The Race to Erase “Fake News”

anthony freda facebookBy Kurt Nimmo

Facebook has come up with a plan to push content produced by handpicked corporate media partners.

Business Insider speculates Facebook’s Collections will dominate the newsfeed.

Early Collections partners have been told that content they create will be inserted into the News Feed by Facebook, effectively giving them direct — and potentially much broader — access to the social network’s vast audience of 1.8 billion users. Currently, publishers must either garner likes from users for their content to be seen in the News Feed or pay to boost their exposure through Facebook’s sponsored-post program.

An earlier attempt to selectively curate news content by Facebook resulted in a public relations disaster.

The company is under intense media pressure to do something about “fake news,” now a codeword for virtually all political and news blogs deemed a threat to the establishment and the corporatocracy.

Business Insider characterizes news produced by the sites included on the PropOrNot target list as untrustworthy schlock.

Facebook’s effort to create Collections comes as it struggles to distinguish between high-quality content from established media outlets and the glut of low-quality, fake news stories that go viral across the social network. The company has faced sharp criticism for its role in spreading fake news stories during the US presidential election.

Kurt Nimmo is the editor of Another Day in the Empire, where this article first appeared. He is the former lead editor and writer of Infowars.com. Donate to ADE Here.

Image Credit: Anthony Freda Art


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

10 Comments on "The Race to Erase “Fake News”"

  1. I have never FB’d and will not.

  2. Defining fake news sites as “virtually all political and news blogs deemed a threat to the establishment and the corporatocracy.” is itself a symptom of fake news: representing opinion as fact. Fake news sites are those which do not cite their sources, or more often the sources they cite do not support the claims in the articles that cite them. It isn’t, or shouldn’t be about whether mainstream or anyone else agrees with the content, but that the citations support the article, whether its research stands up. its about standards of reporting.

    Whether these can be policed is another matter, people seem to want information that supports their assumptions and prejudices and aren’t to concerned about whether those articles that do so are supported. Now we have the freedom to create our own press free of mainstream constraints we seem to be proving ourselves unable to be responsible for it, instead using it further our own agendas at the expense of honest research and reporting to a degree that mainstream, for all its historical domination and manipulation of news simply could not get away with.

    • Angelajlaguerre | December 4, 2016 at 5:10 am | Reply

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj160d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj160d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://www.career6.Com ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj160d:….,….
      Go to the site and Click Home Tab for More Info And Details……

    • So you think the Clinton News Network is a responsible news outlet? Or Fox?
      The most telling part of your whole comment was the part where you state “whether these can be policed is another matter”. They aren’t policing the mainstream medias lies, so why would you believe they should police alternative media?
      Do you not recall they created some sort of law on the books that states the media could lie legally? That untrue propaganda was legal as long as the media did it? So what’s changed? The venue? The narrative?
      Didn’t Obama sign that little gem into law, the exact same Obama that now doesn’t like fake news? You spin me right round baby, right round.
      Far more truth in alternative media than anything I’ve watched on the mainstream news. Most alternative media, (the good sites anyway) supply verifiable sources, credentials, and studies for their stories. When was the last time you saw, or remember, the mainstream media citing verifiable sources of any kind which could then be further verified or nullified by a search for the information?
      Mainstream media needs to be banished, not policed, banished. They have been lying to us for a century at the behest of their masters, to the detriment of the rest of us. This aggression cannot stand.

      • The mainstream media has to be far more subtle about its manipulation of the news than the blatant ones the fake news site regularly do. If their sources are false or they do not have sources for example they get caught on it. They are accountable in that regard, which is something of a step forward in that they have to appear to be telling the truth at least but on the other hand it does limit the scope according to what is accepted in the status quo and is manipulated to maintain that. Of course.

        These new sites don’t have any such limitations. so the problems of each are quite different if only because of degree.

        Alot of alternative media does supply sources so you can check them yes. But they are being swamped by ones that are willing to misrepresent and lie in pursuit of their agenda.

        If we are going to have a free for all press then we must have enough personal integrity to not misuse it. Certainly there is failure in that regard at the moment.

        “Do you not recall they created some sort of law on the books that states the media could lie legally? That untrue propaganda was legal as long as the media did it? So what’s changed? The venue? The narrative? ” I have no idea what you are talking about here, and from the wording neither do you.

        How can you banish mainstream media? mainstream is not definitive in that way, whatever is mainly available will be mainstream, and if the standards that mainstream must adhere to are thrown out then whatever those media outlets are, they will be more free to lie ands manipulate or be manipulated,, not less.

        • Truth “from” the MSM? You mean like these truths, maybe?
          1) Brian Williams: “The helicopter I was riding in got hit with an RPG.

          2) President Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

          3) Lance Armstrong: “I never doped.”

          4) The CDC: “There’s no evidence linking vaccines to autism.”

          5) The NSA: “We aren’t spying on the phone calls or emails of U.S. citizens.”

          6) The U.S. Navy: “No sailors were harmed by Fukushima radiation.”

          7) The mainstream media: “What Fukushima radiation?”

          8) The American Diabetes Association: “Diabetes cannot be reversed; only managed with expensive medication.”

          10) Government-run schools: “Common Core provides your child with a quality, historically-accurate education.”

          11) The FCC: “We don’t want to really control the internet. We just want to regulate it a little.”

          12) Big Pharma: “We don’t need to charge you exorbitant prices for drugs for our own profits; we only need the money to bring you amazing breakthroughs!” (REALITY: Most drug company R&D money comes from taxpayer dollars funneled through the NIH.)

          13) Every news station in America: “Unvaccinated children put vaccinated children at great risk because vaccines work so well they make vaccinated children immune… unless there are unvaccinated children around in which case
          the unvaccinated children cause the vaccinated children to revert to unvaccinated status which is bad. And that’s where measles comes from!”

          14) The U.S. Congress: “We can pay off the national debt by slightly reducing the acceleration of the growth of new debt being added to it.”

          15) The Federal Reserve: “Printing more fiat currency is good for the economy, and inflated stock market valuations prove it!” (Until one day they don’t, anyway…)

          16) The IRS: “We need your tax revenues to fund the government.” (But when banksters need another trillion-dollar bailout, they instantly create the money from nothing.)

          17) Monsanto: “Glyphosate is perfectly safe for human consumption and has zero negative impacts on the environment.”

          18) British Petroleum: “We completely cleaned up the Gulf of Mexico. What dolphins? We thought those were greasy sea otters…”

          19) The FDA: “The psychiatric drugging of children helps children become healthier.”

          20) The American Dental Association: “Mercury is awesome! Especially when we drill it into your mouth.”

          21) Vaccine manufacturers: “What mercury?”

          22) The USDA: “Every GMO crop the biotech industry comes up with is totally safe for open-field planting! No worries!”

          23) Every liberal media outlet: “Everything is so screwed up by big government that the only answer is BIGGER government!”

          24) Children’s hospitals: “We are kidnapping your children and forcing them to undergo chemotherapy because we know better than you do what’s good for them.”

          25) Your local TV news station: “Children’s vitamins are dangerous!”

          26) That same local TV news station: “But mercury in vaccines makes children healthier!”

          27) Your local city: “Dumping fluoride chemicals into the public water supply is just one of the many ways we selflessly serve the humanitarian needs of society.”

          28) All mainstream doctors over the last 20 years: “Eating cholesterol in foods causes heart disease.”

          29) Those same doctors: And because cholesterol is so horrible, statin drugs are awesome and help everyone!

          30) CNBC: “The rising stock market proves the economy is strong, and it has nothing to do with money printing by the Fed.”

          31) The White House: “The number of unemployed Americans is falling, just like we promised. See? These numbers prove it…”

          32) Mainstream media: “Illegal immigrants carry no disease into U.S. cities, but unvaccinated American children are filthy and dangerous.”

          33) Every mainstream media newspaper in America: “There is no CDC whistleblower named Dr. William Thompson, and he never confessed to taking part in the fraudulent alteration of data to bury any link between vaccines and autism.”

          34) NBC News: “When Brian Williams lies to the world, that’s okay. But when independent media organizations report the truth, they’re crazy!”

          35) Every “science” columnist carried by the mainstream media: “Aspartame is totally safe! In fact, it’s probably just as safe as vaccines! Maybe even as safe as eating glyphosate or GMOs.”

          36) Justification for the First World War

          37) Justification for the Second World War

          38) Justification for the Gulf of Tonken

          39) Justification for the Vietnam war.

          40) Weapons of Mass Destruction.

          41) Lone gunman on 11/22/63

          42) Terrorists from another country brought down Building 7 although they didn’t physically touch it in any way, shape, or form.

          43) Justification for Libya and the murder of Gaddafi.

          44) Justification for invading Syria.

          45) Area 51

          46) Whatever horrid thing is happening; It’s all Russia’s fault.

          These are your MSM truths, all found to be false. Trust the MSM….not likely as I have at least half a functioning brain, but you give ‘er.

          • I’m not going to go through all of thesde but the in the first three there are two examples of the difference:

            2) President Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

            3) Lance Armstrong: “I never doped.”

            Now, both people said those things and the press reported them as saying those things (I’m assuming without checking that you are quoting accurately here for simplicities sake even though I am aware you may well be paraphrasing).

            They might have lied but they did say the lie: the lie did happen and if they didn’t say that there is some chance of accountability, the media organisation having to apologise etc.

            “Fake news sites” as they are called, go far further than that. They attribute quotes and events to people regularly that they never said or did.

            Its quite a step backwards from having the media report lies to having the media lie about the lies they report.

            Its as if the media, instead of reporting Obama saying “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” they reporting him saying something he didn’t actually say. If the mainstream did that they would be called out for it, but the fake news people do it all the time. They just make stuff up.

            One example was a slew of articles claiming before the election that Julian Assange had said that he had incriminating evidence on Hillary which he would release. Try as i might the articles could not give a reason why they claimed he said that. The most they could offer (some didn’t even bother with this) was a link an interview where Assange talked about his opinion of the likelihood of her being implicated in some particular events. He never said what they claimed he said let alone whether what they claimed he said was true.

    • “For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.” foreign policy . com
      The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition of propaganda, allowing the government’s broadcasting to be directed at/created for Americans.

  3. I think it is EXTREMELY hilarious that after 20+ years of being in EVERY SINGLE grocery store and checkout line in America that magazines such as the The Inquisitor and The National Enquierer have NEVER been targeted as “FAKE NEWS” but REAL NEWS websites that done waste paper like Activist Post and The Daily Sheeple etc. are being targeted. I knew this was coming though, as this is the time of satan’s rule everything is backwards right now. It’s funny cuz as i read these articles at work and people walk by my desk they ask “what are you reading” and i tell them “REAL NEWS, not like that crap that’s playing in the break room i.e. CNN and Foeaux News” there is one in the grocery stores and the checkout lines right now that says “Hilary, Bill, and Chelsea Clinton Indicted” why is this not being targeted as “Fake News” can someone please make sense of this for me lol.

  4. Facebook is the perfect example of Huxley’s comment that the slaves will “come to love their chains.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*