This is what I am talking about...

[Tom Wetmore]

http://money.cnn.com/video/media/2016/10/30/fake-news-stelter.cnnmoney/index.html?sr=fbCNN103016301231PMStory 

[Gregory Matthews]

And, probably if you log onto those sites your computer will be infected with some sort of malware.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

It'd be nice to get a listing of the fake news sites of both the conservative and liberal flavors.

[Tom Wetmore]

Despite the constant criticism of so called mainstream media, they are the ones most reliable and trustworthy in what they report.  They do maintain acceptable journalism standards.  But you have to be careful of some that may not make a clear enough distinction of the oped articles from the actual news reporting.  A lot of the criticism claiming they are biased comes from clearly biased sources. In fact, be suspicious of constant complaints about everyone else as being biased trying to convince us that the complainer is the only fair and balanced source. (If they have to put such words in their name or tag line, they probably aren't.)  If a so called mainstream news source doesn't show the preferred bias, their lack of bias is to often viewed as bias by those who disagree or don't like what they hear, and the news source is accused of having a bias the opposite direction of the preferred bias of the critic. 

Here are some basic rules of thumb that I try to apply to rule out junk in the proliferation of sites - If the volume of ads is greater than that of the substance, it is likely just a click bait site.  If the story shows no identified author and/or date.  The date is important, because stuff gets reused and abused over and over.  If no author, treat it as anonymous hearsay.  Somebody needs to take personal responsibility.  If the language has a sensational tone to it, using common hyperbolic words like "shocking", etc. If they reference a reliable source that I am familiar with, I go to that source and read it to avoid the spin that retellers give it.  If they reference a known news source without a link, be skeptical. If no known reliable source is carrying the same story, or everyone else disagrees, or is reporting it as something else, the story may be suspect - bloggers just don't get scoops. The more reliable sources that are on the same story, the better.  If one source just keeps repeating the same stuff that nobody else even considers reporting, there is usually a good reason they are avoiding that "news". If it is not clear from their own name, go to the home page of the site and check their "About" tab.  They often will disclosure their orientation as left or right, conservative or liberal, or at least give some flavor of it.  Also look at the headlines on their home page.  That often shows their bias. I also check wikipedia sometimes if there is no "about" tab, or it is not otherwise clear.  And use the fact checking sources. They are reliable. They really do their homework.  A couple of them do a fact check on various news sources to grade their reliability. 

On Facebook, I have blocked many that I simply won't consider. Unfortunately Facebook still let's them show up in the "People also shared" or "Related Stories" that often follow something you click on. Here is a short list of those that still show up somehow - "Breaking News" (rarely is breaking news); Information Liberation; Bipartisan Report; Liberal Society; Occupy[anything]; Red Flag News; Brietbart; Drudge Report; Truth Examiner; usa365news.com; uspresidentialnews.com; Pretty much any "news" from youtube; 100percentfedup.com; bizpacnews.com; realtimepolitcs.com; endingthefed.com.  

 

[Tom Wetmore]

A concern that I have regarding this whole issue is that the currently growing distrust in the news media, whether well founded or not, is moving us down a path that undermines one of our most fundamental freedoms we have - the freedom of speech and the press.  My concern is that people's distrust of media, and the pervasive misinformation that circulates in the new forms of media opens that door to entertaining ideas to try to clean up or deal with the problem, whether real or perceived.  A potential driver that is apt to force such changes is fear, a concern for deep national security needs, especially when those who may be the targets of distrust are in any way perceived as linked to un-American or unpatriotic groups, or simple those perceived as not representing national interests or values.  The attitude shift about those fundamental and essential functions of the the media risk leaving people more open to the idea of putting some limits on media, under the circumstances that may be viewed as safeguards or reasonable, but that in reality tend to restrict, stifle, or infringe on free speech.

We see corollaries in a number of other areas where people's freedoms are threatened and are eroding because of similar trajectory of public perceptions, attitudes and fears. People are willing to give up freedom in exchange for safety and security and even certainty or reassurances about the future.