**** Elections thread *****

[surviva316]

Good. InfoWars sucks. They practice the same faux journalism as CNN and Cuckington Post.

No actually, Infowars quite demonstrably does NOT practice anywhere near the same standards as CNN and HuffPo. I hate both of those outlets with a deep and undying passion, but that Infowars story is a spectacular absurdity in the world of journalism, and you need to stop equivocating all forms of bad media. Not everything is fake news. Hell, even that Infowars story (as hilariously atrocious as it is) wasn't fake news.

Using accurate words matters. Ever since you've been bit by the "fake news" bug, you've basically been exactly as bad as the SJWs who call everything that is in some way or another potentially offensive to someone non-white "racist."

[wufwugy]

No actually, Infowars quite demonstrably does NOT practice anywhere near the same standards as CNN and HuffPo. I hate both of those outlets with a deep and undying passion, but that Infowars story is a spectacular absurdity in the world of journalism, and you need to stop equivocating all forms of bad media. Not everything is fake news. Hell, even that Infowars story (as hilariously atrocious as it is) wasn't fake news. Using accurate words matters.

I didn't say they are on par. InfoWars is definitely worse. My comment was because I have put a lots of words to how bad the MSM is and I wanted to point out that InfoWars is also bad in the same way. InfoWars is also worse. MSM sometimes reports on things they shouldn't. InfoWars constantly reports on things they shouldn't.

Ever since you've been bit by the "fake news" bug, you've basically been exactly as bad as the SJWs who call everything that is in some way or another potentially offensive to someone non-white "racist."

Please explain.

[surviva316]

Please explain.

Don't feel like doing a whole thing right now, but I basically just mean always immediately going to the nuclear word. Credibility of a news story is a whole spectrum and there is a whole variety of ways it can be compromised. Cherry picked information, conjecture, rumor, single unreliable source, single reliable source, single unvetted unreliable source, multiple reliable but unnamed sources, unvetted information, totally fabricated information, bias in presentation, bias in selection, bias to the point of intellectual dishonesty, honest mistake, typo, information taken out-of-context, deceivingly edited quotes, clickbait, exaggeration, you can go up and down and back up the list again. Everyone is different and needs to be treated differently by the media consumer. Only one of them is outright fake news and only one of those should be treated like fake news should be treated.

[wufwugy]

Don't feel like doing a whole thing right now, but I basically just mean always immediately going to the nuclear word. Credibility of a news story is a whole spectrum and there is a whole variety of ways it can be compromised. Cherry picked information, conjecture, rumor, single unreliable source, single reliable source, single unvetted unreliable source, multiple reliable but unnamed sources, unvetted information, totally fabricated information, bias in presentation, bias in selection, bias to the point of intellectual dishonesty, honest mistake, typo, information taken out-of-context, deceivingly edited quotes, clickbait, exaggeration, you can go up and down and back up the list again. Everyone is different and needs to be treated differently by the media consumer. Only one of them is outright fake news and only one of those should be treated like fake news should be treated.

What distinction are you using to call one outright fake and the other not?