I’ll see your horseshit and raise you a pile of trump.
There’s a vast difference between believing a lie somebody else told and lying.
Hell, wasn’t that the defense you guys tried to use when the last Republican President fucked up?
Cite that this is ANYWHERE NEAR equivalent to the right wing news sources? I mean even a measurable fraction of as common? Otherwise I’m sticking with false equivalence again.
Please do share your absolutely factual and reliably unbiased sources of information with the rest of us. TIA
Funny you should say that…
Fake news is nothing new; it has been a problem for centuries if not millennia. Hell, there was an episode of Sharpe (Peninsular War era) about fake news.
Here’s news about a right-wing victim of fake news winning out.
Umm… no. You’re getting a filtered or distorted view - a different perspective - from whichever news source you use. Right, left, libertarian, authoritarian, it doesn’t matter; they all have their own biases. Sensible people read multiple sources across the political spectrum. The Daily Telegraph as well as the Guardian. Fox News as well as the Huffington Post. If you just stick to one - whichever its viewpoint - you are just promoting your own ignorance.
I expect the reporter to properly vet the story. I expect an editor to demand that the story be properly vetted before it is released to the public. I expect the media outlets to make accuracy their primary concern when it comes to reporting the news.
The story turned out to be false. That pretty much says all there is to say. It should be obvious that the “reporter” didn’t fully verify the story. But we shouldn’t blame the reporter for not doing their job. It’s not the reporters fault that they’re easily fooled. It must so difficult for large news agencies to spend any time or money to properly verify their stories.
Example A - Someone makes up a story and posts it on Facebook, or to the dailykos. Several posters get into a squabble over the story, and it becomes more popular. A major news outlet, or two, takes notice and choses to report that some-other-media-source is discussing the story. More news outlets pick up the story. The reader/viewer believes the story must be true because they can’t believe that any news outlet would run a story without first verifying the facts.
Example B - Someone makes up a story (this one includes a police report that they, or their friend, filed) and feeds it to a reporter from one of the major news outlets. A major news outlet, or two, takes notice and choses to report that some-other-media-outlet is discussing the story. More news outlets pick up the story. The reader/viewer believes the story must be true because they can’t believe that any news outlet would run a story without first verifying the facts.
Both are examples fake news.
What different does it make to the reader/viewer? Fake news is fake news.
(post shortened)
Pick the media outlet that always verifies their news stories BEFORE they publish them.
Pick the media outlet that values the accuracy of their news stories, as opposed to those who would rather be the first to report a story accompanied by later retraction.
Pick the media outlet that doesn’t let their own biases influence what should, and shouldn’t, be reported. Or how a story should be reported.
Remember that different people have different perspectives and that two very different versions can both be true.
Not possible. Everyone has their own biases; every organisation has its own biases. Publishing a story costs resources and resources are not infinite, so someone has to decide which stories to publish. Reporting a story takes time and effort, and someone has to pay for that.
Jesus Christ, reading half of the posts in this thread is like listening to someone say that the field of astrology is as valid as the field of physics because some guys one hoodwinked a bunch of people with their cold fusion claim. “So physics is no better than astrology or magic!!1!”
This country is fucked.
+1
On the right, you have more fake news of the outright-false sort.
On the left, you have more* true but selectively chosen* news. (So, for instance, far more news coverage of a white man shooting a black man than if a black man shot a white man. Or, far more coverage if a woman gets abducted, than if a man gets abducted.)
Plus the half-truth blown up into a massive lie for ideologic purposes, an example of which is the Indian-farmer-suicide anti-GMO myth.
I do not agree that the false claim of Islamophobia cited in the OP constitutes “fake news”. At worst, such stories constitute credulous and sloppy reporting, which is unfortunately nothing new in journalism.
Who cares when you’ve elected a repeatedly proven, clearly shameless liar to be president? How can bad reporting, misleading stories or even fake news even compare? How can anyone be outraged about one, but cool with the other?
As I said in the other thread, there are two big differences between inaccurate stories that the left believes, and those that the right believes. To use slightly different wording here, they are scale and durability.
Scale: the inaccurate stories that the left believes tend to be about fairly minor things (such as those you’ve cited), while the right, while also believing some minor stuff, routinely believes whoppers of pretty earthshaking importance, such as the Global Warming Hoax.
Durability: in the face of contrary evidence, adherence by lefties to inaccurate news tends to erode. This rarely happens on the right, where (for instance) the ‘global warming is a hoax’ narrative has been embedded for 25 years or more, as the evidence of global warming piles higher every year.
The biggest fake story I can recall that’s had any staying power on the left was the ‘Ohio was stolen in the 2004 election’ narrative. It lives on, but almost entirely in some pretty disreputable corners of the left with minimal following. It’s never had any major proponents on the left, at the level of Dem Congresscritters or Cabinet officials or governors or other major political figures. But for most of us left-of-center types, this wasn’t even a story that we bought into in the first place, and so it didn’t need correction.
Compared to this, the stories you refer to are small potatoes with little reach. And who on the left accepts them as gospel anymore?
No. You are the one who is determined not to learn anything.
I’d never heard this story before. Were very many people even aware of this story before it got debunked?
Examples, preferably with some basic equivalence?
(E.g. a black man shooting a white man has greater equivalence to its converse if either both stories follow the normal arrested-charged-tried-convicted-imprisoned sequence, or neither does, than it would if one follows that sequence, but the other doesn’t. You get the idea.)
(post shortened)
Are you suggesting that there are “inaccurate” stories on both sides of the political divide?
Why should we the people accept a media that can’t properly vet news stories? If there were a trusted news source, a news source that actually publishes the Who, What, Where, Why, and When, of a news story, people would be much less likely to fall for these fake news stories.
Lots-O-people care.
Lyin’ Hillary didn’t get elected. Some people seem to think that Hillary might have been elected if there had been a trusted news source people could turn to in order to learn the truth. The actual truth. The real truth. The verified truth.
Or we the people can keep the news media we current have?
We have several good news organizations in this country. They are dismissed by one side as being liberal liars.
And you can’t think of even one story that your favorite news outlet got wrong. Congratulations. 
All news agencies get things wrong occasionally. The difference is whether they correct the mistake or double down on the lie.