Fake News: How long have we had it?

[Gary K]

In the 1930s Walter Duranty of the New York Times reported that the mass starvation going on in the Ukraine because Hitler had stopped all importation of food into the Ukraine, destroyed all seed stocks and crops, and stopped all Ukrainians from leaving, was simply a myth. He said some people were hungry, but that was it. When a British journalist by the name of Malcolm Muggeridge reported the truth, that millions of people there were dying of starvation he was fired and ostracized by the media on both sides of the pond. He couldn't find a job for years and had to move his family in with friends to make sure they were able to eat. He ended up having to change his occupation.

Walter Duranty, on the other hand, recieved the Pulitzer Prize for his "reporting", and the New York Times stood behind him for decades. Long after everyone knew the truth the Times still supported Duranty. In fact it wasn't until 2003, 70 years after Duranty reported that it was a lie that millions of people were starving in the Ukraine, that they actually investigated the situation and then said it was slovenly work. It was far worse than that. It was nothing more than being a mouthpiece for Stalin and the Kremlin.

The Pulitzer Prize committee, in 1990 almost 60 years later, investigated this, after the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Union began raising a huge stink about Duranty still retaining his Pulitzer Prize for his lies, and refused to take back his Pulitzer Prize. They never have revoked Duranty's award.

This gives you a good idea as to how long fake news, and a very corrupt media, have been in existence. And it gives you a good idea as to how politically corrupt the Pulitzer Prize committee is.

Just so you won't have to take just my word for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

 

[patrick jane]

In the 1930s Walter Duranty of the New York Times reported that the mass starvation going on in the Ukraine because Hitler had stopped all importation of food into the Ukraine, destroyed all seed stocks and crops, and stopped all Ukrainians from leaving, was simply a myth. He said some people were hungry, but that was it. When a British journalist by the name of Malcolm Muggeridge reported the truth, that millions of people there were dying of starvation he was fired and ostracized by the media on both sides of the pond. He couldn't find a job for years and had to move his family in with friends to make sure they were able to eat. He ended up having to change his occupation.

Walter Duranty, on the other hand, recieved the Pulitzer Prize for his "reporting", and the New York Times stood behind him for decades. Long after everyone knew the truth the Times still supported Duranty. In fact it wasn't until 2003, 70 years after Duranty reported that it was a lie that millions of people were starving in the Ukraine, that they actually investigated the situation and then said it was slovenly work. It was far worse than that. It was nothing more than being a mouthpiece for Stalin and the Kremlin.

The Pulitzer Prize committee, in 1990 almost 60 years later, investigated this, after the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Union began raising a huge stink about Duranty still retaining his Pulitzer Prize for his lies, and refused to take back his Pulitzer Prize. They never have revoked Duranty's award.

This gives you a good idea as to how long fake news, and a very corrupt media, have been in existence. And it gives you a good idea as to how politically corrupt the Pulitzer Prize committee is.

Just so you won't have to take just my word for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

We've probably had it since print was invented but it gets worse as time goes by. Your thread on Online Searches is related.


[h=1]HIDDEN CAMERA: Twitter Engineers To "Ban a Way of Talking" Through "Shadow Banning"[/h]

In the latest undercover Project Veritas video investigation, eight current and former Twitter employees are on camera explaining steps the social media giant is taking to censor political content that they don’t like.James O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled "AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News." The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018.


https://youtu.be/64gTjdUrDFQ

 

[Gary K]

We've probably had it since print was invented but it gets worse as time goes by. Your thread on Online Searches is related.


HIDDEN CAMERA: Twitter Engineers To "Ban a Way of Talking" Through "Shadow Banning"



In the latest undercover Project Veritas video investigation, eight current and former Twitter employees are on camera explaining steps the social media giant is taking to censor political content that they don’t like.James O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled "AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News." The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018.


https://youtu.be/64gTjdUrDFQ

Q posted a photo with George Soros and some other individuals, and I was trying to figure out who the other people in the photo were so I did an online search for George Soros in group photos. Both duckduckgo and google results for group photos of Soros and the searches returned solo pictures of Soros, a lot of photos of groups of the other people minus Soros, and and only very few pictures of Soros as part of a group photo. That just happened the other night. It's the worst I've seen the censoring. I reworded the search a half dozen times and it didn't change the results at all. It's like they have a stock return for any search for Soros pictures and that's it. It isnt like that for searches for other people as when I searched for Ted Turner or Mao rewording the search created a completely different result.

 

[patrick jane]

Q posted a photo with George Soros and some other individuals, and I was trying to figure out who the other people in the photo were so I did an online search for George Soros in group photos. Both duckduckgo and google results for group photos of Soros and the searches returned solo pictures of Soros, a lot of photos of groups of the other people minus Soros, and and only very few pictures of Soros as part of a group photo. That just happened the other night. It's the worst I've seen the censoring. I reworded the search a half dozen times and it didn't change the results at all. It's like they have a stock return for any search for Soros pictures and that's it. It isnt like that for searches for other people as when I searched for Ted Turner or Mao rewording the search created a completely different result.

It's a dangerous form of mind control and manipulation of information and it's just getting started. There needs to be a new video site owned by the people and not a massive tech giant or liberal media conglomerate. The internet is fast becoming censored and controlled exactly like the Fake News media.

 

[patrick jane]

It's a dangerous form of mind control and manipulation of information and it's just getting started. There needs to be a new video site owned by the people and not a massive tech giant or liberal media conglomerate. The internet is fast becoming censored and controlled exactly like the Fake News media.

The lying liberal scripted media and the deceptive dems rely on the young, the uninformed, criminal illegal aliens and people with little to no knowledge of the history of politics and policy in America and people with the attention span of a goldfish.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's a dangerous form of mind control and manipulation of information and it's just getting started. There needs to be a new video site owned by the people and not a massive tech giant or liberal media conglomerate. The internet is fast becoming censored and controlled exactly like the Fake News media.

The fact of internet neutrality made that impossible. As long as anyone could blog around the corporate media, they couldn't impose that kind of manipulation.

Unfortunately Trump has ended internet neutrality.

Big Brother is so proud.

 

[patrick jane]

The fact of internet neutrality made that impossible. As long as anyone could blog around the corporate media, they couldn't impose that kind of manipulation.

Unfortunately Trump has ended internet neutrality.

Big Brother is so proud.

I'm pretty sure Trump can't legislate nor "end internet neutrality" all by himself, but nice try. I realize that all you can do is twist facts and practice deception on forums but you're smart enough to know the truth. That's what spurs you on.

 

[patrick jane]

The lying liberal scripted media and the deceptive dems rely on the young, the uninformed, criminal illegal aliens and people with little to no knowledge of the history of politics and policy in America and people with the attention span of a goldfish.

if a4 nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe. Thomas Jefferson.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-09-02-0209

 

[SUTG]

How long have we had Fake News? I guess that all depends on how one decides to define "Fake News".

If you count any untrue fact whatsoever being mentioned in the news media, I think we've probably had it as long as we've had news at all. But the phrase "Fake News" as I understand it now, it a concerted effort to push a very biased agenda through manipulating what is presented as news and how it is presented. I still think this has been around for a long time. When you watch the evening network news, for example, it is delivered with many supposed common assumptions that the audience is supposed to share.

Even though this second type of fake news has been around for a while, I think it has gone completely through the roof recently. IMO there was a big, significant uptick during the time when Mitt Romney took on Obama during the last Presidential election. Not only the network media, but social media (blogs, twitter, etc) started to increase these sorts of tactics. Once Trump enters the picture, things went completely crazy and obsessive. Take a look at cnn.com on any given day. They are more concerned with full-on anti-Trump propagandizing than with anything that could be considered news. The NYT has even sacrificed a lot of their remaining credibility this election cycle.

The result of all of this has bee a sort of balkanization of the media. Many people will go to source like "the Rubin Report" or the intellectual dark web to get their news these days. This is both good and bad IMO.

 

[Gary K]

How long have we had Fake News? I guess that all depends on how one decides to define "Fake News".

If you count any untrue fact whatsoever being mentioned in the news media, I think we've probably had it as long as we've had news at all. But the phrase "Fake News" as I understand it now, it a concerted effort to push a very biased agenda through manipulating what is presented as news and how it is presented. I still think this has been around for a long time. When you watch the evening network news, for example, it is delivered with many supposed common assumptions that the audience is supposed to share.

Even though this second type of fake news has been around for a while, I think it has gone completely through the roof recently. IMO there was a big, significant uptick during the time when Mitt Romney took on Obama during the last Presidential election. Not only the network media, but social media (blogs, twitter, etc) started to increase these sorts of tactics. Once Trump enters the picture, things went completely crazy and obsessive. Take a look at cnn.com on any given day. They are more concerned with full-on anti-Trump propagandizing than with anything that could be considered news. The NYT has even sacrificed a lot of their remaining credibility this election cycle.

The result of all of this has bee a sort of balkanization of the media. Many people will go to source like "the Rubin Report" or the intellectual dark web to get their news these days. This is both good and bad IMO.

I am pretty much in agreement with you, except for the fact that we have been inundated with misinformation for a long time. Do some research into the CIA operation known as Operation Mockingbird. We, the public, just weren't aware of how often we were given slanted information for a long time. The days of Walter Cronkite were no different than today, only the illusion was more carefully concealed then. Look at how many people today still don't believe the mockingbird media lies to them. There's a large percentage of the public that has an almost absolute faith in anything they say.

The Walter Duranty/NYT story that I started this thread with is a good example of deliberate misinformation being spread by what was looked at as a highly ethical news source. And they proved how corrupt they were, even then, when they refused to retract the story even after the truth had been known for decades. That is willful and deliberate behavior.

 

[patrick jane]

[h=1]BREAKING: Sean Hannity Banned From Twitter After Eerie Tweet[/h]

https://youtu.be/qkSKj7XrHCo

2 minutes

 

[Tambora]

BREAKING: Sean Hannity Banned From Twitter After Eerie Tweet



https://youtu.be/qkSKj7XrHCo

2 minutes

Not surprising.

 

[Tambora]

How long have we had Fake News? I guess that all depends on how one decides to define "Fake News".

If you count any untrue fact whatsoever being mentioned in the news media, I think we've probably had it as long as we've had news at all. But the phrase "Fake News" as I understand it now, it a concerted effort to push a very biased agenda through manipulating what is presented as news and how it is presented. I still think this has been around for a long time. When you watch the evening network news, for example, it is delivered with many supposed common assumptions that the audience is supposed to share.

Even though this second type of fake news has been around for a while, I think it has gone completely through the roof recently. IMO there was a big, significant uptick during the time when Mitt Romney took on Obama during the last Presidential election. Not only the network media, but social media (blogs, twitter, etc) started to increase these sorts of tactics. Once Trump enters the picture, things went completely crazy and obsessive. Take a look at cnn.com on any given day. They are more concerned with full-on anti-Trump propagandizing than with anything that could be considered news. The NYT has even sacrificed a lot of their remaining credibility this election cycle.

The result of all of this has bee a sort of balkanization of the media. Many people will go to source like "the Rubin Report" or the intellectual dark web to get their news these days. This is both good and bad IMO.

:thumb:

 

[eleos]

In the 1930s Walter Duranty of the New York Times reported that the mass starvation going on in the Ukraine because Hitler had stopped all importation of food into the Ukraine, destroyed all seed stocks and crops, and stopped all Ukrainians from leaving, was simply a myth. He said some people were hungry, but that was it. When a British journalist by the name of Malcolm Muggeridge reported the truth, that millions of people there were dying of starvation he was fired and ostracized by the media on both sides of the pond. He couldn't find a job for years and had to move his family in with friends to make sure they were able to eat. He ended up having to change his occupation.

Walter Duranty, on the other hand, recieved the Pulitzer Prize for his "reporting", and the New York Times stood behind him for decades. Long after everyone knew the truth the Times still supported Duranty. In fact it wasn't until 2003, 70 years after Duranty reported that it was a lie that millions of people were starving in the Ukraine, that they actually investigated the situation and then said it was slovenly work. It was far worse than that. It was nothing more than being a mouthpiece for Stalin and the Kremlin.

The Pulitzer Prize committee, in 1990 almost 60 years later, investigated this, after the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Union began raising a huge stink about Duranty still retaining his Pulitzer Prize for his lies, and refused to take back his Pulitzer Prize. They never have revoked Duranty's award.

This gives you a good idea as to how long fake news, and a very corrupt media, have been in existence. And it gives you a good idea as to how politically corrupt the Pulitzer Prize committee is.

Just so you won't have to take just my word for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

The first fake news:

Genesis 3

4But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die"