and against them and Liberals believe the news is bias against them. Everyone has a bias but at the end of the day they want to sell news.

Ah... The George Costanza philosophy......


https://youtu.be/vn_PSJsl0LQ


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/inside-the-beltway-liberal-media-bias-entrenched-f/

So you are telling me that you really believe that the media is not driven by selling news? The mainstream news covered Benghazi, FBI email inquiry or even Obama's pastor. Has Fox News covered anything on Mikkelson?

The media is driven by money.  They are not selling news, they are selling airtime for advertisers.  The news is the medium which drives the channel.  It is no different than the History Channel, MTV, etc.  MSNBC, CNN, FOX, or whomever receives a majority of its funding from what is between the pages.  I am not a truther, but I respect them looking at events from multiple angles even if they are considered absurd...somewhere between the opposing views is the truth.

Since the repeal of the Smith-Mundt act which prohibited U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States" the press can no longer be trusted.  You do not have to look very far (Rather, Williams) to see how biased the media is and have no problem fabricating stories to "sell".  Even today, we have all the intelligence agencies in agreement that Russia influenced the election, but yet have yet to show a single piece of evidence to substantiate their claims.  When the FBI was asked to answer directly to the committee which has oversight over the actions of the FBI, the FBI refused.

The media continues to propagate the "hack" of the Podesta e-mails, but there was not hack.  A simple "Phishing" email was sent that was foolishly clicked on allowing the perpetrator unfettered access to his email.  The email's were not fabricated or altered, they were simply published.  As with the other emails that were released that showed a coordinated effort by the DNC to support one candidate over another, it was truth that was more offensive than any crime, but the media had to spin it to protect their handlers, their advertisers, their financial backers, and their special interests.

There is no doubt that there is liberal leaning by most networks as shown in the article I posted earlier.  I don't look at FOX as the other end of the spectrum to say if so and so did not then why didn't they do something.  They are all private companies that are for-profit, they have to answer to their share-holders not to the people that are watching.

 

[LongGone]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

I googled and I can't find verification of this by any way of verifying this information. You would think that something this gigantic not being in actual news.

If it was Republicans it would be.... But the liberal fact checkers will be protected.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#459eb7d91e02

That is just a stupid statement. New agencies love news and if news will sell they will jump on it no matter who it is about. Conservatives think the news is bias and against them and Liberals believe the news is bias against them. Everyone has a bias but at the end of the day they want to sell news.

Ah... The George Costanza philosophy......


https://youtu.be/vn_PSJsl0LQ


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/inside-the-beltway-liberal-media-bias-entrenched-f/

So you are telling me that you really believe that the media is not driven by selling news? The mainstream news covered Benghazi, FBI email inquiry or even Obama's pastor. Has Fox News covered anything on Mikkelson?

The media is driven by money.  They are not selling news, they are selling airtime for advertisers.  The news is the medium which drives the channel.  It is no different than the History Channel, MTV, etc.  MSNBC, CNN, FOX, or whomever receives a majority of its funding from what is between the pages.  I am not a truther, but I respect them looking at events from multiple angles even if they are considered absurd...somewhere between the opposing views is the truth.

Since the repeal of the Smith-Mundt act which prohibited U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States" the press can no longer be trusted.  You do not have to look very far (Rather, Williams) to see how biased the media is and have no problem fabricating stories to "sell".  Even today, we have all the intelligence agencies in agreement that Russia influenced the election, but yet have yet to show a single piece of evidence to substantiate their claims.  When the FBI was asked to answer directly to the committee which has oversight over the actions of the FBI, the FBI refused.

The media continues to propagate the "hack" of the Podesta e-mails, but there was not hack.  A simple "Phishing" email was sent that was foolishly clicked on allowing the perpetrator unfettered access to his email.  The email's were not fabricated or altered, they were simply published.  As with the other emails that were released that showed a coordinated effort by the DNC to support one candidate over another, it was truth that was more offensive than any crime, but the media had to spin it to protect their handlers, their advertisers, their financial backers, and their special interests.

There is no doubt that there is liberal leaning by most networks as shown in the article I posted earlier.  I don't look at FOX as the other end of the spectrum to say if so and so did not then why didn't they do something.  They are all private companies that are for-profit, they have to answer to their share-holders not to the people that are watching.

So you have talked around in a big circle. So they sell advertising. Advertising revenue is generated by the number of viewers. People are interested in big stories whether they are liberal or conservative. They didn't have to report the emails. Now you have the media and the FBI are in conspiring to together to try to bring in the Russians. The article you post earlier was by the Washington Times which is famous for its conservative bias. Everyone has bias but I am not buying things as fact when only reported by the far right or the far left. Like most things the truth is in the middle.

 

[qwerty]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

I googled and I can't find verification of this by any way of verifying this information. You would think that something this gigantic not being in actual news.

If it was Republicans it would be.... But the liberal fact checkers will be protected.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#459eb7d91e02

That is just a stupid statement. New agencies love news and if news will sell they will jump on it no matter who it is about. Conservatives think the news is bias and against them and Liberals believe the news is bias against them. Everyone has a bias but at the end of the day they want to sell news.

Ah... The George Costanza philosophy......


https://youtu.be/vn_PSJsl0LQ


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/inside-the-beltway-liberal-media-bias-entrenched-f/

So you are telling me that you really believe that the media is not driven by selling news? The mainstream news covered Benghazi, FBI email inquiry or even Obama's pastor. Has Fox News covered anything on Mikkelson?

The media is driven by money.  They are not selling news, they are selling airtime for advertisers.  The news is the medium which drives the channel.  It is no different than the History Channel, MTV, etc.  MSNBC, CNN, FOX, or whomever receives a majority of its funding from what is between the pages.  I am not a truther, but I respect them looking at events from multiple angles even if they are considered absurd...somewhere between the opposing views is the truth.

Since the repeal of the Smith-Mundt act which prohibited U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States" the press can no longer be trusted.  You do not have to look very far (Rather, Williams) to see how biased the media is and have no problem fabricating stories to "sell".  Even today, we have all the intelligence agencies in agreement that Russia influenced the election, but yet have yet to show a single piece of evidence to substantiate their claims.  When the FBI was asked to answer directly to the committee which has oversight over the actions of the FBI, the FBI refused.

The media continues to propagate the "hack" of the Podesta e-mails, but there was not hack.  A simple "Phishing" email was sent that was foolishly clicked on allowing the perpetrator unfettered access to his email.  The email's were not fabricated or altered, they were simply published.  As with the other emails that were released that showed a coordinated effort by the DNC to support one candidate over another, it was truth that was more offensive than any crime, but the media had to spin it to protect their handlers, their advertisers, their financial backers, and their special interests.

There is no doubt that there is liberal leaning by most networks as shown in the article I posted earlier.  I don't look at FOX as the other end of the spectrum to say if so and so did not then why didn't they do something.  They are all private companies that are for-profit, they have to answer to their share-holders not to the people that are watching.

So you have talked around in a big circle. So they sell advertising. Advertising revenue is generated by the number of viewers. People are interested in big stories whether they are liberal or conservative. They didn't have to report the emails. Now you have the media and the FBI are in conspiring to together to try to bring in the Russians. The article you post earlier was by the Washington Times which is famous for its conservative bias. Everyone has bias but I am not buying things as fact when only reported by the far right or the far left. Like most things the truth is in the middle.

You said they sell news, which they don't.  They report news (or what they perceive or are told is news), and sell advertising.  If it was the history channel, they would not sell history related shows, they would show programming that relates to their viewers and sell advertising or do native advertising like Subway and Ford did with American Pickers.

What proof has been shown that the Russians did anything to influence the election?  The committee that has direct oversight over the FBI has been rebuffed when asked to appear and explain the proof that the letter agencies are leaking to the media.  In another thread you said the CIA has determined that the Russians did the hacking, but what proof do you have other than "because I said so"?

There is collusion between the media and the government no matter how much you shut your eyes and say it isn't so.  Whether it is "global warming cooling climate change", Hillary will overwhelmingly win the presidency, to weapons of mass destruction,  Russian hacking, or "hands up don't shoot", people are being programmed and the fact that there is a potential president that does not give a flip about the media or optics and is not part of the military industrial complex scares the crap out of them and most professional politicians on both sides.

First the repeal of smith-mundt, the passage of The Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act in recent days (also absent from mainstream news including Fox) coincides with the fight against "fake news" as determined by the people at Snopes and is being cheered by their liberal lackeys who lack the ability to think for themselves or do any research and can only regurgitate what is written down for them as talking points.

 

[LongGone]

Just as the mainstream media is only 7% Republican and totally left wing with few exceptions Facebook will now influence the minds of people who use it by "fact checking" news it claims to be fake.  Snopes will be its main source which is filled with integrity (humor har har).

The founder of the myth busting website Snopes embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on ?himself and the prostitutes he hired,? according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.  After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator.  Numerous lies that support the left wing/Democratic narrative have been exposed. 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/

Without a standard of morality lying is done without compunction.

I googled and I can't find verification of this by any way of verifying this information. You would think that something this gigantic not being in actual news.

If it was Republicans it would be.... But the liberal fact checkers will be protected.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#459eb7d91e02

That is just a stupid statement. New agencies love news and if news will sell they will jump on it no matter who it is about. Conservatives think the news is bias and against them and Liberals believe the news is bias against them. Everyone has a bias but at the end of the day they want to sell news.

Ah... The George Costanza philosophy......


https://youtu.be/vn_PSJsl0LQ


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/inside-the-beltway-liberal-media-bias-entrenched-f/

So you are telling me that you really believe that the media is not driven by selling news? The mainstream news covered Benghazi, FBI email inquiry or even Obama's pastor. Has Fox News covered anything on Mikkelson?

The media is driven by money.  They are not selling news, they are selling airtime for advertisers.  The news is the medium which drives the channel.  It is no different than the History Channel, MTV, etc.  MSNBC, CNN, FOX, or whomever receives a majority of its funding from what is between the pages.  I am not a truther, but I respect them looking at events from multiple angles even if they are considered absurd...somewhere between the opposing views is the truth.

Since the repeal of the Smith-Mundt act which prohibited U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States" the press can no longer be trusted.  You do not have to look very far (Rather, Williams) to see how biased the media is and have no problem fabricating stories to "sell".  Even today, we have all the intelligence agencies in agreement that Russia influenced the election, but yet have yet to show a single piece of evidence to substantiate their claims.  When the FBI was asked to answer directly to the committee which has oversight over the actions of the FBI, the FBI refused.

The media continues to propagate the "hack" of the Podesta e-mails, but there was not hack.  A simple "Phishing" email was sent that was foolishly clicked on allowing the perpetrator unfettered access to his email.  The email's were not fabricated or altered, they were simply published.  As with the other emails that were released that showed a coordinated effort by the DNC to support one candidate over another, it was truth that was more offensive than any crime, but the media had to spin it to protect their handlers, their advertisers, their financial backers, and their special interests.

There is no doubt that there is liberal leaning by most networks as shown in the article I posted earlier.  I don't look at FOX as the other end of the spectrum to say if so and so did not then why didn't they do something.  They are all private companies that are for-profit, they have to answer to their share-holders not to the people that are watching.

So you have talked around in a big circle. So they sell advertising. Advertising revenue is generated by the number of viewers. People are interested in big stories whether they are liberal or conservative. They didn't have to report the emails. Now you have the media and the FBI are in conspiring to together to try to bring in the Russians. The article you post earlier was by the Washington Times which is famous for its conservative bias. Everyone has bias but I am not buying things as fact when only reported by the far right or the far left. Like most things the truth is in the middle.

You said they sell news, which they don't.  They report news (or what they perceive or are told is news), and sell advertising.  If it was the history channel, they would not sell history related shows, they would show programming that relates to their viewers and sell advertising or do native advertising like Subway and Ford did with American Pickers.

What proof has been shown that the Russians did anything to influence the election?  The committee that has direct oversight over the FBI has been rebuffed when asked to appear and explain the proof that the letter agencies are leaking to the media.  In another thread you said the CIA has determined that the Russians did the hacking, but what proof do you have other than "because I said so"?

There is collusion between the media and the government no matter how much you shut your eyes and say it isn't so.  Whether it is "global warming cooling climate change", Hillary will overwhelmingly win the presidency, to weapons of mass destruction,  Russian hacking, or "hands up don't shoot", people are being programmed and the fact that there is a potential president that does not give a flip about the media or optics and is not part of the military industrial complex scares the crap out of them and most professional politicians on both sides.

First the repeal of smith-mundt, the passage of The Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act in recent days (also absent from mainstream news including Fox) coincides with the fight against "fake news" as determined by the people at Snopes and is being cheered by their liberal lackeys who lack the ability to think for themselves or do any research and can only regurgitate what is written down for them as talking points.

So you want to argue semantics. Yes they do sell news. Advertiser pay by the number of people that watch any channel's particular news. The way to get the top advertising dollar is to have the most people watching your news. That is the selling of news.

What motivation does the CIA have to make up that the Russian government was involved in hacking? At this point I have the choice to believe you or the CIA. I will choose the CIA until proven otherwise.

You claim there is a big conspiracy between the government and the new media. So now Trump and the Republicans have become the government does that mean that the "collusion" is between the media, Trump and the Republicans? Government is made up of people and so is the media. They do not all think a like. Some have more bias than others (some have a very conservative bias). You can say want you will put truthfully you sound like the one that has been brainwashed. The military supported Trump because he promised to increase military support. Trump scares people because he appears to act without knowledge or reason. Think of how unprepared he was for the debates.

Not sure what your beef is with Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. It is bipartisan and it has nothing to do with Snopes or Facebook. While on the subject you act as if only Snopes is part of the Facebook plan to check news. They are one of multiple checkers. Back to the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Information...Trump will select the first director and will be able to give it as much or as little power as he wants.

 

[qwerty]

What motivation does the CIA have to make up that the Russian government was involved in hacking? At this point I have the choice to believe you or the CIA. I will choose the CIA until proven otherwise.

Of course you would.... Wholly following a government agency without proof just because they said so... Sounds like a cult

You claim there is a big conspiracy between the government and the new media. So now Trump and the Republicans have become the government does that mean that the "collusion" is between the media, Trump and the Republicans?

It could eventually end up that way. Will just have to see if there is any proof. Proof is what one has when trying to substantiate a claim.

Not sure what your beef is with Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. It is bipartisan and it has nothing to do with Snopes or Facebook.

Weird that they would have to tuck it within another bill that would assure passage and with no scrutiny from the media. If it is supposedly the bipartisan second coming, I would think they would have made more of it.

While on the subject you act as if only Snopes is part of the Facebook plan to check news. They are one of multiple checkers.

The members of the International Fact Checking Network are all upstanding groups that adhere to a strict code of ethics. One of their major funders is the Open Society Foundation (Soros), and is openly partnered with the Tides Foundation which "is a donor advised fund that directs money to politically liberal causes."

Looks like they will be objective....



[emoji16]

 

[LongGone]

What motivation does the CIA have to make up that the Russian government was involved in hacking? At this point I have the choice to believe you or the CIA. I will choose the CIA until proven otherwise.

Of course you would.... Wholly following a government agency without proof just because they said so... Sounds like a cult

You claim there is a big conspiracy between the government and the new media. So now Trump and the Republicans have become the government does that mean that the "collusion" is between the media, Trump and the Republicans?

It could eventually end up that way. Will just have to see if there is any proof. Proof is what one has when trying to substantiate a claim.

Not sure what your beef is with Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. It is bipartisan and it has nothing to do with Snopes or Facebook.

Weird that they would have to tuck it within another bill that would assure passage and with no scrutiny from the media. If it is supposedly the bipartisan second coming, I would think they would have made more of it.

While on the subject you act as if only Snopes is part of the Facebook plan to check news. They are one of multiple checkers.

The members of the International Fact Checking Network are all upstanding groups that adhere to a strict code of ethics. One of their major funders is the Open Society Foundation (Soros), and is openly partnered with the Tides Foundation which "is a donor advised fund that directs money to politically liberal causes."

Looks like they will be objective....



[emoji16]

No one is "wholly following" a government agency. You made that up so somehow you could link it to a cult. Nice try.

Google the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act and there is information on it. I am not arguing it is the best way to pass bills but in our current system many bills are passed as a part of another bill. This is done as compromise to get things done. I am not telling you anything you didn't learn in Civic Class in High School but you do seem to love the conspiracy.

So far all I have seen is the attacking of the agencies without examples where they have not accurately fact checked. Don't waste your time pulling some super conservative publication as "fact" they are lying.

 

[qwerty]

What motivation does the CIA have to make up that the Russian government was involved in hacking? At this point I have the choice to believe you or the CIA. I will choose the CIA until proven otherwise.

Of course you would.... Wholly following a government agency without proof just because they said so... Sounds like a cult

You claim there is a big conspiracy between the government and the new media. So now Trump and the Republicans have become the government does that mean that the "collusion" is between the media, Trump and the Republicans?

It could eventually end up that way. Will just have to see if there is any proof. Proof is what one has when trying to substantiate a claim.

Not sure what your beef is with Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. It is bipartisan and it has nothing to do with Snopes or Facebook.

Weird that they would have to tuck it within another bill that would assure passage and with no scrutiny from the media. If it is supposedly the bipartisan second coming, I would think they would have made more of it.

While on the subject you act as if only Snopes is part of the Facebook plan to check news. They are one of multiple checkers.

The members of the International Fact Checking Network are all upstanding groups that adhere to a strict code of ethics. One of their major funders is the Open Society Foundation (Soros), and is openly partnered with the Tides Foundation which "is a donor advised fund that directs money to politically liberal causes."

Looks like they will be objective....



[emoji16]

No one is "wholly following" a government agency. You made that up so somehow you could link it to a cult. Nice try.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

So far all I have seen is the attacking of the agencies without examples where they have not accurately fact checked. Don't waste your time pulling some super conservative publication as "fact" they are lying.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

Surely some liberal website or newspaper has provided you instructions to support the claim the Russians did it... Or has it changed back to the media did it all ready....or was it Comey first, then the media...I forget.  And somewhere wikileaks gets the blame too.

 

[LongGone]

What motivation does the CIA have to make up that the Russian government was involved in hacking? At this point I have the choice to believe you or the CIA. I will choose the CIA until proven otherwise.

Of course you would.... Wholly following a government agency without proof just because they said so... Sounds like a cult

You claim there is a big conspiracy between the government and the new media. So now Trump and the Republicans have become the government does that mean that the "collusion" is between the media, Trump and the Republicans?

It could eventually end up that way. Will just have to see if there is any proof. Proof is what one has when trying to substantiate a claim.

Not sure what your beef is with Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. It is bipartisan and it has nothing to do with Snopes or Facebook.

Weird that they would have to tuck it within another bill that would assure passage and with no scrutiny from the media. If it is supposedly the bipartisan second coming, I would think they would have made more of it.

While on the subject you act as if only Snopes is part of the Facebook plan to check news. They are one of multiple checkers.

The members of the International Fact Checking Network are all upstanding groups that adhere to a strict code of ethics. One of their major funders is the Open Society Foundation (Soros), and is openly partnered with the Tides Foundation which "is a donor advised fund that directs money to politically liberal causes."

Looks like they will be objective....



[emoji16]

No one is "wholly following" a government agency. You made that up so somehow you could link it to a cult. Nice try.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

So far all I have seen is the attacking of the agencies without examples where they have not accurately fact checked. Don't waste your time pulling some super conservative publication as "fact" they are lying.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

Surely some liberal website or newspaper has provided you instructions to support the claim the Russians did it... Or has it changed back to the media did it all ready....or was it Comey first, then the media...I forget.  And somewhere wikileaks gets the blame too.

Because I choose to believe the CIA over you until the CIA is proven wrong does not make it cult like. You haven't chosen not to believe because it doesn't fit your love affair with Trump.

I don't read much on either extreme. They both have their own agenda. The Comey issue is separate. Did Comey make the announcement to influence the election by implying that there was new evidence in Wiener's emails. At this point I have no way of knowing Comey's intent although it look suspicious.

 

[qwerty]

What motivation does the CIA have to make up that the Russian government was involved in hacking? At this point I have the choice to believe you or the CIA. I will choose the CIA until proven otherwise.

Of course you would.... Wholly following a government agency without proof just because they said so... Sounds like a cult

You claim there is a big conspiracy between the government and the new media. So now Trump and the Republicans have become the government does that mean that the "collusion" is between the media, Trump and the Republicans?

It could eventually end up that way. Will just have to see if there is any proof. Proof is what one has when trying to substantiate a claim.

Not sure what your beef is with Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. It is bipartisan and it has nothing to do with Snopes or Facebook.

Weird that they would have to tuck it within another bill that would assure passage and with no scrutiny from the media. If it is supposedly the bipartisan second coming, I would think they would have made more of it.

While on the subject you act as if only Snopes is part of the Facebook plan to check news. They are one of multiple checkers.

The members of the International Fact Checking Network are all upstanding groups that adhere to a strict code of ethics. One of their major funders is the Open Society Foundation (Soros), and is openly partnered with the Tides Foundation which "is a donor advised fund that directs money to politically liberal causes."

Looks like they will be objective....



[emoji16]

No one is "wholly following" a government agency. You made that up so somehow you could link it to a cult. Nice try.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

So far all I have seen is the attacking of the agencies without examples where they have not accurately fact checked. Don't waste your time pulling some super conservative publication as "fact" they are lying.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

Surely some liberal website or newspaper has provided you instructions to support the claim the Russians did it... Or has it changed back to the media did it all ready....or was it Comey first, then the media...I forget.  And somewhere wikileaks gets the blame too.

Because I choose to believe the CIA over you until the CIA is proven wrong does not make it cult like. You haven't chosen not to believe because it doesn't fit your love affair with Trump.

Anyone that questions the establishment is a Trump lover.... Liberal talking point#4

Actually, not a big fan, but the lesser of two evils. Check your "fact sheet" and try another.

 

[LongGone]

What motivation does the CIA have to make up that the Russian government was involved in hacking? At this point I have the choice to believe you or the CIA. I will choose the CIA until proven otherwise.

Of course you would.... Wholly following a government agency without proof just because they said so... Sounds like a cult

You claim there is a big conspiracy between the government and the new media. So now Trump and the Republicans have become the government does that mean that the "collusion" is between the media, Trump and the Republicans?

It could eventually end up that way. Will just have to see if there is any proof. Proof is what one has when trying to substantiate a claim.

Not sure what your beef is with Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. It is bipartisan and it has nothing to do with Snopes or Facebook.

Weird that they would have to tuck it within another bill that would assure passage and with no scrutiny from the media. If it is supposedly the bipartisan second coming, I would think they would have made more of it.

While on the subject you act as if only Snopes is part of the Facebook plan to check news. They are one of multiple checkers.

The members of the International Fact Checking Network are all upstanding groups that adhere to a strict code of ethics. One of their major funders is the Open Society Foundation (Soros), and is openly partnered with the Tides Foundation which "is a donor advised fund that directs money to politically liberal causes."

Looks like they will be objective....



[emoji16]

No one is "wholly following" a government agency. You made that up so somehow you could link it to a cult. Nice try.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

So far all I have seen is the attacking of the agencies without examples where they have not accurately fact checked. Don't waste your time pulling some super conservative publication as "fact" they are lying.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

Surely some liberal website or newspaper has provided you instructions to support the claim the Russians did it... Or has it changed back to the media did it all ready....or was it Comey first, then the media...I forget.  And somewhere wikileaks gets the blame too.

Because I choose to believe the CIA over you until the CIA is proven wrong does not make it cult like. You haven't chosen not to believe because it doesn't fit your love affair with Trump.

Anyone that questions the establishment is a Trump lover.... Liberal talking point#4

Actually, not a big fan, but the lesser of two evils. Check your "fact sheet" and try another.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the establishment. Having logic in doing it rather than assuming a conspiracy will help you understand issues in a more sensible light.

I actually don't usually assume a person is a Trump lover. Your points seem to point in that direction. He seems to believe in conspiracies and so do you. I apologize for making a wrong assumption.

Could you list your liberal talking points or are you just making stuff up as you go along 8). I have never seen them.

 

[qwerty]

What motivation does the CIA have to make up that the Russian government was involved in hacking? At this point I have the choice to believe you or the CIA. I will choose the CIA until proven otherwise.

Of course you would.... Wholly following a government agency without proof just because they said so... Sounds like a cult

You claim there is a big conspiracy between the government and the new media. So now Trump and the Republicans have become the government does that mean that the "collusion" is between the media, Trump and the Republicans?

It could eventually end up that way. Will just have to see if there is any proof. Proof is what one has when trying to substantiate a claim.

Not sure what your beef is with Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. It is bipartisan and it has nothing to do with Snopes or Facebook.

Weird that they would have to tuck it within another bill that would assure passage and with no scrutiny from the media. If it is supposedly the bipartisan second coming, I would think they would have made more of it.

While on the subject you act as if only Snopes is part of the Facebook plan to check news. They are one of multiple checkers.

The members of the International Fact Checking Network are all upstanding groups that adhere to a strict code of ethics. One of their major funders is the Open Society Foundation (Soros), and is openly partnered with the Tides Foundation which "is a donor advised fund that directs money to politically liberal causes."

Looks like they will be objective....



[emoji16]

No one is "wholly following" a government agency. You made that up so somehow you could link it to a cult. Nice try.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

So far all I have seen is the attacking of the agencies without examples where they have not accurately fact checked. Don't waste your time pulling some super conservative publication as "fact" they are lying.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

Surely some liberal website or newspaper has provided you instructions to support the claim the Russians did it... Or has it changed back to the media did it all ready....or was it Comey first, then the media...I forget.  And somewhere wikileaks gets the blame too.

Because I choose to believe the CIA over you until the CIA is proven wrong does not make it cult like. You haven't chosen not to believe because it doesn't fit your love affair with Trump.

Anyone that questions the establishment is a Trump lover.... Liberal talking point#4

Actually, not a big fan, but the lesser of two evils. Check your "fact sheet" and try another.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the establishment. Having logic in doing it rather than assuming a conspiracy will help you understand issues in a more sensible light.

Anyone who questions the norm is a conspiracy theorist. To a liberal it is unfathomable to think independently. Kudos to you for towing the line.

Could you list your liberal talking points or are you just making stuff up as you go along 8). I have never seen them.

They were passing them out at the democratic national convention..... If those white sheets have pockets, it may be in there.

 

[LongGone]

What motivation does the CIA have to make up that the Russian government was involved in hacking? At this point I have the choice to believe you or the CIA. I will choose the CIA until proven otherwise.

Of course you would.... Wholly following a government agency without proof just because they said so... Sounds like a cult

You claim there is a big conspiracy between the government and the new media. So now Trump and the Republicans have become the government does that mean that the "collusion" is between the media, Trump and the Republicans?

It could eventually end up that way. Will just have to see if there is any proof. Proof is what one has when trying to substantiate a claim.

Not sure what your beef is with Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. It is bipartisan and it has nothing to do with Snopes or Facebook.

Weird that they would have to tuck it within another bill that would assure passage and with no scrutiny from the media. If it is supposedly the bipartisan second coming, I would think they would have made more of it.

While on the subject you act as if only Snopes is part of the Facebook plan to check news. They are one of multiple checkers.

The members of the International Fact Checking Network are all upstanding groups that adhere to a strict code of ethics. One of their major funders is the Open Society Foundation (Soros), and is openly partnered with the Tides Foundation which "is a donor advised fund that directs money to politically liberal causes."

Looks like they will be objective....



[emoji16]

No one is "wholly following" a government agency. You made that up so somehow you could link it to a cult. Nice try.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

So far all I have seen is the attacking of the agencies without examples where they have not accurately fact checked. Don't waste your time pulling some super conservative publication as "fact" they are lying.

Did you link to the evidence to substantiate their claim the Russians did it and I just missed it or are you still going with the "because they said so"?

Surely some liberal website or newspaper has provided you instructions to support the claim the Russians did it... Or has it changed back to the media did it all ready....or was it Comey first, then the media...I forget.  And somewhere wikileaks gets the blame too.

Because I choose to believe the CIA over you until the CIA is proven wrong does not make it cult like. You haven't chosen not to believe because it doesn't fit your love affair with Trump.

Anyone that questions the establishment is a Trump lover.... Liberal talking point#4

Actually, not a big fan, but the lesser of two evils. Check your "fact sheet" and try another.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the establishment. Having logic in doing it rather than assuming a conspiracy will help you understand issues in a more sensible light.

Anyone who questions the norm is a conspiracy theorist. To a liberal it is unfathomable to think independently. Kudos to you for towing the line.

Could you list your liberal talking points or are you just making stuff up as you go along 8). I have never seen them.

They were passing them out at the democratic national convention..... If those white sheets have pockets, it may be in there.

Questioning the norm and buying into conspiracy theories really are two different things. In reality a conservative or a liberal can buy into an agenda without thinking it through. Both sides have reasons while they think the way they do.

Not sure your white sheet comment made sense but I take it you can not come up with your so called numbered talking points.