url
stringlengths 8
1.6k
| permalink
stringlengths 26
77
| comments
listlengths 3
26.2k
| num_comments
int64 0
26.8k
| subreddit
stringclasses 2
values | title
stringlengths 1
315
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
/r/pics/comments/7wu4q6/koolau_mountains_hawaii/
|
[
"Dude was just longboarding down that the other day somewhere in r/pics",
"Ho’omaluhia?",
"This is over by the golf course. ",
"Where's the repost with the chicken?",
"Would be a lot cooler without the perfect modern road running through the middle of the jungle",
"Without the road it would just look like the top of a bunch of broccoli. ",
"Really why do you gotta be that person. Hawaii is one of the best states for conservation and switching to renewables",
"Eh I know, but this has been reposted numerous times and it's not as remote as the picture would make it seem. It's clearly still a beautiful spot though",
"Well that's basically what forests look like and I don't have a problem with that or broccoli",
"It's the entrance to a botanical garden(Ho'omaluhia Botanical Garden). So it's not really the middle of a jungle.",
"That was kinda my point but thanks for putting the actual name of the location",
"Bless you",
"Meh, the acoustics could be better there. ",
"No, I like chicks bra'. ",
"Yes, nothing can match the splendor of natures wonder better than to make it a backdrop for a golf game. "
] | 15 |
pics
|
Koolau Mountains, Hawaii
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wu6x4/the_most_recent_racial_map_of_the_world/
|
[
"r/dataisbeautiful",
"And not a single category is based on skin color. Go figure.",
"Black American?",
"Skin color is not a good way to go about classifying race. Kartvelians and many Semitic peoples are very lightskinned. Doesn't make them at all related to Europeans. Basque people and Albanians are very racially different than their neighbors, but they're white. Skin color is the most basic identifier...",
"yes. it is very very unlikely that blacks in america are purely sub-Saharan or west-African, most are mixed w/ Europeans and Amerindians",
"I did miss that one. Thanks.",
"Yeah, that was kind of the point of my pithy reply. \n\nEven DNA analysis can't really predict skin color so I like to point out that race, as traditionally used, is a social construct.",
"race is not a social construct. it's called genetics..",
"[Nope](https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3008239)",
"Race is a political/social construct, no science involved.",
"no, it isn't lmao"
] | 11 |
pics
|
The most recent racial map of the world
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wu7hv/this_car_parked_in_front_of_mine_looks_like_its/
|
[
"Good thing you blurred that sign out that the person drives around with publicly....",
"Well played!",
"Looks like a stormtrooper "
] | 3 |
pics
|
This car parked in front of mine looks like it's way too cool for the neighborhood
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wudcs/only_a_few_left/
|
[
"Still won’t have my size ",
"They should hide most of them in the back and fill out as it sells. Stupid retail tricks. ",
"When you look through most of the sizes their will be a lack of most sizes so it is kinda true depending on whether you have a common foot size or not"
] | 3 |
pics
|
Only a few left!
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wueng/australia/
|
[
"Those bugs are too big for me deal with, I'm sorry for you. ",
"Nope - not going to Australia anymore. Why is everything poisonous there man?",
"Aussies use critters to discourage transplants same as the PNW uses rain to keep Californians out.",
"r/natureisfuckinglit",
"Fuck. That. ",
"I found the nest of one of these mud-dauber wasps near where my kids play... we decided to break apart the nest and see what was inside. Turns out, these wasps drug (not kill) the spiders, stuff them into the nest and lay an egg (or few) in there. The hatching larvae eat the spiders and plot the end of civilisation until they emerge fully grown and ready to haunt humans. [See this little diagram (probably not scientifically accurate)](https://imgur.com/a/w1IgK) I drew up to help explain the cycle to my 5yr old... The three spiders stuffed into this one 3cm x 1cm cylindrical nest are on the plate with the pen for scale. There's a tiny little wasp egg on the underside of the hairy golden orb weaver.",
"yep. These wasps literally hunt spiders, inject them with a paralysing agent, (if they are big like this one they will also tear off all their legs), fly them to a small mud nest, lay an egg inside, put the paralysed & now limbless spider in there too, seal it off with mud, then leave and assume everything went to plan.\n\nWe see these wasps flying around all the time, carrying spiders."
] | 7 |
pics
|
Australia....
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wufu0/st_valentine_patron_saint_of_shoplifting/
|
[
"You can really tell he loves what he does. ",
"He wears his heart on his back and not his sleeve",
"It’s actually a rare condition you dick!",
"Good be a girly backpack he doesn’t what others to see. ",
"He’s clearly hiding his love for the checkout girl",
"Someone is going to be stealing some hearts this valentines day.",
"Very well good be.",
"That’s a colostomy bag you dick! Leave him alone!",
"?",
"\"stole you some chocolates babe, happy vday\"\n\n\"oh how romantic!\"",
"I did this once, handed it to the cashier and said hurry when the wife was digging for her debit card and put it right back. I didn't wanna come back to the store again damn it...",
"it's a jetpack obviously",
"Some people wear their heart on their sleeve. ",
"??"
] | 14 |
pics
|
St. Valentine... Patron Saint of.... shoplifting?
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wug6k/a_112_year_old_carved_spiral_staircase_in_a/
|
[
"How do they maintain this? It looks to be in impeccable condition, especially considering those handrails have been constantly touched for over 100 years. ",
"Wood lasts a long time if properly cared for! ",
"I was asking what's the proper way to care for wood, to keep it in such great condition ",
"Maintaining the environmental controls for preserving paper also works well for preserving wood.\n\nYou can see some damage to the thinner sections making up the bottom. Those parts are created using a steam treatment. The simpler surfaces that get a lot of wear probably get replaced every other administration.",
"Ah yes, Lima! The \"Paris\" of NW Ohio!",
"You have to treat it right. Hold it, tell it it's beautiful,",
"The craftsmanship required to make this 100 years ago is spectacular.",
"Lima, OH?\n\nLima, PA?\n\nLima, NY?\n\nLima, Peru?",
"Lima, Ohio??",
"Peru",
"Reminds me of the library from Raiders. ",
"So that must be the staircase that inspired the library staircase in thimbleweed park.",
"Nope. Not in Lima, Peru. I was in Lima Peru, and did some research on this because I HAD to go see it. It's somewhere in Europe, I forget where. \n\nBut yea, it says Lima Peru whenever you see this on Pinterest. The internet can be like a game of telephone at times.",
"When I do it to my wood it doesn't last long. ",
"Looks like the College in Bloodborne where you fight Rom the Vacuous Spider.",
"It's not in the US. We Americans ruin everything and within 3 mins, someone would wipe a booger on it and Sharpe penis on it. ",
"X marks the spot.",
"What would you call the detail in the ceiling?",
"Found the problem. You need to use a stronger mouthwash...",
"Doubt it, I'm really not that flexible.\n",
"similar to the craftsmanship required to do it today. remarkable.",
"Guys, I'm disappointed in how many comments it took to get to the point here. In future, I want every reddit thread reduced to sucking oneself within four comments maximum, please.",
"it's dense, high-quality and well varnished wood. That stuff lasts a long time.",
"Check out the Loretto Chapel staircase in Santa Fe. It's 140 years old and still standing...without a center support beam. ",
"For a good minute I was under the impression that a hundred twelve year old person carved this.. ",
"It’s not Lima, OH. We don’t have anything that nice around here. ",
"That’s how the residents around here act. ",
"Does the photo contain something interesting? If so, that's your first clue it isn't Ohio.",
"#WoodworkerPorn",
"My first thought, too! But as far as I know, the staircase in Maniac Mansion (and thus, Thimbleweed Park) is probably inspired by the spiral staircase in the [Skywalker Ranch Library](http://www.momendeavors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Skywalker-Ranch-Lucas-Research-Library.jpg). \n",
"> Lima, OH\n\n\nlil' Detroit ........\n",
"Ohio pro tip .... when traveling I-75, Lima's your best choice between Toledo and Dayton to score hard drugs.\n\n(Really don't know why the Allen County travel and tourism bureau doesn't promote this harder, why else is anyone gonna' stop in Lima?)",
"Lima Bean. ",
"There's plenty of interesting things in Ohio. Just not in Lima! ",
"This is a helical staircase, spirals either get bigger or get smaller as they go up",
"Hand carved.",
"Where’s the Ten?!",
"They need to change that god awful floor to match the incredible craftsmanship of all the woodwork in trhat picture.",
"It's just waiting for some edgy teen to carve \"Chad is gay\" into the railing.",
"It's a spiral staircase.\n\nThe first two definitions for 'spiral' as a noun in the Oxford English Dictionary are these:\n\n>1. *Geom.* A continuous curve traced by a point moving round a fixed point in the same plane while steadily increasing (or diminishing) its distance from this.\n\nThat's the definition you're insisting on.\n\n> \\2. a. A curve traced by a point moving round, and simultaneously advancing along, a cylinder or cone; a helix or screw-line.\n\nThat's the definition that is being applied to this, and all other such staircases.\n\nIs it helical? Absolutely. Is it a spiral? Yes, unless you're doing math.",
"knew it. sorry peru, but this doesn't seem like the kind of staircase they'd be carving in a Peruvian public library in 1906.",
"I have one of these in my mansion",
"*unzips pants*",
"This entire room, gorgeous.",
"Go on...",
"That is amazing! It's hard to believe that a person would be able to carve that at the age of 112.",
"Perú?",
"Why did they let a 112 year old do this?",
"Maintain a relatively constant humidity in the room is a good thing. In addition adding a new coat of finish every few years. It builds a protective layer on top of the wood so the hands of people don't damage the wood, instead wear at the varnish. As you can see the treads or the part that you walk on wear through much quicker, those can be replaced or sanded down to raw wood and re finished. If properly maintained hand rails can last for ever and the treads can last 50-100 years depending on the foot traffic, but every time they get refinished they get a little thinner and will have to be replaced eventually.",
"Libraries....Books...AND spiral staircases...\n\nYep. That's me good. So ...good. (Needs to go in book porn or room porn or ...well, just porn!)",
"would it not have been easier or equally as laborious to carve the main pillar and staircase from a single tree in place?",
"Isis would destroy it given the chance",
"I realized just how small and unknown my hometown was after I moved to a large city just a couple of hundred miles away.\n\nA girl asked where I was from, and when I said \"Florence\" with a South Carolina accent she looked confused and said, \"You don't sound Italian.\"",
"Layer after layer of clear coat can preserve anything. Clear coat is basically the same principal as prehistoric sap that preserves bugs for millions of years. ",
"Byrgenwerth, home to Rom and the real boss of byrgenwerth. ",
"Americans never specify where they are talking about. Midwest? Midwest of where? East coast? Of where\n\n",
"Carved from a single tree",
"There's a 140 year old [spiral staircase](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50f189dde4b07e77c464e9f3/t/51004c37e4b09c023c57a180/1358974007770/The+Miraculous+Staircase.jpg) at the [Loretto Chapel](https://www.lorettochapel.com/info/staircase) in Santa Fe, New Mexico. ",
"*furiously works wood*",
"Anyone else see chocolate bar ceilings? Seriously, I just ate dinner. I need to lose weight.",
"Caaaaaaaaaaaaaassssper !!",
"Florence yall!",
"Is Lickety Splits still around?",
"Represent!",
"Rumor says that it was made by Christ himself! And to prove it he didn’t use any nails!",
"Holy shit. \n\nFlo-town is up in here?!",
"The last I heard which was a few months ago, they were closed down to remodel. I’m not too sure if they opened back up though. I hope so, their breakfast menu was great. ",
"Was that a part of squirty worms? If so, no, went out about a year ago",
"I'm actually from NW Ohio but I will never forget that water tower. ",
"*tonk*\n\n*tonk*\n\n*tonk*\n\n#BAM",
"Lima, Bean. Duh.",
"/r/crazystairs",
"It looks like a painting to me. ",
"I'm pretty sure I've seen this in Devil May Cry.",
"This is the type of work I wish I was capable of doing",
"I read this as A 112 year old carved this spiral staircase...",
"Cause they are that good. Many decades of experience.",
"Why not?",
"Nor will I forget touchdown Jesus, pre-lightning strike!",
"Last Crusade. \n\nFTFY ",
"Look around for the ten. ",
"I was reading the title as a 112 year old person carved the staircase and I felt thoroughly unimpressed with my accomplishments in life ",
"Where? Dont think is from lima, peru.. because its well preserve and our goverment dont give a beep for our culture :(",
"Yea, Peru is more known for their smog than their exquisite woodwork. \n\nAlthough the restaurant scene and ceviche is top notch. ",
"Thats what SHE SAID AMIRITE",
"I wanna meet the 112 year old who did this.",
"That is what a library should look like.\n\nI hate our main library in San Francisco. It's a giant cold white echoing space, like a shopping mall, but with extra acrophobia.",
"I think you mean “carved library”. ",
"Disagree. That staircase is exactly the kind of bullshit the aristocrats who governed early 20th century Peru would have expent in. All about that fancy european look.",
"That'd be Toledo.",
"I'm not a big reader or much into books but I can't help but think of the incredible amount of history and knowledge present in old libraries like this. \n\nI went for a tour of the parliament in Ottawa a while back and the library was my favourite room. It's just an incredible space. Would be cool to actually be able to spend time and wander around in there to look around. It also survived a fire back in the day. The rest of the parliament burnt down. ",
"Horse powered CNC machine I imagine. ",
"I lived in Lima for several years. This kind of thing wouldn’t be out of place in a colonial mansion. ",
"Is this Lima, Peru?!?",
"It's in Peru, The Library of the San Francisco Monastery, #4 in [this](http://mentalfloss.com/article/30604/11-fabulous-libraries-south-america)article about South American libraries.",
"Can confirm. Lima, OH is a shithole ",
"Minus all the power tools that make it a lot faster/less labor intensive.",
"Dude must be in good shape at that age to be able to carve this",
"It seems to be the Municipal Library of Lima\n\nhttp://www.munlima.gob.pe/noticias/1-noticias/la-historia-de-lima-revelada-en-libros,-documentos-e-impresos",
"That would be FLINT. Toledo has more going for it than Detroit. ",
"The cops call it Lickety Clit",
"What was the 112 year old’s Name?",
"It actually belongs to the public (municipal) library of lima, #6 on that article. The staircase of San Francisco's library is shown on the picture in the article.",
"Varnish, varnish, and more varnish",
"Reminds me of Caspers house .",
"Can second that motion",
"No it’s the restaurant over by where Northland Lanes was. ",
"Third that",
"So that’s where the f-holes go. ",
"He's a pretty good woodworker for being 112",
" Crickets *",
"The aye's have it, then. Hear, hear!",
"Yes, but it wouldn't be public.",
"X marks the spot?",
"Isn't every Lima that isn't in Peru pretty much a shithole?",
"Is this from that Indiana Jones",
"Yes. Last Crusade",
"Back in the day I worked for a magazine called PC Games and one time on a sales trip to SF, I was invited to the Skywalker Ranch in San Rafael to visit with George Lucas and his marketing director because the magazine was featuring a shot of the first Indiana Jones video game artwork on the front cover - Lucas gave me a tour of the place which was huge with a gigantic stained glass domed ceiling in one part of the ranch house - but I'll always remember the elevator car was carved out of one continuous, hollowed out piece of redwood.",
"Ty, wasn't sure ",
"You can use an exquisite staircase to go and grab a copy of 50 Shades of Gray.",
"Wait do you want me to put it in my eye or my ear?",
"4 hours would be the longest you'd want anyway.",
"Staircase sexy AF.",
"No because you want to work at a comfortable height. You want multiple people working on parts so it doesn't take forever. Wood needs to be seasoned before being worked if you want a stable end product. I'm sure there are more reasons",
"Dancer of the Boreal Valley feels",
"Actually Lima is full of things as spectacular as this, i'm surprised people struggles to believe that's in Perù (and funny they ask if it's one of the lima in the US). It's the Biblioteca de Barranco if i'm not mistaken",
"you have to polish it daily. quick back and forth motions. circular motions just damage your wood. i recommend a good palm oil lubricant. [See here for a good visual guide](http://i.imgur.com/YWrRql9.gif)",
"I wonder if that place is actually hunted and abandoned too.",
"I'm from Toledo .... I've always described it to people who haven't been here as \"South Detroit\".\n\nToledo has exponentially more in common with detroit/southeast michigan than it will ever have with the rest of ohio.",
"Yup. That’s the common theme here. ",
"Sorry, I got distracted, I meant to respond to this earlier!\n\nI suppose that depends on what you enjoy, and where you are. My family lives around Urbana and West Liberty, and I've always enjoyed going to the caverns. \n\nThere's the Union Terminal Museum in Cincinnati, the outside of the building was the basis for the Hall of Justice in the Superfriends cartoon. \n\nThe Cincinnati Zoo is pretty cool too, and contains the oldest zoological building in the country (the reptile house). \n\nThere's the Snake Mounds if Native History is your thing \n\nKings Island still has a wooden rollercoaster last I knew, and that's pretty cool! \n\nThere's beautiful parks and forests, there's the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, plenty of attractions to visit, and gorgeous camping areas. \n\nI don't live in Ohio, I live in Nebraska - where I often feel like there's not really anything interesting. It helps sometimes to think like a tourist though, you'll be surprised by what you find! ",
"**For anyone who don't know where it is located:** \n**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRuePtMO4ic\n at 0:55**\n**Lima,Lima,Peru** "
] | 133 |
pics
|
A 112 year old carved spiral staircase in a public library in Lima
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuj3y/my_old_man/
|
[
"Sup bro. I know we haven't had a chance to speak about this specific topic since it happened I want to air it out before you, or I, take that last trip to the farm. Back in 2011, you and I took a trip to the dog park by the softball fields. There was this really attractive American Staffordshire that we had a few minutes with. I may have called him the \"best boy in the world\". That was not true. I just thought his owner was dtf. I thought her dog, Kilroy, sucked. Have a good life old friend. Nice to get it off my chest.",
"Handsome boi ",
"❤️",
"Dear old dad.",
"What a handsome fellow!",
"What kind of dog is he? He's gorgeous!",
"Your old man is starring at you with his pecker out.",
"Thank you! He’s chihuahua :) 14 years old!"
] | 8 |
pics
|
My old man
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wul4t/falcon_heavy_engine_plumes_look_like_giant_laser/
|
[
"Google seach \"imagine dragons believer\" and click images",
"Truly a launch engineered and planned by a true gopnik Slav.",
"real life image of the first use of The Hammer of Dawn."
] | 3 |
pics
|
Falcon Heavy engine plumes look like giant laser beams in this photo
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wunf5/overlooking_where_the_columbia_meets_the_kootenay/
|
[
"Kootenai. ",
"Your area it’s called kootenai but where I’m from it’s spelled kootenay",
"Word. In NW Montana myself"
] | 3 |
pics
|
Overlooking where the Columbia meets the Kootenay river
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuor9/heres_a_cake_that_my_mom_made_for_my_17th_birthday/
|
[
"She did a great job!",
"Can I pay your mom for cakes?",
"Happy birthday!",
"10 points for Gryffindor!",
"Good mom!",
"What a find!\n\nNow hold it up over your head and see if it slowly spins, levitating in space while you learn about it.",
"Your mom rocks!",
"I read that as pints",
"7th?",
"You've got a good mom. Tell her you love her.",
"Your poop is going to be blue or black for a few days. LOL",
"Your mom is pretty cool ",
"That (Hy)rules!",
"Thanks! but I shouldve said this was from 3 years ago I'm 20 now :)",
"She's been thinking about opening a shop.",
"Thanks!",
"She should, I need a job i can make a mine craft cake."
] | 17 |
pics
|
Here's a cake that my mom made for my 17th birthday.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuph0/chilly_outside_chili_inside_venison/
|
[
"Damn, looks good!",
"Made chili in the crockpot overnight from ground venison off one of the whitetail that I harvested this winter! This is as clean and natural as meat gets. \n\nI have been a bow hunter for years, and I take a lot of pride that for several months every year, the meat we are eating went from the field to the freezer over the course of a couple of hours. Anyone who hunts archery can tell you that this isn’t easy work. I probably went out in the field two dozen times, hiked many miles, and froze my ass off for several hours to harvest these two deer. I’m a lucky guy :)",
"Thank you! It was delicious. ",
"A lot luckier than those two deer.. It does look amazingly tasty though. I don't hunt but I'm going to try and tackle a deer in a field. ",
"Haha. Our ancestors did it with flint spears and knives before the bow and arrow. Why not you?",
"Good call, I'll hold a knife in my teeth while wrestling that bastard to the ground bare handed by the horns. Then I have to look up venison chilli recipes.. ",
"I got this recipe off a cave wall in Texas. Took a bit of work to translate, but i can send it to you if it comes to that. ",
"👊"
] | 8 |
pics
|
Chilly outside = Chili Inside (venison)
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuplq/just_a_typical_winter_evening_in_toronto_ontario/
|
[
"That's cute, come out to Calgary where we're breaking snow fall records",
"So you guys are saying it snows in Canada.. 😒",
"Better call the army In again"
] | 3 |
pics
|
Just a typical winter evening in Toronto, Ontario.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuqws/and_on_the_seventh_day_the_lord_gave_us_john/
|
[
"Because god hated humanity and wanted to punish us.",
"Are you actually a big John Mayer fan or this sarcasm? I really can’t tell. ",
"I thought that was Justin Bieber when I first looked "
] | 3 |
pics
|
And on the seventh day the lord gave us John Mayer...and hoverboards.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuraf/my_sister_in_front_of_a_tv_with_some_branches/
|
[
"Lovely title. ",
"😬",
"No I really do love it the picture as well. \n\nThe title made me smile... right to the point. 🙂",
"Tell her to move out the way",
"thank you😁",
"Looks like part of an intro to some supernatural detective show.\n\nOr an m83 album cover"
] | 6 |
pics
|
My sister in front of a TV with some branches.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wurkz/i_wanted_to_take_a_selfie_penny_wanted_to_look_at/
|
[
"You both win. ",
"My bones have been pulverized though. Penny is a big girl.\n\n*Real dogs have curves.*",
"“SQUIRREL!”"
] | 3 |
pics
|
I wanted to take a selfie. Penny wanted to look at the squirrels outside.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wurqn/anyone_else_noticed_the_ghost_riding_inside/
|
[
"Michael Jackson from Thriller video?",
"It looks terrified. Star man actually have his license? ",
"https://imgur.com/a/OqCqu",
"/u/hordecore80, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for violating the following rule(s):\n\n* Rule I - No pictures with added/superimposed digital elements.\n\n* Rule IV - Title violates title guidelines.\n\nYour title must not ask for general information or feedback. \n\nYou can read the full information about our title guidelines at /r/pics/w/titles\n\n\n\n\nFor information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/about/rules/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/w/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/hordecore80&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wurqn/anyone_else_noticed_the_ghost_riding_inside/?context=10\\))"
] | 4 |
pics
|
Anyone else noticed the ghost riding inside Starman in Roadster ? or its just me
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuw6z/my_grocery_store_put_all_the_laundry_pods_behind/
|
[
"And I asked, yes you have to be 21 and be carded to buy them now. Kids today are fucking wild, man.",
"Most stores started doing it this year, before eating them hit the mainstream media and kids did it anyone could buy them from the laundry section. ",
"Cheap cigs. My gas station doesn't have a 20 pack under $10. Cheapest is like $10.05-$10.10. -Canada",
"This has got to be a tide ad",
"$10Can = $7.94US. Makes sense",
"Ah, fair enough. ",
"Mine isnt.",
"Every food4less, stater bros, Walmart, target, Costco, sams club, dollar tree, I’ve walked into has had them locked up already. I havnt walked into a store that hasn’t this year. ",
"Krogers in Kentucky don't. ",
"I did say *most* stores. We don’t have Kroger’s here. ",
"Walmarts around here don't seem to be either, maybe it some regional overreaction. Don't think I could characterize it any other way than that. ",
"Yeah maybe states or areas with high population size don’t want to be liable for kids eating them and the parents suing? ",
"I’m surprised tide(and others) hasn’t discontinued them. They only save people a few seconds and are more expensive compared to regular laundry soap. They also leave plastic residue on your clothes sometimes which rips the clothes when you try to separate the fabric. ",
"Be my guess. Probably easier than risk a law suit from someones dumbass kid.",
"Are you being serious? I’m glad the stores in my area aren’t doing that because I’m trying to do my laundry without having to get myself a fake ID thanks.",
"Now I have to eat the dishwasher ones instead :("
] | 16 |
pics
|
My grocery store put all the laundry pods behind the cigarette case...
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuxrw/this_us_navy_soldier_from_wwii_looks_a_lot_like/
|
[
"Time traveler status confirmed.",
"And the barber looks like Robert Blake. ",
"Dude in the back looks like Joe Pesci as well",
"The man is timeless",
"Traveler 6202, welcome to the 21st.",
"I can't tell what's real anymore\n",
"We call them 'sailors.'"
] | 7 |
pics
|
This US navy soldier from WWII looks a lot like Nicolas Cage
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuye7/clever_xpost_campingandhiking/
|
[
"Very punny. I would make sure to stay off the grass just due to that sign.",
"*Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man.* \n-Mercutio",
"what does that even mean",
"I reckoned this would be a pun thread. So I posted the first one that popped into my head. \nIn Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio has been stabbed and knows he is dying. But he's a joker. So his pun suggests that tomorrow he'll be more serious (grave), when in fact he'll be literally in his grave.",
"thats hilarious ",
"Billy Shakespeare had his moments. "
] | 6 |
pics
|
Clever. [xpost /CampingandHiking]
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuyli/my_sister_made_a_cake/
|
[
"If anyone feels like splurging $20, you can purchase instructions on how to make that cake here: http://www.ennascakedesign.com/tutorials/harry-potter-trunk-cake-video-tutorial\n\nYes, I hunted down the website. Why's it called *Ennas' Cake Design* anyway? Her name seems to be Irina.",
"That was her childhood nickname. Her name is actually Irina.",
"Ah, cool."
] | 3 |
pics
|
My sister made a cake.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuytu/two_friends/
|
[
"That gun tho....",
"Doggo’s ears appreciate that suppressor",
"Yes",
"+",
"Da fuck do you hunt with a suppressor?",
"He’s being courteous to the good boy",
"I always kinda wondered about that, I guess they make Mutt Muffs but that's kinda silly looking.",
"But does the atf appreciate doggo?",
"Oh! Gah! I thought he had the barrel pointed at his armpit.",
"This looks like that moment when a horror movie is about to get serious.",
"He’s a good boy",
"Its required in of parts of europe. \n\nIts protection for the hunting dog and lets you wear less ear-pro to you can listen for your quarry. ",
" VZ?",
"АК"
] | 14 |
pics
|
Two friends...
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wuzxk/uspenski_cathedral_thought_it_turned_out_pretty/
|
[
"Phone: moto xpe",
"It’s even prettier inside!",
"This is a great photo.\n\nWhat is up with people on reddit shitting so hard on their phone camera? \n\nEvery other day there's someone posting a high quality photo and apologizing for \"potato quality\" or something like that. \n\nI have an old iPhone 5s but it's able to shoot some pretty amazing pics under the right lighting.",
"Built in Helsinki when Finland was part of Russian Empire."
] | 4 |
pics
|
Uspenski Cathedral; thought it turned out pretty well given my mediocre phone camera.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wv18d/found_mater_chilling_in_colorado/
|
[
"Stoners",
"Nah that's Lizzie ",
"Like tuh-mater, but without the tuh!",
"*I used to know this girl Doreen. Good-lookin' girl, looked just like a Jaguar... only she was a truck. I used to crash into her just so I could spoke to her.*"
] | 4 |
pics
|
Found Mater chilling in Colorado.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wv2yj/wear_whatever_you_want_they_said_theres_really_no/
|
[
"I cannot be the only person thinking Krusty the Clown here, can I? ",
"Photos from the first probe that landed on jewpiter circa 2022 a.d.",
"They probably saw the video with the smurf kid and decided to give it a try. ",
"A room full of the 2 things I hate most in this world. Clowns and large crowds. Disgusting.",
"Oh, if you were a musician or a jazz singer this I could forgive but... but, but this. I never want to see you again you, you... clown!",
"Real live young Krusty",
"krusty the early days",
"Someone already posted this picture with that thought. ",
"Hey hey! ",
"Matisyahu before he turned to reggae. ",
"You should have thought about that when it wasn't your turn.",
"The best dressed clown there.",
"Could be worse, it could be a large crowd *of* clowns!",
"What is this really a picture of is my question? Looks intense.",
"That poor kid looks miserable. :(",
"Maybe in the moment, but he’s a rockstar for doing it, and I hope he’s the boss of great people in the future. ",
"That would be great.",
"I love that he was brought there wearing what I hope he wanted to. Very open-minded. \nAlternatively, if it’s meant to be punishment, then, own it kid. Children can smell hypocrites as well as anyone. Juggle. Rub their noses in it. \n\nI may be drunk. ",
"To anybody wondering: This is a Jewish holiday known as [Purim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purim) where children will dress in costumes and get candy. They also go to synagogue and have feasts as well which is what is happening here. ",
"Are you talking about Herschel Shmoikel Krustofski?",
"His outfit seems very unorthodox",
"Reminds me of my first Easter Sunday in Mississippi after living in Hawaii for 5 years. Of course I wore an aloha shirt and slacks, why wouldn't I? :-/",
"It’s the other clowns that are weird...",
"Whew, thought that was about to go in a little racist direction for a second ",
"Herschel Shmoikel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofsky!!!!",
"[r/accidentalrenaissance anyone?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AccidentalRenaissance/) So much emotion in one picture.",
"Reminds me of the joke where Hitler says he's going to kill all the jews and one clown.",
"My immediate thought was Krusty.",
"Simpsons did it",
"Underrated comment, right here. ",
"I'm not convinced. What makes you think it's a seudah?",
"Krusty "
] | 32 |
pics
|
"Wear whatever you want" they said. "There's really no official dress code" they said.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wv7su/aw_hamburgers_root_beer_1956/
|
[
"I bet those burgers were amazing.",
"Did cars come out earlier then their model year like they do now? That's a 1957 Chevy Bel Air station wagon and the picture says 1956. That's why I ask. Curious.",
"Ooooh, I remember the Papa Burger and Mama Burger! And the root beer ALWAYS served in a frosty mug! And the tray of food brought out to your car and hung on the half-up window. Gosh I'm old.",
"Such a simpler time. Now we have such complicated menus, double drive-thrus, food delivery platforms. I wish I lived in the 50's and 60's sometimes.",
"Came here to point out '57, too. But, yes, the new year's models used to be released with great fanfare around September.",
"Either there was an error in my dating OR there was a time traveler who somehow got his entire car into the time machine and decided to go only a few years back to a hamburger stand!",
"I thought about the 57 too, but also realized that the GMC is at.least a 1960.😁 I'd say the year is incorrect."
] | 7 |
pics
|
A&W Hamburgers & Root Beer - 1956
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wv9ia/a_new_type_of_invasive_species/
|
[
"plastic water bottles?",
"Scoop them up, dry them out, chop them up and push through a filastruder. Full of petg goodness, wish someone would make one at large scale and just pump the petg out as rolls of filament that can be printed with a fdm 3d printer straight from your standard recycling centre.",
"That’s sad",
"And yet, people claim now is the green generation.",
"time to start making these things out of biodegradable material a law.",
"Why don't you do it?",
"Lack of an engineering degree, millions of dollars, and being CEO of a recycling company.",
"Heartbreaking. ",
"Sorry, I couldn't hear you over my Keurig."
] | 9 |
pics
|
A new type of invasive species
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wv9ty/the_things_i_do_for_my_girlfriend/
|
[
"Lol.. Uh huh.. Gf.",
"And karma. Not today.",
"A guy can dream. ",
"Change your hairstyle while your at it. Grow it longer or buzz it. That’s not an appealing length for anyone. She’ll appreciate it, and you’ll look better at the same time. Peace n Blessings ",
"I make my man play 3 games of yahtzee with me in order to let him play downstairs. "
] | 5 |
pics
|
The things I do for my girlfriend...
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wv9zw/a_large_drawing_i_made/
|
[
"Is that ink? This is badass!",
"The force is strong with this picture... ",
"Thank you. it is dip pen and ink, and gold wash on paper. the paper is not yellow to begin with. here is a high res: https://i.redd.it/qfjlrkjm8nf01.jpg",
"Wow,amazing. Nice one.",
"Thanks!",
"Give this guy a hand.",
"There is so much going on in this picture I didn’t see him at first. Love this drawing!",
"Whats tbe idea behind it?",
"there is a lot going on, in my head as well",
"I see",
"Reminds me of Escher. Absolutely brilliant. You have a beautiful mind.",
"Thank you. The technique i use is very much like etching, the pen makes tiny scratches and deposits ink, sans the printing. Escher used intaglio which is similar in many respects except he produced multiples of one plate."
] | 12 |
pics
|
A large drawing I made
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wveg9/havent_drawn_in_over_a_month_and_it_feels_great/
|
[
"WOW! What software? I am so impressed and in love with your work.",
"Well done.",
"I'd love that as my phone background. Very nice.",
"I just made this my Apple watch background! ",
"I like this a lot. The colors are great.",
"just photoshop! Using a wacom cintiq tablet",
"thank you!",
"This makes me feel so relaxed",
"Wow this is reallu good!!",
"I love this it's very nice! ",
"Stunning! I’d be interested in seeing any sun & moon collaborations you have. ",
"\\[T]/",
"It's almost cover art for the sublime/Incubus mashup I've always wanted.",
"That's pretty amazing! Great work!",
"Would like to see more of your work",
"kevinsterjo.com hope you enjoy!",
"Please don't go another month, you have a talent. "
] | 17 |
pics
|
Haven't drawn in over a month and it feels great to get back to it
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvell/my_ankle_fusion/
|
[
"Um ow. ",
"Damn. That’s bad. That shit hurts in the winter. Hope you live somewhere warm. How did you do that much damage?",
"Yikes ",
"Did it help?",
"Totally - Kept me out of a wheelchair",
"Rheumatoid Arthritis ",
"I have a bad ankle. If you don't mind me asking, what happened to yours?",
"Rheumatoid Arthritis. It did this to my other foot too, and wrecked both of my hands in the same way\nRA is something you don't get in just one part of your body, it clobbers everything, so good news is you likely have something else. :)",
"I'm sorry to hear that! I'm glad they did something to help you! I have Complex Regional Pain Syndrome from an injury to my ankle 7 years ago. I am scheduled to see a doctor on the 21st for an amputation, hopefully! ",
"Wowzers. \n\nNo luck with a nerve block or something?",
"My mom has RA in both knees and eventually got both totally replaced. I remember as a kid her screaming for hours on end during the night in pain ",
"Yeah, nature's own torture device.",
"Really no luck with anything. I am just hoping I can get something done that doesn't require me to take pain killers for the rest of my days. Thank God that I can usually keep working through the pain. I just can't do anything else.",
"After 25 years of RA my working days ended, and I take sustained release morphine pills daily, but I don't notice them really. \nYou get used to taking it, and then don't notice the effect at all, save feeling less pain. \n\nDo you have a pain clinic available in your town?\nI hope you are getting help from more than just your GP.",
"They tried that inn my 2nd surgery and it was simply awful. Not a success. :\\"
] | 14 |
pics
|
My Ankle Fusion
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvf4p/tonight_we_dine_in_hell_spartan_knife_block/
|
[
"link? I must have it",
"Put the knives in edge up, you're dulling the shit out of them.",
"Spartans what is your profession?\n\nA sous",
"https://www.amazon.com/Spartan-Knife-Block-Handmade-Magnetic/dp/B00RDZDDCC \n\nor \n\nhttps://missingdigit.ecwid.com/#!/Spartan-Knife-Block-Maple-&-Walnut-Special-Edition/p/42307051/category=10799533 \n\nor probably [several others](https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZisiIQardsdJU7NSdm8aJkysMx1ECDZZ7paNQvDyFgYO02RHSualHY8RnnY4yykbgDVvjPWT570bzyMQxfeptjf_1Dyf4zvRLsioAEgHcpdS_1MlGg-Y03N_1vH9GumagpJR0YGJMBhdD_1Szk5bRHZRy3SBY0HwSxBhaIZLv10tJ1Tdw_1b1MJVgx9YXHjMFiUAJqZF9R-7VUzbXxMl1BUr3H5BAsbnVlTtw6EMrzHz7b4p4qnJSouVgCgFTFmZeEz7YyY387X-S3txfojztg9bVW-9Ryt4gL6jIkL0Jo6W2fnEIywzWYNlnpSIUn6KNoMrmFZJdkotewCg77V4baUJ6F8dF4Itc7w)... ",
"THIS. IS. SPAGHETTI!!!!",
"I don't know how to link directly to the product (the link I had was a mile long). So here's the search results on Amazon. They're more than I thought they would be - one is $200! (I here I thought $20-$30 would be the price)\n\nhttps://www.amazon.com/s?field-keywords=spartan+knife+block\n\nI think I saw some ppl make their own version of this themselves. So maybe some handy woodshop people can save a lot of money and dine in hell without breaking the bank.\n\n",
"Looks cool but why is he throwing a sharpening tool at them? ",
"RED. SAUCE. IN. PASTAAAAA!",
"The picture is probably what is used to sell it. Looks more appealing.\n\nObviously people should be placing them edge up when it comes to knife holders.",
"Adding taper and relief would accomplish all that style",
"Sooo, how is the honing steel being held up in place? Just a balancing act propped next to the crest and the sword's hand guard? Or is there a hole in the handle where a peg is keeping it in place?",
"Because the banter is dull.",
"BY TRAITOR’S HAND, SECRET PASSAGE TO THEIR LAND",
"Pretty damn cool, but needs more abs.",
"Picture sends a bad message: place your knives into the block with the sharp side up - that way the blade won't dull as fast.",
"Looks like there could be a magnet in the helmet ",
"Know his name, know his shame, will last forever!",
"Post to r/designporn",
"That's awesome! This is a thing I'd own if I had my own kitchen.",
"I've always wanted to be... a baker.",
"I don't think sitting the blades on wood will do much damage. Let alone\"dull the shit out of them\"\n\nBut they can be sharpened as well..",
"Never found a use for a honing steel. I usually sharpen and just keep stropping.\n\nLots of people whinging about putting the knives that way down. Anyone ever stab someone with the blade pointing up? Not unless it's double-sided. \n\nFantastic how you/they made the holes for the blades. Shame the wood was 90' on its side, then at least the blades are laying on the end grain. May have to make one of those.",
"That doesn't really help... the problem with this thing is the torque causing one spot on the blade to get a lot of pressure... this entire design is just crap for knives. ",
"I've always wondered why makers of knife blocks don't make the slits horizontal so the knife rests on the flat of the blade that way none of the blade comes into contact with the block?",
"It really depends on the block. When the knives are exposed to touch, blade down is a lot safer, and properly designed knife blocks don't put much if any pressure on the blade itself, especially not on any one spot... unlike this abomination (don't get me wrong, it's a cool show piece, but it's terrible for knives, no matter what side you put up). ",
"Saw ones that had the knives sticking out of the back of the figure. I think one depicted Caesar.\n\nEdited: Found it! https://goo.gl/images/WkEvaz\n\nBonus one: https://goo.gl/images/r648Y9",
"Big Sharpeners, that's why. ",
"Shut up and take my money. Badass. ",
"Good, then we shall cook in the shade",
"Lol this title had me cracking up!",
"It’s a honing steel ",
"Aroo Aroo Aroo ",
"I have a knife block like this. They're out there.",
"Had to Google that, as English isn't my mother tongue. First thing I read was sharpening tool",
"Does it matter? It only sits on the end of the blade that's not going to be needed much for cutting anyway.",
"Its more Ahoo Ahoo Ahoo, aroo sounds like a dog",
"Yeah that's right.... A baker",
"That’s awesome ",
"Looks cool but unless your knives are exactly the right size (and in the right place) it will not look as good (just sayin)",
"You will pay for your BARBARISM!",
"I'm definitely going to try my hand at 3D modeling this for replication on a 3D printer.",
"I would love that if it wouldn't kill my knives everytime they get drawn",
"...or Nixon",
"TIL.\n\nMakes sense though. ",
"Have the same knives, different block though; Amazon Basics knife set. Surprisingly great knives for their price.",
"https://youtu.be/UeBihoUS3W8",
"Wouldn’t that block over time dull a knife because it’s resting on the blade?",
"I for one feel like r/ATBGE is leaking. ",
"You should have said pasta",
"Trust me, you don't.\n\nThe slots for the knives should *never* be vertical like this; the blades will get dull no matter which way you slide them into this block - edge-down or edge-up, the blades will bite into the wood from gravity. It will be a pain to continually resharpen the knives each time (plus it diminishes their lifetime by a far margin) and each time you pull out the knife you'll slice a deeper rut into the block that will put wood fibers on all the blades and create pockets for bacteria, mold, and mildew to form if not properly taken care of.\n\nThe slots should be horizontal, [like this](http://cdn.cutleryandmore.com/media/images/10172.jpg), to keep the knives sharp and protect the block from damage. The one in this post is a novelty item that will only force you to work harder at keeping your knives spic and span.",
"Knives should be stored blade up. Blade down will dull them. ",
"Absolutely agree. On the other hand, in an exposed knife holder like this, blade up is a safety issue. ",
"This guy knows his knives",
"why would putting them in edge up still be bad for the knives if youre careful when you put them in and take them out?",
"That's not a proper hoplon.",
"The handle is the heaviest end of the knife, and it will be pulled down by its weight, which would raise the blade up into the top end of the slot, like a seesaw. The angle of the block would have to be *just right for all the knives* to avoid dulling.",
"popular misconception but honing steel doesnt actually sharpen a knife it just straightens (hones) the edge of the blade so it cuts with more efficiency and with less wear and tear on the knife itself.",
"cause you wouldnt want him holding a blade sharp side out.",
"Yah, pasta jives better. Was just thinking of foods that started with \"Spa\". ",
"so if you put the knife in edge side down wouldnt the handle be pushing the back of the blade to the top reducing a lot of the weight on the sharp edge?",
"Yes it would, but then the knife is balancing on its blade edge in the block, and when you pull it out you'll be dragging the blade across the wood, slicing it up as it is drug out and putting wood fibers on the blade, not to mention creating spaces for microbes to colonize the wood.\n\nThe rule of knife blocks is \"never allow the blade's edge to make any contact with the block,\" which is why professional knife blocks will have horizontal slots that are always wider than the width of the blade that the slot was intended for.",
"I always wonder why people store their knives with the blade down. It seems that if you stored it with the blade up it would require less sharpening.",
"Just going to go ahead and toot my own horn.\nhttps://imgur.com/1JPBgTN",
"cool if you don't have cats. otherwise give it about a month and you come home to a pool of blood and a dead cat.",
"Guess its to late to mention knives should go in horizontally if you don't want to dull the knife and damage the wood.",
"Maybe I have awful taste, but I thought it was a better fit for /r/productporn!!",
"Yeah, obviously. *</googles_knife_storage>*",
"Most good knife blocks are like that. Check out any block from a quality knife manufacturer. ",
"With an open blade holder I would prefer knifes with the edge down. ",
"r/thisiswhyimbroke",
"It doesn't if you think about. The handle is heavier than the blade, so edge-up would mean the blade is being pushed against the top of the slot. At least edge-down, only the back of the blade is in contact, except when you withdraw.",
"\"Proper\" blocks do. Vertical is more aesthetically pleasing though, so novelty holders will usually go that way.",
"Using proper technique, the end of the blade would probably see more use than the tip.",
"Got this for Christmas a year ago and it’s honestly a terrible knife block. Absolutely love having it, and use it to store a few of the cheap/old knives in my set, but as a block it’s actually terrible. ",
"Yeah, my friend showed me their new $80 cutting board they ordered online made into some stupid shape out of colorful glass.\n\nDon't get me wrong, it looked super neat but I'm not sure what went through his head to purchase something like that rather than just get a nice cutting board for the same price that won't beat the crap out of his knifes after using.",
"Bought one from Amazon. Issue is that it might nicely fit your knife(s). If it doesn't, then you'll end up selling the blade trying to get each to fit and pulling them out. Great block for cheap knives though. ",
"Thrusting, not throwing. That is, if it's actually supposed to be representative of a hoplite.",
"Enjoy eating carcinogenic plastic that will melt your brain. ",
"He has clearly studied the blade.",
"That is awesome!!!!",
"Persian Knives",
"motionless mild pressure won't dull the blade much or at all. It's the sliding that i think would do much more.",
"Am I the only one who stores their knives in a block upside down to minimize wear on the cutting surface? Every marketing pic I see has the knives cutting surface down on a wood slot, that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me...",
"All the comments about blade-up and horizontal slots... I must have wandered into the hipster end of the thread.",
"Our knives will black out the sun.",
"I would really like to have that but without the cheap knives.",
"Looks like [Ikea has magnetic knife racks for $13](http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/20202083/). Seems like that should be just as safe. I'm not sure I like all those blades being visible, but that's just me.",
"'Missing digit woodshop'. Advise against getting custom made with bloodwood or redwood.",
"He is just repeating something he heard in the other thread this pic was posted in. As are you. There are people that literally take everything they hear on Reddit as a guide to life. ",
"LOL what?",
"We have it too, it's for the shitty knives, mostly for show. Looks awesome though. The good knives go in their boxes in a drawer. ",
"Or for like a quarter of that price. Or just making your own for that matter. ",
"Since you seem to know knives what kind of a sharpener should I get? We have just a $100 or so set of kitchen knives which do the job just fine, but I'm sure they are starting to get dull. Since they are cheap I don't mind using one that reduces the life expectancy of them ",
"Yeah...I mean...of course..",
"Wow fuck this sub dude....",
"I'm flattered by you thinking so, but I'm by no means an authority on knives. At best all I can do is judge them by their imperfections.",
"Story of my life.",
"I read the title... and stared and stared and stared before realizing what it was. I am not proud of myself for that, but that is awesome. Where can I get it from?",
"bro I'm not Gordon Ramsey. I just want it because it looks neat ",
"Shut up and take my money ",
"I have this (for decoration). If you are getting it for knife use, I will warn you many knives won't fit, and the ones that do might get dull a bit more quickly. Other than that it is pretty neat at least.",
"/r/expectedsabaton",
"I agree with everything you said, I think this could be changed up so the blades go in sideways all the way to the bolster and still look cool.",
"Username checks out",
"its nice... but its not $70 nice",
"Man, if I had a dollar for every time I heard that I could probably afford to buy one of them knife block things.",
"Yes. A baker.",
"These are best and work great. Magnetic knife racks are way better than blocks",
"Also don’t use glass cutting boards",
"Caesar knife holder is my favourite.",
"We dine in HECK!!",
"But only thing you can do is spamming Q!",
"Great job! Much better than the original. Did you draw up your own spartan guy or find plans online? I wanna make one for my dart board but I’m pretty bad when it comes to drawing",
"We're just posting pictures of shit off Amazon now?",
"I recognized your catchphrase \"Tonight we dine in hell!\" I'm Spacetimer 8032.",
"How do you feel knowing it's $70?",
"Just sketched it based on some results from google spartan soldier/hoplite/spear throw. Cut it out with a band saw.\nEdit: think this was what I based it off mostly. https://goo.gl/images/AhKYzj",
"Quality post ^^^^^^^/s",
"Because resting a knife against wood isn't going to do shit to the blade. Maybe if you're forcing it down and cutting into the wood when you remove it you'll see some dulling. ",
"I didn't see the other thread, but I can promise you that resting your knife on wood isn't going to do anything. ",
"He's naked.",
"Thanks bud",
"I don't like that the holder has the knife blades still accessible",
"And true his wish came. For only 1350 RP you too can fulfill his dream.",
"It could still be made taking into consideration the horizontal slots.",
"That's fucking awesome!!!!",
"You’re correct! Commercial kitchen grade cutting boards are the best. Got the biggest one for $40 on Amazon. ",
"Best is to invest in some stones, watch some videos. Practice on your $100 set, so when you want to get an awesome kitchen knife you can sharpen it yourself. Also you can keep your knives sharp by continuously using your honing rod, and a leather strop. ",
"There's actually plastic sheaths for each knife that pokes out the back of the holder. They take it out of the ad model because it doesn't look as cool.",
"Just seems masochistic to me, nevermind the knives, I like my ears not bleeding when I make food.",
"End grain wood's good, apparently self healing to an extent and looks the part. \n\nI absent mindedly put pans on my board at home too often to go plastic, seen too many of em fall prey to a dropped cast iron.",
"What butcher's steel you want depends on your knives, I can't remember how it goes but certain alloys like diamond based ones some prefer a slightly rougher touch iirc. \n\nOther comment about stones is spot on though, however I'd always recommend getting them professionally sharpened for a few quid and keep them nice with the rod before and after each use, my first sets of knives are knackered because I'm crap with a stone and I regret trying, shops do them in minutes and cheap as hell.",
"We have this one called [The Ex](https://smile.amazon.com/EX-Kitchen-Knife-Set-Black/dp/B004JHXO6M).",
"why do you know all of this",
"And the one linked looks quite a bit less nice than the one OP showed.",
"It needs a big time reset button",
"ENJOY EATING CARCINOGENIC PLASTIC THAT WILL MELT YOUR BRAIN!!",
"While we partied",
"Late, but I don't see anyone talking about a ceramic vs. metal hone.",
"A good cook treats their blades with respect. ",
"There are literally two ways to put the knives in. It's like the tp gate thing. Both can be correct - why complain?",
"Man drop",
"So I guess it mostly just depends on your pull-out method!",
"What is the \"spear\" thing used for?",
"OwO",
"First thing i’d do is paint some fake abs on it 👌",
"While you were being reasonable, I respected the blade ",
"[This is PASTA!!](https://youtu.be/-tqvSWc_xaE)",
"That’s a knife sharpener. ",
"Ooooh. I should learn how to use.",
"Especially if you’re doing a lot of cooking. A sharp knife is actually a safe knife. ",
"I am beginning to think you might have a stroke if you came by my house and saw our knife pile. ",
"Is the sharpening tool just valences on there? That seems like it would fall off a lot",
"That's fine, all he's saying is it'll fuck your knives up and you'll end up sharpening them more often. It gets to be a pain when you try to cut stuff with dull edges knives. ",
"> It will be a pain to continually resharpen the knives each time\n\nIf your knives immediately go dull from sliding them into a wood block you should buy something other than the dollar store Chinesium models. That being said, I avoid the issue by simply stabbing them into the cutting board, or whomever is handy.",
"Always amuses me that people need that many kitchen knives. We are a family of 6 that cooks almost every meal at home and we use one kitchen knife. We also don't use any pot set. ",
"Or don't give a fuck",
"eh knife blocks (at least good ones) are not cheap.",
"damn she's tacky",
"This should be in the shut up and take my money sub",
"No wonder why my knives and seven children are all dull...",
"added to wishlist",
"Everyone is just going through the same repetitive paths.\n\nTheir post, your post, my post. We're not as unique or original as we think. ",
"While you were respecting the blade, I was studying the way of it.",
"Why? Is this a repost? ",
"My hands would end up behind their somehow. To shreds you say?",
"AND LIVE FOREVER",
"*indistinguishable grunts*",
"Years ago, I worked as a Cutco salesman for approximately 14 days. ",
"if only the knives weren't chinesium...",
"For 99% of people with $50 knife kits this will be fine. Also, for those of us that like sharp knives, we just buy electric sharpeners. 15 seconds and a rinse in water to cut the sloppiest of tomatoes clean.",
"But constantly resharpening the knives will diminish how long they last. The amount of metal in the blade is finite; eventually you run out or you render the knife useless by grinding so much metal off the blade.\n\nMy mother has a knife set that's lasted more than 20 years; the knives are used every day but the last time they were sharpened was three years ago, and the time before that was at least two years. I fully expect my brother or myself to inherit those knives, and with the proper care they can be passed down to our own children.",
"But why, they are just pieces of metal and blade technology and materials has only improved.",
"/r/productporn",
"YEEEEEEEEEES!!!",
"Eh I have a Chicago knife block and set that I've had for 13 years now. All the knives are fine and they are stored vertically. I sharpen them every once in a great while and they cut tomatoes with ease. You're making this out to be more of a thing than it is. Stop being weird about this. No one is dying from \"bacteria in the micro cuts\" either. ",
"FROSTING!!!!!",
"I have seen one on thingyverse a few years ago. ",
"That's where I ate last night too. ",
"THIS IS SALT AND PEPPAAAA!",
"The word 'knife pile' cuts me much deeper than any of your knives ever could :(\n\nBut for real, not only is it dangerous to try and grab things from a 'knife pile', it's much more dangerous to cut with a dull knife than a sharp one. You need far more pressure, and the blade is likely to go places you don't want it to (like slip sideways off of the skin of a turkey breast and into your finger).\n\nThat said, I work with butchers, and we have a knife pile for all the shit knives that none of us bother to maintain and/or use on a daily basis, so... he who is without sin, right?",
"i just got a new Global Sai knife and I NEED this in my life. where can I send my money.",
"It's not really that loud because it's a pretty dense piece of glass. It mostly made a minor clunk noise.",
"Please do, I have wood cnc so much better for replication"
] | 185 |
pics
|
Tonight, we dine in hell [Spartan Knife Block]
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvftk/recently_completed_sunstone_topaz_and_garnet_in/
|
[
"WOW",
":)",
"What ohm is this vape coil?",
"It's hilarious to me that one person fishing for karma puts this on every piece I make. HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA SOOOOOOO FUNNYYYYYYYYY."
] | 4 |
pics
|
Recently completed sunstone, Topaz, and garnet in silver wire pendant!
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvgnj/a_usb_with_a_lock_combination_xpost/
|
[
"Well, that's one way to hide your porn.",
"I have no reason to want this but I want it really bad. ",
"Keep your crypto currency in a codex! ",
"Me too!",
"Seems excessive. Incognito mode is plenty.",
"For when you want to steal the electronic declaration of independence.",
"https://www.amazon.com/Cryptex-Flash-Drive-Antique-Gold/dp/B00RNBGJJK",
"This looks awesome but any sort of opening pressure while turning the dials will easily reveal the combination due to the pin and gate mechanism. Unless there are trap gates.\n\n",
"Lockpick 100",
"Yeah, great idea but it looks like a child could crack the code in about 2 minutes",
"Incognito doesnt prevent the network and websites from seeing who you are, they just prevent your history and cookies from staying around after you close the browser.",
"And a physically lockable USB flash drive would?",
"hell no.\n\nBut the government has less of a problem with this type than with encryption. Because you can still open this.",
"I'm just gonna down vote anything in this sub. Unless it's first contact with an alien race or something like that, things should be posted to r/mildly interesting.",
"A P P L E",
"This looks to be the one in OP.\n\nhttps://www.amazon.com/Special-Cryptex-Flash-Drive-Gold/dp/B0106REF3O/ref=lp_10929716011_1_6?srs=10929716011&ie=UTF8&qid=1518396694&sr=8-6",
"traps are gates",
"It's nicely made and cute but it would not stop me from getting to the drive. It could be encrypted and that might prevent reading the data but the whole lock thing would be super easy to get around with access to basic tools time to open it.",
"........Why not just filter it?",
"It's a silly gimmick. \n\nAn electronically encrypted drive will be countless times more secure than some cheesy physical toy lock.\n\nIt'd take a lot more than a Dremel tool to break in to a Veracrypt disk. ",
"The password is 58008",
"Or just encrypt the drive. Unlocking the USB with this crap will take an hour or so. Brute-forcing an encrypted USB with a strong password will take billions or even a trillion years. ",
"Lvl 99 thieving?",
"16969",
"Yeah, because ultimate security is obviously the whole point of this. \n",
"Selling products like this will end up leading less knowledgeable people to believe their USB is now secure. ",
"Its tagged as \"InterestingAsFuck\" not \"SecureAsFuck\". \nI assume you also inform children on novelty \"Frozen\" tricycles about the benefits of carbon fibre and lycra? \n\nSometimes the ultimate in security is not as important as looking cool on your keyring and holding pictures of your cat dressed up in steampunk armor. \n",
"69420",
"Seriously? but hat about the flaws in data security that have been pointed out in regards to a novelty USB stick! \n",
"Its not meant to be super secure, its designed as a Gimmick, just like you mentioned. I consider it in the same context as this: https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/humping-usb-dog/ \n\n",
"False gates. Whatever you wish to call them. ",
"Lvl 99 (hopefully) Locksmith ",
"SBOOB",
"That kind of lock is usually pretty easy to pick. I wouldn't think that it adds much security.",
"that would be great for crypto currencies \n",
"Just cut the shafts holding it together.",
"That would've saved some time in the DaVinci Code.",
"Zactly",
"Hahaha, that is fantastic"
] | 39 |
pics
|
A USB with a lock combination [xpost /interestingasfuck]
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvhkz/spacex_falcon_heavy_inspired_painting_i_made_on/
|
[
"\n/u/CreationsByVince, your comment was removed for the following reason: \n\n* Instagram links are not allowed in this subreddit. Handles are allowed (e.g. @example), as long as they are not a hotlink. (this is a spam prevention measure. Thank you for your understanding) \n\nTo have your comment restored, please edit the instagram link out of your comment, then send a [message to the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Request to restore comment by /u/CreationsByVince&message=This [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvhkz/spacex_falcon_heavy_inspired_painting_i_made_on/du3gg5n/?context=10\\) was removed for containing an instagram link.)\n\n\n*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pics) if you have any questions or concerns.*",
"For more of my stuff check out my [site](https://creationsbyvince.com)",
"Vince,\n\nDid you ever hang your art in a hooka bar on the South Side of Pittsburgh? If so, I've been looking for you for 10 years.",
"haha nope, I'm a toronto artist but i've been trying to get my stuff out there"
] | 4 |
pics
|
SpaceX Falcon Heavy Inspired Painting I made on Canvas, 18x24"
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvkrr/the_face_of_16_yo_hurricane_katrina_survivor_dog/
|
[
"Her name is Mulan! She is an amazing gal full of soul. She was a Katrina rescue but unfortunately she lost her puppies in the storm. You can see in her eyes she has been through a lot but still loves walkies and treats like she’s 2. ",
"Yeah, you can definitely tell she's seen some shit.",
"Good dog!",
"That is really sad to hear. Glad she healed with you.",
"She’s actually a good friend of mine’s woofer! I get to dogsit when called upon "
] | 5 |
pics
|
The face of 16 yo Hurricane Katrina survivor dog
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvksl/i_work_at_lowes_and_one_of_the_employees_in_paint/
|
[
"Talent mode activated.",
"This really makes me want to ask them how they can help. ",
"If it's Lowe's, they will run from you if you want help.",
"I guess Fine Art degrees aren't totally useless.",
"The drawing is fantastic, but you know what's really rufflin' my jimmies? The penmanship. Mmm. ",
"Cool, but seems like a waste of company time ",
"Perhaps they did it at home?",
"\"You spent 6 hours doing what? Did you even sweep the floors and stock the shelves like you were suppose to? Alright your fired. Turn in your smock and name tag.\"",
"Wow!",
"Because they've had enough run ins with cranky people who literally say \"I know more than you\" or worse, yell at you because they can't communicate what they need or understand what the box says or what a product does because they're sheltered old hermits and technology moves too fast for them and nobody knows what their personal names for tools are\n\nSorry I just have memories",
"My wife is a chalk artist. She also teaches classes on it. Can confirm this is very good!",
"Scratch, chalk, ha. I get it.",
"Why are they working at Lowe’s? Get that person an art career!",
"A lot of us crusty old fuckers remember days when Home Depot and Lowe's we're staffed by people that actually had experience in the trades.\n\nIt's not an insult that I know more than you... It's just the way it is. \n\nThat said... I usually just say 'No thanks' if asked if I need help. No need to be a dick... But if pressed, I will explain what I'm working on and watch your eyes glaze over in confusion.",
"u working with wizards",
"It was actually an employees talented three year old kid. Who happens to be a chihuahua. Plot twist.",
"Beautiful.",
"I have one and I ended up working for the best acrylic fine art paint manufacturer out there. They’re not useless but they’re not engineering degree either.",
"Your technical skills amaze me. Thank you for gracing me with your presence.",
"This might be the best option they have in the town they’re in in terms of steady art related work. Benefits, steady pay, some craftsman access and paint know how. ",
"About that...",
"Depending on how long it took. If it took less than on hour then maybe not. It catches a lot of positive attention and if they drew it on chalky or chalkboard paint then they can use that as a selling point. ",
"That's the thing though, there's enough of just the flat out rude ones that most people tend to keep to their tasking unless asked or someone looks lost. It's not insulting itself that they know more, that's expected, they already have their specialized research or vision and we're more generalized and have blinders on from what we have to sell. But even asking most people they seem to get offended in general. If most people were like you it'd be way easier lol.\n\nAlso, this is an aside, but there were (to me) an increasing number of \"foggier\" customers and I don't just mean age-wise. So many people get that glazed over look as customers and it's just a weird thing I noticed. Like, they struggled to comprehend what products were or what they were for or what the function was even at the most basic description. There was just such a disconnect between what customers needed and how they worked and what we offered and were trained in. Idk if the store was trying to shape habits and techniques or responding to ones being used in the world but it still strikes me as bizarre",
"That’s probably against store policy. Companies frown upon that because if they get injured they can claim it or the company can get fucked over for not paying somebody for work related material.",
"You are right. I worked there several years and I was an expert on things related to my department. It was fun to help people figure out how to proceed with their projects or to solve their problems. If it involved something I was ignorant about, say electrical, I'd take the customer to someone who knew. But, truth is, Lowe's hires unmotivated and lazy people and does not sufficiently train them, so customer service is pretty much non-existent.",
"It's true. Our training said \"if you see a customer needing help, go the complete opposite direction\"",
"I think it took her over a week to do it but she usually did it after we closed and all her work was done. Also everyone loves seeing her drawings so the managers were cool with it.",
"well if your good at chalk pastels normal chalk is probly the same for em",
"that sun.",
"Check out Trader Joe’s. They hire people to do just this and the entire store is decorated with chalk board art. ",
"M. Graham?",
"I'm. ",
"Chemical engineers are involved in all types of paints manufacturing. ",
"That's odd from an \"Inside\" perspective. To me... Lowe's made a hard turn from servicing the 'pro' industry to servicing housewives and designer types. Things got harder to find and they just stopped carrying others... I wonder if that's what you saw from the 'crusty old guy' being dazed and confused.",
"It's no good for the corporate bottom line...but it's great for mine.",
"It’s not against policy. I work for Lowes, but I see your point. ",
"Injured from drawing with some chalk?",
"Well, technically, all chalk drawings are made from scratch.",
"They used to pay for those people too. But if you want to whine about prices to the point where everyone at the store is minimum wage, then google answers to your dumb questions",
"Every store is almost identical, and everything is laid out in an easy to find fashion. What exactly are you unable to find in the store?",
"but it seems like every time i do need help (mostly gardening stuff) i ask what chemical is good my problem and they just pick up bottles and start reading... yeah i can do that thanks.",
"On the clock?",
"Didn't think I needed to put a sarcasm mark there but apparently I did ",
"I both laughed and cringed when Ron Swanson said that because i knew idiots would repeat it.",
"new prajects!",
"I know. I worked for a paint factory. There are dozens of people involved with every aspect of paint manufacturing. What I was saying was that an art degree is not as lucrative as an engineering degree.",
"No. I’d rather not say.",
"You’d be surprised what people will claim from WC.",
"thought it was a volcano...\n",
"Why is this person still working at Lowes? They can clearly do better with some focus on using that talent. ",
"Finally someone who actually knows something in the department. \n\nIn most stores nobody even knows what product they have. Even the simplest questions they have to get the manager.",
"How’s the sun so bright ",
"> A lot of us crusty old fuckers remember days when Home Depot and Lowe's we're staffed by people that actually had experience in the trades.\n\n18 years ago, a friend of mine got his very first job working in the garden center at a Home Depot; his starting wage—with no previous job experience—was $12/hr. The people who worked in the Electrical department were all either licensed working electricians, retired electricians, or were training to be electricians. Their starting pay varied from $12 to $20 an hour.\n\nFive years ago, after I'd been laid off, my unemployment was about to run out, and I'd been unsuccessful in finding a full-time job in my field, I applied for a job at a Home Depot, because I remembered by buddy's experience.\n\nStarting hourly wage at the Home Depot five years ago—*thirteen years* after they hired a high school kid with no experience for $12/hr—was $8.75. I got them up to $9.50 to start, and about two years ago (after the Fight For Fifteen movement gained some traction), they raised everyone's minimum to $10.\n\nWhile I was there, some old-timers (who were hired before the company went public and decided to screw employees) were still making $25/hr, but management was doing their best to push them out (e.g., giving them between zero and 8 hours each week). Instead, they were hiring fresh high school grads (or dropouts) who were willing to start at minimum pay. Those kids were 18 or 19, didn't know much beyond the (incredibly bad) \"training\" they got when they were hired, and many weren't terribly interested in going out of their way to help anyone.\n\nAnyway, I guess the TL;DR is: You get what you pay for, and Home Depot pays for shit.",
"Someone’s talents are going to waste. ",
"Low blow",
"Don't worry, I have a Fine Art degree. It was a self deprecating joke.",
"My father works at Lowes and he was telling me the story of this old fart who called the store looking for a 60' shower hose... Yes, 60 foot.\n\nMy dad, assuming he meant 60 inches, tried to tell him that they had 4 foot, and 8 foot hoses available, but the guy kept saying \"I need to be able to reach the bottoms of my feet with it! Clearly you don't understand!\" \n\nUnless this guy is the reincarnation of Paul Bunyan, someone doesn't understand the difference between feet and inches.",
"I like the volcano in the background ",
"It's like when a Vietnamese brain surgeon escapes on a boat, comes to America and works at the meat counter at QFC. ",
"Long live paint!",
"I asked a young guy where the masking tape was. He didn't know what masking tape was. ",
"Why is a volcano spewing lava onto the flowers?",
"I need to know how you can help.",
"If I actually need advice for a project, I'll try to go to a local hardware store, or, failing that, an Ace Hardware or Do It Center. They're way smaller, but your odds of finding someone who actually knows what they're talking about are way higher. ",
"\"If you've got time to draw, you've got time to sweep floors.\"\n\n-Their manager, probably.",
"Great work! We had two people in our paint department that could paint like this. The cool thing was our store manger was excellent and understood the craft that went in to it and saw the benefits to the store. We gained multiple pro customers because the work was a talking point that lead into the nuts and bolts of the finishes used which made Pros trust the advice of our entire paint department! One of the accounts we gained from this was worth well over $1 Million a year in paints, stains, cabinets and hardwood floors, all because they could trust our store in helping their clients choose finishes that worked and looked great together!",
"If your asking the big box stores questions other than where something is, you’ve already lost. They jettisoned their professionals years ago. ",
"Janet I’ve been waiting for my coffee for three months now!",
"wow so beautiful. i wonder how long that took",
"About 5 years ago I worked at Lowe's. Started around 9 something. Less than a year later I was at 15. I decided to go get a \"good\" job. 5 years later I'm still a laborer making 12 with no benes. Had I just put that 5 years into Lowes id have a 401k building, insurance, higher wages... seriously thinking about going back. \n\nThis bottom level trade shit in my mid 30s is brutal. Seems like every week I end up aggravating an old injury, making the job suck just that much more. Come home after 10 to 12 hours too tired to even take my boots off.\n\n Where as I used to go fishing, or hiking, or any other number if activities after work and enjoy the rest of my day. Now I just go home and die, until it's time to wake up and do it again. \n\nI don't know, maybe I'm just not built for a tradesmans life.",
"Paint has the least to do of any other department. Their primary purpose is to cover breaks for neighboring departments. \n\n",
"do you feel her talents is going underused at Lowe's?",
"I'm not sure if Orchard Hardware, OSH, is local to CA, but I'm always impressed with their people. Mostly older men more than happy to help, and someone standing at door as you walk to ask if they can help direct you.",
"That's all I see\n",
"i shop semi regularly at lowe's, ace, and home depot. home depot service always sucks. 2 locations and it's the same. ace's service is better, and they have any weird connection or screw i might need. lowe's employees are always helpful AND knowledgeable. \n",
"> one of the employees\n\nUh, huh. A customer would say “one of the employees in the paint department” or “one of the employees in the paint section”. “One of the employees in the paint” makes me think you work here. ",
"My ears hurt..",
"As a kid I ate paint chips.",
"No shit.\n\nI got mad because their plano didn’t match their website, and the product I wanted was nowhere to be found.\n\nI waited by a register for a cashier to return and then asked her where everyone was. She responded with, “well it is 15 minutes until close.”\n\nI’ve worked retail. I know how badly people want to leave after being on their feet all day, but come on. 15 minutes until close? Please. ",
"Garden hose, two 1/2\" bib adapters, roll of Teflon tape. Make that customer happy!",
"Uh, if you worked in retail you know that is pretty rude, right?",
"You haven't actually worked the paint department, eh? Or are you confusing paint for home decor?",
"If I stopped working 15 minutes before close, but still collected a paycheck for that time, and then someone called me out, they wouldn’t be rude. They’d be right.",
"I found that to be true with Home Depot but Lowes folks are awesome. Plus Veterans get a discount at Lowes.",
"Probably why the op says \n\n>I work at Lowe's \n\nAs the very first thing in the post. ",
"No ragrets",
"You need to find some sort of sealant spray to preserve it forever ",
"Dam son.",
"Your store get Sterling yet? They keep saying its coming but I feel like it has turned into an urban myth at this point. Genesis needs to die in the fire of which it came. ",
"why though?",
"I worked at a dinosaur park and one of the girls their painted a \"monalisaur\" on the wall.",
"Sometimes you’ve gotta just pay dem bills. Art is too risky & very hard to succeed in as a business. Souce: am artist, work crappy office job.",
"That's beautiful !!",
"[Figure that out all by yourself, did you?](https://youtu.be/fnRt_JEoBRU?t=22)",
"why pay the lay’s tax when I can get chips for free from my wall?",
"Their penmanship needs some work. ",
"Works paint. Draws chalk. Ok then.",
"I worked plenty of retail. We can grumble under our breath at those customers but you can’t dismiss them. Store closes when the store closes. Not 15 minutes before. If I was coming in at 9 and they said we are closed, sorry, then that’s on me. But at 8:45 I’m still a customer and you’re still on the clock. ",
"I know. I would rather be photographing people and places but even as a pro replacement of the corporate salary is a big hill to climb. \n\nIt’s such a shame that talent just gets stuck on a board at Lowes. ",
"That’s really cool. Thanks for sharing ",
"Yeah I think for us it's getting installed the 14th, but yeah Genesis is terrible and needs to go I hate the whole thing haha ",
"could be the next picasso but they're stuck restocking porter paints.\n\n",
"My Girlfriend use to do art for Whole Foods as a store artist. It was a lot of chalkboard art, but they also had her do a lot of graphic design. Now she’s a full time graphic designer with a degree in oil painting. ",
"That’s really nice. ",
"Clearly they should be doing more with their life than working the paint counter at Lowe's. Get that person over to flooring! ",
"The artist drew such a stark difference in contrast from light and dark. Its amazing!",
"This what your art degrees give you, sweet black boards in Lowes and star bucks.",
"I usually find that the people in paint and lumber know what they're talking about. It's garden and plumbing that are generally not as well trained. To be honest, if I knew a lot about plumbing, I would rather be a plumber than work in the plumbing department at Lowe's or Home Depot.",
"I get this reference and I commend you.",
"Worked at Lowes for a few months. You'd be surprised at all the shit some employees can do. Lowes is where the overqualified go to die.",
"We don't wear smocks, *thank you*, we wear vests... or aprons. ",
"I was talking to a guy at Home Depot about refinishing our floors when he asked what kind of floors they were. I told him they were fir (common here in the PNW in older homes) and he gave me the strangest look. We finally figured out he thought I meant \"fur\". ",
"It's not coming in 15 minutes before closing and ordering an elaborate meal at a restaurant. It's a hardware store. If stuff is in the right place you'll be done in less than 5 minutes.",
"If they can do that,why are they working at Lowes? ",
"Have you graced r/Lowes with this yet? ",
"And mom said Art school would be a waste of money.\n\nSeriously though, great drawing. Hope they find some creative success.",
"I worked very briefly at a paint company that required a decent amount of experience from their chemists and chemical engineers. But all they did was have them draw down paint on slides for 8hrs straight. It was disgusting how over qualified they required their chemists and chem engineers to be to do nothing \n\nEdit: idk why me having a bad experience with a major paint company deserves downvotes but okay",
"So many people have THE wrong job. Unless you love your job.",
"don’t be fooled this is a photograph of the army of sunflowers, they thirst for more than just sunlight and water, they are also after your blood, for it helps them become stronger..",
"\"Lets get crazy with some happy little pipe fittings. There's nothing wrong with having a pair of channellocks as a friend\"\n\n- This Lowe's employee",
"Actually I just like to say smock. Smock smock smock smock smock smock. ",
"The Home Depot in Scottsdale is staffed chock full of old retired guys looking to either get out of the house and away from their wives for a few hours or pick up a little cash to cover their golf green fees and a few beers that have a wealth of knowledge about home repairs and DYI projects gained over a lifetime.\nEven if the store doesn't have the exact item needed for your project, these folks usually have a good hack that will get the job done. They really seem to get a kick out of figuring out a way to help. Not your typical Home Depot.",
"Damn when I worked at Lowe's all we got was terrible shifts and worse managers...",
"Girlfriend gave me a handjob at the garden at Lowe's once, good times",
"My wife is not a chalk artist. Can still confirm this is good. ",
"Sunflowers facing away from sun. 0 out of 7",
"This is exactly it. I worked at lowes for 3 years while going to college in a major college town. 85% of the employees were college kids. We would be more than happy to tell you where something was or help you load heavy items but when it came to what pesticide is best for your specific application, you’d be better off googling it yourself. \n\nThe pay is pretty decent for a retail store but sucks if your an expert in anything home improvement related.",
"That's like... cannibalism.",
"\"How can I draw large chalk pictures like that?\"",
"Plus, you can get at the delicious cotton candy behind it.",
"Meanwhile you can't find shit in their section because the shelves are all messed up",
"Guys needs to find some other avenues for his art. Seems talented.",
"I didn't know jimmies could get ruffled in addition to being rustled, haha",
"Seriously. I saw this and thought, oh so this is what they're doing when I'm standing at one of their counters waving my arms.",
"I don't have a wife. ",
"I'm sure he meant 60 inches, but then he also wanted to say \"It needs to reach my feet.\" And somehow, he ended up saying it needs to be 60 feet. But after getting heated, he may have felt he had gone to far to back down and just stuck with it. He was saying feet, but maybe in his head he heard himself say inches. Brains are weird like that.",
"Lol was it something like, \"The smear percentage is good\"",
"I don't want to get preachy, but what a failure of Capitalism that this person, who is clearly so talented, toils for likely minimum wage, below a livable wage, serving a corporate master.",
"Exactly ",
"Marry me?",
"Is that a giant spider crawling over the mountain?",
"Just a random garden ex-employee who talks shit about all other departments cause I was off in my own little world. :p",
"I don’t have any chalk. ",
"When you have a 4 year art degree and end up working at Lowes.",
"\"Cool, now take that shit down\" -corporate probably",
"Shouldn't the 'sunflowers' be facing the sun?",
"I can't even draw a straight line with a liner ...Feelsbadman",
"It’s gorgeous. Until some jerk comes and smears it just to see if it’s actually made from chalk. ",
"\"Long live PAINT!\"",
"I travel about 17 states for work... So I'm constantly in different Home Depots and occasionally Lowe's... They are absolutely not laid out all the same. It depends which design was being used the year they were built. \n\nBeyond that... Lowe's straight stopped carrying contractor friendly stuff. I used to go there first for tools... Not anymore. They started carrying mostly shit brands and shrunk the size of the tool corrals by a lot... That's just one example. They also carry less lumber and commercial electrical stuff now. That's been replaced by an extra row of ceiling fans.\n\n",
"Is it weird that my eyes kinda want to squint a little when I look at it?",
"My sister’s job is to draw chalk drawing like this for businesses in her town. She is amazing. ",
"https://m.imgur.com/t/reaction/cjfpK7p",
"Dude my store got sterling around November. It is absolutely horrible. ",
"Damn drawing so good the sun in it made me squint ",
"Lowe blow",
"Isn't \"we can help\" literally part of the Home Depot slogan?",
"Happy cake day fur-floor-boy!",
"I’m still laughing about the idea of Lowe’s saying, ‘yes sir’ and shipping him a 60’ shower hose ",
"When I go into Home Depot or Lowes, I want to wander. I am usually looking for something, but when I look at lumber, electrical and plumbing parts, what I see are dreams and ideas and potential. It gives me motivation to try something new. What I get instead are people chasing me around the store trying to shove a product in my hands and get me out the door. They don't realize or don't care that by doing so they are eliminating 90 percent of the things I might otherwise buy. I have had people literally chase me through the store yelling Sir! Sir! SIR! what is it you need? I can find it for you! I have also had them get sarcastic telling me that they could help me and that I was only causing myself extra work. If I want help, I will go find it. Otherwise, I just want to be left alone to think things out and dream of what I might build with all the fantastic things I see. ",
"Or customers that have a \"test\" question first that they rarely know the answer to. \n\nI also had to often repeat exactly what a female employee had already told them because they wouldn't believe it until it came from a penis owner.",
"“Was that done during work hours?”- my first thought, and I’m not even a manager ",
"Oh god... Now i'm scared. Got used to Genesis after a few years. Can't wait till everyone in the store has no idea what they are doing on the new system. ",
"> Make that customer happy!\n\nI never made customers as happy as when sorority or fraternity groups would come in, wander around clueless until finally getting up the nerve to ask where funnels were and pointing out to them [we carried them with hoses already attached](https://mobileimages.lowes.com/product/converted/044549/044549118819.jpg)",
"Ya. I mean genesis is still used. But sterling just does Internet orders and deliveries. And sine the two programs don’t communicate it’s a clusterfuck. Oh well. I don’t deal with it much in my position. ",
"> yeah i can do that thanks.\n\nYou'd be surprised how many can't/don't. Also loved when they wanted the strongest one we carried and despite the generic version having a higher percentage of active ingredient they'd insist on buying the \"stronger\" name brand because it said \"best\" in big bold letters.",
"I’m in training for the paint department at Lowe’s where tf did they get chalk from 😂",
"Garden department employs the highest percentage of temporary employees. Plumbing is just a shitty dept to work in.",
"\"Did you get pre-approval to store use those items?\"",
"By drawing you a mural. Duh.",
"Reminds me of a Stone Temple Pilots album cover ",
"I work at Lowe’s, can confirm. ",
"The unfortunate reality of the situation is that there are FAR more people with this level of talent than most think. For every 100 people with great artistic talent there is 1 lucrative job.",
"If employees are chasing you through the store \"literally\" then they are convinced you are stealing/going to steal.",
"And it's burning all the flowers, which will necessitate a new project, which Lowe's can sell you all the shit to accomplish!",
"But not enough time to help customers. ",
"My Tyler the creator sleeper cell is kicking in.",
"In New York state? ",
"wow amazing \n",
"I uh, think you want to rent a rug doctor sir.",
"What trade are you in?",
"Can she explain why all the sun flowers r facing away from the sun? Just kidding, It looks absolutely brilliant ",
"No I'm in Tennessee ",
"\"You can do it. We can help.\" - Home Depot. Why would a Lowe's employee use something so closely tied with Home Depot. ",
"If I were the manager, I would like to know whether or not this was done on company time. ",
"I'm going to break a bit of rivalry here and give solid kudos to this artist. Great job!\n\n- Me, a Home Depot employee",
"Oh, I knew someone artistic at a Lowes in NY that did similar stuff. ",
"Please tell them I said it looks amazing! ",
"looks like a Jehovah Witness pamphlet cover\n",
" Hanging around is the first sign of theft I look for and the sad reality is that 8/10 people who do this at my store are actually trying to steal.\nYou, sir, are one of the three. Thank you for your integrity. \n\nThat said, as a Home Depot associate, I will make sure that you have been acknowledged at the very least, as this is my job. If you don't need anything from me, that's fine, but like I tell all my customers, \"If you change your mind, I'll be right over here.\"",
"Must be in art major.",
"Just want to let you know you aren't the only one who feels this way. \n\nA small mom and pop shop? Leniency, but a big chain? That's what you're paid for. We all had to do shit jobs, and I try to be very polite, but if you're rude to me because I'm in close to when you're closing, I'm not going to come back. ",
"I always find knowledgeable, helpful people working at Lowe’s.",
"That person could have a more creative job.",
"These sunflowers are turning their back towards their god.",
"Which Lowe’s ? Home improvement or the grocery store? ",
"It was a lead paint factory, wasn't it?",
"Im suprised they were allowed the time to do that",
"That's beautiful!",
"I'll make sure to tell her!",
"Omg, go and cover this chalk painting in epoxy so it can last forever.",
"Sad that the person has to work at Lowes with such a talent. ",
"I never thought of using one of those for a beer bong. That's awesome.\n\n",
"This guy deserves a raise",
"[Chalk](https://www.walmart.com/ip/Crayola-12-ct-White-Chalk/16904589?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&adid=22222222227009588961&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=52602332231&wl4=pla-84483968351&wl5=9013305&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=online&wl12=16904589&wl13=&veh=sem)",
"They need a raise",
"This is absolutely beautiful ",
"Someone's gonna end up in the company newsletter!",
"Thought you said 1/2\" birb adapters",
"r/hailcorporate \n\nI work at [store] and here is a picture of our slogan to remind you to start that creative project!",
"Because the person is a marketing manager at Lowes ",
"When I worked at Lowe’s I got asked to help paint some chairs... ",
"Anything to get out of working, huh?",
"Thank you Hobbes",
"I thought this meant in paint, the computer program, and I was just as impressed.",
"But did he know what painters tape was? Not everyone calls everything the same thing.",
"Nice...\n\nSomeone deserves a promotion....\n",
"Poor bastard probably has an Art degree ",
"Putting that art degree to good use ",
"Now that you're here, how *can* you help me?",
"That's the great thing about a hardware store that size, they have everything you need to make a damn 60' shower hose.",
"Sun is just up, they're still facing where it went down. I give your comment 1 out of 17.",
"Yeah actually, they checked the slides to see how well it spread on different textures pretty much",
"It's a beautiful piece! I wonder, can I buy it with the Success Sharing bonus I'm getting since I work at Home Depot?",
"Failure of capitalism? Talented artists are insanely abundant. Jobs that require artistic talent are not. When a skill is common but work requiring that skill is not, then people aren't going to give out large amounts of money to employ someone with said skill. That's capitalism succeeding at what it's meant to do.",
"My wife is a sign painter for Trader Joes. They do more paint now, but I was constantly amazed at what she could create with chalk. ",
"I've been to lowes in several states, theyre 99% the same. A small fraction were old Eagle's hardware, so that layouts a bit different, but the entire store is still organized in basic formats. Paints, appliances, lumber, hardware, electrical, plumbing. A dumb and blind rat could figure out how to get to, say, plumbing, since theres massive signs hanging from the ceilings.\n\nWhat \"contractor friendly\" stuff has Lowes stopped carrying? All brands you find in Lowes and HD are \"shit\" because you're shopping at big box retail. Even Sears lost their Craftsman quality over a decade ago. If you want quality tools, you don't go to walmart tier retail. A real contractor would know that. \n\nThey carry less lumber? No. Less commercial electrical stuff? Yes, they have 99% of what youll need, and what they dont have in store, a smart contractor would order or source from a specialty store like Platt. ",
"Talent wasted, I hope that employee finds a way to put their skills to better use. \nBetter use than just suggesting which paints to use, but actually painting beautiful things with them, perhaps. ",
"Yeah. Where I come from masking tape refers to an office supply product. Painters tape is the stuff that'll give you good edges and no bleed.",
"I knew i shouldnt have eaten the paint ",
"This guy should be doing art professionally. ",
"With that sort of artistic talent they should be working at Starbucks. ",
"Whatever they are paying him/her raise it... also laminate that blackboard... its worth keeping around.",
"I'm a Electrical pro at Lowes. I ask a customer once if they need any assistance with anything, if they say no then i let them know i'm available if they change their mind. I won't ask them twice, but i will offer to get a shopping cart for them. I have regular shoppers that ask for me by name to help get plumbing, lumber, pick out windows or doors or simply assist in finding the right screw on aisle 14. while i'm helping the nice people the rude one's are running around my dept looking for help. sales people will go out of their way to help people that are friendly, they will avoid people who are inconsiderate and rude. I strongly encourage people to browse my lighting sections and push my electrical desk help button if you need my assistant, someone will respond in less then thirty seconds. (this only applies to my store, yemv with others) We work hard to maintain our regional titles and our max bonus payouts reflect that (which are kinda nice as well). And no i will not explain to you how to wire a outlet........there are a few zillion videos online that will do that for ya but i will show you a book for sale that will. If you want exceptional service be an exceptional customer and I will jump through hoops for ya. ",
"As a starving kid, I tried this more than once. What a ghastly crunch it had. I weighed less than everyone in my class. Desperation makes you try things that won't work. ",
"Get a bachelor in fine arts and you to can work at Lowe's. ",
"You know companies are cruel why when you work for such low pay can you not chill out a little between customers or whatnot they fuckin expect a perpetual state of motion or some shit ",
"But HOW?",
"prajects",
"Go to the service desk, those poor saps are trapped within 12 steps of their desk at all times. (Former desk associate here.)",
"Yea, why mention the stores name? Ad. ",
"It's masking tape. It's even called masking tape. Labelled:. Masking tape. Sold as: masking tape. Not to be confused with painters tape, called painters tape. ",
"Shit let me call someone from that department ",
"So how does it feel to sell your soul to Lowe's?",
"From the context, it seems that ruffled jimmies are a positive thing. Mmm. ",
"Home depots and Lowe's (Any store that sells materials for trades) should really employ more retired trade workers. Or trade workers who have been injured and can no longer work in there trade.\n\nI can't even quanitfy how much I appreciate it when, I have some questions and the employees have real experience.",
"That is fantastic! ",
"In other words, you can see the career that art degree will land you...",
"Lmfao I work in garden and whenever I walk through a more specialized department I do this. I feel bad sometimes but I'd rather have their questions answered by someone that has an inkling of what they're talking about.",
"There are regional variations. Ask anyone from Boston what that rubber thing that holds your newspaper together is called, and they’ll tell you it’s an elastic. Ask them where the elastics are in a store and they’ll pick out a bag of rubber bands.\n\nJust because it’s marked ‘correctly’, doesn’t mean people won’t still use colloquialisms.",
"I work in paint and any time I go towards hardware I get stopped by at least three people and I don’t know a single thing about hardware. I usually try to stay away from that part of the store now. ",
"This is damn beautiful. The artist is super talented and I'd like to learn how to hand letter like that! ",
"How do they get it so bright? ",
"I work in resturant management. I never have the mental energy to do anything after work.",
"Beautiful....except for the \"Prajects\" part. 9/10",
"I do the same by walking down the back aisle. Unfortunately that still doesn't work sometimes. ",
"Genius",
"Always ask old dudes working at Lowe’s. I’ve found they usually know what they’re talking about, probably because they’ve done what you’re doing once or twice in their time.",
"I have a feeling they won't be working at Lowe's much longer.",
"You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole.",
"Whenever someone in a store asks if they can help me, i alqays ask what skills they have.\n\nThis is why its important...",
"Drill a hole in the wall, they make a great urinal as well.\n\nJust buy two and label them so they dont get mixed up\n",
"Tell them to make art and sell it. Minus the words, I'd buy that.\n",
"What Id call painters tape and what Id call masking tape are two differenr things though.\n\nSimilar but painters tape (at least what Id call painters tape) has a much weaker adhesive.",
"Got to go at the right time.\n\nGo during the day when the retirees are working.\n\nEven if they're not an expert, they can at least give the same level of adice you'd expect from your parents or grand parents.",
"Most hardware stores Ive experienxed are staffed like this during the weekdays.\n\nEvenings and weekends are highschool kids.",
"meanwhile, the girl on aisle 13 needs help with a 27 caliber powder actuated nail gun",
"Someone used to work at trader joes.",
"and then a person wipes it all off...",
"One time i drew a stick figure and all the lines connected.",
"College students drink swill anyways, they wouldn't know the difference.\n\nHappy Cake Day!",
"Dude it was a giant, cant believe your father is racist against giants. Savage.",
"This person is in the wrong profession.",
"Thank you!",
"“Cut 1 foot off both ends of this chain.”\n\n“So just 2’ off?”\n\n“That’ll be too short. I only need 1’ off, just both ends.”",
"Ours was - \"You got time to lean, you got time to clean.\"",
"Yup, it’s bad. Even women will look my coworker in the eye and say, “Is there a man I can speak to?”\n\nI always, immediately defer back to her with an, “Oh, you’ll want to talk to her. *She’s* the expert.",
"Flat hole borer, speed bit, forstner bit, *fostner* bit, dowel bit. These are all terms I’ve heard for the same exact thing. Various trades call things different names, and some of them are just made up by the individual (or something else altogether), but I’m dense because I hadn’t heard of a “mole holer”.",
"These even say not to consume from them. The plastic they are made from can leach into the drink. Same reason you can’t use a new gas tank for a water jug. ",
"Nice chalk art you've got there.. now, WHERE ARE THE GODDAMN CARTS?!",
"Agreed. However, if they were looking for food safe equipment they wouldn't be shopping in the outdoor power equipment section. ",
"Art majors PSA your job prospects are working at Lowes.",
" We had 2 women that worked in hardware. They'd been in that type of business for decades and knew way more than I ever will. I always let customers know that, which usually changed their attitude. However, there were always a few who still refused to engage with them as equals that I'd refer to the exit. ",
"no, dummy, it's a sunset, not a sunrise. Can't you tell the picture is facing westward? I give your sense of direction 0.0134 out of pi.\n",
"Lowes is actually pretty decent to their employees, at least the ones I’ve been to.",
"\"Unless you need it to reach the ground from the roof of a 6 story building, I think you mean 60 inches\"",
"Well, now he knows!",
"That’s all retail though, you only remember the shitty customers and there are a lot of shitty customers. So glad to be out of retail.",
"Pshhh that's easy. Hold my chalks.\n\nOh noooo...you have my chalks... how am I supposed to do it now? Oh well.",
"As a former manager of the Plumbing Dept at a Lowe's in Birmingham, AL this answer is really the answer. Oh, you want 60 feet? Bam. Have a good one. ",
"Glad you have supportive coworkers.",
"There’s an Ace Hardware near me that are fantastic. If I need actual advice or hands-on assistance, i’ll go there instead of the Lowe’s and Home Depot across the street from my house. They cost more, but sometimes the service is worth it.\n\nI know where everything is in HD so it’s usually just walk in, get what I need and leave.",
"probably doing viscosity tests. That sounds like it would suck if thats ALL they did for 8 hours :/",
"I was the DM for the plumbing department for a while. Customer would always ask me if I was a plumber. My response was always “if I was a plumber I would be making way more money”. ",
"Husband?",
"If that is your paint endcap A, it's not to plano...",
"Well son, I see that I embarrassed you. At least now you finally know what masking tape is. ",
"He must be bored out of his mind. He is willing to help you with anything, I mean anything! ",
"Why are they working at Lowe's? lol",
"Work at lowe's for a bit. The amount of people screaming at you asking for things that doesn't exist is simply amazing.",
"Viscosity tests were done in small cans of the paint. Draw downs were done on different types of papers and then scrubbed 1000 times back and forth to see how the paint behaved on different surfaces. The chemists/chemical engineers doing it all had like 3/4 years experience but thats all they had them do for 8 hrs",
"Drawing the picture with chalk: Talent\n\nDrawing the picture with chalk while immersed in paint: Priceless",
"yes, and I know it's not their department, but could they tell me where I can find pipe fittings?",
"I don't go to a store asking for advice. I guess I am lucky enough to know professionals or google-fu to have a solid idea of what I need. The difference comes in them helping me find it. \n\nI can walk into a Lowes and ask for a very specific thing and I am told they don't have it or go to some other department. Only in the garden center do I ever get people who seem to have a clue about what they are selling, but I guess that is seasonal and they don't get as burnt out. Pass the buck is the motto of big-box employees.\n\nI really like my Ace, as there are like 4 employees and they have been in that small store for years, and know it inside and out. Also their tool rental people are awesome with helping you get what you need from a stump grinder to a chain pipe cutter.",
"\"That looks nice. How many credit apps did you get this week?\" -management",
"Or more likely, along with the majority of the population, they don’t understand the numbers associated with plastics. Inside the little recycle symbol is a number which represents the type of plastic. Only certain numbers are food/drink safe. ",
"I worked for Lowes for 4 weeks, was promised part-time but got scheduled for 38hrs a week, and they paid minimum wage for me to move bags of cement, tow-trailers, 4000lb pallets of tiles(Used a pallet jack for this but was like pushing a car while in neutral), unload trailers full of heavy equipment. etc.. I workout daily and could do a lot more then every other employee there and they made sure they got the most out of me. So I quit and just worked construction for 50 hours a week for a 5 dollar an hour pay increase and I went home less sore. If you are a good worker don't work retail because they'll take advantage but still pay you like you're just stocking shelves and helping customers. \n\nThey also lied and told me to come in on a day I wasn't scheduled for 3 hours to get forklift training, then when I got there they said the trainer is busy and they made me work a 9 hour shift so on break I called my friends cousin and got the construction job and quit. Of course when I told them I'll work till the end of the shift the petty manager took the opportunity to fire me 30mins before my shift was over. Jokes on him thought cause hes 45, unmarried, and is a Lowes manager that none of his employees like.",
"It's depressing they probably can't find a way to make ends meet in an art career though.",
"This is annoying as a female patron of hardware stores. If I ask an employee a question they will turn and answer to my very un-handy husband who has no idea what they are talking about.",
"I had to talk to quite a few coworkers about their assumptions regarding this.",
"My stick figures would love to frolic through that masterpiece.",
"So this is whats going on when you push the button for help and nobody shows up",
"That's the one I know, just it didn't make sense in this scenario so I had to change the rhyme up a bit.",
"Those things don't draw themselves, you know.",
"And when you tell them you don't have it, they continue to look up and down the aisle as if you were lying to them.",
"Let me just add. Things are called what they are for the reason of communication. If I say I need a screwdriver and you sell me a hammer....what's the point anymore?",
"art degree at work",
"Sterling is ass. I preferred genesis. "
] | 317 |
pics
|
I work at Lowe's and one of the employees in paint drew this from scratch with chalk
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvl2h/all_aboard_in_the_polar_express/
|
[
" Toronto? ",
"You know it! ",
"Lol, I was guessing. I'm just a geography buff from Denver. I've never been to your lovely country.",
"Ahh! Y’all are probably getting just as much snow these days! ",
"Modern style",
"Yeah, actually. Got a good 15cm yesterday. Snow days are becoming more rare around here. God damn global warming.",
"I hear ya! I wish’a kept snowing now, rather than late March/early April kinda deal."
] | 7 |
pics
|
All aboard in the Polar Express.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvl58/walking_down_the_hallway_when_suddenly/
|
[
"Who is that? ",
"M. C. \n\nI see you there.",
"> *He said with a slight tremble in his voice as I stepped further down the hall.*",
"That must be one super bad kid, lurking around corners and what not. 😒"
] | 4 |
pics
|
Walking down the hallway when suddenly...
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvnk7/this_isnt_normal_right_right/
|
[
"Doesn't know whether they are coming or going..",
"Is the arm part of the wall too?",
"/u/saviour__self, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for violating the following rule(s):\n\n* Rule IV - Title violates title guidelines.\n\nYour title must not ask for general information or feedback. \n\nYou can read the full information about our title guidelines at /r/pics/w/titles\n\n\n\n\nFor information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/about/rules/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/w/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/saviour__self&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvnk7/this_isnt_normal_right_right/?context=10\\))"
] | 3 |
pics
|
This isn’t normal right? RIGHT?
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvpnw/my_frenchie_went_for_a_2_minute_walk_you_can_see/
|
[
"Bender?!?",
"My Shih Tsus are also not fans of forced walks. ",
"Trouble breathing? ",
"Slightly 😳"
] | 4 |
pics
|
My Frenchie went for a 2 minute walk... you can see the exhaustion
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvqs4/i_think_my_nephew_might_be_the_new_elon_musk/
|
[
"Do you realize that they did the same thing in the 60s? Kids running around with space suit helmets thinking they would go to the moon. Didn't happen. This too will probably pass. There'll be a big disaster or the public will just get bored with it and move on. I think the only way it would actually succeed would be if they made a reality TV show out the whole thing where everybody was glued to their sets over every event. ",
"What nonsensical negativity are you busy peddling? Maybe you ought to consider that there are \"educational\" inputs other than TV. Anyone who knows anything about Elon Musk knows that he reads a lot and has done so since he was a small child. Whats more likely to happen is asteroid mining (disaster or without) - because future (or any moment in time) is not the result of \"the public\" (a gross generalization) but actions of amazing individuals. And just because you have decided to not be one because you're lazy and you suck, don't insinuate your whiny attitudes apply to anyone but yourself.",
"And there was an entire generation of dedicated engineers working on the moon landings as well. Far more serious about this than Elon could hope for. Elon's playfulness is the main thing he has going for him. But his funds are not unlimited. We'll see. That Starman stunt will be iconic for decades. NASA would never do anything like that. They shit their pants when Shepard pulled out a golf club on the moon. He sprung it as a surprise and NASA had to pretend that they planned it all along. ",
"Lets review your original post: \"Do you realize that they did the same thing in the 60s? Kids running around with space suit helmets thinking they would go to the moon. Didn't happen. This too will probably pass. There'll be a big disaster or the public will just get bored with it and move on. I think the only way it would actually succeed would be if they made a reality TV show out the whole thing where everybody was glued to their sets over every event.\"\n\nWhere in I made my brilliant reply that your post is written by a negative peddling lazy suck all blow hard. And now you feel the need to counter with \"his money will run out before he does anything\" because \"it was all a stunt\" and <insert gross generalization> about groups of people without names because everything is whatever you say it is.... which simply highlights again how incredibly foolish you are and nothing else. I stand by my original post - which (in the even you missed it) was that you (and everyone else) ought to turn off their TVs and go design and build something aka become awesome (regardless if Elon does it or not). Countering with more TV references like how Shepard did whatever is just more evidence of your personal limitations."
] | 4 |
pics
|
I think my nephew might be the new Elon Musk
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvsrq/probably_one_of_my_fav_olympics_so_far_norwegians/
|
[
"Watching the olympics is always so much fun because of moments like these. And learning the nuance of random new sports.",
"there's a typo in the title sorry guys but i guess \"one of my fav Olym-pics\" is a good enough title",
"Swept*",
"Oh, funny. I haven't followed the winter Olympics in years and so was very confused by the term \"Skiathlon\". I kept searching for \"skiathon\", too, which is very different.\n\nTurns out that this used to be called the \"combined\" back when I was into skiiing. TIL that it's now \"skiathlon\"",
"Plus the guy that won the gold medal crashed at the start, got punched in the head by someone falling on him, and had to basically start the race from the back of the field."
] | 5 |
pics
|
Probably one of my fav Olympics so far - Norwegians realizing they sweeped the Skiathlon
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/
|
[
"Biased",
"fake news = whatever goes against my belief system",
"Had me smiling until they put this crap.",
"This isn't about biased news. This is literally about fake news as it was originally meant. As in, news that is about an event that did not actually happen",
"Politico is pretty biased too, though i think they are morel likely to present it as the opinion of their writers rather than absolute fact like snopes and politifact.",
"No. Fake news is propaganda that uses lies to manipulate readers and creates responses that the publisher wishes to promote. It’s the bastardization of the term by the current President that causes the confusion. ",
">Does the headline sound unrealistic?\n\nThere are so many crazy headlines that are actually true these days ",
"The problem is, the people who are believing fake news aren't in libraries reading these leaflets.",
"This isn’t about slanted stories in MSM. This is about scam stories with no basis in reality that anyone who checked could debunk.\n\nWhat fact-checking sites would you reference?",
"I commend the effort, and I hope younger people take it to heart, but this thread proves that fake news sources are succeeding in poisoning their audience's minds against reality.",
"Yeah. Just last week, somebody tried to tell me that some financial website designer was building thousands of flamethrowers and shooting a convertible into space.",
"All that shiitakes is a little bit of extra research to verify the accuracy.",
"Because you say so? Week, I'm convinced",
"Well actually... :)",
"The problem is thinking biased news and fake news are the same thing. Everyone has a bias (some more than others), not everyone just makes shit up.",
"https://i.imgur.com/7kZ562z.jpg",
"man, there should be a 3rd grade class that covers this shit. and 4th grade, and 5th grade allll the way up.",
"Now, now, let's not make libraries partisan. People on both ends of the political spectrum enjoy going to the library and surfing the internet for porn.",
"The people I know who share fake news would never bother to read this and/or think that it's bullshit and somehow doesn't apply to them.\n\nedit: a word",
"Can see it now: \"This is why their called Lib-raries\"!\n\n....yeah, I used the wrong form of \"they're\" on purpose....",
"Gotta appreciate the local library making the noble effort to inform and educate its readers.",
"Just keep in mind that you usually have to bring your own headphones. ",
"But when a site [clearly has an agenda](https://i.redd.it/b7dke6mo18iy.jpg), you need to start taking what they say with a grain of salt, and not looking to them as the paragons of truth.",
"Agree. I'll ask, is there a conservative version of fact checking websites? or one that is considered middle of the road? ",
"“Skip anonymous news reports.” \n\nWhy are anonymous sources trusted from WaPo and NYT? I constantly see both those publications plastered all over /r/politics and /r/News and they are wrought with “anonymous sources.” This type of journalism is what is abhorrent to getting legitimate information. This is why I despise WaPo’s often used “sources familiar with story” tag line.\n\n\nEdit: LOL to people who think WaPo is still as reputable as they were when watergate was around. They aren’t a perennial news distributor anymore. In fact, they’re a close superior to buzzfeed.",
"You know someone’s complaints about biased news sources are totally valid and worth listening to when they can’t use the word “bias” correctly with two tries ",
"Remember Bowling Green",
"Worst troll account I've ever seen",
"Alternatively, see if you agree with the headline. If so, comment about (or retweet, or facebook post) what you assume the article is about without reading. If not, it's FAKE NEWS!\n\nSincerely, The Whitehouse",
"Ignoring the leaflet, how fucking tall are you?! ",
"Can't cite any good facts so you go for grammar and/or spelling. Typical redditor. ",
"> snopes, politifcact\n\nI thought it was trying to avoid biased fake news",
"I resent that!",
"> is there a conservative version of fact checking websites? \n\n\n\nProbably not. As soon as it started checking facts, it would no longer be conservative.\n\n",
"\"Sources familiar with x's thinking\"",
"But what if Politico and Snopes are in on it with the MSM?\n\n/s (Just in case)",
"What facts are there to cite? You didn't actually make an argument that anyone could post \"good facts\" in response to, you just went \"no those websites are bad.\"",
"As a neutrel centrist and also a CHRISTIAN, I couldn't agree more.",
"There's a **huge** difference between anonymous sources and a news report by an anonymous author",
"\"Fact check stories using only these left-leaning sources which totally never write misleading articles\"",
"Yeah I remember reading that Trump tweeted\n\n>Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!\n\nand I thought it was satire, but no, he said exactly [that](https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/449525268529815552?lang=en)",
"Meanwhile Politico is considered a politically biased source by Reddit and is auto-filtered from some subs.",
"Subtlety is key.",
"/r/nottheonion ",
"You can't be both a fact checker and pro-GOP, it doesn't work.",
"They should add “Check for a Republican bias” to that list as well. \n\nAlso, specifying what they mean by a “competing source” would also help; cross-checking between sites like Reuters, CNN and the New York Times would make sense, what wouldn’t make sense is going and reading a Nazi news source like Breitbart after reading something with a mild liberal bias. Mild liberal biases are totally normal, justified in the majority of cases, and are necessary for the natural progression of society, as has occurred for millennia. Reading something counteractive in the natural societal progression towards a more perfect world is completely irrational and not justified in that circumstance, especially since the revenue from that page visit is lining the pockets of evil people actively working to harm society. ",
"Sure, you took a pic, but still wrong sub",
"The key distinction is that you're not likely to see a story by WaPo/NYT built solely on a single anonymous source. If you actually read these articles you'll often see lines like \"confirmed by multiple independent sources\".\n\nWaPo/NYT and other highly trained journalists understand the credibility vulnerability introduced by anonymous sourcing, and tend to only use it in the context of larger investigations.",
"Go to these biased sites to see if they fit the narrative is how I read that.\n\nAll three are so biased it’s laughable they got included on this list.",
"Should be **(check for any political bias)**",
"It can also double as how to deny somebody else's sources to defend your agenda.",
"Very similar username to a politics troll I see sometimes. I guess it just needs more people to see how wronged it is.",
"Im not looking to spend the day arguing why Snopes is garbage for politics but it pisses me off that good English = intelligent. I work with many programmers who have English as a second or third language. Occasionally their grammar is broken but they code circles around everyone. Please stop using that to justify your arguments. You sound like a racist. ",
"⬆⬆⬆ Found the guy in the filter bubble",
"Maybe you're trying to make a joke, but I see this post as proof of how this method probably won't work. Despite snopes and politifact being unbiased, their assessments often don't fit the republican worldview (read: delusional), so many will dismiss these sides as left-leaning.",
"I don't mean this in any demeaning way, but I feel like Barron is somewhere on the spectrum. It explains why Trump would say something like this, I've never heard the kid speak (has anyone, I'm interested if you have a link!), and his reactions to things that should be very exciting for a kid his age seem off. ",
"You mean pointing people towards Snopes, Politifact and Politico is not biased? ",
"Snopes and politifact are insanely biased. ",
"All three of those fact checking sources are considered left leaning biased. ",
"Right leaning bias = Fake news\n\nLeft leaning bias = truth\n\nMaybe you should check your bias? Both sides are guilty. ",
"Anonymous sources aren't what that quote refers to. It's referring to whole articles without a (real) reporter/author behind them. \n\nThey're trusted because the reporter (who is *not* anonymous) is trusted to investigate and report from their anonymous sources accurately. Obviously, if they named their anonymous sources then they would lose those sources, because many people in government or other organizations will only speak to the reporter on the condition that their name isn't published.\n\nLet's also not pretend that only the news organizations you mentioned do this. Every reputable news source does.",
"A mild liberal bias on news sources is often acceptable. Given that scientific findings are often rejected by those on the right wing and accepted by those on the left, scientific articles are normally described as having a liberal bias by political commentators. This bias is okay and natural and is to be expected of people reading an article that deals with science. \n\nThe same principle can be applied to many other articles, because the unfortunate truth is that many aspects of reality are denied by modern conservatives and have been by conservative groups throughout history. Because news organizations document reality for purposes of information and entertainment, a significant portion of their content is going to contain a liberal bias. It’s natural and it’s a product of how political systems function rather than prejudices of authors. ",
"Does the headline have a question mark? Is Barack Obama a secret muslim? We don't know but the 40% of people who didn't read the article are now wondering.",
"They missed one - Does it say FOX News? ",
"LIEbarys are run by LIEbrul SOCIALISTS who STEAL my hard earned dollars with their illegal ponzi income tax scam!!!1!||01!!!",
"Anonymous sources and anonymous reports are different. When a publication reports something from an anonymous source they know who the source is and have confirmed their legitimacy, they just won't release it.\n\nOr at least that's how respectable journalists operate",
"I had to go back and look. Now I'm convinced the person is standing on a counter.",
"When you beat the drum of \"fake news\" what you get is censorship.\n\nYou've been warned.",
"Says the people who want to take town statues because you’re offended......... ",
"> Library\n\n>[People Who Share Fake News](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/531/729/0ce.jpg)\n\nPick one.",
"Apparently Fake News is a real thing. Guess he was right.",
"Snopes and Politifact, oof.",
"When journalists for papers like the NY Times quote anonymous sources, they're anonymous only to us. The journalist has verified the person's identity and credibility, and agreed to use their comments on the condition of anonymity to protect the person. Sometimes people leak news that could leave their lives in jeopardy. And journalists need to do multiple verifications to assert that the person is credible and worth using. \n\nYou see the same sort of thing on TV when a person's face is in a darkened area and their voice has been changed. ",
"A quick glance at the post history suggests they're trying way too hard to be Ken M, but with the political agenda of trying to make liberals look stupid by misspelling things like \"trunp.\"\n\nPlease, even Eric Trump can spell Trump.",
"No no no no. This may sound ignorant to you, or to everyone. If there is a bias in the media, no matter which side it is not okay. I don't care if they are right, I don't care they are wrong. A bias is a bias. ",
"Anonymous sources have been used by journalists for years. You didn't even know who WaPo's anonymous sources for Watergate was until decades later. These News companies use anonymous sources because these people would lose their jobs or even worse if they went on record.\n\nCan I ask you what stories from the NYT or WaPo have turned out to be fake? \n\nI'd like people to understand. This was a supreme Court trial that gave the right to anonymous sources.\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources\n\nI'm sick of this bullshit. Don't let people who spew \"fake news\" convince you that anonymous sources are bullshit. It's if the paper is bullshit it's bullshit. Papers that have spent 50+ years building their reputation you might want to take them for their word. They've earned it.",
"I was so happy until I saw this. For fucks sake! Snopes?",
"ITT: proof that Trump's strategy of calling everything \"fake news\" actually worked. Americans don't know how to identify lies online, they don't know how to fact-check, they don't know how to differentiate what Trump calls fake news (articles he doesn't like) from actual fabrications and lies.\n\nGG America. Just try not to infect the rest of the world with your bullshit please.",
"I understand that this is what many people would like to believe for the sake of parity, but it is simply untrue. There is only one side of the political aisle in America that rallies behind the existence of “alternative facts,” or an alternate reality. Conservatives deny aspects of reality as part of their core belief system. For example:\n\nThey deny scientific evidence regarding climate change. \n\nThey deny scientific evidence regarding the environmental effects of many chemicals and private business practices. \n\nThey deny the prevalence and normalcy of LGBT behavior. \n\nThey deny the daily experiences of ethnic minorities in comparison to those of the majority.\n\nThey deny that the availability of guns to the general populace is a significant factor in the USA’s abnormal crime rates, despite findings in many scientific papers and real-life cases in Japan, Israel, the UK and Australia. \n\nThe list goes on. Conservatism is a dying cause, and that is nothing new. That is the simple definition of conservatism: desperately latching onto ideas and traditions that are dying, phased out as people’s knowledge and understanding of the reality around them increases. This was true in the days of the 18th and 19th century conservatives in Europe desperately holding onto hope that the Catholic Church would remain the all-powerful being throughout Europe, and it remains true now with Republicans who worship 19th and early 20th century America. The only way to hold and maintain these ideals is by denying and refusing to accept reality, and this is because on the other side of the spectrum, liberalism changes with reality. \n\nOne side moves with reality, with discovery. The other moves on the contrary. This has always been true and this will remain true in the foreseeable future. That is the long answer of why liberal biases are normal and natural and conservative biases are not. One requires force and the holding back of information; the other celebrates and encourages discovery. ",
"What are you \"For fucks sake!\"ing, me not liking Snopes or the little pamphlet suggesting it?",
"What's wrong with Snopes? Other than being a gimmicky website, they go above and beyond to fact check, source, and cite common misconceptions and urban legends. ",
"This is why nobody invites you anywhere David ",
"Ok, all the liberals wondering why non-liberals don't trust fact checking sites here you go:\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/\n\nSame issue, its just the facts they cherry pick to say Bernie's statement was \"mostly true\" while using a different set of facts to rate Tumps statement \"mostly false\". These examples are extremely easy to find on conservative media. ",
"There are some news sources that have a right-leaning bias. That doesn't make them less true. If it's not in the opinion section of the WSJ, I trust their reporting standards even though I'm not as right-leaning as them at all. \n\nTo respond that a source has a liberal bias as though that should discredit the basic notion of trusting reputable outlets is fucking asinine, and destroying Americans' abilities to be literate consumers of news. ",
"True but the people who need this the most have never stepped a foot in a library in their lives. ",
"Anonymous *sources* and anonymous *news reports* are different.",
"Snopes, politico.... sure, perfectly unbiased fact checking groups that never have a slant",
"Are your two posts here intended to be sarcastic? You’re joking right?",
"They are far away from being reliable judges on what is and isn’t fake news.",
"Could be. There is a correlation between age of the father at conception and autism in the child.",
"Used Snopes as a fact checking site, c’mon lol.",
"You do realize conservatives say the *exact* same thing right? You should know that in case you never read any conservative media. Congrats, you say the same things conservatives do! How does that make you feel? ",
"Snopes and Politifact do have a bias, as does literally everyone, but on the whole are good sources for fact checking, as long as you read what they say and look at their sources and don't just look at the meter. If you just look at the meter, then at that point it is on you either way.",
"Are you referring to these statues (https://www.bustle.com/p/8-racist-monuments-that-still-exist-in-america-53308) because I sincerely hope you understand the difference between a statue being *offensive* and explicitly honoring hate.",
"\"He\"? Everyone knows there is fake news, like Alex Jones and Breitbart and countless other examples.",
"Yeah they’re probably bible readers as well. How do we face check that book? Anyone? ;)",
"Did you hear that the world is actually flat? ",
"I like how you posted the part where Politifact suggested we \"shouldn't read much into the numbers\", and completely ignored the part where they **specifically explain WHY** we shouldn't read much into **THOSE SPECIFIC NUMBERS**.\n\nThe exact next line of your pic, reads :\n> \n> \"Considering that Trump hasn’t enacted any fiscal legislation, it’s a bit of a stretch for him to take credit for any changes in debt levels,\" Dan Mitchell, a libertarian economist and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told us.\n> \n> \"Debt levels go up and down in the short run based on independent factors such as quarterly tax payments and predetermined expenditure patterns,\" he said.\n> \n> The White House did not respond to our query for this fact-check.\n\n...\n\n> \"I wonder what he thinks he did to bring this about,\" said Harvard University government professor Jeffrey Frankel.\n\n...\n\n> Looking at the debt numbers\n> \n> Trump and the Gateway Pundit are examining the total public debt outstanding, which is nearing $20 trillion. Experts said another figure to focus on is \"debts held by the public,\" which is the amount of money the United States government owes someone else.\n> \n> On Jan. 20, when Trump took office, the debt held by the public sat at $14.4 trillion. That figure fluctuated up and down a bit, but as of Feb. 22, it remained $14.4 trillion. On Feb. 23, the debt held by the public figure dropped to $14.38 trillion.\n\nThe only \"agenda\" in the above information is delivering the facts. The fact is, that at that time, Trump had absolutely zero impact on the national debt.",
">All three of those fact checking sources are considered left leaning biased. \n\nOnly the far-right believes that those sites have a liberal bias.",
"It's owned by Murdoch. It's editorials I won't defend, and while being right-leaning, it's regular news coverage is still pretty well-vetted and generally accurate. \n\nThis is reality, not a controversial statement. Ignoring editorials, the general reporting the NYTimes, WSJ, WaPo, and a number of other journalism and media outlets that may skew slightly more liberal or conservative are still reputable sources.\n\n",
"Dismissive attitudes and no tolerance for opposing opinions is the only way we’ll get people to change their minds to my correct way of thinking!",
"*\"Make sure the headline and/or picture matches the content.\"*\n\nThis is great advice... which fails on almost every site with an auto-playing video. If a site has video that automatically plays they just seem to find a random video that contains something relevant (e.g. an article on Trump will sometimes just play a random Trump video).\n\nAuto-playing videos are the worst.",
"Agree with everything except the fact checking sites. We live in an age where we have to fact check the fact checkers.",
"And they dunt believe sources that use facts, like politifact ",
"Politifact and Snopes are biased pieces of shit. There is no debate.",
"If you actually read politifact to check on things instead of just looking at the meter, you get a good grasp of how true or false the claim is, and can check other sources. You will never escape bias, but you can make better decisions using sites like those to double check other sources. If you read both of those, you can easily come to a real conclusion yourself, instead of not doing your job and reading the article.",
"Just say that politico politifact and Snopes are leftist propaganda and support that with a reputable article by an actual certified journalist from our friends at britebart. Easy ",
"(they don't) ",
"But they don't have well sourced fact checking websites. Because reality doesn't have a conservative bias. ",
"This guy watches porn in libraries. ",
"And 15 year old digital camera to take photos of the screen with.\n\nEdit: I've only seen this happen once, otherwise I could never come up with this.",
"Wow, someone is still mad PewDiePie got called out for saying racist shit and making \"jokes\" about the Holocaust.\n\nPretty sure that's \"minimum standard for decent human\" stuff. Only an outlet that was right-wing, not just right leaning, would defend behavior like that (hint: because the right-wing is full of Nazis and Nazi sympathizers).",
"For checking fake news? Not really, as long as they do their due diligence and read the actual article. They are great for finding out more information on something, but their rating meter is often biased. The actual articles are pretty damn accurate the vast majority of the time.",
"In other news, \n\nEntire internet exposed to sad Libtard \"science\" in secret plot to prevent information about an invasion of giant photo taking aliens taking over the world.",
"> bias sources\n\nFacts are biased against Trumpland. When you have an administration that systematically lies or intentionally misleads about literally anything, from the integrity of the voting system, to crime rates, to what the fuck happened lastnight in Sweden, naturally all the fact-checking sites are going to look \"biased\" against them.\n\nGive me one article on Politifact that states something other than the facts.",
"There is truth to your statement. Understanding *why* people differ ideologically is required in order to transcend above and beyond being swayed by your own inherent political bias. Excellent talk [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPho0bpoKm8) between Professors Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson on this particular topic.",
"A lot of times \"Fake news\" is just opinion. And it's easy to catch if the language in the story is \"adjective heavy\" ... ",
"The problem is that there are some people so stupid that they are against fact checking websites if they don't agree with them. ",
"Fuck i love the public library sector. Fighting the good fight. Fuck the parks department. ",
"Not bad. But “fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact.” Are you kidding me? Those sites are not much more than fake news themselves, essentially telling people what they should believe or think on any given news story, often wrong or claiming something is debunked when it has not been settled yet.\n\nThe best protection from fake news is to seek multiple sources you trust and verify any news story for yourself. Learn critical thinking. Be wary of any news that avoids details, does not answer obvious questions a reader would have, or where the past reporting has shown an obvious bias for or against the person or topic you are reading about.\n\nBottom line is you cannot (should not anyways) outsource your critical thinking to the likes of Snopes, Politico, or Politifact.",
"Doesn't help that Donald Trump being the president and literally everything that followed still *sounds* unrealistic, but here we fucking are. You can't appeal to sensibility anymore, truth and fiction sounds equally insane.",
"They stole it from liberals who said it first, mockingly, in the face of conservatives accusing anything they didn't wish to here (including basic facts and scientific conclusions) of containing \"liberal bias.\"",
"Every fucking thread. ",
"But maybe, and this is a huuuge maybe. But what if its for their kids? Maybe they wont be brainwashed like their parents? ",
"This.\n\nTrump and his voters crying \"fake news\" is the epitome of irony.",
"I believe that they were talking about the three fact checking websites listed on the leaflet.",
"No they're not. They're pretty well regarded and do a pretty good job of presenting the data in a clear and concise way with references. ",
"I invite you to name a single instance in which snopes was wrong and the e-rumor was right.\n\n\nCould it be that a Texas death row inmate really did get to eat a child for his last meal?\n\nOr that Lil Bow Wow was raped at 13 by his bodyguard and needed a whole lot of stitches?\n\nOr that a mother had the dog put down after her daughter and boyfriend had messy anal sex on the couch and blamed it on the dog?\n\nI could go on...",
"Snopes is certainly left leaning. During the two genders controversy a meme was posted of Bill Nye in the past saying there were two genders. Slopes rated it as \"false\" (their lowest rating) because he's changed his mind since then... Which was the entire point of the meme.\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/bill-nye-gender-chromosomes/\n\nThey also say it's false because someone else on his show said it instead of him. But instead of \"mixed\" which would be fair... False.\n\nThey've shredded their credibility.",
"It’s not that at all. Look at the current memo situation. There’s pretty much zero reason to be a democrat at this point. Yet here they are ignoring their “team’s” own words in black and white. \n\nLibraries and leaflets aren’t the problem. Political loyalties to the point of absurdity is. <= downvotes prove this. If you have to ask “what memo? Or sauce?” You’re big enough to do your own legwork. \n\n",
"You tell me why basically every reputable university, every scientific organization and every mainstream news source in the West has a left-wing bias, and why it’s been like that for the entirety of European history. You think it’s because some shady guys who have total control over everything conspired to make it that way? That would be impossible to establish and impossible to maintain in secrecy in the long run. Every organization dedicated to the documentation and discovery of reality leans left because the right rejects it and the left embraces it, not because of a bunch of conspiracy theories like the right says and implies. ",
"Name one example. They deal in facts not opinions so this should be easy for you.",
"They call the left NAZIs, but that's mostly because of their violent marches, language policing, kangaroo courts of public opinion, and book burnings.",
"That one had me worried for the first few words",
"Snopes, Politico, and Politifact all have a Liberal bias. This entire card is trash.\n\n-The people that need this card",
"Actually I think it's more that those sights are really good at debunking internet rumors...and those people would rather believe that the rumors are true.",
"‘Avoid CNN’ is missing.",
"I'm aware. I was explaining the difference between bias and untruth. \n\nThis whole notion that having a bias is something that discredits is absurd. We all have biases. It's basic skepticism and journalistic integrity that prevent that from affecting objective truth from being altered unreasonably by our biases. ",
"There is no such thing as an \"unbiased\" anything, but those are still good resources where people are making a *good faith effort* to assess the truthfulness of claims made by politicians. Acting in good faith is all you can really ask of anyone, and much of our problem is that the right has elected to abandon even the pretense of good faith.",
"If Trump says the sky is blue, should Politifact make an article stating that Trump was lying because, while the sky is blue, Trump did not make the sky blue?",
"Now I’m genuinely curious: what source do you recommend to fact check?",
"By who? Unless you think reality has a left leaning bias.",
"Lol yeah I have people on my fb account posting articles where trump is being impeach everyday. It’s insane ",
"Too bad all people will do is check snopes and be done with it.",
"You didn't answer their question. On what basis are you accusing them of being unreliable?",
"Pretty sure college students are mostly liberal, so I dunno what you mean... ",
"They started with urban legends but went full \"I'm with Her\" in 2016.",
"*Here's the thing...*",
"I'd love to order these as bookmarks for my students.",
"“Fact check Snopes, Politico, and Politifact.” LOL",
"I remember back in 2008, a chain e-mail went around trying to frame snopes as \"in the Obama camp\" and therefore untrustworthy. The chain email recommended truthorfiction.com as an alternative.\n\n\nAt that time, the front page of Truthorfiction.com has a statement defending Snopes.",
"HAHAHA! Snopes?!",
"Correct, which is pretty much everything from mainstream media. Take for example \"black man shot by cop\". You'll have CNN telling you he was practicing his church choir songs that morning and Fox is running a story about his pics with guns and gang signs on his Facebook. Both sides are trying to play your emotions.",
"It's not about bias it's about facts.",
"Yeah, but some day they might mistake the library for something else, like a Starbucks, and go inside anyway.",
"Let me just fact check this article I read in the Tampa Bay Times on Politifact.\n\n\n>PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times\n\noh",
"http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/snopes-caught-lying-about-lack-of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/\n\nLargely Snopes is good. But when politics gets involved, it’s not. \n\n\nAnd yes, the site I linked to is at least as biased as Snopes. But in this case they are right. ",
"I don't think you understand the difference between anonymous news reports and anonymous sources. ",
"They're on the second or third floor overlooking the first. You can see the stair railing on the left. It definitely does look weird at first glance though.",
"This should count toward biased news* as well. Thanks for this, I should show it to my parents.",
"Abc",
"cnn is the biggest lie going, its blatant bias just gets accepted.\n\nthe largest fake news is simply not reporting the news, aka censorship. why even have news when you can talk about celebrities.",
"Most of that is pretty good advice, some of which I follow myself, but it lost me with fact checking with Snopes, Politico, and Politifact. I would recommend doing your own fact checking rather than use fact checking web sites that have an agenda and bias. For example, weigh CNN against Breitbart, and decide which one is more likely.",
"One of them is correct",
"Blindly ~~accusing~~ suggesting people are autistic, especially having spent no time with them, is no better than accusing vaccines of causing autism with absolutely no proof.\n\nThe kid's 11 years old, accustomed to a luxurious life and has been groomed for years, [which basically means get out of the way and don't talk](http://arresteddevelopment.wikia.com/wiki/You_can_always_tell_a_Milford_man), and probably why he may seem \"off.\"\n\nHe's also absurdly tall for his age - almost 6 feet. That has nothing to do with any of this.. I just found it interesting.",
"Yeah honestly\n\nI can’t wait til the fucker dies",
"Exactly, only conservative news sources can be fake news, don’t you know? ",
"i heard about that while sharing a nice appetizer of tide pod bruscetta with a friend",
"I have not seen one source on any snopes article someone links me. I ask for source and they link that so I go “ok, I asked for some sources, not random shit on the internet” \n\nUsing Wikipedia is still not a good place to get your info tho",
"That's the most liberal thing I've heard all month. This is the same thing my professor at college was saying as he forced us to read and write papers on pro-Marxist essays. \n\nEdit: Maybe liberals used to answer to scientists. Now they have been corrupted by SJW's and identity demagoguery.",
"Fake news: Anything that is viewed as contrary to mainstream belief/established consensus.\n\nWorst term ever created",
"Everything looks good there except all the fact check sites are biased garbage.",
"College students aren't the people calling all news media outlets fake news, or believing insane Hillary paedophile ring Facebook propaganda ",
"If a person's IQ is so low as to need this list, there is little chance of understanding this list. ",
"I want to downvote you for \"libtard\" but I can tell this comment is a joke. I can't tell what you're trying to get across, though.",
"Not exactly:\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/2016/07/28/daily-caller-throws-another-temper-tantrum-after-being-debunked-by-snopes-com/\n\n>The flag rumor, **as is typical, went through multiple mutations as those who spread it repeatedly shifted the goalposts to try to keep up with the debunkings**, moving it from “there are no flags (of any kind) at the DNC” to “there were no flags at the DNC on Day 1″ to “there were no actual flags at the DNC on Day 1,” to “there were no actual flags on stage at the DNC on Day 1″ to “there were no actual flags on stage at the DNC for the entirety of Day 1″ — and, as is also typical, we’ve continually modified our article to keep up with the shifting rumors.\n\n\nSo why does the Daily Caller like to attack snopes so much? Probably because they want their readers to keep on believing the rumors that Snopes is so good at debunking.\n",
"LOL, \"check with Snopes.\" ",
"Please put more words in my mouth.",
"They're using the library's internet to watch Fox news. \n",
"Snopes was founded by a pimp and it’s SOLE editor is is wife, who was his number one girl. Never have I seen a source on that website and it’s all people link me when I ask for sources. It isn’t, to me, it’s like linking a 4chan thread for a source, no one is gonna take it seriously unless you have the utmost cognitive dissonance ",
"I don't like to go to biased sources to check if my source is biased, is the problem. Surely you understand the difference.",
"You realize if you're parroting a Stephen Colbert joke, you're probably not in the right state of mind to discuss this",
"Yea they’re at home watching fox.... I mean..... fake news... ",
"Maybe get off reddit then? Seems to me like you care way too much about him. ",
"Fake news is a problem we're not realizing soon enough, the impact it has does not yet even have a metric. The consequences will doom us all",
"Coverage you don't like isn't \"fake news,\" bruh. Incomplete or biased coverage isn't even \"fake news.\" Quit being a weenie.",
"Shredded their credibility? Where's the better source of fact checking then or am I supposed to read Breitbart because Politifact isn't perfect?",
"Doesn't matter. People always believe what they want to believe. Some still think the Bible is an Encyclopedia of facts! ",
"\"Lets not make this partisan--we all know conservatives are too stupid to read!\"\n\nChrist. ",
"> Despite snopes and politifact being unbiased\n\nMaybe you're the one trying to make a joke.",
"I saw someone say the other day they are biased, but no one tells me how it is. When did all of this happen?",
"Anonymous sources are real convenient for letting reporters say whatever they want without having to back it up, though",
"LOL check with Snopes and Politifact, eh?\n\nWhy not just tell me salon.com and huffpo are the word of god.",
"was surprised not to see this on the list. oldest trick in the book for lazy journalists",
"fake news isn't partisan though. uneducated people of all political creeds aren't going to go to the library, read a pamphlet, and then apply it to their lives. They're going to apply posts on facebook to their lives.",
">Snopes, Politico and politifact\n\nYou should have posted this to /r/funny 'cause that gave me a good chuckle.",
"Of course not. \"Conservatives\" just tend to be more susceptible to fake news so those websites are more successful (i.e. Breitbart, Infowars). I can't name a liberal fake news site because no one gives AF about them but I'm sure they exist.",
"Yup. When I see that I immediately dismiss the entire article. ",
"What if the fact checking sources are part of the scandal 🤔",
"*cough...* [*Bullshit*](http://www.weeklystandard.com/section/fact-check) *cough...*",
"> He's also absurdly tall for his age - almost 6 feet. \n\nGood genes, very good genes. ",
"The problem with the first point is that it seems like for the past 2 years I'll read a headline about some insane thing Trump or one of his handlers said and think \"they must be exaggerating, he couldn't have actually SAID that, right???\", and then read the article and find out that yes, he actually did say something completely insane.",
"I can see either a staircase or an escalator, so I think he's on a loft or something.",
"It's okay buddy, you're on the list",
"Wikipedia is a good place to find sources. Sometimes there's unverified information, but just check the footnotes. ",
"Is snopes not reliable now? what happened there\n",
"no, in facts theses peoples are in front of thiers tv’s looking at CNN :/",
"They are considered left leaning, but not biased. ",
"Would be 10/10 advice, except for every one of those sites they gave being left biased. ",
"If your currency is fair honesty and you lie, even only once, you've lost the value of your currency. If you refuse to correct you completely destroy it. ",
"The point is that you're not going to Poltifact to see if the source is biased. You're going to Politifact to see if the source is outright fabricating stuff.\n\nI'll trust the WSJ to tell me the truth, even if it's framed in a right leaning light. Meanwhile, I absolutely expect Brietbart to straight up fabricate things that make liberals sound bad.",
" And rightly (leftly?) so.",
"> Consult and compare competing sources",
"Technically, the Economist is this way, they don't publicize the name of the author but it's still one of the best sources for news. ",
"it is politically biased. doesn't make it a bad source",
"\"Sources familiar with XXX's thinking\" good indicator",
"I think this guy might've had a siezure, someone call a doctor.",
"\"Believe these sites\"",
"I don't see how whether Bill Nye said something has anything to do with liberalism or conservatism. Also, someone else saying it makes it literally true that he didn't say it... You're nitpicking a single article in order to dismiss them completely.",
"There needs to be a thing about author opinion pieces and/or ads for a book the author is trying to sell.",
"Ha...Trumpies think Snopes, Politico, and Politifact are all fake news as well.",
"We are ALL on the list today",
"Yeah, one side is going for that authoritarian racist stance to justify a cop murdering another human, and the other is going for that totally out there emotion of recognizing humanity in individuals. ",
"Sounds like you're frothing at the mouth with bias yourself...",
"SNOPES? Hahhahahhahahahhahahha",
"ALL sources are biased. ",
"Snopes, no. Politico, yes definitely. Politifact, I don't know.",
"Well, what is this sub for then..",
"and to do all this of course be UNEMPLOYED lol no time to do all this shit\n\nEdit: if you downvote at least say why so we can have a meaningful discussion. ",
"> All three of those fact checking sources are considered left leaning biased.\n\n(1) Politico is not a fact-checking source, and should not be on this leaflet.\n\n(2) Only hyperpartisans believe Snopes to be left or right leaning.",
"Holy shit, you mean there's more people that do this beyond the one dude at my local library? (Although it's an old cell phone, not a digital camera)",
"What memo is that?",
"They also think websites like snopes, politico and politifact are left leaning liberal conspiracies.",
"Except it's literally fake at times, but okay. Once you're ready for the truth, you'll realise this yourself.",
"How can i know the leaflet itself isn’t fake news",
"Seeing how believing in facts is considered left-leaning these days, I’d see that as true ",
"They are sold at the ALA store if you are familiar!",
"Was it ever? Both are run by and for the left.",
"You don't use one source to fact check, your read news from both sides and make you're own decisions",
"Snopes is two people in a basement.\n\nWikipedia is just about as good as Britannica, except more up to date and with more popular culture articles. Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is an encyclopedia to find other sources.",
"They're also convenient for people who want to give reputable journalists real information on what's happening to report on without fear of repercussions. ",
"Please explain the difference. ",
"They likely don't and are looking to reddit to reinforce their echo chamber.",
"They’re actually scrolling through Reddit instead",
"> Implying Snopes, Politico, and Politifact are unbiased",
"Read Breitbart and NYT, and apply critical thinking to both.",
"coservativeRpatriotsliberalRpussies.com",
"Phew",
"I strongly dislike the term fake news. That is an inadequate way for lying and bias to be labelled. ",
"how do I order 1000?",
"Do you have some examples?\n\n*edit: Ah, yes, downvoting polite discourse because I asked for evidence.*",
"Politifact is not a creditable source",
"> Snopes was founded by a pimp\n\nLet this be a lesson, kids. This is what happens to your brain when you don't use things like Snopes and believe whatever you want.",
"not only that, they would think this is some leftist (or rightist) propaganda. ",
"Politico is definitely left leaning, but Politifact & Snopes are as close to the middle of the road as you can get. ",
"Yeah, but some of them will see the card and see fake news on reddit. It's not like the sites immune to the outrage machine.",
"Anonymous sources are no good for me. Leaves the door open for too much fuckery. I know there are situations that people are afraid but I feel like it’s abused too much. Especially in sports news.",
"\n>Only the far-right believes that those sites have a liberals bias.\n\nImplying if you think they may be basis your are far right. You make scarecrows to fight and are upset when someone does it to you.",
"Reality does have a liberal bias",
"What the actual fuck? Ignoring the pimp/ho nonsense, every Snopes page links references. You can click through and decide for yourself. Assuming, of course, that you are capable of examining data and coming to a conclusion.",
"Scroll all the way to the bottom of the article and click the \"Sources\" link. The original pages had sources listed in what looked like a footnotes section, they're not as obvious since the site redesign, but they are still there. Articles are also typically hyperlinked to referenced quotes.",
"Also, beware of comments meant to distract readers from the topic of conversation.",
"I agree. Not only that if they were then aren't they also the kind of people who would think places like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact just contain fake facts?",
"Preferably multiple sources, preferably primary sources. I've seen how badly journalists can mess the story up (and this isn't a dig at journalists, they're operating under time constraints and readership constraints and often reporting on something they have little understanding of) nearly every time I've seen news articles about events I had first-hand experience of.",
"What do you use to fact check?",
"Trump supporter version: \"Does the story reflect poorly on Trump? If so, it's fake news.\"",
"They should also put it on bumper stickers. ",
"They provide the links to follow for us to reach our conclusions, like a good wikipedia page.",
"Obviously InfoWars. /s",
"To be fair Politico does have a hugely leftist bias.",
"What's wrong with libtard? Not all liberals are libtards, but libtards definitely exist.",
"The person you responded to didn’t say to dismiss them outright. \n\nThe person you responded to pointed that some fact checking sites had a bias of leaning to the left. \n\nI’m of the opinion that a fact checking site should be neutral. I’m actually of the opinion that news should be reported neutrally but that is a whole different issue. However, if both the news reports lean in one direction , the the fact checkers lean in one direction, you are compounding the problem of trying to direct how people think. Facts should be just that. Facts and nothing else. \n\n",
"Yes of course, because fox news has never had even the smallest shred of real news! Never. ^/s",
"No wonder CNN hates local libraries ",
"That seems like a haphazard way to approach things. One side says X is true. Another says X is false. All I’m left with is wanting to trust my own preconceived biases. ",
"OP IS the second or third floor! ",
"Why so mean though?",
"Pretty much depends on how well the democrats do in the 2018 elections. He's done a whole lot more than Slick Willy ever did to warrant impeachment.",
"Having worked on the hill, I can tell you that the writers of Politico all have very strong political opinions and definitely write through that lens\n\nIt’s obviously more accurate than some of the far right or far left news sources that exist, but there’s a certain danger in putting forward any one news source as “The Truth” that can be absolutely trusted\n\nThese articles are written by people, just like you and me who are enraged/enamored with whatever administration is currently in congress/the White House. \n\nbut to treat it as an objective source of news on a fake news prevention pamphlet isn’t the best advice \n\n",
"> Not bad. But “fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact.” Are you kidding me? Those sites are not much more than fake news themselves, essentially telling people what they should believe or think on any given news story, often wrong or claiming something is debunked when it has not been settled yet.\n\nShit Republican cultists actually believe, folks!",
"I'm pretty sure they're giving an example of fake news.",
"oh no, correcting mistakes",
"I have cited Politifact before when talking to a MAGAt and they said exactly that they have a liberal bias and are trash. ",
"\"are considered\" is odd phrasing. Who is doing the considering here?",
"Sure, by right wing partisan hacks who hate fact checking maybe...",
"And MSNBC or cnn etc.. = liberal propaganda",
"My rule is that if they don't link to the source document/video/audio or bare minimum provide a full transcript, it's junk. Most major news on bills, speeches, etc fail this. It's ridiculous",
"How do you know they are not on the outside looking into through a skylight while holding a poster? ",
"BUT DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS (so please read our clickbait articles with \"anonymous sources\")",
"Reserve your saltiness for Trump himself, going after his kids is sick.",
"Because it said digital camera and not supple young boy, right?\n\n..right?",
"Snopes in particular is very problematic because they have a dark side. The couple that runs snopes.com also runs a network of spam servers that start many of those forwarded stories in the first place, ensuring they'll always have business.\n\nThis is 100% legit and you can totally Google this.",
"You're complaining that the statements made are judged differently, when they were made at different points in time. It's almost a year apart, and they are ranked just on either side of medium, with different factors effecting accuracy.\n\nMore than that, they extensively list their information and gives as much information as they can so that you can judge it for yourself based on the raw data.\n\n'non liberals' don't trust fact checking because they've politicized the nature of facts. ",
"Yep, the card was great until that one bullet point.",
"Speak for yourself",
"A whole account just for this?",
"pretty much everything involving trump lol ",
"I never heard Chelsea or Sasha or Malia speak while their fathers were president. It’s a huge stretch to presume he might be autistic because he hasn’t spoken to the press.",
"The Onion",
"Just post this photo in their news feed! ",
"Do you?",
"\"Check the author's credentials.\"\n\nI guess they don't want you reading the Economist.",
"they are in this thread.",
"The absolutely wild thing is when you go to the fringe of reality sites, these points are discussed but only their sources are reliable to them, and everything they read enforces that. \n\n\nYou'll see it especially on the_Donald where they literally use 1984 references about CNN or other non right source in twisted reasoning, and they're amazing at it. It's masterful how fallacies are used to snip what they need to not tell readers directly what to think, but breadcrumbs to trick readers into false enlightenment. \n\n\n ",
"And neither is 99.9% of anyone else.\n\nIt's a very small minority that are doing that.\n\nBut for critical thinking, college students **need** that the most.\n",
"Nice try, giants. I'm on to you...",
"I think its a satirical take on conservative media trying to discredit the pamphlet.",
"And the people that believe fake news want to believe it. I have a feeling that extreme partisans aren't going to mainstream news sites for their news.",
"Great sentiment here, but I doubt anyone accusing me of being a \"Triggered LIBTARD\" is going to be in a library in the first place. ",
"The “libtard” gets me every time. Anyone’s argument is not worthy if you have to lean on the word “retard” and somehow make it your own like it’s so funny. Oh gosh snowflake here I guess ",
"They're talking about the *author* not sources of information.",
"An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded",
"Seriously, I've never thought about what bias Snopes might have, but the other two are pretty conservative.",
"came here to say this. people will just see this as propaganda (eventhought most of it is just good tips)\n",
"what a simplistic way of presenting why they rated it as false. this meme was borne out of intellectual dishonesty and that's what Snopes points out.",
"I just read that article and they clearly evidence that the meme was faked with a fake caption. Did you even read it?",
"Think of it this way: I have a liberal and a conservative, and I have them both make 100 statements. I then fact check both people's statements. If the liberal made 10 false statements and the conservative made 70 false statements, and I report it as such, does that mean I have a liberal bias, or does that mean the conservative lied more than the liberal?",
"They've all been proven to report things falsely. Which does not make them a bulletproof fact checker. ",
"Uh no the problem is snopes and politifact in particular are extremely partisan, biased, and contribute to fake news. \n\nI prefer a much simpler and effective definition:\n\n> If on election night 2016 you saw grown ass news anchors crying on tv, you watch fake news\n\nSeriously, if people are that invested in their personal beliefs that they cry on national tv when they don’t get their way, they are not able to unbiasedly report information. And often their bias leads to cognitive dissonance and cognitive blindness as we saw with Brian Ross and cnn ‘s trump jr email timeline fake stories. ",
"Also, beware of commenters pointing out certain comments to further digress future comments from the subject of the original comment",
"> To respond that a source has a liberal bias as though that should discredit the basic notion of trusting reputable outlets is fucking asinine\n\nExactly.\n\nBias is something people should be aware of, but it's distinct from 'fake news'.\n\nA biased but reliable news outlet means that you're only getting half the picture, 'fake news' means that you're not getting ***any*** of the picture and are being emotionally manipulated into believing lies. ",
"If you removed that tip, it could still be effective and can’t as easily be dismissed by people who believe that being leftist is just as slanted as any propaganda.",
"People on Twitter & Facebook: but.. I saw a meme from my favorite political group, so it has to be true. ",
"Active t_d poster. Not worth talking to",
"How about Politifact calling Trump a liar over saying almost the exact same thing that Bernie said (which they said was true)?\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/",
"We learned about this stuff in high school in Australia.. ",
"If by Washington Post, you mean a reporter posting on his personal twitter account who within hours issued a correction when he was told about the error.",
"> I have not seen one source on any snopes article someone links me\n\nThat's just a blatant lie. \n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/\n\nFirst article when I Googled Snopes and Politics. They have links directly to the fucking court transcripts. \n\nYou CHOOSE to believe that Snopes doens't source because it no doubt said you were wrong about something in the past.\n\nAnd therein lies our problem with people like you. You can just blatantly spout an easily disproven lie and somehow believe it anyway.",
"ad hominem, anyone?",
"OH CAPTAIN MY CAPTAIN\n\nSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH",
"Notice how everyone just keeps saying \"no snopes is bad\"",
"I feel like if CNN just followed this card we wouldn't have trump in office. It was their dishonest reporting that empowered him.",
"My #1 rule with this is \"If I find myself instantly agreeing or disagreeing with something on title/surface information alone, force myself to dig deeper\"\n\nIt's so easy to see a headline that goes with your views and think 'Well of course!', but that's an obvious bias",
"I've read the Nunes memo, if that's what you mean, but the rest of this paragraph doesn't really make sense to me. Do you mind elaborating? I'm not looking for a fight, just a discussion \n\n>There’s pretty much zero reason to be a democrat at this point. \n\nThe Democrats and Republicans still have radically different platforms. There's not much room for left-leaning people in the current Republican party, which (realistically) leaves the Democrats as the most attractive choice for many people in our two-party system.\n\n>Yet here they are ignoring their “team’s” own words in black and white. \n\nI'm not sure what you mean by this. The Democrats didn't write the memo, so what words are being ignored? \n\nEdit: I'm open to changing my mind (and like I said, I've read the memo) but I'm not sure what you're talking about. We clearly have different opinions, and I'd like to understand where you're coming from.",
"There are dumb liberals just like there are dumb anything, but anyone who would use the word libtard is probably not in a position to be insulting anyone else's intelligence. ",
"One side is demonstrably more susceptible to fake news. It's partisan. No more false equivalencies. ",
"Holy mother of [citation needed] on that claim.\n\nAlso are you fucking dense because literally every Snopes article has either citations to secondary sources or references to primary sources that anyone can reach out to and confirm.\n\nStop being intentionally obtuse and pretending you’re intellectually superior for it.",
"Check with sites like Politifact? That site is very biased.",
"Anonymous sources are not synonymous with anonymous authors.",
"Tossing in the 0 and | just makes that inauthentic.",
"PANTSUIT ON FIRE!!!",
"Maybe the right needs to use more facts ",
"If everyone followed those rules, there would be a lot less conspirasionist.",
"\"Anonymous news reports\" is about the *author of the article* being unknown. \n\nUnnamed sources are fine if the journalist/organisation behind the report is reputable. \n\nIf a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter tells me that five sources within the WH are telling the same story, it's pretty safe to believe it. But if an article with no clear author on a random blog tells you that \"anonymous sources\" are saying X, Y or Z, you can safely discard it.",
"You knew the answer before you finished typing the question.",
"Hence this post is on the internet now. Problem solved!",
"Sites like politifact and snopes are usually biased though.",
"Hahaha Snopes!!! I remember seeing this pamphlet released right around the time Wikileaks dumped the emails ",
"So the republicans are retards?",
" Those don't seem too contradictory, to be honest. Sanders statement shouldn't have been \"mostly true\", but he was citing research that looked at under employed youth. Trump was referring to everybody who doesn't have a job, which is not a good way to measure employment.",
"Funny thing is if people read this they'll learn that CNN does this a lot.\n\nSources say, a Person working for the brother of X has been known to say this. And BS like this. Just test it, pick out 5 random CNN articles and write down the name of all the sources, you'll learn that a lot of the sources are a revolving circle of she said he said.",
"please god i hope this infection of ignorance does not spread",
"It loses credit when it recommends biased sites to fact check with....",
"Except even places like politifact have a fair amount of slanted opinions.",
"Or they just say that this is leftist propaganda to discredit true journalists like Alex Jones. ",
"How about CNN interviewing their staff pretending to be random passers-by? Try this video, mate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV3KMCJO5Jc ",
"Fact check with Snopes, PolitiFact and Politico\n\nThose are all Fake News. My fucking sides.",
"I've asked those types of people what fact-checkers they use. I have never gotten an answer. \n\nMany straight up only get their information from 4chan posts, memes and infowars. ",
"I’m already imaging explains this to a tech-illiterate person. This card does a very good job. ",
"Yeah, but they have editors. When Trump brings up anonymous sources they really feel made up.",
"Tbh I just look at sources like PBS, BBC, or NHK as they are all publically funded and not trying to clickbait you",
">Same issue, its just the facts they cherry pick to say Bernie's statement was \"mostly true\" while using a different set of facts to rate Tumps statement \"mostly false\". \n\nExcept if you check the dates the comments were made a year apart.\n\nDid you ever think that the data would have changed, or different data would be available during that gap? Especially in something like unemployment which is hard to measure and changes significantly over the course of a year. ",
"This pamphlet is fake news",
"Hugely? Are they advocating for seizing the means of production in every article or something?\n\nEvery news source has a bias. That doesn't mean they don't deal in facts. ",
"Second floor. You can see the staircase in the image ",
"\"Does Trump call it fake news? Research it yourself to be 100% sure.\"",
"Politico and Politifact are very obviously biased.\n\nSnopes is *usually* great unless it is about financial stuff, in which case the couple that runs it have trouble with complex financial materials.\n\nFor finance, budget reporting, accounting, stock markets, etc.... it's best to hit up The Economist or WSJ.",
"I am ALL on the list today",
"too bad snipes has been proven as less than reputable. ",
"Yeah, but it's not very realistic that a person would stand on a counter in a library. I think the person is 16' tall.",
"You might want to take a closer look at their webpage. Every entry on Snopes has listed at the bottom of the page the name of the \"checker\" and their sources. They have more than one person to check things out.",
"They also dismiss Politifact, Politico, and Snopes.",
"What are you on about mate there are tons of old people at the library.\n\nEnjoying fiction does not preclude you from being an imbecile.",
"Not that the tips are bad, but the author of this lost credibility there. ",
"Be open-minded. Ask questions.\n\nI feel like if we all did this it would help tremendously whether or not you agree with the other suggestions. ",
"Snopes and Politifact are \"liberal propaganda\" in Far-Right la-la land. Anyone who starts shitting on them is probably a lost cause, the American Far-Right is a brainwashed cult.",
"Just because there is not a better source, does not mean the site doesn’t lean in one direction. I mean, if somehow, some way only Breitbart survives some mega news wars (ala Taco Bell winning the franchise wars of Demolition Man) would that make them suddenly more credible because there isn’t a better source available? Of course not. \n\nSame here. If a fact checking site leans in one direction (right or left) they are less credible. Facts are facts. Facts with a spin are opinion based on fact. ",
"Gracias!",
"Except the reputation of the writer and publisher are on the line. Anonymous sources are important.",
"daily caller is SUBSTANTIALLY more biased, nearly to the extremes of what bias can possibly be. Snopes is barely left of center, by comparison.",
"As we all know, reality has a liberal bias \n\nEdit: Christ guys, it was a comment a comedian made at Bush's Correspondent's dinner",
"*To be fair...*",
"Far right idiots decided Snopes had a liberal bias because it kept proving them wrong. That's what happened.\n\nAlso there are a lot of the same usernames in this thread in many many subthreads saying the same anti-snopes shit over and over again... A bit suspicious, no?",
"Politico and politifact are widely considered truthful and middle of the road, there are just certain groups that have tried to spin them as left leaning. Rather than take me word for it though go on there and try to find things that are demonstratably false. If you can find legit things I would be more than happy to change my mind.",
"Serious question: what’s the best (least biased) place to check stories?",
"Then check it on snopes, politico or other sources. \n\nWhy would you stick to only two? ",
"That and nobody is going thru that much effort, i stopped reading halfway",
"Pretty good advice, actually. Snopes has a well-deserved reputation as a non-partisan fact-checker.\n\nEDIT: Oh boy, did this bring out the trolls! It's not surprising, really. The far right in this country has been desperate to discredit Snopes since (at least) the 2008 election. So far they've failed. The most damning evidence they have come up with so far is that the people who run the site are (**GASP**) registered as Democrats. ",
"Can I look it up on Snopes?",
"Anonymous sources are nothing new. Often you have to keep a source anonymous in order to keep the source active. Watergate was exposed using anonymous sources.",
"So how exactly would someone write an article that would get you to acknowledge a racist police department that aims to ramp up violence against blacks due to intentionally hiring people who hate blacks? Or would that just be impossible? That scenario has happened many times across the United States across history.\n\nIf you immediately dismiss an entire story because two sides are saying something different it doesn't mean that both sides are necessarily lying to you, it could be one side only.\n\nIt's your duty to evaluate that information, but dismissing it as partisan bullshit because of a discrepancy is a horrible thing to do.\n\nThere is a multi-billion dollar industry in \"NO!\"-ing every single News story you can possibly think of, and trying to cater to controversy. By your logic you wouldn't be able to accept any news, because according to someone out there almost every issue happening in the entire world is fake.",
"Clearly they just use their superior mental fortitude to understand. That and their \"gut feeling\".",
"> There’s pretty much zero reason to be a democrat at this point.\n\nlol",
"He's not saying anonymous sources are inherently wrong, but they are more likely to be false. You should be looking for corroborating reports from different sources for any anonymous report.",
"Name-calling in politics (or anywhere, really) is juvenile. That's not an effective way to communicate. There are plenty of conservatives I strongly disagree with, but they're not \"Republican'ts\" or some silly shit like that. They're just conservatives I disagree with. (Also, aside from that, the *-tard* thing is passé. You shouldn't mock handicapped people.)",
"How many so-called journalists are just taking \"anonymous sources\" word for things instead of doing proper fact finding and critical thinking though? In today's news cycle an anonymous source becomes a free pass to say whatever you want.",
"Well wsj did report that pornstar Trump news despite being a subsidiary of Fox and owned by Murdoch. I found it hilarious when right wing subs were bashing their beloved Fox.",
"Can you show me something that is shown to be false, that is actually true and is only false to push a liberal narrative?\n\n",
"That one is a bad one. Many extremely reputable news sources deliberately don't publish an author's name on many/all of their articles - The Economist and the BBC being two examples.",
">However, this meme does not accurately depict a genuine quote from Bill Nye. It is a screenshot pulled from a fifth-season episode of Bill Nye The Science Guy, entitled “Genes.” The clip, which can be glimpsed starting at the 9:05 mark of the following video, shows Nye explaining how humans generally have 23 pairs of chromosomes:\n\n>>Our genes are stored in parts of our cells called chromosomes. They look like this. Chromosomes contain all of the genetic information, all of the instructions you need to make a person. Now humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46.\n\nAlso, science always strives to improve. 20 years ago can be a long time depending on the area of study. Pluto was a planet 20 years ago and the only thing that changed is the definition.",
"> To be fair Politico does have a hugely leftist bias.\n\nThat's impossible not to do these days. When both sides aren't equal there will be a bias.\n\nIt's like saying scientists are biased against flat Earthers. Well yeah...",
"Who gets to fact check the fact checkers?",
"The problem is the people who are trying to warn you about fake news are directing you to news checking sites like Snopes PolitiFact and Politico who are themselves fake news. In fact there hasn't been a single thing written in the history of the human race that included an adjective or a verb that doesn't have a bias. \n",
"Can you name what even handed fact checkers don't have a \"leftist bias?\" ",
"I assume you have a source for the garbage you’re spouting?",
"Are you fucking kidding me lol? Politifact's CEO/founder donated around 100k to Hillary Clinton and is the editor for Miami times or some shit who's owned by time warner who donated a cool million to Hillary's campaign. \n\n*rough estimates looked up last year when someone said Politifact isn't biased. Look it up.",
"They mean general \"fake news\" like internet legends not the \"fake news\" in everyday US politics.",
"Yup. Biased towards objective reality. And everybody knows reality has a liberal bias.",
"Well they aren't really wrong - reality has a pretty strong liberal bias.",
"\"Online filter bubbles\" they're talking about you, Google.",
"[Citation](https://i.redd.it/ucwfu27sp0f01.png)",
"Why are people so angry and offended about fact checking sites being included as a positive thing?\n\nThe times I’ve used those sites to fact check, they really helped and exposed fake stories.\n\nDon’t read and rely just on the rating, read the entire article and the points given.",
"Only to brainwashed far-right cultists like you.",
"Politifact has rated this mostly false.",
"What do they mean by odd URL suffixes? Do they mean top level domain? What is a URL substitution? ",
"See I’m sure there is quite a bit of sources, and my experience is very limited on that site. I’ve been there three times when someone links it, and those three times the page didn’t have a source. \n\nBut snopes isn’t to be trusted I think, there’s one editor, and she’s an ex prostitute and the founder was her pimp, it’s two people in a basement that run that website. There are plenty of more trusted neutral websites to get your info from. ",
"I think I found a new fetish.",
"It had me until it recommended Snopes, politico, and politifact.",
"> It's a very small minority that are doing that.\n\nTrump has like 90% Republican approval, so, no. It's a very large minority supporting that kind of thinking. ",
"I keep hearing from people claiming Snopes is unreliable, but I've yet to see a SINGLE example to back that up. Honestly, show me a single live page that you can prove is factually incorrect. Just one. ",
"Yeah man, use super biased fact checkers to fact check.\n\nThat one about filter bubbles. **Facebook.**",
"/r/saddestbackflip for a soccer take on it",
"Except facts are objectively true. You're saying to just choose whichever one you like better - which is exactly how fake news propagates.",
"Critical reading anyone?",
"Useful against DW, AlJazeera , Breitbart and CNn N likes ",
"I have never once read the Tampa Bay Times, so I'm good.",
"Another brainwashed far-right cultist spotted!",
"Critical thinking needs to be a mandatory subject in schools",
"I like Politifact but it is a bit liberal when it comes to almost anything subjective, IMO. I remember thinking that in the Romney/Obama election, in particular. They cherrypicked what to investigate and when it came time to rate statements as true, mostly true, half-true, mostly false, false, or pants-on-fire, they almost always gave more benefit of the doubt to Dems than Republicans.\n\n\nTrump says/tweets enough provably false statements that they don’t have to dig as much or stretch as far but it’s still a bit biased.\n\n\nI’m not apologizing for the Republican Party and I like polifact but I wouldn’t say that they’re completely neutral and unbiased.",
"Source?",
"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/\n\nDefinitely no bias here. None at all.",
"Fact check using one of these biased websites lol",
"Check snopes, politico, politifact.... hahahhahaha those guys are known to lie as long as 100% dem angel, 100% rep devil. They are on the liberal payroll and have not been truthful for a decade. ",
"Yes, take this made up straw-man to prove objective reality doesn't exist. \n\nEdit*",
"Yeah but if a few 9-12 year old kids pick these up and get the right ideas of healthy skepticism and critical thinking in their heads now, that will do them good a few years down the line. I feel like it's pretty obvious that these are targeted toward preteens, and I think it's a great idea.",
"This is what happens when you try to go to a \"right leaning\" fact checker",
"Reality has a leftist bias.",
"But it's Sunday.",
"Fact check with Snopes, Politico, and Politifact???!!! Hahahaha. They should have put on there figure out where these organizations get their money from.... ",
"Seems like a lot of reptards in here are butthurt about snopes telling the truth about things. When the President lies about nearly everything and a fact-checking site checks facts, it's going to appear to be \"left leaning\" to the suckers who buy into his horseshit.",
"$9.00 for 100 of them: [Fact or Fiction Bookmark | ALA Store](https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark)",
"No, no, you're definitely right. News outlets don't make mistakes. *They target the very fabric of our democracy.*\n\nAt least that's what the good people on Fox tell me. \n\nedit: Dropped my /s",
"Bless the local library. One of the great institutions in American life. Hug a librarian. They aren't shushers. They're protecting your privacy and your liberties. ",
"On the second floor. ",
"I keep seeing this question get asked with no answer. \n\n",
"This won't work with a lot of people. All three of those fact checking sites are decried as being purveyors of 'fake news' according to certain people.\n\nLike my cousin, for instance, who likes to say that 'snoops' is a far-left propoganda site.",
"Huh I never realized that. Just clicked around on their site a bit and I can't find a single name. Why do they do that?",
"Who the fuck has the time for all that? Even fucking journalists don't have that amount of time.",
"Look at Mr smarty pants with his shiny public education. In America this is not a thing.",
"I treat it like wikipedia (in a manner of speaking, not as equals) in that it's the start of research, not the end. Those sites break down claims into smaller, more easily individually researched bites",
"Tons of em in this thread, too.",
"Its good for science, history, technology, engineering. For politics its complete garbage.",
"Reading this to avoid a conversation about how you shouldn't get fluoride at the dentist.",
"The fact that people can be intelligent does not validate disingenuous reporting. ",
"I never thought people like you really existed. I thought it was just a rumor. Your post honestly makes me sad/worry that more people like you is a possibility. Smh ",
"Where do you go to check for bias, then?",
"I’d love to have that as a bookmark. ",
"They're on reddit, telling me that I'd have to be \"deluded\" to ever read \"Snopes, Politico, and Politifact.\" \n\n",
"Jesus who just blindly calls kids they have never seen in person or even heard talk autistic? You gotta be kidding me.",
"> Learn critical thinking\n\nSee...I'd like to just boil that up a bit, if you don't mind...for the sake of humanity. Yes, you are correct, of course. But \"Learn critical thinking\"....ok. Right. How? \n\nThe reason I ask is because I think it and have said the same thing....and then this 'elitist guilt creeps over me' - I'm not 'great' at critical thinking - I wish I was and sure, I'm better than some other people. But this correct and righteous call to Learn critical thinking...is great and all but, without knowing how to set about it, without decent, smart parents, basic skills and tools...and some guidance and practice and discussion and the path being lit with candles sometimes, it is very, very hard to get out of the darkness.\n\nI'd be really interested in some, non smug, answers.",
"Realistically, I think it's impossible to call any site truly unbiased anymore. The key is getting people to apply critical thinking to what they're reading so they can discern facts from opinions and hearsay. ",
"A lot of times journalists just get their stories from local news or wires, just go to those sources ",
"Right wingers just argue fact checking sites are fake news themselves ",
"And then there are people that don't trust politico",
"I'd consider them biased. They strategically omit information to push their narratives. ",
"Yeah, list me right there... ",
"The last one is difficult for a lot of people.",
"Did it come out of Trumps mouth?",
"Well not really because making up sources and printing completely fabricated information is a quick way to land yourself in court. \n\nIt's really not the pandemic it's made out to be. Anonymous sources are an important part of journalism. ",
"I'd like a single example of something they got wrong that stands uncorrected. PLEASE! Prove them wrong. I'll be right here waiting.....",
"Snopes has to be the most partisan website I've seen in recent years, unfortunately.\n\nEdit: So typical. Get downvotes for having a differing opinion and dismissed for having posted in T_D. \n\nFor those of you that aren't shills, this is not the way to open up a bipartisan discussion...",
"Actually all three sources to fact check are left leaning.",
"Agreed. After adjusting for facetiousness, the degree of needing an explanation is through the roof.",
"Lol hes on the second floor leaning over the railing.",
"If you think you are smarter than them, you are dumber than you think. We all have shit we eat willingly.",
"Yes. Have you ever been to snopes? Can you provide a &quot;fake news&quot; snopes link? Snopes is great because it provides multiple sources for any and every claim/assumption they make. At the worst, scopes gives the reader an immense amount of resources to 'dig deeper' and question as the leaflet states.",
"Don’t tell people on Reddit that",
"It's when the name calling and ad hominems start that you know all is lost",
"OH CAPTAIN MY CAPTAIN",
">This is 100% legit and you can totally Google this\n\n\n\nGonna use this in place of my reference page at the end of my next research paper ",
"Truth has a liberal bias. ",
"Yes because it's a reliable site with an excellent track record.",
"These leftlets you mean. ",
"\n>Despite snopes and politifact being unbiased\n\nlol\n\n>the republican worldview (read: delusional)\n\nThe lack of self awareness here is truly something. ",
"Let’s drop one at t_d... trigger galore",
"Leftist. They're already in this thread claiming as such. ",
"\"Be open minded\" isn't well followed by \"Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico and Politifact\"..",
"Politifact is comically biased. A republican and democrat can say the same thing and they'll give it a different result.",
"Politifact and Snopes will give evidence as to why they judge statements as true or false. I can see disagreement about how many Pinocchios something gets, but how can you disagree with plain evidence?",
"BREAKING: CNN undercover agents are 8 foot tall space aliens!",
"Are you talking about bill brasky? ",
"Maybe because you're too lazy to look up more than one source at a time? It's not the card that's the problem. It's you being unwilling to work for real answers. \n\nUnless you're being sarcastic, then my Apologies ",
"Source? ",
"Right, they're on r/politics commenting.",
"Snopes becomes of questionable reliability when they veer into politics. When it comes to right-wing claims, they're more willing to be harsher in labeling it a half-truth or falsehood and when it comes to left-wing claims, they're more willing to give falsehoods a rating of half-truth. They also don't necessarily provide the full picture about a claim, and if one part of the narrative is untrue/a partial-truth, they'll fixate on that part for their final grading.\n\n[Example.](https://www.snopes.com/birth-control-steve-bannon/) \nThis is something that should have been graded \"completely false\", as [the claim involved a woman saying that it was a direct quote from Bannon.](https://twitter.com/MariaTCardona/status/769172797176373248)",
"The problem is, people don't go to libraries any longer.",
"I think we both know the answer to that question.",
"We're getting closer and closer to all of them actually saying \"reality has a liberal bias\", but ignoring it anyway.",
"Mike McHargue, of podcasts Ask Science Mike and The Liturgists, made a [wonderful early-90s-sounding rap](https://youtu.be/m-PdOubKBDo?t=28) to help with just this issue!",
"What should they check with? Honest question. \n\nAlso, are there lots of snopes articles that are inherently untrue? They can have a \"bias\" and a \"left-leaning\" platform all they want, but all that matters if what the post is true and backed by evidence or not..",
"\"Fact check the story using sites like Snopes....\"\n\nThat's where you lost me. The sites they listed have a very heavy left bias.",
"Because if you have to resort to insults to make your argument you are probably pretty damn near retarded yourself. ",
"Snopes, Politico and Politifact are Fake News",
"The recent infiltration failure of the Washington Post by Project Veritas proved that these journalists are indeed doing proper journalistic work and fact-check their stories for months instead of just running with them without verification.\n\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.52a8a0bd77a6",
"The Pittsburgh Steelers suck at football, I read it in the Cincinnati Bengals gazette. ",
"How tall are you? ",
"Even if that is true, it would mean absolutely nothing when discussing whether Snopes is accurate or making shit up. Personal attacks because you don't like what a site says is a damn quick way of saying \"I don't actually have an argument\". ",
"You dismiss the sources, forever. I did.",
"Incredible how this isn't common sense.",
"Where can I print this?",
"When the fact checkers shown have been proven biased and false.",
"To be fair, they are left leaning only because they are branded \"left leaning\" by the alt right. \n\nAnd even if we say they are right leaning, there aren't any right leaning factcheck sites to begin with. ",
"Snopes and Politifact. You know... the other two that weren't even mentioned?",
"A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one. ",
"An anonymous news report does not identify the writer - there's no accountability. There is no good reason for a writer to be anonymous.\n\nAn anonymous source is someone known to the (publicly identified) writer, who's in a position with privileged information and can get in trouble for sharing that information. There are many many good reasons for sources to remain anonymous. ",
"where do you recommend going?",
"ITT: The Trump Cult screeching about the fact-checking sites.",
"also convenient for maintaining the ability to get exclusive information from people who don't feel like putting their careers at risk.",
"OP is a giant and is actually holding a 6ft floor display.",
"Only because reality has that bias.",
"what are some alternative fact checking sites that are accurate and have a right leaning bias? Not being snarky just legit curious. ",
"Why is that bad? It's good if people are checking if their news is true.",
"in my Civics class in the US last year we learned about common propaganda techniques that candidates use. And in English class we learned how to sift through clickbait and find worthy sources.",
"*CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo",
"Well, you've convinced me. Snopes is literally hitler. ",
"Everyone knows Libraries are Librul strongholds that turn our frogs gay.",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines",
"If you skipped anonymous news sources you’d have to ignore half of the news.",
"[Reference](https://xkcd.com/250/)\n\nJust in case anyone thought you were serious.",
">posts in T_D\n\nNo wonder you think this",
"Should be.. wont be though",
"A magic 8 ball.",
"What should be used?",
"https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/5/53/snopes.png\n",
"Is it?",
"Apples and oranges.",
"I use https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ for outlets. They've seemed reasonably fair and can give an idea what kind of slant to interpret the news through. I honestly don't know how their individual story reporting is, I only use them for outlets.",
"Yeah I'm going to need a source on that",
"When any news outlet was ever non biased? Do you have any historical example? I doubt it ever existed.",
"the people who this would help arent going to do any of this. old people are too ignorant to use the internet to fact check, younger people are too angry at our racist idiot of a president to fact check anything negative about him.",
"Those three sites use partial or even untruths all the time.",
"The problem with fact check sites like politico, snopes, and politifact is that its like watching a conversation about 5 people and only 2 people are ever mentioned.\n\nThey pretend only a very narrow reality exists to tell a narrative that sounds true but under further scrutiny falls apart.",
"And????",
"What do you mean?\n\nAlso, assuming they *are* liberal, who cares about their political opinions as long as their writing is factual? I don't care who they voted for or what their bias is as long as their fact-checking is accurate. That's all I care about from a fact-checking website.\n\nI don't avoid conservative or liberal news sources or fact-checkers. As long as their actual content is professional and accurate I'm happy.",
"They have citations for every article. Do you have a single example of something they've got wrong and didn't immediately correct? Put up or shut up.",
"Why not Drudge Report, Infowars and Breitbart? It's the other side of the coin.",
"Reality is left leaning. ",
"like the other guy commented, i am also super curious to see some examples of when they were unreliable. I don't use the site very often but anytime i have it has been a very good resource",
"\\> Name one example\n\nthey never do. Nor give an alternative.",
"Do you not trust any anonymous sources or just the ones that go against your narrative? Because articles from essentially all publications (both right and left-leaning) use them. \n\nE: Corrected Spelling",
"i said haha.",
"When has Snopes and Politifact ever been wrong...and not corrected themselves? \n\n",
"Just as an example, the last thing I searched on Snopes.\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/california-teacher-military-members/\n\nAll the sources are linked in the piece and you can explore them as you will.",
"Lol show me one instance. Go for it.",
"It was fine when it was created - it was about clickbait Macedonian websites that just served up nonsense on Facebook. It was perverted by Republicans to refer to any mainstream news they don't like.",
"Apparently facts are biased against you in that case.",
"Every single CEO is going to have political opinions and they are free to donate to the candidate or party they support. Show some evidence that the actual content of the site is biased and reporting information that is misleading.",
"> Skip anonymous news reports\n\nThat would put r/politics out of business.",
">This is 100% legit and you can totally Google this.\n\nI googled it. I don't see anything legitimate backing up your comment...\n\nDo you have a source?",
"You can have a bias and still deal in facts. ",
"What were we talking about?",
"Pretty pathetic we even need these things. If someones not doing this already, chances are they never will.",
"I have for years felt that critical thinking is the most important skill people can have and that it is vitally important for human progress and understanding.\n\nI don't think it'll ever catch on as much as it needs to though. Because once you have the skills and apply them appropriately, soon enough you find it invalidates religious beliefs and people have to start accepting things like the fact that there is no afterlife and those that they've loved and are gone, are gone for good.",
"\"This disagrees with what I want to believe\" is not the same as \"this is nonfactual\" or \"this is biased.\"\n\nSnopes is [consistently accused of bias](https://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp) from both liberals and conservatives, which - without ever digging any deeper - is a good way to tell that it is in fact unbiased in its analysis. If you do decide to dig deeper, you'll find that the fact checking Snopes does tends to stick up to scrutiny.\n\nIf Snopes wasn't doing its job as a fact checker, we'd know pretty easily because the articles it posts *wouldn't agree with actual facts*. So far no one in this thread has presented any evidence of such a thing, so if you'd like to do that, I'd like to take a look at it.",
"Infowars is accurate",
"I agree with your sentiment, but it's definitely liable to be abused. [Seymour Hersh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous_sources) comes to mind. He's a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, but he often receives criticism for his overuse of anonymous sources. Especially if it's a single journalist writing a book. It's not like he has a team of fact checkers, editors, bosses to review everything he claims.",
"Your library is open on a Sunday?",
"1. If I already believe/am primed to believe that \"vaccinations cause autism\" or \"Obama is a illegal immigrant\" this is unlikely to help in the slightest.\n2. Fake news sites are perfectly capable of getting normal looking URLs. Meanwhile lots of legit sites hang out on `.io` domains and so fourth that count as \"odd suffixes\".\n3. What does this even mean. I literally have no clue how to \"check the authors credentials\" whether I'm reading something on nytimes.com or brightbart.com (or whatever it's called).\n4. I mean... making sure the headline matches the content is good for filtering out *lazy/shitty/clickbait* news, not so much \"fake news\" (propaganda) though. Same with picture.\n5. The first not bad tip, good except (a) I usually can't be bothered, and (b) I'm sure I can find lots of sources claiming Obama is an illegal immigrant.\n6. Ah yes, the \"trust these random sites because we tell you to\" ploy... that sort of thinking is *exactly what leads to fake news*.\n7. Legitimate - but again we usually can't be bothered.\n8. Good advice - but 99% unrelated to fake news.\n9. Good advice - but 99% unrelated to fake news.\n\nI give this flyer a 3/10 for effort.",
"left leaning because they rely on facts ",
"They should also add: Check the date. Lots of headlines are topically released like, Republicans Just Axed Social Security Benefits! when the article was printed like 8 years ago. ",
"Also beware spiders.\n... And commenters derailing a derailment of the subject of the original comment.",
"There are no \"both sides\" to reality. ",
"Fake news is subjective. Even real news is subjective. The truth is subjective.\n\nFacts are the only real thing in this world. And only as long as they are not disseminated. Once you share a fact, the more its trustworthiness falls because you are not an impartial actor.\n\n \n\n",
"Are you serious, gtfo of here ",
"\"Seizing the means of production\" and bias are two totally different things. Literally whataboutism.",
"Funny - I've seen people say this but not a single one of them has backed it up. \n",
"Skip anonymous news sources. \n\nLol WaPo not gonna be happy about that",
"The stairs are just for everybody else to climb up to meet OP face to face.",
"They do, though. As in, badly biased. I used to be a fan of Snopes.\n\nAnd no, I don't need this card considering I'm centrist.",
"Those three sites outright lie to keep things fitting their bias, though.",
"Or, they're two to three stories tall",
"Snopes, Politico, and Politifact are left leaning and have a lot of bias. ",
"Sometimes, but not always. A lot of the times it's something like news source A says \"Trump said X!\" then news source B says \"Trump says X, but here's the context.\" So basically they say the same thing, but you have to un-spin it.",
">don't have a \"leftist bias?\"",
"\"skip anonymous news reports\"\nLiterally every other anti-Trump story has anonymous unverified sources ",
"You are just saying that because Trump came up with term. /s",
"I was with it until they said to fact check on Snopes. ",
"Politifact and snopes are leftist shills. Definitely NOT checking with them first.\n\nEdit: you people care way too much about my opinion. I clearly do not even consider yours.",
"Could do without the fact-checkers to be honest, these are often biased and take the term \"truth\" very broadly...",
"[just one article](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html) ",
"well there are stairs on the left of the image. i assume they are on a second floor.",
"oh my, that's funny. ",
">This whole notion that having a bias is something that discredits is absurd. It's basic skepticism and journalistic integrity that prevent that from affecting objective truth from being altered unreasonably by our biases. \n\nAll of the mentioned fact checking websites consistently allow their biases to affect their objective truth. Do you get the comment now?",
"Are you talking about the memo crafted by Republicans and written out by Nunes who was part of Trump's transition team and who openly admitted to not even reading the source material?\n\nOr are you talking about the Democrat memo which Trump didn't allow to be seen? \n\n>Libraries and leaflets aren’t the problem. Political loyalties to the point of absurdity is.\n\nUnironically says the guy from The_Donald, as sub that demands complete and total political loyalty. ",
"The problem with fact check sites like politico, snopes, and politifact is that its like watching a conversation about 5 people and only 2 people are ever mentioned.\n\nThey pretend only a very narrow reality exists to tell a narrative that sounds true but under further scrutiny falls apart.",
"As a standard rule, you can pretty much say that any article you find on Facebook is bullshit, especially when the name of the \"news\" source itself shows bias. ",
"Check leftist sites for validation? Ok",
"Most news is annonomous sources now",
"Is that why basic economics favors capitalism? Or why biology seems to lean to more conservative values rather than egalitarian?\n\nEDIT: I get it. Reality only leans left when you conveniently take out the leftist positions that don't align with reality. \"Oh, not *that* kind of leftism! The other kind!\" I live in the most left-leaning place in the country. Unless you do as well, you're not qualified to tell me what is true and not true.",
"Just as the left has been screaming muh russia for a year.....\n\nOr the left has been the most vocal about fake news and the reason they lost? You clearly have no fucking clue. \nThe right has been going after BIASED news....... ",
"A pimp can't also be a fair judge of the accuracy and truthfulness of content? ",
"That's a bit of an overreaction, don't you think?",
"Fake news: News which doesn't tell the truth.\n\nFixed your definition.",
"Oh hey, my school gave me these as bookmarks, neat.",
"DIG DEEPER\n\nEasiest one on the list, but most often ignored. Some people refuse now because they think it's a political thing. Its everything and it's been going on forever. Dig at least one more source deeper on diet, news, local crime, celeb gossip, world events, science news, history, and the list goes on and on. And provide the deeper the better!\n\nAt the very least - **Don't let the person opposite you, whoever they are, make you a damn sucker**",
"I keep an open mind, and ask my pastor what I should think. ",
"And this is exactly why the left will continue to lose elections.",
"Name one unbiased source then",
"Appropriate username",
"> Fact check with Snopes, Politico, and Politifact.\n\nBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA",
">Looks through other peoples comment history to belittle their personal opinion as though their opinion of partisan vs non-partisan hinges entirely on their political affiliation.\n\nAlso\n\n>Thinks that the fact that someone has a certain political opinion means that they should be attacked for said political opinion, and that the fact they voted one way or another means their opinions are more or less valid.",
"Even if Obama was a secret Muslim (lol), why did/do people (and FoxNews) care? ",
"Ah.",
"Example please",
"How about, FOX: Does it start with FOX?",
"They are talking about links to fake sites that are named to sound like a real news site, but are not. EG www.LondonTimesNews.cz, where the real site might be www.London-Times.uk. You might not realize it was not the real news site if you were not familiar, and didn't double check.",
"WSJ... right leaning.. wat.",
">fact check with snopes and politico and politifact\n\n>beware online bubbles\n\nfucking lol",
"I hear this argument a lot but my response is, \"Then why have the meter anyways if your articles can better explain?\".",
"CNN posts articles like the one in the screenshot below that \"might\" be true, but literally no one they cite will publicly stand behind what they have supposedly said. If you hate Trump, then you're perfectly willing to take CNN's word for it. If you believe CNN has a vendetta against Trump, then you might be more leery:\n\nhttps://i.redd.it/ucwfu27sp0f01.png",
"The person is in an ancient building. In the 20th century we called them \"book stores\" . They were often large and built with ancient materials such as \"brick\" and \"mortar\"",
"Source?\n\nUnder the same logic whatever approval Obama had were democrats that loved the fuck out of bombing other countries? Is that correct?\n\nApproval by no means correlates to extreme belief. ",
"If there were a right-wing source for real fact-checking, that'd be great. ",
"Mmmm I don’t know.... I’m gonna have to compare your claim to that of competing sources.",
"Yeah, cause snopes, politico and politifacts are always right. (Sarc) If snopes says it green it's probably orange.",
"> Apples and oranges.\n\nAh yes, the second most common answer after \"Correlation does not equal causation\" when you can't explain your point so you pull out a popular one liner instead.\n\nYou're an NFL fan. Someone could tell you there's a correlation between playing in the NFL and concussions. Obviously you can't defend this so your comeback is \"correlation does not equal causation\" and you can smugly walk away as if you're the victor.",
"number 6 is iffy but the rest are good",
"I'd be genuinely interested in seeing some examples of this.\n\nedit: Shockingly, I am unconvinced.",
"WAR IS PEACE\n\nFREEDOM IS SLAVERY\n\nIGNORANCE IS STRENGTH\n\n--snopes.com",
"I thought someone had hacked into my account. Whew! ",
"the comment if \"love\" from facebook and the like, is the \"fact checking sites have a liberal bias\"... .... ...ummm",
"No, it's just that those \"fact-check\" sites are being portrayed as non partisan when they're really not. I'm all for the average person to do more research but you shouldn't put biased sites on there, then.",
"Skip anonymous news reports. Whelp, there go the MSM \"sources.\" ",
"ohhh snap I see what you did there calling trump supporters maggots! that's how you unite a country amirite! ",
"One guy says \"2 + 2 = 4\". A different guy says \"2 + 2 = 5\". They both call each other idiots. Clearly they're both the same and are both wrong /s",
"Why can't we compare fruit?",
"Good advice for all people doesn't matter what political side you are on. ",
"Bill Brasky...is...a son of a Bitch!",
"Looks like I will be using this on my next research paper too ",
"give examples",
"I hear you. Most “clever” name calling is just a prelude to an internet food fight, for better or for worse. Always for worse. Anyway, back to browsing. ",
"Or maybe people in general saw their bias. They cherry pick depending on the issue and who said it. \n\nJust because I don’t like a new source that you do doesn’t make me a far right idiot. ",
"Learned that in kindergarten",
"But if one side is telling you \"This guy was an angel and some cop just hated him for being black\" and the other goes \"He was a meth dealer and tried to assault women\", why is your instinct to dismiss both sources?\n\nLike why aren't you accepting the possibility that only one of those parties is lying? By dismissing both sides you essentially throw the story in the garbage as unsolvable and ignore it, meaning if only one side was lying, you just let them mentally manipulate you by getting you to throw your hands up in the air and go \"I don't know!\"\n\nIt's basically your duty against those who would seek to control you to be informed when you see a duality like that in the news.",
"Probably when it contradicts an article in the Conservative Wikipedia.",
">Skip anonymous news reports\n\nHow about anonymous sources. at least taking them with a grain of salt?",
"fake news shouldn’t exist, but sadly, it does ",
"Did you try and greentext on Reddit? All those sites you listed have excellent fact checking.",
"As are facts. ",
"Lol ok then.\n\nAll I'm saying they could have used the same line about using other sources without listing them. As others have said, mentioning those sites makes them lose credibility.",
"Snopes actually does, nowadays. It's unfortunate because it was my go-to.",
"> Dont believe everything you read\n\n\n\"Got it.\" *throws in trash* ",
"could be alot shorter for reddits sake.\n\ndoes it have a right wing viewpoint? fake news",
"Please explain.",
"https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/\n\nNot all",
"I don't know if society is really worse off if an old couple are emailing out that you swallow 20 spiders in your sleep or that Mr. Rogers fought in Vietnam",
"There's a lot of debate in this thread, but I think we can all agree on this.\n\n_Auto-playing videos are the worst._",
">Just because they say things you don’t like doesn’t make them fake.\n\nno them being hilariously biased and outright lying makes them fake",
"Oddly enough, the front page of reddit is entirely fake news now. Completely censored and controlled. The mainstream media is a dead joke, and reddit only puts forward the worst of it. Complete mind control at this point.",
"No shit. Nothing in this world is a perfect system. I can find counter examples for anything that you think is great. When a paper has been around for a 100 years a few mistakes are bound to happen. Everyone in this thread mocking anonymous sources don’t know what they’re talking about. Claiming anonymous sources are lies is fake news in itself. ",
"Paul Bunyan Confirmed",
"That filter bubble is a big one. We can pick our own echo chambers but also the echo chambers can be pushed at us before we even realize it. ",
"The people who would use something like this aren't really the ones who need it, and the ones who need it would never actually use it ",
"...what sources are you oging to that arent biased? would ***really*** love to know.",
"If that card said go to breitbart and other rightwing news sites you'd see others saying the same things about Democrat cultists.",
"For genetics.... not that great. \n\nIt's all baseline stuff, but it doesn't take to much effort to get into some deep weeds.",
"Absolutely! ",
"Thanks for providing an example, which most people haven't. At first glance, I took your example as a pretty fair data point in support of your argument, but on looking closer I think you are missing something important. In both cases, politifact defaulted to official dept of labor stats to say that the campaigns were wrong. \n\nAnd in both cases they asked the campaigns for clarification. In Sanders' case, when they asked the campaign they provided a separate study that they were referring to which focused on underemployment, not unemployment. So the Sanders claim was true in the way they said they meant it, but still not entirely right in terms of unemployment. For the Trump campaign, they just refused to provide a source or explanation, so Politifact was left with only their default source for unemployment: the official stats. If the Trump campaign had been willing/able to back up their claims with data or explain that he didn't mean unemployment but some other measure like underemployment, there would have been a different result. So I don't think this is evidence of bias as much as it is evidence of the campaigns having different approaches to answering questions.",
"> there’s one editor, and she’s an ex prostitute and the founder was her pimp, it’s two people in a basement that run that website. \n\nThat fucking escalated. ",
"no shit all these sites have been bought and paid for by the DNC including reddit",
"Whew good thing snopes and politifact aren't biased ",
"Also i I'm calling op fake unless he proves his library is open on Sunday",
"Says someone who probably believes every ‘source says’ article about trump ",
"/r/kenm",
"I think this proves the filter bubbles we live in. \n\nPeople who only visit r/T_D are aware of all the times politifact shows bias, and people who only visit r/politics are aware of all the times politifact records good fact checks. ",
"It is interesting that you say to use multiple sources when that is exactly what reporters do.Because first hand account aren’t always the best. Two people often see the same crime and have different stories.\n\nSo you may think know exactly what happened but you didn’t see the whole thing. ",
"It depends on the fact. Calling illegal aliens \"undocumented immigrants\" is not based on fact and would not fly in any other western country. Same thing with the pseudoscience which pretends there are 71 genders.",
"By replying you're now on the same list.",
"I thought this was all solid advice right up until\n\n>Fact check stories with sites like snopes, politico, and politifact.\n\nThose are all well known to have bias bordering on propaganda, especially snopes. ",
"Errr... Right. Sorry for not immediately bowing my head to the \"gospel\" that is democratic propaganda. This is the Reddit echo chamber after all.",
"Snopes and politifact. LOL ",
"They don't actually read the article.",
"No, that'd be equally terrible. ",
"I just read the CNN article and the Fox News article on the same topic, anything that both of them agree on is probably the truth",
"hey, hey, hey.. ... 9 out of 10 manifestos were photocopied on library copier for distribution. From both sides of the aisle.",
"Sure, but they cite their sources easily and are clear in their facts and obvious in their opinions.",
"“Damn libruls brain washing our kids” would be the reaction. ",
"Did I ever tell you about the time Brasky took me out to go get a drink with him? We go off looking for a bar and we can’t find one. Finally, Brasky takes me into a vacant lot and says, \"Here we are.\" Well, we sat there for a year and a half. Sure enough, someone constructed a bar around us. Well, the day they opened it, we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burnt the place to the ground. Brasky yelled over the roar of the flames, \"Always leave things the way you found them!\"",
"TIL facts can change!",
"Apples are more red than oranges.\n\nQUIT COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES!",
"hahahhahaha oh wait your serious let me laugh even harder \n\nHAHAHAHA",
"Fake news and concussions in the NFL are apples and oranges tho.\n\n/S",
"Forgot to add is it from CNN?",
"\\*singing\\* The internet is for porn.",
"16' you say? Hmm, I need to fact check this with Snopes, brb..",
"But kids are, who are almost more important to inform about the signs of propaganda and misinformation ",
"Many people do. Ask a conservative what fact checkers they don't think are left leaning and you won't get an answer. ",
"They aren't \"likely to be false\". You claiming that they are despite a lack of evidence is you literally inventing a lie to say anonymous sources are inherently bad. You're the exact same as the other guy.",
"By appealing to logic and scientific process rather than authority, you're already left leaning.",
"...all being owned by the DNC? yeah i cant imagine how thats a logical thing to want to bring up",
"So I went to snopes.com, clicked \"Top 50\" and selected the first link:\nhttps://www.snopes.com/america-first-ku-klux-klan-slogan/\n\nAt the bottom of the article, next to the byline for Fact Checker (David Emery*) and publication date, is a link to Sources. This expands to\n\n>Beckwith, Ryan Teague. “Read Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ Foreign Policy Speech.”\n> Time. 27 April 2016.\n> Blake, Aaron. “Trump’s Full Inauguration Speech Transcript, Annotated.”\n> The Washington Post. 20 January 2017.\n>Bump, Philip. “Here’s What Donald Trump Said in His Big Immigration Speech, Annotated.”\n> The Washington Post. 31 August 2016.\n>Grinolds, Dick. “More on the Invisible Empire Tokens.”\n> E-Sylum. 11 June 2017.\n>Nelson, Libby. “America First”: Donald Trump’s Slogan Has a Deeply Bigoted Backstory.”\n> Vox. 1 September 2016.\n>Rauchway, Eric. “President Trump’s ‘America First’ Slogan Was Popularized by Nazi Sympathizers.”\n> The Washington Post. 20 January 2017.\n>Albany Evening Herald. “Mysterious Ku Klux Klan Organizing Quietly.”\n> 15 August 1921.\n>Anti-Defamation League. “ADL Urges Donald Trump to Reconsider ‘America First’ in Foreign Policy Approach.”\n> 28 April 2016.\n>Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin. “Near Riot Ensues in Chase After Citizen Who Upholds Klan.”\n> 28 August 1923.\n>Getty Images. “Ku Klux Klan ‘American First Parade.”\n Accessed 9 February 2018.\n>U.S. Government Printing Office. “The Ku Klux Klan: Hearings Before the Committee on Rules, House of Representatives.”\n> 1921.\n\n\nPerhaps you just never looked for sources?\n\n*Is Emery the pimp or his wife?",
"anyone who uses a website to fact check doesnt deserve the facts in the first place\n\n",
"The Economist is a notable exception to the anonymous author's point.",
"Bias does not make something false.",
"Everyone smarter than me is a troll!\nEveryone that voted for the other side is a nazi racist!\nWhy cant the left just take a fucking loss..... instead of devolving into illiterate morons. ",
"How do I get one? There are plenty of people who could use this.",
"It's very good for political history and some facts of modern politics, but it's not a news site and has never claimed to be. ",
"Mediabiasfactcheck is a good website that will tell you which news sources lean left, right, or unbiased. Here is a link to their methodology to making a determination on biases:\n https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/",
"Love it. Damn Entrepreneurs. ",
"Did I ever tell you about the time I went horseback riding with Brasky, but there weren’t any horses around? Well, Brasky throws a saddle on my back and rides me around Wyoming for three days. Well, wouldn’t you know it, my stamina increases with each day and I develop tremendous leg muscles. So anyway, Brasky decides to enter me in the Breeders’ Cup, right, under the name Turkish Delight. And I’m running in second place, and I’m running and I break my ankle! They’re about to shoot me. Then someone from the crowd yells out, God bless him, ‘Don’t shoot him, he’s a human.'",
"Also, if the source is \"Anonymous US official\" speaking about how the US military is innocent in an attack that killed civilians, it's also horseshit.",
"Belief in fake news applies to people of all beliefs, cultures, nationalities and political leanings. People are stupid...",
"Those were probably chosen because they're the largest fact-checking sites. What alternatives would you suggest?",
"Wouldn’t it be nice if these people would just go away? ",
"This may shocked you... But you're supposed to read the article. \nI read that article and I see the inconsistency... But I READ them, and recognize that. \n\nYou're supposed to read all articles that make claims about the world. To dismiss a source as \"liberally bias\" is just to say \"i don't like that it disagrees with me and I have no interest in applying critical thought.\" ",
"We can! And that's exactly what we just did!",
"That's why I've stopped caring about politics and just play Subnautica instead.",
"All three of those sites are pretty hard left leaning. \n\nUnfortunately I haven’t found any centrist checkers. Have you guys?",
"CNN *reporting* is usually very solid. CNN editorials or opinion pieces, fluff pieces, stuff like that is as flimsy as any news sources op-ed stuff. \n\nGotta take the time to see if it’s an opinion piece or if it’s factual reporting. Their tv shows are pretty bad but their internet articles say right at the top if they’re reporting or if they’re publishing an opinion. ",
"This guy is prime example on why you should read beyond headlines.",
"This made me think of how Trump supporters only support LGBT rights when it fits their agenda, like say if an immigrant killed a gay person, they would be all over that news. Apart from those instances, they hate them.",
"Honest answer? There really isn't one or at least any I know of. I know it sucks but the best bet is to research any given topic on more than one search engine.",
"That's true though. Looks like you too are a victim of fake news",
"I guess the implication here is that this person, someone who worked with Don Lemon as a cameraman, was a plant? If that were the case, why would he point it out? It's either a coincidence or the absolute worst attempt at conning the audience. \n\nYou don't tell somebody you lied to them immediately after lying. All he had to do was not say anything and the *illusion* would've been complete. I don't think it slipped his mind that he was purposefully deceiving the audience and then he accidentally told the truth.",
"I'm getting sick of people blasting these sites as being \"biased\" without offering a shred of reasoning. Why, because they said something you didn't like once? Provide reasoning or gtfo ",
"Also convenient for getting important information out without risking your wellbeing.",
">more likely\n\nGot some data to back that up?",
"There's a comment on here with a few ",
">For example, weigh CNN against Breitbart, and decide which one is more likely.\n\nIf you consider Breitbart a good source for fact-checking, you're already too far gone. ",
"All three of them carry a left favoring bias. \n\n\nSo when someone on the left makes a claim rooted in approximations for illegal immigration, it's misleading but when Trump directly quotes....who, the former Mexican ambassador to the US? Well, his pants are on fire. \n\n\nAnd that's basically how it's going to be cut every time. If you don't bend over backwards to be fair to everyone you're going to get slammed by some people for not being fair. ",
"Snopes being on that list is suspect. They were compromised when it was learned they were in bed with the Clintons. Snopes...please.",
"Except Snopes, Politico and Politifact are fake news. \n\nPolitifact, for example will have Bernie and Trump quote the same statistic. Trump will get \"Mostly False\" and Bernie will get \"Mostly True\"\n\nGo ahead and ask me to cite my claims.",
"Media litteracy was part of English class for me in 7th grade, litterally had us go on credible looking sources clamming aspertain causes cancer and we had to figure out if the source was creadable disect the article, research the author to find out she was a marketing exprot for the sugar industry. Ect.\n\nThat class has had more of a real world application then anything else I learned in school. \n\nOn a side note some of the kids didn't learn anything from that class and left it thinking and spreading that diet coke causes cancer because it contained aspertain.",
"Not from the US so IDGAF but even in the leaflet it says to beware of bubbles and echo chambers, come on man. No one owns the truth.",
"Because asking yourself which major media is good and which is bad is equivalent to telling yourself McDonald's is bad but Burger King is good when I'm trying to tell you they're both fast food. American mainstream media relies entirely on sensationalism now and certain subjects are avoided because certain industries whom advertise with these outlets don't want their boat rocked.",
"Thing is people that need to see this will now see it.",
"In a post about journalistic integrity and truthfulness, you shouldn't be so divisive with your words by calling people cultists. It's just not necessary. \n\nEdit: you wouldn't think a comment asking for civility would have so many people being nasty to each other replying to it, but here it is.",
"Not really, that's just how anonymous sources have been politicized by the people that those sources affect. If a factual story is damaging to a powerful person or organization, of course they're going to try and discredit it in any way possible, and trying to discredit the sources is a common tactic. \n\nWithout anonymous sources we'd know a lot less about the world. Protecting the identity and safety of sources is crucial in creating reliable networks of information. Journalists and sources involved in impactful stories are assassinated around the world more often than most people realize. ***There's a lot more Deep Throats than Snowdens in the world because ultimately people value their livelihood.***\n\nDo some outlets abuse this or get inaccurate information from their sources on occasion? Of course. But named sources have spouted false info in plenty of instances as well, and reputable agencies and outlets are concerned about their integrity and reputation first and foremost. \n\nChoosing an outlet that has a reputable editorial track record is FAR more important than whether or not they name their sources. ",
"> Fact check with sites like Snopes, Politico and Politifact\n\n#My fucking sides kekekekekekekekekekekek",
"Snopes has been known to leave out facts that hurt left wing agendas. I can't source you right now, sorry, at work. I'm not saying they lie but they do leave stuff off.",
"MVP, totally forgot about this",
"*Objective Completed*",
"GOOD point",
"what do you know? maybe is a teeny-tiny library.",
"When you call actual fact based websites \"democratic propaganda\" and turn to websites operated by Macedonian teenagers as your \"gospel\" maybe you should look to yourself for the problem.",
">Check Snopes\n\nAhahahahaha",
"NPR and CNN did a study and found that 79% of people only read the headlines. That's why news outlets get away with their sensational headlines that often don't correlate with the bread and butter of the article (NPR and CNN do this too).",
"Snopes, Politico, and PolitiFact are not biased and only have reliable information. \n-People who watch fake news. ",
"> Despite snopes and politifact being unbiased\n\nlol",
"Hey if your phone rings at the office and the caller ID says \"White House\" what are you supposed to do? Some things just get handed to you.",
"Political posts articles from both liberal and conservative sources.",
"For everyone who didn't read them, Trump and Sanders stated different numbers. The Sanders campaign gave a source, which looked at the U-6 rate, which Sanders called \"the real unemployment rate\". The Trump campaign did not respond, the only number that could have been the one he was using includes full time students, and he simply called it the \"unemployment rate\". And the statements were rated \"Mostly True\" and \"Mostly False\", respectively, which are not extremes.",
"They don't actually care about facts.",
"Public school is a reliable place to learn critical thinking, logic and reasoning...\n\nLOL JK",
"There's nothing partisan about fake news. It's prominent on both sides.",
"A bot literally needs to automatically post this on any news related topic on Reddit...",
"Conservatives like Trump claim vaccines cause autism, climate change is a Chinese hoax, asbestos is perfectly safe, over 80% of whites are killed by blacks and a whole slew of other things that can be factually refuted.\n\nFactually refuting those things often gets you labeled as a liberal, though. ",
"> Blindly accusing people of being autistic, especially having spent no time with them, is no better than accusing vaccines of causing autism with absolutely no proof.\n \nBoth are bad, I'd argue that preventing people from getting vaccinated is worse.",
"“I dont believe cnn but i believe imgur screenshots” \n\nLoool",
"Context matters, ffs.",
"It's too late. The rumor will be posted as gospel within the hour.",
"That comment didn't have anything partisan in it. People on both sides are believing fake news and neither of those people are spending too much time at the library. You're partisan for assuming they were talking about one side or another",
"You post in the_donald , your a lost case anyway.",
"This is about inoculation. Sadly, inoculation will be interpreted as \"indoctrination\" by those who simply prefer dogmatic authority over reason.",
"Exactly, this guy's acting like both sides are equally false or something. One panders to racists and the other... Humanizes the murder victim?????????? Yeah, both are totally fake news....",
"Facts are more often than not, broadcast as facts, what media companies do is manipulate the facts to push an agenda, a good example of this was the Oxford University study which falsely claimed that Trump supporters share fake news more often. This was taken as gospel by the anti-Trump media, without being fully checked out. \n\nHere's a source if any of the people downvoting me want to learn something: https://youtu.be/F_wOzRw76Qs\n",
"Are you seriously suggesting that the unemployment rate *doesn't* change over time? ",
"Exactly...politifact will be able to tell you that no, in fact, those are not considered liberal propaganda. More people need to realize that \"leaning\" doesn't mean making up stuff. I'd trust WSJ over shareblue.com because it doesn't try to use fearmongering tactics or hyperbole to accomplish its goals",
"CARPE DIEM!",
"it literally is. this is how reddit decides what is fake news and what isnt.\n\nblacks being responsible for 50% of the nations homicides and robberies despite being 10% of the population is fake news\n\nis that a fact?",
"His on the second floor by the look of stairs at the bottom.",
"Got any examples?",
"What?",
"Oh no! Maybe the flier is fake news too? Seriously though there's no such thing as an unbiased source. That doesn't mean they don't use facts.",
"Why don't you like Snopes. Do you not like fact checking?",
"You have to go through all that effort just in order to check if what you read is actually true or not.. What a sad world this has become..",
"Source of bookmark: [American Library Association](https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark)",
"what's wrong with snopes?",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpvyOMG2aKg\n\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-beYBLrkNAg\n\n",
"Wow idk why but one of those realllllly old insanity wolf memes comes to mind",
"Yes - in OP's mighty hand, that massive poster looks as small as a bookmark.",
"Or they're trying to garner sympathy for someone who may have been threatening or dangerous and put the police officer in a situation where they had to make a very difficult decision. \n\nOf course for is worse, but it's not all black and white. ",
"It's interesting how [the term \"fake news\" wasn't really on anyones radar until ~November 2016](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=%22fake%20news%22).",
"Exactly what a 20 ft person would say...🤔\n",
"ironically using the \"Only xxx belives xxx\" argument is a logical fallacy called the \"Either/or\" fallacy",
"Take note, Republicans.",
"That's satire. They're making jokes, not trying to misinform people. If Alex Jones was comedy, Infowars would be hilarious.",
"He said nothing that would lead the reader to believe that fake news believers subscribe to any particular affiliation. ",
"Name one information source ever that has been 100% objective and truthful in all known history. There isn't one.",
"I’m not sure that the people who believe and share fake news on social media can be helped, even with an explicit guide... ",
"its because theres so many egregious examples that anyone even *remotely* informed already knows and gets the joke\n\nTRUMP IS LYING HILLARY DIDNT ACTUALLY POUR BLEACH ON HER SERVER ",
">his number one girl\n\nI believe that's called his \"bottom bitch\". ",
"Fake news need not be partisan but certainly has been in recent times, mostly because susceptibility to fake news has also been demonstrably partisan.",
"Would be more like fisting at that point. Or bodying...",
"No. Anonymous reports are not the same as anonymous sources.",
"Notice the staircase in the top left. Clearly on the 2nd floor looking over a railing. ",
"Because you're uneducated and vote against your self interest? Please, go on. Every single one of your comments are cancer.\n\nJust shut up, turn your Blackberry off, and go read the Bible.",
"That is actually a wall poster OP is holding.",
"TO BILL BRASKY! ",
"> People on both ends of the political spectrum enjoy going to the library\n\nWow :) So /r/wholesome\n\nI really love when Reddit finds the little things th-\n\n>and surfing the internet for porn.\n\n...aight fuck this I'm out...",
"NO. For fuck's sake. NO ONE IS UNBIASED. What they are is a good source of fucking TRUTH. They link to first-hand reporting and other primary sources to assess whether something actually happened.\n\nBias does NOT invalidate a true statement! I'm a liberal lefty (ish), but my saying the sun rose this morning does NOT invalidate that FACT.\n\nTrump's inauguration was not the largest in history. That is a fucking fact. \"I never had sex with that woman\" was a lie - another fact!\n\nBias comes into play in interpretation, opinion, and selective reporting. Analysis and evaluation. In those arenas, bias in a source can limit your understanding of an idea, policy or event. That's where you need to go look at multiple sources and weigh their arguments.\n\nBut for basic facts, Snopes & Politifact are damn good. Perfect? No! But a damn sight better than reading a Facebook post you agree with and just believing away. Which is what we're trying to fight here.\n\nInterpret the facts how you want. Weigh different options in the way that works best for you. But *what actually happened* matters too, and I don't know of better sources than the 3 you're complaining about for checking on that.",
"Well anonymous sources pretty much cuts out every major news paper. ",
"r/nottheonion",
"> this is not the way to open up a bipartisan discussion...\n\nThis isn't about being bipartisan, it's about finding the facts and combating falsehoods. If your \"side\" is finding that a bit biased, perhaps rethink your side. ",
"They're standing on the second level of the library, you bunch of ninnies. If he were as tall as this image suggests, he'd have outgrown even Robert P. Wadlow.",
"If someone was saying that a website was heavily right wing and also posted on socialist and communist subreddits, I'd question their opinions too.",
"Holy shit, *that's a huge bitch* ",
"And he has repeated that sentiment. He even talked about it in a debate.\n\nHe was even allegedly working on creating a commission on vaccine safety. \n\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-meet-with-proponent-of-debunked-tie-between-vaccines-and-autism/2017/01/10/4a5d03c0-d752-11e6-9f9f-5cdb4b7f8dd7_story.html",
"Lol you guys LOVE people out this once case... How many hundreds of other claims have they verified? \n\nTo your one... Hmm maybe the one with the bias is you. \n\nThe site is fallible. So is everyone. ",
"If only people could be counted on the verify the news stories, but alas, they expect everyone to do everything for them.",
"\"Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact\"\n\nSo who fact checks these sites who have already been caught sharing their own fake news?",
"Correct. They watch, they don't read. \n\nWatching is passive.\n\nReading is active.",
"Too bad you didn't get this pamphlet before you started believing lies.",
"Why because Trump said so? They aren't the ones acting as a literal propaganda machine for the White House. ",
"Pet peeve of mine that you can't say stuff online and not readily have evidence. Like this is a forum it's not my job\n\nEdit it's not like I'm saying things that are unfounded I just don't favorite things that aren't relevant to my job. I check sources for what I'm reading and try to be accurate but I don't have the article from 6 years ago about Sudanese refugees off hand",
"LOL Snopes, Politico, and Politifact. This leaflet should immediately be thrown in the garbage.",
"As a person who uses the word \"shills\" in everyday conversation. I doubt you'd even believe a fact if it hit you in the face.",
"Did you even read those? Bernie said 51% and had a source for his claim though he worded it poorly, Trump said 59% and had no source for his claim. Nice try though.",
"See, everyone! You just have to be a professional journalist with years of experience and several hours of time to spare and no biases!",
"the problem is the divide of how easy it is to just accept fake news vs how much harder comparatively it is to stay well informed. just simply showing how to stay informed is not enough anymore. the scenario must be flipped where the truth must be easier to come to than lies and deceit. until then it will always be a struggle. and fake news will always have that advantage.",
"He did 3 tours in ‘Nam…… I was in Corpus Christi on business a month ago. I had this eight foot tall Asian waiter, which made me curious. I asked him his name. Sure enough it was Ho Tran Brasky!",
"It means your examples are oversimplified",
"it was ok when it was urban legends and non important bullshit but the people who run it are ideologically motivated and should stay far away from politics",
"cite your claims",
"That's because of the whole \"reality has a liberal bias\" thing. When one side clearly lies more than the other they will get called on more of their bullshit ",
"[If your sources are hyperpartisan right, even neutral sources will seem biased from your perspective.](http://i.imgur.com/ocPD49o.jpg)\n",
"lol ",
"Exhibit A",
"Can you tell us what fact checkers you prefer? ",
"\"Be open minded\". Well thats what a flat-earther tells you too.\nWhat i wanna say here is that following these instructions, the people now believing in for example a flat earth will believe in it afterwards too. The problem isnt their method (at least not for all) but the way they handle the things they read or come across. Its a psychological problem in most cases or just lack of intelligence that prevents ppl from recognizing fake news. ",
"And yet the Democrats still persist",
"He is obviously wildling giant Wun Wun from Game of Thrones. ",
"Wait, snoops is politically biased? Examples please.",
"The rule is that if a headline has a question mark, the answer is usually no.\n\nIs this the cure for cancer?\n\nAre terrorist in your neighborhood?\n\nIs Bigfoot real?",
"I assume your question is rhetorical and you already know why. But just to answer: Most People don't watch news to learn information, they watch news to get confirmation of what they already believe. Nothing makes them feel more warm inside than to have someone in a tie and jacket tell them that Obama isn't really an American/Christian.",
"***FAKE NEWS***",
"> Sorry for not immediately bowing my head to the \"gospel\" that is democratic propaganda.\n\nThe irony here... you've been brainwashed into spouting this line. 100% of people like you cry about the media or propaganda, because that's what you're told to say.\n\nAnd once again you used a fun one liner instead of actually providing a counter argument.\n\nYou can't actually think. You can only repeat the things you've been told to repeat.",
"\"Does the headline sound realistic?\"\n\nFuck you! I'll believe in the power of red wine, chocolate, and French fries to cure every illness until my dying breath next Friday! ",
"My Trumper uncle already cast Snopes to the ashbin of fake news before the election. So he would just think this library is liberal junk and start gaslighting colleges.",
"Idk about you, but in either middle school or elementary school, librarians at my school taught us about evaluating sources, and that was over a decade ago. School curriculums are extremely varied across America ",
"Politifact isn't as blatantly biased as Politico but there's definitely some left-leaning bias in the way it reports statements from Republicans vs Democrats and in the actual statements it chooses to fact-check.\n\nNo clue about Snopes, never used it.",
"Sanders misstated - he should have said \"labor underutilisation\" instead of \"unemployment\". But both are accepted and tracked metrics.\n\nTrump basically made up a metric of \"anyone without a job, even if they are a full time student\" that nobody tracks and called it unemployment.\n\nBy claiming students are unemployed, his statement was definitely less true than Sanders'.",
"One of the best responses to this I saw on another thread was roughly this.\n\nReality doesn't have a liberal bias. It doesn't have a leaning. It's just reality.\n\nEdit: wow, going from positive 5 to negative 15 in a half hour. I'm sorry I pissed you guys off.",
"It’s easy to find fact checking sites for either side, but I’m just looking for the site that factchecks the bias of reality.",
"Ok. What is one?",
"What would I point and laugh at, then?",
"Get outta here with that nonsense. ",
"He's on stilts. It helps him locate books on the top shelf.",
"So... you are on a balcony of sorts? but it concerns me I see a scanner attached the the computer below, meaning it’s an employee computer (I’d wager). Are you an employee? Or do they really let people look down on the checkout? Seems like a privacy issue! ",
"40? That sounds low.\n",
"serious question: where SHOULD news sources be getting their money from?",
"Any examples of them pushing false stories or just your feelings?",
"the DNC",
"No. 5 is pretty important. Never rely only on one news source.",
"The problem is that people who believe fake news also believe that snopes and politifact are left wing liberal run websites that posts outright lies to counter conservative “facts”",
"I think it’s more that the person who is bragging about gangbanging on social media is more likely to commit crimes than is a black man who is singing in the choir at his church.",
"Anonymous sources= people who are giving facts to reporters but aren't authorized to give that information to anyone.\n\nAnonymous reports = articles on a website that have no listed author.\n\nAnonymous sources are reputable, the facts are corroborated with additional information before reporting.\n\nAnonymous reports are just things that could have been written by anyone. ",
"I call fake news on this unless op proves his library is opened on Sunday",
"If somebody’s claiming Snopes is left leaning they’re stupid. Posting in T_D only confirms it.",
"It is called credibility. News orgs such as wapo and ny times have had a long history of credible news. Compare that with the current president who has been a consistent liar. From that viewpoint we can trusted that those news orgs vet their sources. ",
"> Donald Trump inaugurated as 45th President of the United States\n\nYou have a point there. 😏",
"Breitbart has actually made up propaganda. Completely fake, white rights bullshit. \n\nSnopes some people disagree with their conclusions, but they have cited sources and their opinions are clearly their opinions.\n\nSo, it is a bit different.",
"You social media misinformation agents are waaaay too easy to spot.\n\n1) Throw insult (pimp/ho)\n\n2) Outright lie (no sources)\n\n3) Seem relatable/legit (\"when **I** ask for sources\")\n\n4) Internet namedrop (4chan)\n\nIt's pathetically formulaic. Get a new shtick.",
"No-one has said any of those things. I wonder why people on the left are so eager to put words in others mouths and villianize them? \n\n\"How dare anyone see the world different from me and what I've been taught! They must be a racist!\"",
"It’s sad we have to hand things like this out to adults",
"Fair enough, there are plenty other examples.",
"Yes, Unfortunately I'm stuck posting all right-leaning comments in T_D or else I accept being downvoted into oblivion.\n\nIt's very unfortunate that people like you think it's acceptable to dismiss a person entirely just because of the people they've talked to.",
"Yup, there is hundreds of comments from those exact people here already.\n\nA library isn't exactly the place they usually visit, so I'm guessing this is their first time seeing it.",
"Did you not notice that those were published a year apart and both were true? Can you not read or something?",
"\"In my local library\" is not where these need to be. People who spend time at their local library probably don't have this problem",
"A) the mantra is \"reality has a liberal bias\" which really refers to center-left politics which does not reject capitalism like leftist politics do (I.e. strains of Marxism)\n\nB) biology does not \"lean\" in either political direction, it is inherently apolitical (when science gets political ala Lysenkoism, then you're not really dealing with science at all). I have no idea where you're getting \"biology leans conservative\", so I'm assuming you're just talking out of your ass",
"I lost money on you",
"\"Seizing the means of production\" is Leftism, which is the type of bias you accused them of showing, so advocating for it consistently would be bias. Or, technically *slant*, but close enough. \n\nAlso, even if the previous commenter had been wrong, it's not whataboutism, which is a totally different thing. It would have been closer to a strawman.\n\nSo you pretty much couldn't get any wronger.",
"Aye, this would work better as a facebook post.\n\n(or, let's be honest, a reddit post..)",
"You know what's *really* scary about Snopes?\n\nYou know how that \"you eat 8 spiders a year in your sleep\" is fake and was created to teach people to not trust everything online? Check the sources on Snopes for that. It's a magazine that never existed.\n\nThere's a few other things like that buried in the site.",
"Yes, they are on the internet being told to use snopes, politico and politifact.",
"I have a feeling that person thinks the only Snopes page that's actually credible is the one about Mike Pence's electric shock therapy. ",
"This is talking about authors, not sources.",
"Until reality disagrees with the narrative, and then reality can shut its bigoted mouth. Or until reality attends the State Of The Union. Then reality can be thrown under the bus entirely.\n\nReality isn't politically aligned. Neither side is the side of reality. Both pick and choose. A lot.",
"So once again, how would you evaluate if this story is worth listening to? You can't just dismiss all media, or say that any story that goes mainstream is not worth talking about because you think all news is intrinsically corrupt. There are lots of non-American news sources who would cover a big American story like this, as well.\n\nThe issue with your stance is you're making it possible for some sort of systematic racism to occur right in your own city while you go \"Well, all news is bullshit anyway\". \n\nThere needs to be a way for you to actually get reliable information on a story or you're essentially, as I mentioned earlier, allowing someone with deep pockets to essentially \"Fake!\" a story to death by hardline opposing every element of it across multiple parisan platforms. \n\nGiving up on getting information about what is happening in the world because of a \"shit vs piss\" stance is not an acceptable solution, it is the information equivalent of suicide. ",
"As correct as you are, none of what you said detracts from his point ",
"They have no answer. Because there is no answer. A whole swath of America has given up on the idea of objective reality. Day after day, what they want to believe, what they're told by their news and their president, is objectively untrue. At some point, they just gave up caring.",
"I think you've gotten some bad information. Really, really bad information.\n\nI started using snopes since not long after it was founded. At the beginning, it was a husband and wife (David and Barbara Mikkelson) operation, but it was open to contributors. Their hobby was folklore and urban legends, politics wasn't even a major part of the site until the 2000 election and the crazy email forwards went through the roof. A lot of the information that made it into the original articles was crowdsourced through the site's message board. \n\nWithin the last few years, the Mikkelsons had a nasty divorce. David was accused of being involved with a prostitute, but that wasn't related to the site at all. Afterward, at least partial ownership of the site was sold to a new company - last I heard there was still some legal conflict over who had the rights to keep operating it. There's now a managing editor who has a journalism background ([Brooke Binkowski](https://www.snopes.com/author/brooke/)) and at least one full-time writer I'm aware of. \n\nEDIT: [There's an editor and four staff reporters, as of last year](http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/sd-me-snopes-editor-20170208-story.html)\n\nEDIT: [Most recent update on the legal fight between David Mikkelson and Proper Media over site ownership](https://www.poynter.org/news/snopes-won-first-round-battle-its-site-round-two-begins-today)",
"Op must be in a library for ants.",
"RES-tagged as Lying Trash",
"I believe this is an extreme and irrational conclusion. ",
"its literally owned by the DNC you fucking mongoloid",
">Can’t source you, at work \n\n\n>On reddit ",
"Haha, this isn’t even *almost* whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you distract from the issue by asking “what about” (get it?) somebody else, who you then accuse of having also done something bad.\n\nHe was asking you to explain *how* they’re biased. Clearly they’re not advocating seizing the means of production, which is something an actual “leftist” might do.",
"this is totally simplifying it and its not really ok. people for to long have tried to make the left and right seem exactly the same and they are not its just not true",
"That's not an answer.",
"Giants living amongst us! Don't let the fake news distract you",
"So what facts do you think aren't true?",
"BuzzFeed, Slate, Mother Jones, and Vice just to name a few.",
"Can someone send this to the president? I think he needs it. ",
"Good question. ",
"God good point. \n\nI guess they do serve a purpose after all.",
"Omfg the shills on this thread, you guys got here quick",
"But... they do. Snopes is owned and run by two dudes with no actual training or knowledge, and Politifact has been caught stretching the definition and interpretation to get the rating they want for certain candicates. ",
"You know how that \"you eat 8 spiders a year in your sleep\" is fake and was created to teach people to not trust everything online? Check the sources on Snopes for that. It's a magazine that never existed.\n\nThere's a few other things like that buried in the site.",
"He's standing on an upper story of the library, you can see the stairs on the left side of the photo.",
"HAHAHAHHAHAHAH OMG SO FUNNY RIGHT??!?? HAHAHAH!!!!! I'M LITERALLY HALF DEAD I'M LAUGHING SO HARD HAHAHAHAHHA.. wait why is this funny again?",
"> \"Conservatives\" just tend to be more susceptible to fake news\n\nMeanwhile, liberals in this thread are in denial that their biased sources are biased.\n\nEveryone is susceptible to biased/fake news. For everyone who watches Infowars, there's a person who browses /r/politics.",
"r/nottheonion",
"Username checks out.",
"Did you even read them? The numbers aren't even the same. Sanders based his statement on actual research. He just omitted one caveat. Trump's statement was either made up or based on a metric measuring something different altogether. ",
"If you want unbiased political coverage, then watch cspan, or listen to their podcasts which is mostly just raw audio of politicians doing their jobs. Then make your own decisions about issues. ",
"You do realize that Snopes and Politifact, unless they've changed drastically, literally give you their research, right? \n\nLike, where Politifact cites to a poll it gives you a link to the poll. If you actually read the article instead of just looking at the Truth-o-Meter it generally gives you multiple sources and is very reasonable in terms of fact checking. \n\nYou might get more takers if you limited your argument to just Politico, but Snopes and Politifact provide their sources for you to critically analyze. \n\nEverybody in this thread seems to be picking out the bernie vs. trump politifact thing, but once again, if you **actually read the article**, you can see they even provide a legitimate theory for where Trump got his statement:\n\n>In May, the bureau said the employment-population ratio for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 41.5 percent. Flipped over, that would mean that the unemployment ratio - although such a statistic is not published by the bureau - would be 58.5 percent. That’s pretty close to the 59 percent figure Trump cited, Sinclair noted.\n\nThat satisfied me that he had some basis for making his statement, which is more than he has most of the time and certainly something a site with the level of bias you're suggesting (\"not much more than fake news\") wouldn't say. The two pieces are nearly a year apart and both spend most of their time talking about the methodology and sources they used to evaluate the respective statements. \n\nThat's also very different from most of the shit you read on, say, right wing bastions like truthandaction, [where I found this gem](http://www.truthandaction.org/obama-skips-funeral-top-general-killed-combat/). ",
"Eh if a headline asks a question 99% of the time the answer is no. betteridge's law.",
"Because Islam is the antithesis of everything the West represents. Now whether or not Obama was a Muslim is honestly irrelevant now that he's out of office and effectively out of the political sphere.",
"Ok. How about this way: to believe in Conservative dogma you need to suspend any sense of reality.\n\nWhich plenty of people do, to be sure. It's easier to think, for instance, that you can legislate people getting abortion or blame your terrible life on people less deserving of you getting \"free stuff\" when you live your life surrounded by people who think the same way.\n\nFacts, however are stubborn. Liberals just appreciate them more, and want to deal with life acknowledging hard truths.",
"I got a list with your name on it buddy! \nWe're watching you. ",
"Shouldn't both stick to reporting what occurred during the incident and testimonies about it instead of trying to label victims and suspects one way or another with peripheral things not pertaining to the case itself?",
"Saying fact check sites/stories with Politico is odd. Why Politico? Why not NYTimes? ",
"Sounds like people in this thread are interpreting \"Fake News\" in its current definition and not for what it originally meant.\n\nWhat this leaflet is warning against are the articles that were shared on social media during the campaign about events that never happened (\"FBI agent investigating Clinton found murdered\"), published on websites that were designed to look like legitimate local newspapers (\"Denver Guardian\") when in fact they were just as made up as the stories they ran. \n\nThis leaflet isn't about biased news (the new definition of Fake News thanks to Trump's usage of the word). It's about literal fake news. ",
"Can you point to fake snopes or politifact articles? ",
"YOU SAID FAKE NEWS; IT'S FAKE NEWS",
"I see a bunch of claims against fact-checking sites, then 50 people asking for examples to back up their claims, then silence. It's like every thread, amazing.",
"They sometimes DO have a small bias, but thats why you look at multiple sources.",
"You should post this on r/coolguides too",
"owned by the DNC... politically unbiased... 😂😂😂😂",
"I AM THE LIST",
"Fake views",
"Oh you would be surprised. Very intelligent manager at work believes every left wing opinion article like it's fact. Other right wing supervisor does the same thing. It's frustrating.",
"Incorrect meme is incorrect.",
"Yeah I’m gunna need that /s. You’re not helping. ",
"Standing on a balcony. Stairs to the left.",
"No. Alreadypiecrust. My friends call me Al for short.",
"Doesn’t Bernie say 51 and Trump 59? Isn’t that a big difference when we’re talking mostly true vs mostly false?",
"You can download it for free from [here](https://www.alastore.ala.org/sites/default/files/basic_product_images/fact-or-fiction-poster_900x600.png)",
"I actually just linked that site to someone else! I only use them for checking outlets, never dove into their individual story reporting, but they're great for outlets.",
"But kids do. I think that’s the main target demographic ",
"What does the url have to do with the content? Can somebody explain?",
"Aside from those sites, it’s a good list of recommendations. And I wouldn’t say don’t go to them for news, I would say don't JUST go to them for news. \n\nThe problem now is that we don’t seek to understand where “the other side” is coming from. ",
"It's a pretty appropriate name. They don't believe in reality just because they don't like that it supports what members of their \"team\" say.",
"The quote was published by breibart, WHILE bannon was executive chairman... and even then its not a flat out truth it's a mixture rating. Where is the bias towards anything here??",
"Where can I get copy of this so I can be that annoying facebook person and post it in reply to every batshit insane post that comes my way?",
"I sincerely can't tell if these are a parody making fun of infowars style bullshit, or those are supposed to be serious and think that makes sense in any way. ",
"Separate from the joke, it almost becomes believable just because of the stuff that has come out of the Mikkelson divorce. ",
"Did your boss get mad at you for shilling using the word \"idiot\" so you changed it?",
"Who did this 😂",
"\"X donated to Y's campaign\" is the basis for 90% of their conspiracy theories... I dont think this will get through to them.",
"It's pretty hard not be 'left leaning biased', when you try to discuss politics from a (political) scientific approach, rather than a populistic one. ",
"most of the internet and media in general has been completely bought and paid for by the DNC",
"Are you honestly claiming that CNN would outright fabricate claims just to make conservatives look bad?",
"Any decent reporter will have dozens of sources, many of whom will prefer to remain anonymous in many cases. That one or two told the reporter something that wasn't true does not mean none of the others are trustworthy, or that none of the sources other reporters have are trustworthy.",
"The liberal viewpoint is that it is wrongful to assert that men are physically stronger than women, or that it is unhealthy to be obese, or that not everyone is created equal.\n\nBiology does not stand with liberalism. Unfortunately you can't just curse your way into changing that.",
"Can you cite a source for that? \n\nGenerally I'd agree, but the other side (which I suppose is \"my side\") is demonstrably just as susceptible to populist, identity politics. There's been a lot of social constructivism shaping our politics recently and shit's being slung from both sides.",
"My coworker: Politifact is the most leftist, partisan, conspiracy group out there.\n\nMe: *Sigh*\n\nMe: *Walks away*",
"Or he could be fingering as in pointing out the culprits. The man's double entendre'd us.",
"Authorship =/= sources. ",
"Ain't it just propaganda? I hate the term fake news. People need to just call it what it is. ",
"[😂😂😂 who did this 😂😂😂](https://i.imgur.com/Hp0kh8y.png)",
"How is that bad? Trump or not we should be fact checking our sources and not believing everything we read because it very we’ll could be a lie ",
"Facts normally are biased towards reality, unlike Fox News and such.",
"The only problem is the fact checking with sites like Snopes or Politico part. Those are all partisan sites who push their own brand of fake news. Everything else makes sense. ",
"I spent some time on that site. It strangely neglects to describe it’ methodology or sources and itself writes (anonymous) news stories. \nI suggest you do actually check your sources from reputable media companies that hire trained journalists. Check sources. Be skeptical. \nI can find bias in Fox News and CNN- the Wall Street journal and the New York Times. If you can critically interpret media you can find a closer understanding of the truth. \n",
"They are teaching this in lower grades now. My wife is a teacher and does whole units on fake news and how to check sources. She’s a librarian in a school and she loves testing the kids to see if they can spot a fake news article. Unfortunately, most think a fake news article is true, even when the source is Tom Hanks who has a PhD in psychology from Oxford. ",
">Coverage you don't like isn't \"fake news,\" bruh.\n\nlol thats pretty fucking rich thats why you guys invented the term in the first place",
"Unfortunately when news outlets choose to subscribe to said bias and force-feed news and perspectives that only agree with a pre-established narrative, they obliterate their own credibility. And yes, people are right to question their bias, liberal or not, and completely write them off if they are substandard. There are several 'reputable outlets' that many including myself once respected but are no longer anything of the sort, rarely rising to the level of even infotainment.\n\nCNN is a great example. It used to be worthy journalism to air 24/7, and I watched it all the time. Now you have correspondents interviewing their own cameramen as if they were street interviews, broadcast locations set up 50' from each other and talking as if they are miles apart, and news stories brimming with qualifying opinions, chosen perspectives, and facts carefully plucked to ensure the viewer agrees with the conclusion they want to push. You're constantly told what to think - that's not news, that's not reporting, that's not journalism.",
"Penguins.",
"> the people who are believing fake news aren't in libraries reading these leaflets.\n\nOh man. Someone's never worked at a library before haha",
"What conservative media though? Fox news is the only one on TV and I still wouldn't call them conservative media.\n\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/?utm_term=.2aecb4bf27b1\n\nTake a look at that link 20 something news sources vs what 4-5?\n\nYeah it's very ironic saying conservatives are the main source of fake news.\n\nAnd it's not like the 5-6 big news sources just happen to lean left it was made that way by design so the left could gain political power.\n\nThe left has a monopoly on social media and news sources. \nHollywood too.",
"The type of person that believes fake news would never bother with this checklist.",
"CNN is the ONLY credible news source anywhere. You can't argue against it. Only tinfoil hat wearing neo-nazi white supremacists question the validity of MSM.",
"\"read the article and verify sources\"\n\nThese are concepts taught in elementary school, and I attended a public school in Tennessee.",
"Facts are inconvenient for some groups.",
"An anonymous source isn't the same thing as an anonymous report.",
"Except Breitbart has a habit of lying in it's articles and is not a fact checking site. You're comparing apples to oranges.",
"Any proof or examples of them being \"not much more than fake news.\" Because you seem to be the one lying and pushing fake statements.",
"Bill Brasky taught me how to love a woman, and how to scold a child.",
"It's the same \"issue\" but there are pretty significant differences between the two. Bernie's was a year apart, included actual context/qualifiers for his number, was literally a different number (seems pretty important...), and the campaign actually provided a source when asked (Trump campaign did not). \n\nRead the actual article instead of glancing at the title and meter. ",
"This is the first time I’ve read some “advice” and actually gained something from it!",
"I was never taught to love a woman.",
"Perhaps you meant objective reality:\n\nab·ject\nˈabˌjekt,abˈjekt/\nadjective\n1.\n(of something bad) experienced or present to the maximum degree.\n\"his letter plunged her into abject misery\"\nsynonyms:\twretched, miserable, hopeless, pathetic, pitiful, pitiable, piteous, sorry, woeful, lamentable, degrading, appalling, atrocious, awful\n\"abject poverty\"\n2.\n(of a person or their behavior) completely without pride or dignity; self-abasing.\n\"an abject apology\"\nsynonyms:\tcontemptible, base, low, vile, worthless, debased, degraded, despicable, ignominious, mean, unworthy, ignoble More",
"There's stairs to the left. It's taken from the second floor.",
"Google it for me and prove it.\n\n",
"Because many, many Christians believe that one should ALWAYS submit to God before any man-made laws. They believe that other religions hold the same view. \n\nThat's a big reason why Kennedy being Catholic was a huge issue in the 60s. Many Protestants believed he would be loyal to the Pope above the US. \n\nThe same holds for Obama. If he were actually a Muslim, many Christians believe that he would be loyal to Muslims and Allah before the US. And in the middle of a war with Muslim extremism, people believed that he would be sympathetic to them and weaken the US. \n\nIt's all retarded, but that's the reasoning.",
"https://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp",
"> They're on the second or third floor overlooking the first. You can see the stair railing on the left. It definitely does look weird at first glance though. \n\nYou dropped this:\n\n> Elementary, my dear Watson. ",
"Good bot",
"> Snopes, Politico, Politifake\n\nAll on far left. ",
"That's absurd. Plus, it's definitely not true - it was debunked by...\n\n**OH MY GOD!**",
"And they'll ban you if you post this in their subreddit.",
"The Browns suck at football, I also read it in the Cincy Gazette.\n\nBias != False OR True, necessarily. ",
"The word is \"credible\" and it certainly is.",
"normal people dont refer to \"fact checkers\" because the entire idea is propaganda",
"If you guys are expecting somebody would put the effort into citing a reddit comment they would a research paper, you're nuts.",
"Aw little triggered are we honey. They exposing the truths about your glorious leader Kim Jong trump ",
"One example. I'd like to see one example of politifact reporting a mistruth. \n\nOf course we've already lost if the idea that a single example of misreporting, among hundreds of thousands of accurately reported stories, makes them equivalent to outright fabricators. ",
"That statement is already reducing your critical thinking ability by allowing a bias to determine your reality. ",
"Your co-worker speaks the truth.",
"**Be open minded. Ask questions**\n\nThat's probably the best tip on there. Many people, unfortunately, live in their own bubble with their own believes and simply *refuse* to ask questions and be open that something may not be what you believe. You choose to be stupid.",
"Disagree with me? You're the problem. Good grief. You're blind to yourself.",
"That's exactly how alot of fake news reporters feel.",
"That’s why I only get my facts from stone tablets and printed copies of the King James bible. ",
"It makes it a biased source, which doesn't mean it is wrong just you have to filter the bias. Bias=/=untrue and True=/=Unbiased. If If ran a site that only posted verifiable quotes of weird shit that left politicians say, it would be true but without the context of weird shit right politicians also say it could lead the reader into the assumption that left politicians say weird more than right politicians. ",
"Subscribers and people who pay for that stuff... ",
"Comments like this are why Doug Jones won.",
"Man....",
"Something tells me you're the kind of person this pamphlet is designed to prevent.",
">The fact is, that at that time, Trump had absolutely zero impact on the national debt.\n\nBut thats the point right. The question at hand is \"did Trump lie about the National Debt going down?\" No, he did not. They can write whatever they want in the article, but the rating should have been True or whatever they want to call it.",
"That's a **strong** accusation to level at a fact finding website which you need to back up with more evidence than your words.\n\nRepeating an accusation enough doesn't make it true and this kind of activity is exactly what gives conservatives a bad name when it comes to truthfulness. ",
"Good thing conservative media's currency isn't \"honesty\" then.",
"Meh, if the only thing the right complain about are technical terms and genders, I’m content.\n\nBeing angry about possible constitutional crises and defending DACA recipients is a bit more important.",
"Low energy. Sad. ",
"Are you a fucking tankie or something? Jesus.",
"The problem is that they try to be unbiased, which fails every time. The best way to eliminate bias from a publication is to let writers be as biased as they like (within reason) and just getting writers with different views, so their biases \"cancel\" each other out. This is why you can go onto the front page of the Times and see two completely contradictory articles. Snopes and Politifact have no overt bias, but they are slightly left of centre. I prefer publications with a few horribly biased writers from all side, rather than publications with an entire staff of subtly biased writers who all think the same.",
"Normal people? Wut?\n\nYou mean people that agree with you? ",
"Is that a fact?",
"Anonymous news reports: You don't know who wrote the article. It has no reputation of any kind to back it up.\n\nAnonymous sources: The source of the information is not disclosed in the article for the protection of that source, but the author and news organization can vouch for the source's legitimacy (assuming the author and news organization are themselves reputable).",
">\t\"This is 100% legit and you can totally Google this.\"\n\nHmmm",
"I wouldn’t go that far in saying they are fake news. Politico is a legitimate news agency unlike Brietbart and related sites that are clearly biased and often fake news, but it’s not easy for everyone to figure that out \n\nBut yeah, it’s weird for a public library to choose a specific media group. \n\n",
"The guy was making the point that it's a bit weird to imply something is \"hugely leftist\" when it doesn't even come close to being radically leftist, or even just \"leftist\" in a fairly typical use of the word (as in Communist, Socialist, Anarchist, etc.).\n\nIt has absolutely nothing to do with whataboutism. I'm honestly curious about your reasoning for calling it that.",
"You're right, I don't have an argument. You are either persuaded by the fact that Snopes virtually never has any factual error on any article, and backs every single positive assertion with references, or you are not.",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search?q=snopes&restrict_sr=on\n\nSnopes has been proven to be bullshit over and over and over again",
"How many bs cnn reports would you need to be convinced? Let's start with the OG fake news report... Then get into some more recent ones. There's many more examples than this if you're interested.\n\nCHARLES JACO FAKE AIR RAID 1990 GULF WAR: \nhttps://youtu.be/X8Lkp8Lesoo\n\nNANCY GRACE ASHLEY BANFIELD SPLIT SCREEN, SAME PARKING LOT \nhttps://youtu.be/KXwRX7SNcA8\n\nCNN CAMERAMAN POSING AS PROTESTER, TRUMP ELECTION NIGHT, 2016:\nhttps://youtu.be/0_W5cDjy3uU\n\nANDERSON COOPER, GREEN SCREEN \"DISAPPEARING NOSE\" CLIP, SANDY HOOK\nhttps://youtu.be/owKEe9aMSvU\n\nSylville Smith's sister \"calling for peace\" millwakee riots\nhttps://youtu.be/Y_iXfbxfwDA\n\nCHRIS CUOMO \"WIKILEAKS ARE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS\" LIE, 2016:\nhttps://youtu.be/15ZTiAf8fp8\n\nCHRIS CUOMO \"HILLARY FREE RIDE FROM MEDIA\" CLIP, 2016:\nhttps://youtu.be/SkXkS70Co-o\n\nVAN JONES \"RUSSIA THING IS A BIG NOTHING BURGER\", 2017:\nhttps://youtu.be/zsTbrFhEFFo\n\nDON LEMON LIES AND DISMISSES HILLARY CLINTON TAPE OF LAUGHING AT 12 YEAR OLD RAPE VICTIM\nhttps://youtu.be/GIrNzu3aySg\n\n",
"I don't know which side you're on with that statement lol... it's negative, but either side could say that.",
"Pretty sure they lost you at \"library\".",
"R/nottheonion ",
"They ignore facts intentionally. If someone on the right makes a statement but screws up on one insignificant detail that doesn't have to do with the larger point they say the whole statement is false.\n\nMeanwhile if someone from the left screws up the whole major point but gets one insignificant detail correct they'll give them a partial truth.",
"No... Its not. That's false equivalency. They are fact devoid and pushing a nationalist agenda. They do not issue retractions or drop those who breach journalistic integrity. That is not even close to a proper comparison. Try again",
"While I am against taxes in general, public libraries are a perfect example of government and taxation done right. Public libraries are a part of why America still resembles a democracy.",
"So... [this?](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/)",
"So basically fact check using only LEFTISTS sources hahaha.. Yea ok.. just more junk pamphlets ",
"Snopes, Politico, Politifact? Naw man the only trustworthy name in news in Reuters",
"That's not true.... At all. Everything is fallible. ",
"Snopes is not two people in a basement. You are fake news. https://www.snopes.com/snopes-staff/",
"> This is great advice... which fails on almost every ~~site with an auto-playing video~~ **reddit link**\n\n",
"so said Colbert the Liberal Comedian on a comedy show.",
"Great Library!!!",
"http://www.lostrepublic.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/14717260_558273691045337_8841793433697175652_n.jpg",
"Is there any way that these can be distributed where the people who are most likely to believe “fake news” might encounter them?",
"someone who has watched fox for approximately 3 minutes unless it was on the daily show. king of actually knowing what toure talking about. this is you. making fun of fox is a joke for dumb people to laugh at. its for baby brained idiots like you to laugh and cheer at.\n\nhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA",
"Is that what Salon and Vox told you?",
"Wut, of course it does. All I was saying is that you're an Idiot for thinking facts change. Something is either true or it isn't. If it isn't than its not a fact.",
"Whatcha smokin?",
"Fake sites sometimes have similar URLS, like bccnews instead of bbcnews or something.",
"I'm looking at you ABC News",
"All those fact checking sources have been proven to be baised and constally get facts wrong...",
"Eh yeah none of those things. I guess since you obviously lean left then by that method of thinking you default to a spineless beta whose parents paid for their college, after they went to private school of course, and got their useless degree in pseudoscience (see: statistics/psychology/gender studies). \n\nAaaaaaaaand assumptions about others points of views are *exactly* why you will continue to lose elections snowflake.",
"Biased doesn't mean inaccurate or misleading. ",
"Conservatives have done a thousand times worse over the past two decades. No need to get so triggered.",
"people who dont rely on propaganda to tell them whats going on in the world\n\nits not healthy",
"If you are willing to publicly state your opinions on current events, then why not seek source documents or raw video? Why rely at all on third parties telling you what is “correct”? We live in the age of information.\n\nIf you don’t have the time to find source documentation, then perhaps you should narrow your focus to understanding a single subject. There’s no real excuse for being a tool of propaganda.",
"you are right its a super massive no true scotsman",
"I have a coworker who goes on and on about fake news. He loves to come to our group conversations with outrage porn headlines. He doesn’t actually read into it. Most recently he came up with one that was just a picture of a headline. It mentioned rotten tomatoes being determined to protect black panthers perfect rating and then a quote presumably from rotten tomatoes saying they will not condone or tolerate hate speech as if all criticism of the movie will be considered hate speech. Dumb. ",
"Can we fact check the fact check part of this hand-out?",
"Because Snopes and Politifact actually cite all of their evidence and are factually based. Weird how facts are something you dislike.",
"Clearly marked troll article",
"Are we really 100% good with politico?",
"I don’t know libralaries has a nice ring to it. ",
"I keep hearing that, but I struggle to believe it about snopes. I'm constantly reading stuff pointing out \"fake news\" from the entire political spectrum. Is it their \"news\" section that is being referred to? Or is there bias in the fact-checking that I just can't see?",
"It seems like right-wingers sling bullshit from the t.v. and left-wingers sling bullshit from social media.",
"Because they're reliable sources for fact checking.",
"It's supposed to put alarm bells in your head that make you go check the other things on the list though, like checking competing articles or looking up sources to confirm it's true before taking it immediately at face value.",
"Or you could just use a source that was somewhat moderate? Or even a multitude of different sources. I mean the opportunities are endless here...",
"he was paid by \"big planet\" to say that",
"I mean they shared debate questions so... ",
"at least he's actually doing something for humanity...",
"I'm concerned about your thumb nail. A little snip will help.",
"Yes, and? Just because they are biased doesn't make their fact checking worthless. In case you didn't notice the leaflet also tells you to check competing news sources. If politifact says something is a lie, you should definitely don't assume it's true, go look up more sources. If they say something is true, you should still go look at some other sites if you think it's suspicious. \n\nBasically the whole point of the leaflet is that news sources aren't perfect. Obviously that also include fact checking sites. ",
"Anonymous reports don't name some or all author(s) compiling, framing, and presenting the information. \n\nAnonymous sources, like a \"Deep Throat\", are ***usually*** sources that have something significant to lose by revealing sensitive information and having their identity publicized, but are trusted and vetted enough by a reputable outlet to be featured in an editorial. \n\nBad outlets are bad outlets, that's a separate issue. \n\nEven though r/politics has it's biases and bad sources, I'd sure like to see him prove that 90% of articles there fall into either of these categories, ***especially*** the former. ",
"I'm out of the loop. What is this Bill Brasky business ",
"/r/politics isn't news. It's a subreddit for news. \n\nI think we all agree that pretty much everything has some bias. There's a difference between bias and fabrication. Infowars and Breitbart engage in complete fabrication.",
"Politifact* I know it's hard to spell. Yes, use those credible sites to fact check, all far left.",
"Fake news bookmark. Extremely biased “fact checking” sites. ",
"But... It DOES make it less likely to be true. At least the whole truth. That's what political bias is, untruth. Lies. Propaganda. Everyone has some amount of bias, but some people and new organizations are worse and more blatent than others. \n\nIf you believe that YOUR news sources might be biases, but they're true.... That's exactly what all those sheep watching Fox news believe. But sure, at one point the topics and overall tone between cnn and Fox news was pretty similar, it was just that bias slipped in here and there. Subtly. (Of course now all their headlines are complete mismatches.)\n\nThe point is that politifact is less reputable than they would have you believe.... And that's because of bias. Sucks, but it's true. You can believe me. I'm a reputable source on the internet. Or you could just dismiss it all as more fake news just like the rest of the sheep living in a bubble. \n\n",
"It works if you only look at the meter and skim the headlines and don't question anything ever.",
"Me: *Sigh*\n\nMe: *Closes Reddit*",
"Have you looked at the other comments here? They're pretty convincing, also, it seems like a lot of people are agreeing with it, and the only people who are disagreeing with it are saying things like:\n\n\"If somebody’s claiming Snopes is left leaning they’re stupid.\"\n\nI'm more inclined to believe the people that actually wrote out an argument for why they think that rather than the people writing a shitty counter argument that simply attacks the person and provides no meaningful discussion points. Thanks though.",
"If it's demonstrable, demonstrate. Provide factual, verifiable evidence for your viewpoint.",
"There are only so many minutes in a day, and so many ideas you can here and thoughts you can have. You are welcome to spend them on anything you want and I've made my choice.\nI don't waste my time with news. I've chosen to spend my time learning one of my two trades, one being my career, one being my hobby (which does make a small amount of income). ",
"Yes they do, you don't read them obviously and believe what your propaganda tells you.\n\nCNN secretly offers redactions, on a seperate twitter account most people don't know about. Alex Jones is straight up when info was wrong.\n\nSnopes Politco and Polifact push a globalist agenda. Snopes literally has no journalistic credentials. It's a pervert and his hooker wife.",
"Well I guess we have to let you have *something*.",
"Wait what",
"I dont have any examples off the top of my head, but I’ve seen many articles on those fact checking websites which label something as “completely false” and the go on to explain why that thing is actually mostly true. And for most people who only read the headline, that bias is enough to taint their view. ",
"So they’ll pander directly to their subscribers lol. If your subscribers are a bunch of alt-righters then of course the news source will just be a bunch of alt-right circlejerking",
"Bet they didn't tell you about their workers' attempt to unionise.",
"But what do you base it on? If it's nothing more than \"I disagree with this on a fundamental level.\" And not \"I have multiple sources to back my claim.\" \n\nThe bias is on your end, and not the site.\n",
"I realized that the Right totally lost it when they called Snopes a liberal website that promotes globalist conspiracies.",
"Auto playing videos suck but that doesn't really have anything to do with fake news stories",
"Lol this is why we can't have productive conversations in this country. Conservatives equate breitbart with reputable news organizations.",
"This is your brain on fake news.",
"Do people call the red herring fallacy \"whataboutism\" these days? that's troubling to me, honestly.",
"Do you have any examples or sources for that?",
"But... you can be... American and Muslim lol. \n\nI get that the idea of a Muslim in power leaves the white Christians shooketh, but I also just don't get it bc there's (in theory) a separation of church (or mosque or temple or synagogue) and state so even if Obama was Muslim, that wouldn't/shouldnt impact the politics. ",
"A lot of people have shared similar speculation and it really needs to stop. For one thing, the kid is entitled to privacy, regardless of who his family is. For another, if he is autistic, so what? There's nothing wrong with that. ",
"Stairs coming from another level?",
"One example is easy. And exactly what can easily be provided.\n \nA pattern is what matters. No source is perfect 100% of the time, and that's the tool people use to cast doubt.",
"> Snopes is two people in a basement.\n\nI don't get what this is supposed to prove. If they dig into myths and provide sources for their conclusions does it matter if the work is done by two or fifty people?\n\n",
"Nah we’ve already strayed from this bias of reality. ",
"Even defining neutral has shifted right in the past 30 years. Reagan was for full on amnesty. I always say if Jesus himself ran today, republicans would deem him a dirty socialist. ",
"I’m as liberal as they come and I, nor anyone I know, would ever say obesity is healthy and women are as physically as strong as men in general.\n\nYou should meet more people.",
"Hahahano.",
"You might be right right about Politico (I don't follow them), but Snopes and Politifact are consistently even-handed. If you have evidence to the contrary, you're welcome to present it. ",
"It's not like there could be a 2nd story just because you can see the bottom of a staircase.",
"All of these could be substituted for the last point, it's the best advice anyone could give you. Be open-minded. Ask questions. The smartest people in history all questioned what they see, but importantly were open-minded enough to know that their first assumption about something wasn't always correct.",
"Except there's no real credibility to them unless you're looking for a self-given rubber stamp.",
"More like “Does the headline sound like exactly what you want to hear?”",
"Yeah it pretty much lost all substance when I read that lol",
"If only Snopes and Politifact weren'tt both openly partisan organizations, they were so close...",
"Is it’s snopes fault that trunp lies a fuckton more than Hillary? Not even commenting on political stances or who would be a better leader. Trump lies an extraordinary amount ",
">When a publication reports something from an anonymous source they know who the source is and have confirmed their legitimacy, they just won't release it.\n\nI would love to see this verified by other means than simply trusting what a news outlet says they do. ",
"Florida man has one every week. ",
">Fact check stories with Politico and Potitifact\n\nAh yes, because those are definitely unbiased... lol",
"I grew up in Alabama and can safely say most dumbfuck rednecks don't go to their local library.",
"So you can't provide an actual argument other than \"everyone knows they're fake so I refuse to say why the facts they show are fake\"?",
"***FAKE NEWS***",
"alternatively you could use your discretion and multiple sources to eliminate the chance of bias or outright misrepresentation that happens constantly in us media\n\nbut nah lets just rely on this one guy who says things are true or not that gets donations from people that may or may not sway that opinion\n\ntop choice for top thinkers",
"Your name. It fits.\n\nLet me explain how all of these sites apply the same exact type of bias using an example news story of an imaginary politician who wants to pass a bill to cut the income tax.\n\nIf a democrat proposes this bill, the press focuses on the fact that the bill is also likely redistributing money into a program that was previously underfunded or not funded at all, then continues to go on about how that now properly funded program is going to help a certain minority.\n\nA republican opponent accuses the bill of stripping funds from a different program that is used to help a different set of people. For the sake of argument and concession, let's assume that the assistance the slashed program benefited was largely white people.\n\nAll three agencies review the republican's assertion, and rate the accusation false, because the writer of the bill and the press covering it have both described the bill as helping group A, not hurting group B.\n\nNow, if we reverse roles, with the republican proposing a bill to cut taxes and redistribute income to the program that helps white people at the detriment of the program helping minorities, the press ignores the Repbublican's assertion that the bill is to help group B and reports it as a bill designed to harm group A.\n\nAll three agencies review the Democrat's assertion and rate his accusation true, because the bill does in fact functionally harm group A, and because the press reported it as such.\n\nThese agencies are only reliable for dispelling urban myths and clarifying only the most obvious of truths. Relying on it for political judgement is still injesting biased reporting. \n\nThe only way to get a non-biased opinion on something in the news is to look at the source material yourself and make your own judgement. If it's too complex to understand without someone in the press interpreting it, than someone's probably trying to hide something from you.",
"Notice the stairs.",
"> That doesn't make them less true.\n\nJust to take Snopes for example, there were lots of cases during the election where if you looked something up, it had a big X FALSE, but down in paragraph 5 or 6 it flipped its position to 'well, technically true', but was buried because it didn't agree with the narrative. They tended to do this a lot with numbers. 'Someone claimed 20 gringots were whoosawats - X FALSE. blah blah blah blah paragraph 5: the actual number is estimated at 19.8 gringots'\n\nThat's the kind of thing which makes the bias very relevant. They are presenting 'fact checking' as 'does this agree with my worldview and bias checking'.\n\nIf all 'fake news' detection becomes is 'is this what one political party agrees with', then we've lost.",
"Can you name a single story where those sources made something up? And if they did, did they apologize, retract the story and fire someone? I can think of a good number of stories from conservative sites but not the other way around.",
"Sadly there's fewer and fewer out there that attempt exhaustive coverage of political claims because it's become more difficult than ever to keep up. If you know other services (shout out to WaPo's fact checker project), please do share!",
"Man sells flamethrower and you won't believe what happens next!",
"Those fact checking sites are extremely liberal.... that’s terrible. ",
"The problem is that those biases end up being the \"tipping point\" to which sites like politifact discern truth from lies.\n\nFor example, one of my favorite politifact gems: [Obama Ransom](https://imgur.com/a/nZuXH)\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/24/donald-trump/donald-trump-calls-400-million-payment-iran-ransom/\n\nThis \"ruling\" is the exact moment where bias meets untruth. \"Ransom\" has a clearly standard definition, and Trump used the word appropriately here. There is no reason for this to be \"mostly false,\" but more importantly than that, the article shows the efforts that politifact went to in order to make the ruling. A journalist, with access to a dictionary, actually had to ask \"experts\" whether a quid pro quo for prisoners was what ransom is.",
"The original \"fake news\" term was coined to refer to sites that literally published entirely fictional stories. Trump somehow to redefine \"fake news\" to mean news with heavy bias (according to him). I resist this new definition. \"fake news\" is not FOX and Breitbart (or according to him CNN). \"fake news\" is like worldnewsdailyreport.net and nationalreport.net, which are basically theonion without the discalimer.",
"Not if you read a reputable news source with decent writers",
"It's nice - but for full effect you need to baseline it.",
"What?",
"https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/politics/what-is-united-states-of-care-andy-slavitt/index.html\n\nhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/09/what-happens-during-government-shutdown-7-things-should-know.html\n\nhttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/11/marriage-is-great-anti-poverty-program-so-why-does-government-discourage-it.html\n\nhttp://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/02/09/dozens-sports-cars-worth-millions-found-in-public-garage-but-where-is-it.html",
"Citation needed.",
"Wait really? What did Trump do?",
"That's like saying\n\n>despite Fox News being Fair and Balanced^^TM , their assessments often don't fit the liberal worldview (read: delusional).",
"Badass librarian made that😎😎😎😎😎😎\nDidn't know there were any left, very impressive",
"Yeah, tbh, I'd have preferred if they didn't spell out specific sources. Kind of defeats the entire purpose of the card. All sorts of once prominent journals are dishing out clickbait hyperbolic stories to an extent that qualifies as fake news. There's a problem across all media right now that goes beyond mere typical political bias, and the only solution to it is teaching people how to digest information and be skeptical in the pursuit of truth, as opposed to simply deciding to put all their trust in one journal or another. Part of doing that is NOT listing a source that they can supposedly check as though their word is absolute truth.\n\nAside from the above point, however, I love this card, and I'm glad people are taking action in attempt to educate the general public. Like I said it's the only solution.",
"Regarding a headline, a better one is “Does it ask a question?” - if a headline asks a question, the answer is almost always “No.”\n",
"You're saying a lot of things and proving nothing. ",
"Most of it seems reasonable except the Fact Checking organizations. I believe most of those organizations have a slight bend to them conscious or not, it ends up being bias reinforcement.",
"This isn't that great of advice. Most fake news articles have long names. Like thingingaboutamerica.com or thefreedomdaily. If anything, just go to their website and click around-you'll find out right away",
"This bitch don't know 'bout Pangea.",
"Looks like there are stairs on the left. Probably on the 2nd floor overlooking the first.",
"I don't understand. What about their work is partisan? ",
"BFG is looking out for you",
"But how are you determining which are true? If you are basing the truth on what authorities say is true, you are already liberally biased. My inexpert opinion is just as valid as your expert facts.",
"Well thanks in advance for this November than.",
"No surprise to me that Trump/Putin foot soldiers would like nothing better than the throw doubt on veracity of *every* source reporting objective reality. Authoritarian propaganda 101 right there.",
"Many fake news sites, the kind that posted completely made up, and not just biased news often had urls like dailypo.st or washlngtonpost.com",
"You read enough from all sides and come to the conclusion yourself. If you are lazy enough to let others fact check for you then expect to be hand fed. \n \nThere is a reason a lot of people are anti-left, anti-msm at the moment - were seeing endless articles that with really powerful headlines - then when you read the article it has sources like: \n \n* A person familiar with his thinking \n* A source said who is familiar with the matter \n* Said a former employee \n \nThose aren't quotable sources! Yet major MSM outlets use that shit all day long to write heavily biased articles. \n \nThe people being tricked by false headlines don't read enough to decide for themselves.",
"Cut those nails",
"I was referring to the post you were replying to that was just a pure personal attack on Snopes founders as an attempt to discredit what it said.",
"Considered left-leaning biased by whom? Conservative idiots?",
"\"Hard truths\" like CNN, NYT, and BuzzFeed headlines.",
"Honestly don’t know what side you’re speaking for. Both sides would say that. Believing fake news might be partisan, but that statement definitely isn’t",
"Ban Bayo",
"He's saying that to signal it's a joke; from xkcd specifically.",
"Don't mindlessly echo the person before you, dare to be open-minded and ask questions. Are you even sure he really is *your* captain? ",
"I don't like a fat ugly couple telling me what is or is not true. Here's what they do: Search the internet for evidence of a claim. Cut the middle man, in this case Snopes who could potentially lie, and do the research yourself.",
"youre assuming theres facts there to begin with and not just opinion and spin",
"The problem is that an informed perspective requires critical thinking and people prefer prepackaged solutions that feed their biases. ",
"Because that is how they started and that is what they go with. It is a trademark for them at this point.",
"Breaking news the president is working with Russia to manipulate Americans. ",
"Snopes claims MR Ed was a zebra. Obviously a joke. \nHere is some of the article.\n\nThe difficulty in resolving closely integrated black and white images on non-color television receivers was one of the primary reasons NFL games were not regularly televised until the mid-1960s, when sales of color TV sets started to outstrip those of black-and-white models. When black-and-white television predominated in the nation’s living rooms, football games were too often disrupted when players ran into the referees, whose black-and-white striped uniform tops made them nearly invisible to onlookers. Likewise, Johnny Cash’s famous televised live concert performance at California’s Folsom Prison in January 1968 proved disastrous when several inmates wearing the traditional black and white prisoner’s garb slipped unnoticed past guards, who had been provided only black and white monitors with which to view the proceedings.)\n\n\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/lost/mistered.asp",
"The ones he doesn't like.",
"Snope, politico, and Politifact. All three are very very partisan sources. ",
"Which sources do you use then? List them. And at the same time try and explain why the objective truth on fact checking websites is somehow not true.",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence",
"Remember to fact check with sources such as left wing site number one, left wing site number two, and left wing site number three.",
"Would love some examples as well. Just typing this here as a placeholder for your bullshit ",
"isn't politifact notorious for having wrong info",
"Source your claim.",
"When you eliminate the impossible (standing on the countertop), then whatever remains (being 16' tall), however implausible, *must* be true. I'm satisfied.",
"Haha really? Reality has a liberal bias? Care to explain? Liberals are the same ppl who believe racial and gender differences don't exist and that there's over 4949599594 genders. \n\nAlso aren't Liberals usually criticized for being too idealistic while ignoring reality?",
"So many useless words. Shoulda said:\n\n>The problem is, the people who are believing fake news aren't reading",
"Lizard People.",
"That shovel reminds me of DIGG for unknowns reasons **bury**",
"That article is purposely fake for fun. It is part of the Lost Legends series explained on this page (which is linked at the bottom of the Mister Ed page). It's purposely a troll to see what people will believe. I guess it worked too well on you.\nhttps://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp",
"ThatsTheJoke.jpeg",
"Really? The desktop monitor looks pretty much exactly one floor down to me.\n\nEdit: OP confirmed second floor ",
"I'd expect Breibart sources for their examples. ",
"Do you know of better fact checking sites?\n\nReality naturally leans left of the extreme right that is currently in office.",
"He’s a 10-foot tall beast man who showers in vodka and feeds his baby shrimp scampi.",
"Uh, do you actually know any liberals?",
"That, and personal money management. ",
"BILL BRASKY!!",
"\"Snopes’ sole political fact-checker, Kim Lacapria, “describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans regressive and afraid of female agency.” Prior to joining Snopes, Kim Lacapria reportedly known for publishing fake quotes and various hoaxes — furthermore she admits she’s a liberal Democrat. At the end of the day, if you see your favorite urban myth being debunked on Snopes there is a pretty good chance you’ll get pretty good information — if you’re looking for political “fact checking” you might take a second look.\"",
"It does for people who think there is something wrong with people who are different than them. That's kinda the whole problem.",
"That was exactly my point but some people are taking it someplace else",
"if you honestly believe there's no bias behind a source just because that media outlet says so then there's a problem in your judgement. ",
"Oh dang.. glad you cleared that up I totally love propaganda and will cancel my subscription to propaganda magazine. Gosh I totally thought double checking sources and fact checking wasn’t propaganda... damn it I should have seen that coming! ",
"The difference between a cult and a religion is that in a cult, there's a guy at the top who know's it's all bullshit. In a religion, that guy is dead.\n\nSo depending on who you believe is in charge of the GOP, it could be either.",
"You are correct! I was at the second floor ",
"Good question - be curious to see responses on this. ",
"Safari blocks them now which is nice.",
"Ok, but have you actually read the comments that provide an argument for why they think it's left-leaning? There's a few reasonable arguments with some evidence of bias posted in this thread. The counter arguments seem to be \"No, you're dumb, also you are Republican, lol\"\n\nI'm more inclined to believe someone who can form a good argument rather than the people who use a persons political opinion as a standing point for why they are wrong.",
"Don't listen to things without doing your own independent research! Use these specific sites to do your research!",
"You know, you’d be a lot more convincing if you actually linked to proof of it being biased, instead of just saying it ",
">Get downvotes for having a differing opinion\n\nOr maybe it's for presenting that opinion without evidence.",
"Only hyperpartisans use logical fallacies!\n",
"My favorite way of telling fake news is contained in the maxim, \"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.\" If someone has a claim that, if true, would shake the foundations of our society to its core, there would be more than a couple of dodgy websites covering it. ",
"Yes Snopes the reliable fact checking site.",
"I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist but it sure seems that way :L",
"Lmfao as if Snopes, Politico, and Politifact can be trusted.",
">Attacked \n\n\n\nAww, poor you ",
"There is but no one bothers to pay attention/no one cares as much as they should. Everything is a google search away. \n\nSource: am student",
"Meh, I am plenty civil with most people. The people who are full on members of the cult of The Donald are the MAGAts. When you put party before country there really is no trying to come to a common understanding. ",
"> Only hyperpartisans believe Snopes to be left or right leaning\n\nI would love someone to point out to me where Snopes is biased in its fact-checking. I can definitely see where it is in the \"news\" it is starting to do, but I see fact-checking of everything on that site and find that the only issues arise when they have to deal with the best way to categories \"partial truths\".",
"you spelled jew wrong.",
"s***nope***s",
"beware \"filter bubbles\" -- that would never apply to certain subreddits that have names implying they are neutral ",
"Ah, my mistake. I suppose it was evident my post could *only* be interpreted as a personal attack :)",
"They have demonstrated their bias numerous times, they are just run by humans, you know. Not by infallible truth machines. All sources have the potential for bias, but I believe the intention in listing those sites was noble.",
">leaflet\n\nI'm pretty sure it's a bookmark. ",
"That's why I only visit websites that auto-play sound at random intervals with no clear goal, or way to turn it off.",
"[I](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/\n)\n\n[wish](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/06/27/the-cnn-retraction-and-the-danger-of-relying-on-one-anonymous-source/\n)\n\n[I](http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/06/16/the-source-may-be-anonymous-but-the-shame-is-all-yours/)\n\n[could](http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1596)\n\n[back](http://www.latimes.com/la-naw-quad17mar17,0,7227999.story)\n\n[that](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601262.html)\n\n[up](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40414886)",
"I think 3 is about credibility of author. For example: you can get an article about Chernobyl authored by me (not really), nuclear scientist or someone from countryside on the opposite side of the globe who might happen to know the name. Which one is more likely to know their stuff in-depth?\n\nAnother one: an article about pros and cons of solar energy. One written by solar energy supporter/lobbyist and one written by someone who isn't that all-in on solar energy (for the sake of the argument let's assume the author is a fan of wind energy). One is going to be more positive about it than the other. Point 3. is about seeking if there isn't an agenda going on or if the author should write about the subject at all.",
"***FAKE NEWS***",
"I have and remain unconvinced.",
"Not the same effort, but just... Any. At all.",
"Not really. It’s only an either/or fallacy if there’s more possibilities than what OP listed. A false dichotomy is a fallacy, but a true dichotomy is not. \n\nIf I say only people who believe the earth is flat are Flat Earthers, that’s an identity, so it’s not a false dichotomy. \n\nThere’s definitely reason to believe that hyperpartisans (extremists on both the left and the right) dislike Snopes. \n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp",
"All good except for the fact checkers. Simply calling yourself a \"fact checker\" doesn't mean you aren't a partisan hack selectively correcting things",
"literally all sites bought and paid for by The DNC just like reddit.",
"Snopes politico and politifact? Yeah... Fuck no. They are not reliable and have a heavy bias. Just as bad as sharrblue",
"So they ran an article about themselves and wrote only good things about their own publication. Good source to back up your argument. I think you're lost on the entire premise of this thread.",
"None. You're not going to find an unbiased fact checking site because no one who has a neutral stance would care to do so.\n\nFact checking sites are a terrible idea. They exist to convince you they're telling you the truth by claiming to be an authority on truth.",
"Snopes, Politico, Politifact. Nice joke XD",
"The Federalist does fact checking from time to time, and I think they do a pretty good job. They're not strictly for fact checking though.",
"Are you claiming that politifact has a conservative bias?",
"It seems like downvote brigades are effective at suppressing facts and making combatting falsehoods impossible.\n\nIf you don't see how Snopes presents people with more than just facts, then your ability to detect propafanda is lacking. I'm not trying to suggest Fox news is in any way better, but I'm not going to subscribe to the absurd belief that you can accurately collapse a complicated political situation into either being \"True\" or \"False\". \nThat, and the ability to carefully construct the wording of the statement which they are determing the validity of, leads a lot of room for bias. There is a lot more than just facts in a snopes article and I hope you can see this now.",
"You're looking at this through logical eyes, and the kind of person that thinks Obama is a secret Muslim don't have those. They genuinely think that America is a Christian nation, and that separation of church and state is just something liberals made up to discriminate against christians. So, in their eyes, if the leader of the country is a Muslim, they will enact Muslim laws, and the christians will suffer for it.\n\nThis is, of course, ridiculous. But the people that believe it are not intelligence people, so it is what it is ",
"I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Other than the swearing, that I recognized.",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism",
"Proof? I will agree they have a nationalist agenda. That's not bad though. Unless you are for global 1 world government",
"I see. And the way I see you is: \n\n\"Only FOX news is a propaganda outlet! And anyone who doesn't agree with me is a *raaaaaaciiiiiiiiist*!\"\n\nBut no. [Maybe you're correct](https://pics.me.me/mark-dice-markdice-10h-cnn-vs-fox-news-after-a-member-29609191.png)",
"http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf",
"No they aren't. Have you even read the articles in question?",
"fact check w/ snipes, politico, and politifact... LMAOOOOOOOO\n\nlol theyre literally the definition of fake news!",
"Facts tend to be left-leaning.",
"Wait wait wait, what? Where the fuck did you get literally any of that? That's an *enormous* strawman you've created for yourself to take down. \n\nEdit: Conservatives believe that it's OK to shoot anyone they disagree with at any time, and I think that's wrong. See, isn't this fun?",
"I would argue that one \"should listen to answers if asking questions.\"\n\nI get assholes here on reddit asking questions every damn day, but they won't listen to answers. Just want to ask \"what about some other thing?\"",
"Something tells me we shouldn’t be taking source advice from anyone who all caps leftists. \n\n\n",
"Snopes and politifact are not reliable fact check sites. They are left leaning agenda pushing sites. \n\nBetter to take in all sources and make up your own mind ",
"Those are not liberal viewpoints. ",
"The word is \"biased\". Not bias..\n\n\nIdk why you people cant get it right. The word is BIASED",
"There really aren't any. The thing is, people like me who are against fact checking websites more point to the fact that it isn't like they are the holy grail of truth just because they claim to fact check. We all have access to the exact same internet and sources. \n\nJust because politifact says its true shouldn't mean you should assume it is. Like any other source, do some research for yourself",
"Bill Brasky had open heart surgery. The surgeon said it looked like a basketball filled with ricotta cheese.",
"It's not fake because you don't like it.",
"Is it possible that one side tends to mislead or skew the truth more than the other?",
"Any facts that make their god emperor look bad. So...most of them.",
"“Fact check them from these three biased websites!”",
"Especially when the current administration leans extremely right.",
"You're all crazy, we're talking about basic fact checking here and you're acting like the the ministry of truth is trying to brainwash you. As if every one of these fact checkers goes out of it's way to convince you there is nothing else but liberalism.\n\nHmm this article says 'Apples are blue' maybe I should look into that.\n\nPolitifact: \"Correct, Blue is the one true color anything good or good for you will be blue.\"",
"It's called informational literacy. It's a big deal in the library world. ",
"\"Left leaning\" is quite an understatement. ",
"Damn, O’Keefe played himself. This destroys the whole narrative ",
"what library is this?",
"http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40414886\n\nhttp://www.latimes.com/la-naw-quad17mar17,0,7227999.story\n\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601262.html\n\nhttp://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1596\n\nhttp://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/06/16/the-source-may-be-anonymous-but-the-shame-is-all-yours/\n\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/06/27/the-cnn-retraction-and-the-danger-of-relying-on-one-anonymous-source/\n\n\nhttps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/",
"It's very convenient that you can say to ignore the thing most people will look at and be informed by and pretend that most people will read the article while you and the site know that's not the case and that the meter is what informs 99% of people.",
"A counter? It looks more like a balcony and they are facing over the edge. You can see the stairs in the background.",
"Knowingly.",
"Go to their front page right now. Any article you see will be sourced. Either you're confused or you're lying.",
"Being high. \n",
"Snopes was presented as an authority on truthhood without evidence.",
"Aren't these mainly just the cable news sites? I'd go further and add:\n\n\"Don't watch cable news\"",
"Then expect to be taken just as seriously as the effort you put in. ",
"Yep, it's called Media Literacy and I believe some high schools have adopted it into their curriculum as they should.",
"Hey I've heard those sites be called left leaning before, are there any center/nonpartsian/even right-leaning fact checking sources, that you find reliable? ",
"How are they not liberal biased?",
"You know any 'right wing' fact checking sites? No of course not because fact checking is anathema to the GOP these days. They thrive on a demographic fed bullshit and lies, the last thing they want is 'facts' getting in the way.",
"Alot of libraries have open second floor stories with railings to provide a quiet and shared atmosphere",
"I can't look at porn on my own device at my public library nevermind on a public computer.",
"It’s not that much effort to provide a link in a comment. 100% verifiable by googling it yourself.",
"I cover it in my Grade 7 Language class with my students.",
"Hahahahahahahahaha\n\nSomeone actually linked TD as a source. Oh my stars",
"Oh yes, Politico: home of Glenn Thrush, who ran his stories by John Podesta, and Maggie Haberman, who is the DNC's favorite \"friendly\" reporter. ",
"It destroys any and all credibility in my eyes. If you're so desperate you have to annoy your viewers, what else is your desperation making you do? ",
"Yeah, wish the all the major newspapers and the government here in Sweden could take heed of this...",
"Yeah I'm sure the pee pee tape is real, and Trump is addicted to cocaine, and Pence is secretly the president. Yeah, the left certainly doesn't believe in fake news /s",
"That's a lot of work to make sure something isn't fake news. Maybe just ignore the media at this point. They have proven to be corrupt. ",
"Good. I'll go check their credentials...",
"Anonymous reports don't name some or all author(s) compiling, framing, and presenting the information. \n\nAnonymous sources, like a \"Deep Throat\", are ***usually*** sources that have something significant to lose by revealing sensitive information and having their identity publicized, but are trusted and vetted enough by a reputable outlet to be featured in an editorial. \n\nBad outlets are bad outlets, that's a separate issue. \n\nEven though r/politics has it's biases and bad sources, I'd sure like to see him prove that 90% of articles there fall into either of these categories, ***especially*** the former. ",
"Snopes, Politico, Politifact - three fake news left wing organizations. ",
"i mean.. based on your post history you are pretty hate filled to anyone right leaning...",
"aah, thanks.",
"It's a clearly marked TROLL article.\nhttps://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp",
"http://www.dictionary.com/browse/more?s=t",
"That is asking WAAAAY too much of the typical American conservative. The typical American conservatives already lacks basic research skills as the majority have no higher education. Coupled with their emphasis on personal experience over reason, suspicion and mistrust of expertise, and an inherent unwillingness to question authority figures, you end up with an easily manipulated voter who easily believes things like, \"Obama's birth certificate is fake!\" Talking about people who believe Websters Dictionary is biased liberal media. People who believe Jesus flew up to heaven and the earth is only 6000 years old but you want them to ask if a title is too unrealistic to be true?\n\nGreat advice for students but its basically the recipe for the destruction of every religion on Earth.",
"I'm from California. These are political positions I encounter on a regular basis.",
"I'm on mobile and don't see it clearly marked.\n\n[edit] Now I'm on desktop and also don't see any clear markings. The only way to know is to click the \"more information\" link at the bottom then read that page.",
"Yep. This . \"URL?... whut that stand for? Ultra Righetous Liberal? Fucking Soros plants everywhere turning our Chem trails gay!\"",
"I disagree completely. You can be a right-leaning person who uses logic and scientific process. The issue is that too many people associate their \"opposite\" with the extreme version. \"Right-leaning\" is suddenly \"evangelical neonazies\" and \"left-leaning\" is \"atheist criminal-apologists\".",
"LOL a leaflet about \"fake news\" is telling people to go to fake news sites like politifact. And liberals are up voting this in droves. The irony and cognitive dissonance here is off the charts. ",
"No, but there is such a thing as context and sometimes our mainstream media intentionally leaves it out for the sake of a very obvious narrative.",
"Jordan Peterson is one of the least mentally competent people in my country. You should really find someone better than that charlatan to teach you.",
"Lol",
"The only news sources who don't have a \"left-leaning bias\" these days are fake news outlets like breitbart. The \"left\" in the US is the center-right in developed countries.",
"> proof that Trump's strategy of calling everything \"fake news\" actually worked\n\nObama made the term mainstream after the term became popular on social media (\"Facebook fake news\"). Trump later claimed it for himself which I found hilarious. If Trump hadn't done so, the term \"fake news\" would pretty much be exclusively used to dismiss any conservative opinions.\n\nIt's nice that the term is ambiguous now.\n\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9KCQInpenA",
"\"Check the URL, does it have any odd suffixes\"\n\n-source: alastore.ala.org",
"It's pretty telling that your go to term for anyone not far right is \"non-liberals\". There's a pretty big gap between liberal and going to the extremes of Fox News and Breitbart. Idk how most of you people have been convinced that everyone that doesn't like trump is some \"tree hugging liberal\" or something. It's not remotely true.",
"The \"shit's being slung from both sides\" argument feels correct and equitable to say, but the truth is not in the center of two arbitrary sides. The right has been gaming the media's proclivity for false equivalency by going to ideological extremes, because impartial observe will assume that the moderate views and this extreme view are both equally wrong, and that reality is somewhere in the middle. It's not. Reality is where reality is. \n\n[Here's an interview with a fake news creator](https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs):\n\n>Well, this isn't just a Trump-supporter problem. This is a right-wing issue. Sarah Palin's famous blasting of the lamestream media is kind of record and testament to the rise of these kinds of people. The post-fact era is what I would refer to it as. This isn't something that started with Trump. This is something that's been in the works for a while. His whole campaign was this thing of discrediting mainstream media sources, which is one of those dog whistles to his supporters. When we were coming up with headlines it's always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.\n\n>We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.\n\nA few more academic sources:\n\nhttp://www.danielmtfessler.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Fessler-et-al-in-press-Political-Orientation-Credulity.pdf\n\nhttps://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/why-fake-news-targeted-trump-supporters/515433/&httpsredir=1&article=1069&context=poliscifacpub\n\n\n",
"I would add:\n\n* Go straight to the source. If a news article links a study or report, read that too.\n\n* Avoid opinion pieces. Form your *own* opinion, don't just accept someone else's.",
"> rather than absolute fact like snopes and politifact.\n\nFrom what I have seen, that is usually because those sites have sources. Can't speak much to politifact but just going on to the fact check part of snopes, looking through the first 3 pages for anything related to trump and found these:\n\n>https://www.snopes.com/did-trump-tweet-president-dow-joans/\n\n>https://www.snopes.com/elon-musk-donald-trump-dumbass/\n\n>https://www.snopes.com/trumps-hair-filmed-blowing-wind/\n\nI don't know how much bias there is here.",
"Don't go to these fact checking websites if you're a trump supporter. You'll return salty AF.",
"You're still not clever or smart. Just a deplorable. Go back to the donald.",
"You can see stairs on the left. This was taken at least on a 2nd floor",
"To the best of my knowledge and I have done a fair bit of research. There is no sites other than the three mentioned that have nearly as much content (facts supposedly checked) as those mentioned. The best bet is elbow grease and researching for yourself. I know that answer sucks and doesn't answer your question, but I believe that's the best answer you'll get.",
"And people who believe fake news think they are already following these tenants.",
"Clearly marked TROLL article.\nhttps://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp",
"So do you have any examples of those fact checking sites lying?",
"He’s being sarcastic. Such a thing doesn’t and can’t exist.",
"I'd rather have this than nothing though, shows that people are at least aware of it.",
"Yeah.",
"It certainly is cutting down on my work this afternoon. Searching through databases and skimming is difficult.",
"Yeah I showed something like this to my Trump-supporter high school \"friend.\" He claimed that Snopes, Politifact and Politico are controlled by liberal propagandists.",
"Clearly marked TROLL article.\nhttps://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp",
"The problem is that sites like politifact are biased as well. ",
">>Snopes, Politico, and Politifact all have a Liberal bias. This entire card is trash.\n\n>>-The people that ~~need this card~~ post in this thread. ",
"A cite run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google as their research tool. A couple who split, with the wife claiming in court that the husband spent $98K of company money on himself, including prostitutes. The husband moved on to marry a former porn star and escort service worker, who is one of a handful of employees fact-checking at the cite. The husband accuses the wife of similar financial impropriety. [And, yes, they do get things wrong.](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2307857/posts) And they do have a slant. \n\nSnopes is no more authoritative than a Redditor willing to use Google. \n\n**More than this, going to Snopes is lazy! It is a surrender of cognitive responsibility to an authority which is an unqualified source. That Snopes is right X percent of the time is no more profound than saying that a Google search is right X percent of the time. This doesn't train people to be better thinkers, but lazier thinkers.** \n\n",
"Yes because hey are reliable sites.",
"And often the meter is accurate. But if you are *actually* fact checking, they can be a useful source. And that involves reading an article. If you aren't going to bother to do that, you aren't fact checking anyway, so what does it matter? ",
"that was being so triggered? jeez id hate to see what being ultra triggered is!",
"Clearly marked TROLL article.\nhttps://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp",
"Great until it tells you to fact check with sites like Politico.",
"Yea... So take it with a grain of salt... And check the history of the reporter",
"Clearly marked TROLL article.\nhttps://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp",
"Thread summary: \n“Snopes and Politifact are unbiased? You’re kidding, right? LOL” \n“Please give an example of where those websites are biased.” \n(No reply)",
"That's fair, I'll go find it and edit it into the original comment.",
"And I guess verifying the source, like a legitimate government site would end in .gov rather than .com",
"Oh, like when CNN blasted out that Trump (the racist!) removed MLK's bust from the Oval office? (he didn't)\n\nCNN trips over themselves to misrepresent the POTUS at every chance they get - they deserve the title \"fake news.\" Every anchor has to toe the line and they go to ever more ridiculous lengths to do it - just pull up Lemon's or Cooper's meltdowns with guests they disagree with. I wish they didn't get so distorted, I used to watch them all the time. \n\nNow CNN doesn't even rise to the level of infotainment.",
"Chill out lol",
"theyre propaganda level biased\n\nsome of the \"true\" or \"not true\" stuff on there is done in horribly bad faith, is very dishonest, and downright retarded \n\ntrump said it was 80 degrees out today... it was ACTUALLY 81!!!! LIARRRRRR!!!\n\na lefty said they didnt steal something... but they actually only took it in a certain state where the law was more lenient so the reports of them being a thief are overdone by 1% therefore theyre being honest...\n\n",
"I highly doubt the reporter who did the groundwork in interviewing subjects or the news editor who fact checked the article has anything to do with the technology on their company's website autoplaying videos. That's a managerial and engineering decision, and I find it really questionable that you would conflate a decision like that with individual journalistic credibility.",
"Yeah people use it. It's a very reliable site with excellent citations backing it up.",
"~~Are you being purposefully deceptive or just dumb?~~\n\nPoster didn't see the joke tag on these articles and I assumed they were posting in bad faith. \n\nhttps://i.imgur.com/ABGYigs.png",
"They're calling out a fake story about Roy Moore. \n\nIf your assumptions were true, they would've published the story without verifying it just because it's against Roy Moore, which is what Project Veritas hoped for. Fortunately, your assumptions are baseless. ",
"You sir, answered that very well.",
"balcony ",
"What are some mainstream news sources that lean right besides Fox News, which is really right. ",
"This might just be the dumbest comment in this thread.",
"it is probably just because of the political climate but I am noticing more and more the bias from CNN and other sites that I didn't notice before. I think they are less bias than FOX which is so bias it isn't even funny but it is almost mindblowing how you an find an article on one site and then no article about the same content on the other because it doesn't serve their political agenda. ",
"Even the term *Fake News* makes me sick to my stomach. It’s just a way for Trump to call anything said about him as not true and spread a false narrative. It’s propaganda at this point.",
"> There, “extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.”\n\nTotal failure to demonstrate that they are **more susceptible**. Just because it was shared more, doesn't mean that repubs are more susceptible to them. ",
"Cheers! Cool find btw",
"I've never gotten the impression of PolitiFact being conservative (though, I also don't really see it as being that liberal, either, so what do I know?) Where do you get that impression?",
"The thing is, since we realized the mainstream media are the fake news, they have been trying to sell the idea that the alternative/online media are the fake news, not they.",
">Where the fuck did you get literally any of that?\n\nThe places that **don’t** engage in fact-checking.\n\n",
"Read the same story from both perspectives and formulate your own opinion. \n\nFor everything I read on Politico or Washington Post, I cross-reference with National Review or Washington Times. \n\nThere are three sides to all these stories: The left, the right and the truth. The truth is usually a lot less sensational than the either slant and doesn’t drive as many clicks or comments from either side. ",
"But anonymous sources are America’s favorite sources.",
"so does politifact for that matter.",
"Sounds like you have some personal issues you need to tackle",
"Ouch",
"Thank you, I can't believe this even needs to be said... Like... Of course... Fallibility is human. ",
"Also, one of them is for 17-20 year olds and the other for 17-24",
"Ya idk much about the other sites but snopes has always posted pretty fairly regardless of if its a politically motivated rumor. They may be left leaning but they simply state the facts on the issue and for things without a clear answer they let you know that. I agree none should be assumed to be perfect though. Read what they say in detail, follow the sources, and verify what you can but its not like ive ever seen snopes posting about fake shit and claiming it was true. ",
"I'm looking at you, CNN.",
"Wasn’t Snopes found to be biased in some cases? \n\n“Better check Snopes......damn.”",
"Only during the primary campaign between Clinton and Sanders; the responsible employee appeared to be a rouge operative and was fired; and that still isn't fabrication of truth. \n\nSource: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/17/brazile-admits-forwarded-debate-questions-to-clinton-camp.amp.html\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/donna-brazile-leaves-cnn/",
"LMAO leave your conservative bubble",
"In court? Really? Then about 70% of the MSM is in trouble for the past year alone.",
"It's on the list because it's a useful website. You not liking the facts they have does not change the fact that they're objective facts.",
"There are like 50 people in this thread asking what articles snopes has gotten wrong, and no responses. It's hilarious.",
">fact check with Snopes, Politifact\n\nhahahahaha",
"I love how the picture for that is apples to oranges. ",
">hugely leftist",
"You post in the Donald. You fucking bathe in fake news",
"/u/RoboNinjaPirate never said they were wrong, he said they were biased. You can make the most kind gesture seem horrendous if you word it right, just as you can win any argument if you don't address the other person's points.",
"I'm not reading through a bunch of bullshit in that sub. Use your own words. Prove it to me.",
"So if I don't put my faith in those sites I'm a Republican cultist?",
"I admit it. I laughed audibly when I read that part. ",
"I appreciated it as well. Being well-informed isn't a bad thing",
"There was a news story I read recently that said liberal consumers of news get their sources of news from many different outlets, while conservative consumers of news only stick to outlets they know.",
"but people will still take it as fact. ",
"No, the card itself is pointing people to biased sources.",
"The facts they show aren't biased just because they prove you wrong.",
"The thing is though, at least where I am most people say that Politico, Snopes and Politifact are fake news nowadays.",
"I live in California. This is what they have here. This is what people assert. This is what you see on social media. ",
"Fake** libraries ^^/s",
"Do books still exist in 2018 my millennial brain is hurting from confusion ",
"Sources familiar with u/just_maga_memes thinking have confirmed he understands how to identify fake news.",
"I love this but I feel like anyone who actually cares to know the truth (instead of what they want to be the truth) wouldn't have to be told this. Because of that, I'm not sure how effective it would be",
"Snopes IS UNRELIABLE. Same with politifact. They are both liberal and push false narratives and use liberal messaging. It’s so blatant.\n\nOh.... before you say well your a conservative. I am going to tell you, that’s precisely why I can see the blatant bias and liberals can’t. All it is is confirmation bias site for liberals. Whether it’s true or not, they frame everything from a liberal perspective.\n\nIt’s better to read both left and right and determine the truth on your own than go to either of these sites. Snopes/Politifact is making an argument from authority rather than getting you to think critically. It also never gets the conservative side of the argument.\n\nRemember, bias can also be omission. \n\n",
"( \\ ) False.",
"Yes",
"Politifact lol",
"Every college library I've been to has this posted somewhere on the wall. ",
"Wow, you really blew that strawman down with ease. I'm super proud of you.",
"It's biased towards he truth I suppose.",
"There aren't really any big ones. And there will probably never be any because who decides what's a true fact when it comes to politics? Politifact and snopes aren't really \"accurate\", or they're as accurate as one can be when trying to objectively answer nuanced statements in one word. ",
"They're on /r/politics someone cross-post it there.",
"I like how you imply that only one end of the political spectrum believes fake news.",
">Snopes, Politico, Politifact\n\nSo fact check fake news with fake news outlets? Got it.",
"They'd have to be at the library...",
"We need to get NK to air drop some packages with these leaflets inside to the more remote regions of the US",
"Most main news site have headlines that don't match the content or are extremely exaggerated.",
"Just want to make sure your exquisite KenM reference didn’t go unappreciated. I’d give you SandCoin if I had any to spare.",
"If I had to name a single publication, it would have to be FT, which is an excellent publication, especially when it comes to geopolitics and (obviously) business & finance. Obviously, you should read other sources too.",
"Chrome's \"mute tab\" feature is a pretty solid solution for sites that you can't just avoid (which for me tends to be obscure game wikis).\n\nEDIT: Apparently Firefox has it too! And [here's a screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/bf0Wgoj.png) for the uninitiated.",
"Ha! Like there is no difference between males and females. There are fifty genders. Communism is a great system that just hasn't ever been done right. Muslims are so peaceful and Christians are just awful.\n\nYou have a very distorted view of reality. Certainly not the cruel reality that evolution works in. You probably seek your own extinction going after some dream called fairness.",
"I thought pleading to emotions was the lefts thing.",
"Snopes IS UNRELIABLE. Same with politifact. They are both liberal and push false narratives and use liberal messaging. It’s so blatant.\n\nOh.... before you say well your a conservative. I am going to tell you, that’s precisely why I can see the blatant bias and liberals can’t. All it is is confirmation bias site for liberals. Whether it’s true or not, they frame everything from a liberal perspective.\n\nIt’s better to read both left and right and determine the truth on your own than go to either of these sites. Snopes/Politifact is making an argument from authority rather than getting you to think critically. It also never gets the conservative side of the argument.\n\nRemember, bias can also be omission. \n\n",
"I'M WEARING A DIAPER.",
"Or standing in a balcony",
"The picture does ask to \"consult competing sources\" and \"be open minded\"... ",
"Keep thinking that. ",
"/r/HailCorporate indeed.\n\nAdvertisement for those particular websites masked within an info-graphic. \n \nThose are the only sites mentioned on the leaflet, strange thing to do since you could recommend sites for almost every point there. \n \nSo yes, definitely advertisement. Also the amount of upvotes reflect that as well. And the massive amount of people vouching for the before mentioned sites",
"Not really... Media companies know the laws that govern them pretty well and how to work within them. ",
"Enjoy your crumbs",
"Its not so much people are dumb. People are dumb but the real issue is the brain washing on both sides. Combine that with manipulative people wanting to make money online (far right sites make a LOT of money), enough people eat the fake news up. Pretty soon no one knows who to trust and they don't care enough to spend the time to really research. That TV show is more important. Thats fine, but they should keep their fucking mouth shut to prevent the spread of bullshit. Instead they want to sound \"informed\" and quote headlines as facts. Idiots.",
"Those sites no more have a right to call something a \"fact\" than any other website, and are open to just as much bias and misinformation. Politifact specifically was founded by a left-wing media company \"The Tampa Bay Times\", with the intent being that it appears to be an unbiased apolitical fact-checking service which in itself is just another branch of left-wing media helping to spin stories, and they would in fact reference themselves as evidence of their \"truth\".\n\nIn their defense, the articles themselves, if you bother to read the two pages of details, are generally not complete fabrications, but the brief \"true or false\" could not be more misleading and biased. \n\nFor example, they will phrase the question \"Did a Weather Channel Co-Founder Disprove Climate Change?\" to which they say \"False\". People that were linked the video will then say that's fake news, when in fact the Weather Channel founder did publish many videos to disprove climate change. Whether you agree with his findings as a scientist and trust his credentials as an award winning climatologist is up to you as an individual.\n\nOr there was another where it asked \"Did Hillary Clinton bleach her mail server to delete all evidence as Trump claims\", where they say \"False\". Of course, if you read further down they explain that she didn't bleach it, she used bleach-bit, when clearly that's what Trump was referring to and is in fact true.\n\nThe hope is that most people only read headlines and so will check those sites and see something is \"false\" and leave it at that, not reading the fine print.",
"I believe thats called cherrypicking.",
"The first link doesn’t seem to say what you’re implying it does and the other 6 are articles as far back as 1994, half of them about entertainment celebrities and not government. I can’t understand how you think that supports the statement that “most anonymous sources are false” ",
"Right on. But here's something that's been going on for awhile that nobody calls out: what happened to investigative journalism? Why is all news only what happened today? What happened to big stories that took weeks or months of investigation?",
"Mad props to my librarian (University of Rhode Island) for authoring this! https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark",
"\"I never attacked you! Libtard isn't a personal attack it's just describing the group who believes this fake news. If you weren't such a snowflake you'd know that you cuck.\"",
"“So anyway, Brasky decides to enter me,” thats literally all i read...",
"Snopes IS UNRELIABLE. Same with politifact. They are both liberal and push false narratives and use liberal messaging. It’s so blatant.\n\nOh.... before you say well your a conservative. I am going to tell you, that’s precisely why I can see the blatant bias and liberals can’t. All it is is confirmation bias site for liberals. Whether it’s true or not, they frame everything from a liberal perspective.\n\nIt’s better to read both left and right and determine the truth on your own than go to either of these sites. Snopes/Politifact is making an argument from authority rather than getting you to think critically. It also never gets the conservative side of the argument.\n\nRemember, bias can also be omission. \n\n",
"You're right, CNN, VOX, Buzzfeed, NYT, WaPo are much worse. ",
"I was also upset with politifact for rating a sentence said by Bernie Sanders in an interview as \"Mostly False\" because that sentence omitted details. But when I found the original interview, it turns out that the entire interview was explaining all those details.\n\nUnfortunately politifact didn't link to the interview in question, and now I can't seem to find it.\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/04/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/\n\nI guess I'll be labeled a 'Bernie Bro' or something for being frustrated by this sort of thing, it just was a reminder that I shouldn't take their ratings at face value.",
"You see that on the left. Those are stairs. They make people really tall and able to go higher than normal!",
"So, you just shove your head in the sand and pretend the rest of the world outside your bubble doesn't exist? Except when you want to comment about it on reddit, of course. ",
"It’s almost like the facts, and by extension, reality itself, have a left leaning bias... 🤔",
"Or on the 2nd floor of a multifloor library.",
"There should be a diverse set of opinions on Reddit. Get over your butthurt.",
"Politico's writers and editors were wrapped up in a lot of wikileaks emails talking about stuff like private dinner parties and strategy sessions with leftist politicians on how to win elections by using their platform to spread positive information on Hillary Clinton and negative information about Bernie and Trump. Politico is a big company though so maybe they shouldn't be judged by the people in the top positions or the people that edit the things they publish. Out of all the outlets shown in wikileaks to be \"compromised\" so to speak, NBC, Washington Post, NYT, and Politico were probably the most common where writers worked with the DNC to ask what to write to best help their campaign. If anyone else remembers specific publications or reporters that came up in wikileaks alot let me know. I specifically remember Chuck Todd being wayyyyyy up Debbie Wassermann-Schultz's ass like she was his boss and how she bitched at him to spin narratives for the DNC. It was sickening. ",
"> Or they're trying to garner sympathy for someone who may have been threatening or dangerous and put the police officer in a situation where they had to make a very difficult decision.\n\nYeah, like that guy who smelled a bit like marijuana and forced the cop to shoot him to death in front of his young son.\n\nOr that 15 year old kid who forced a cop to shoot him in the face by backing his car away from the cop while leaving a party.\n\nAll American cops are bad people. The benefit of the doubt should be reserved for their victims and NEVER for them.",
"Maybe it is a library for ants.",
"Be sure to check with left leaning websites to confirm the validity of what you're reading. ",
"During the election a friend of mine, whom I've always thought of as a semi-intelligent woman, was constantly posting articles about Sanders and Clinton. When I commented with a Snopes article, she said \"Like you can believe Snopes!\" I defriended her.",
"Who cares? Read some of the things they publish. They're firmly on the, \"Global warming isn't *really* going to be as bad as all the scientists say it will,\" side, for example.",
"Ok, that's fine, but regardless, simply saying \"He posts on /r/the_Donald, therefore, he is wrong in every single thing he ever says\" is a really shitty thing to say. It's not a good argument point, and in fact, is an Ad Hominem. \n\nClearly everyone in this thread hates me for trying to point out that fact, based on the downvotes, so there's no point in even saying any of this. Clearly it's not going to change anyone opinion about good argument formulation and is a complete waste of my time. Have a good day.",
"For everyone asking me \"Well what would you do\"\n\nThis RATIONAL person has the correct answer.\n\nDo your own research and play devil's advocate with your own beliefs.",
"*I really hope we can all agree on this no matter what side you're on we should all make sure the information we take in and pass on is correct.*",
"Fake news: Deliberately publishing hoaxes and false information",
"Seriously though, who fucking needs this to discern fake news from real news? Critical thinking doesn’t require a god damned leaflet ",
"It forgot to say, if it’s from a conservative outlet, best to ignore and refer to CNN/Von/Huffington Post on the issue. ",
"He is on the floor above looking down over the railing. If you look in the picture you can see the stair case that leads to the floor he is on.",
"Great anecdote.\n\nI’m from North Carolina and know a lot of racist morons but I don’t think all Republicans are like that.\n\nI think it’s just more like people in general are pretty stupid. ",
"While there is Bias, you should still read the article. Bernie's numbers came from a think tank measuring unemployment in a different way from most official sources, and the article states that Bernie did not accurately explain the number. The \"mostly true\" part comes from the fact that \n\n1. Bernie's team was willing to work with the politifact team and\n\n2. The point he was making was still supported by the data: education and race is predictive of employment even in younger generations.\n\nThen, 1 year later with more accurate numbers (Every news agency ever was doing as much polling as they could near the end of Obama's presidency) Trump gives an even *more* outrageous number than Bernie did, and he's not making any sort of comparison. He's just flatout saying that over half the black youth are unemployed. \n\n1. His team *did not* communicate with the Politifact team after being contacted\n\n2. While he made a somewhat similar point to Bernie, the number looked a lot more outrageous because he didn't have similarly high numbers with it. Saying 50% of black youths are unemployed isn't as bad when you also say 30% of white youths are unemployed.\n\n\nNow, politifact is still biased, but they are pretty open with their reasoning and you can still read the article and come to a conclusion on your own.\n\nPersonally, I would have made both statements \"Mostly False\"",
"I'll ask you a question then: If I had switched conservative and liberal in the story, would you have asked the same question?",
"its almost as though right wing sources rely on the information itself being implicit rather than relying on a third party to arbitrarily tick it \n\nanyone who relies in any way on \"fact checkers\" has no mind of their own and shouldnt be trusted to have a real opinion",
"It takes very little time. If you can't think critically and work a job at the same time there is a serious problem with you.",
"You can lump Fox News in there too if you're trying to list sham news networks. ",
"I REALLY hate when r/Science has to have someone in the comments provide the research paper because the link is to some terrible article that, not only doesn't link to it, completely ignores the conclusion in favour of its own. This is especially true for the highly-upvoted pro-marijuana articles we see every day.",
"Damn! I was hoping it was a library for ants.",
"Well, \"fake news\" actual refers to mainstream media's e.g. ABC, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, immense bias. \n\nWhat the library did with the bookmark usually falls under a university research 101 course, or any decent LAS intro course concerning the reference page.\n\nNice try Miss Burkhardt.\n\nEdit: I can see I'm getting down voted and those who play \"share the blame\" card and \"well it's Trump\" card are getting upvoted. Not that I want any upvotes but it's expected in this part of Reddit. \n\nEdit II: 🤣 Not only did the librarian use fake news incorrectly but it seems others on /pic\n just can't use it correctly as well. Can anyone else see the irony to this? ",
"So 50% of r/politics?",
"You can't say this though, as cons can say just the same thing about CNN. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying that it's not really an argument.",
"Exactly, so why elevate certain sources rather than just teaching people to be critical of all sources?",
"I read that as \"double entered us\" . Seemed to fit the conversation. ",
"If things go according to his plans, he'll die on Mars, hopefully of old age.",
"Yes, I agree that that is 3. is about, and if you can find that information out it's good. But typically when I read news articles (and this is supposed to be about fake news) no substantial information about the author is available. I won't know if the author's paid by the solar lobbyists or the oil lobbyists. The author will be a \"journalist\" not a \"scientist\".\n\nNumber 3. is good advice when evaluating scientific papers. But it's useless for reading the news. ",
"google search says snl. It looks like a Will Ferrel bit. I'm guessing Will Ferrell talks or screams louder than everyone and that the things he says are random and not funny.\n\n\nI could be wrong, though. It might be the one time he gets laughs by doing something other than acting like a toddler who doesn't get enough attention. ",
"[Both statements](http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/aug/24/jim-webb/jim-webb-says-us-didnt-have-income-taxes-until-191/)\n\n[are half true](http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jan/31/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-federal-income-tax-rate-was-0-percen/)",
">I live in California.\n\nThen you should leave your house and talk to the liberals. There are quite a few in California. \n\n>This is what they have here. This is what people assert. \n\nNo it is not, by any means. None of these are liberal viewpoints.\n\n>This is what you see on social media.\n\nYou mean when your conservative friends share memes of 'what those durnned liberals say\"?\n",
"I think they're referring to the bias not the ideology. Ideology is more centrist-left than leftist but the bias is pretty big.",
"He'll need to learn to read first.",
"Y'all ain't taking the time to read them. They're still out there.",
"And keep yourself away from NBC",
"Facts are left leaning now as well. Most right wing ideas are based on garbage. ",
"And none of what he said detracts from the point that the majority of consumers DONT READ THE ARTICLES\n\nThe main takeaway from this thread, and the most important thing that reddit needs to hear is that sensational headlines are a huge part of the problem. We all like to sit on this high horse and claim that this message about fake news isn't for us, but other people who probably won't even use it. You are part of the problem if you are someone who up votes on Reddit without reading articles",
"^ Voice of reason.",
"You might try /r/politicaldiscussion, they’re not as downvote-happy as /r/politics. That is if you’re actually posting conservative talking points and not intellectually dishonest bullshit like 90% of T_D.",
"> Both sides\n\nFox News is white nationalist propaganda.",
"Leaflet? That is a tapestry. ",
"Have you ever really loved a woman?\n\n*spanish guitar twang*",
"\"Lost Legends\" tag means it's a joke post. You've been Onioned as they say.",
"Same in Germany. But somehow we still ended up with 94 backwarded and racist right-wingers in our government. That's the first time since 1945. Apparently some people just want to stay dumb...",
"Fake news--as in made up, falsifiable news designed to further a political agenda or accrue pageviews--is significantly more prevalent on the right. ",
"My favorite is the old \"a person familiar with so-and-so's thinking...\"\nThat's true journalism there.",
"Reality has a left bias. But seriously, I have read some shit on Politico that made my eyes roll, not because they necessarily lied, but because they omitted a lot of the facts or rest of the story. \n\nEdit: a letter.",
"Or when an individual has an agenda, and removes inconvenient items that he or she discover don't support that agenda.",
"How do you actually spot fake news? How do you know what sources your getting is credible or if someone just wrote it based on his own subjectivity. how can you decipher it even on Instagram as well. ",
"Snopes and politifact aren’t legit fact checking sites.\n\nThe central fallacy here is that somebody decided they should be an authority one day. Well who made that decision? Liberals. Why? Because it pushes liberal narratives.\n\nSnopes IS UNRELIABLE. Same with politifact. They are both liberal and push false narratives and use liberal messaging. It’s so blatant.\n\nOh.... before you say well your a conservative. I am going to tell you, that’s precisely why I can see the blatant bias and liberals can’t. All it is is confirmation bias site for liberals. Whether it’s true or not, they frame everything from a liberal perspective.\n\nIt’s better to read both left and right and determine the truth on your own than go to either of these sites. Snopes/Politifact is making an argument from authority rather than getting you to think critically. It also never gets the conservative side of the argument.\n\nRemember, bias can also be omission. \n\n",
"But muh Breitbart and Fox News...",
"Changed the OP is it good now? ",
"Balcony",
"Yeah all the other advice is pretty solid but telling you to trust biased websites in order to figure out fake news on other websites seems very counterintuitive.",
"They are just here to sow doubt. when confronted they skeeter off back to their hidy-holes.",
"You realize that there's fake news on both sides. There are actually people paid to write fake articles in order to rile people up and cause divides, and it looks like you're falling for it.",
"Clip your nails. We aren't savages.",
"Old snl skit",
"Everything that is against leftism is ''FAKE NEWS''. #PizzaGate",
"Fact are objectively true but they can be slanted and presented in subversive ways. I'm sure you know that. Context is a major factor in presenting \"fact\"",
"Is that why Trump's interviews are always a lying incoherent dumpster fire of hatred and racism? ",
"Your own fear does not change the reliability of most anonymous sources featured in reliable news.",
"\"It needs to be at least three times this size!\"",
"Politico has problems too. Verify facts by finding The originals of the fact, not another third party.",
"If it only reports what others are reporting, without contributing any new information, you're in a bad spot. ",
"if a news source produced content without proper context, it's a bad source. it can still have bias and provide context.",
"Some of it is that schools across the US are all slightly different. However, a lot of these things are often taught, its just people don't listen. So they probably just don't remember it. I know I learned about this fairly early on in english/writing courses. Source scrutiny is a basic part of a writing class.",
"what news source would you consider more hard facts than entertainment",
"Relevant username ",
"Look, it's been said facts have a liberal bias. \n\nIf you're homophobic and one of those sites says being gay is natural. You'd call that a \"bias\". But it's not. It's a bias that the right had to believe being gay is unnatural. \n\nI'm not saying you are homophobic that was an example of a case. So if you have a wrong belief, and you read the opposite of it... How would you know? Unless you did research. These websites have sources and back their claims. If you don't like them it says more about you than the claim, more often than not. ",
"They are quite good at massaging the message.\n\n\"There are no no-go zones in Sweden\"\n\nVerdict: FALSE\n\nReality: ~~\"there are only areas in sweden where the police no longer comes, these are not called no-go zones\"~~\n\n\"There are sizable areas of the country where police is attacked when they go there and women are not allowed to walk alone in the streets\"\n\nMUCH BETTER.\n\nhttps://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11861/sweden-feminism\n\n\nTo the far left mongoloid below me:\nYes, right wingers can never be correct about anything.\n\n\n\n\n",
"So Leftism is so correct it's basically Science™ now!!",
"Hi! English teacher here, we’ve been teaching this stuff for years! Everyone’s just been ignoring us! ",
"It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias. ",
"Now I'm even further than Tesla's car.\n*scratches head*",
"I didn't say that. I said it's very clear why he doesn't trust fact checking websites when he's a member of the largest anti-fact community on reddit. :\\^)",
"He once ate an entire cake before we could tell him there was a stripper in it.",
"The problem is the bias is more about what they choose to fact check and not the facts themselves. But I've seen this used to ignore the facts themselves plenty of times. ",
"they are from the_donald. Its so obvious. When is reddit going to ban these fools?",
"They post on T_D fwiw. ",
"What about the time that CNN reported that Trump dumped an entire box of fish food into the koi pond then proceeded to shit on Trump for not caring about the fish or respecting Japan's culture. What they didn't show was that the president of Japan did the same thing, Trump followed what the president did. Purposefully misleading stories are par for the course with CNN. ",
"This is an excellent point, and I definitely think these sites lean strongly liberal. That being said, I think after reading both articles I got a clear picture of the situation, and could make a judgement for myself about the implications of the facts presented.\n\nFor example, just by reading the one about the unemployment claim by trump I could tell what he meant, why they thought it wasn’t accurate, and I could have my own impression about whether I thought it was an accurate claim or not, whether I agreed with their interpretation or not. They clearly gave sanders considerably more leeway on the subjective issues, but they didn’t hide any information or misrepresent any of the facts that I could see. Although I didn’t go through them exhaustively so feel free to point out something if they did and I missed it.",
"She is right, Snopes is not trustworthy.",
"nah he’s unlocked the second floor of the library. rare. congrats. ",
"Snopes is absolute trash.\n\nhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html ",
"[This is, ironically, completely false.](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford)\n\n",
"There isn't one place. You have to read multiple articles from various perspectives. Know which items are all agreed upon and which are disputed. Question your ideas and question the motive of the writer. The truth is easier to see when you know the bullshit to avoid.",
"... Okay. Chill. ",
"> Oh dang.. glad you cleared that up I totally love propaganda and will cancel my subscription to propaganda magazine. \n\nlol youre here defending \"fact checkers\", its literally the exact equivalent\n\n\"omg please tell me what to believe snopes!\"\n\n>Gosh I totally thought double checking sources and fact checking wasn’t propaganda... damn it I should have seen that coming!\n\nlets be real you arent double checking anything so much as being partisan and believing whatever your \"team\" says",
"It shows a clear bias.",
"You're correct, it does however show that mainstream news outlets have a bias and in this case favored one candidate over the other. ",
"Asking the right questions. I notice no replies so far. Almost feels like facts are left leaning.",
"I'd love to do this for a living. I'm a librarian and political/news junkie.\n\nLike traveling and giving programs on it (similar to some sex ed ones, but less sucktastic), but I don't have the resources for it.",
"Dude this \"one case\"? I used to keep a document of how many contradictions they had, lost track though.\n\nObviously politifact isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but it's a hell of a lot worse than what the general public believes. \n\nedit: https://www.reddit.com/r/the_asshole/comments/7wwue6/politifact_fake_news_compilation/",
"that won't happen - tell you what I'll do. \nI'll go wander around this not so global village, asserting facts",
"who hurt you ",
"> all being owned by the DNC\n\nFalse statement.",
"Sounds like a tagline for the new GOP tax plan.\n\n",
"Cherrypicking doesn't constitute evidence. And there's that strawman again.\n\nCan you talk to a liberal without making up things they haven't said?",
"Everything on point until they said check snopes",
"> right wing sources rely on the information itself being implicit\n\nSuch as a presidential twitter, or a FOX talking point?",
"How about all US television networks?",
"Agreed. Wikipedia is a freaking amazing place to gather information, you just have to actually understand what a source is, and bother to follow up on it if you have reason to believe the article is misleading or incorrect.",
"Although this leaflet is a great idea, I’m afraid the people who regularly visit tellmewhatiwanttohear.com, tend to be very good at ignoring everything else.",
"I can’t tell if you’re saying that you don’t like my definition. To be clear, I guess the “somebody else” should preferably be the accuser or an ally of the accuser.\n\n>\tWhataboutism... is a form of defensive propaganda used to counter criticism... with a \"What about...?\"—question vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue. It is a specialized red herring version of the tu quoque fallacy... \n>\t\n>\tSimply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another.\n\nhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism",
"Library near me has a similar looking balcony. Downstairs is fiction and upstairs is non fiction ",
"Probably standing on the second floor looking down over a railing. There's stairs on the left of the picture.",
"When sites ask that I disable AdBlock due to ad revenue, many times I will comply. As soon as there is any auto-playing video, especially with audio, AdBlock is turned back on for good.\n\nAuto-playing videos are the worst.",
"Tells you to watch out for fake news with fake news. \n\n",
"If they aren't inaccurate then they're accurate. The bias of the author doesn't change the truthfulness of their facts. ",
"I believe the consensus there is that Doug Jones won because he was running against a bad person.",
"Read the comments of this thread. It's basically already terminal.",
"You mean highly respected fact-checkers with a reputation for being scrupulously exact and trustworthy. Didn't you. ",
">You mean when your conservative friends share memes of 'what those durnned liberals say\"?\n\nNo. Thanks for trying though. I'm simply telling you what I see. If you don't want to believe me then don't, but don't start lying about myself directly to me then. I live on a college campus that is a strong liberal bubble, so you are right about me being in a bubble, and I invite you to step inside if you genuinely don't believe me.",
"Shit leftists actually believe, folks! ",
"It's not the be-all end-all, but it's still better than nothing. All else being equal a person reading politifact will have a better idea of what information is being presented falsely than a person who doesn't.",
"Yeah but calling actual fake news fake news is legit.\n\nRemember it was the Media that coined the term after the election to call anything that went against their narrative fake news. Trump just used it against them when they actually reported fake news and it took off ",
"\\>snopes\n\n\n\\>politifact",
"Thank fuck that exists. It's a sad time that I should feel overwhelming relief to see a bastion of sanity on the right. Without even delving into the publication history I like what I see for the most part.\n\nI see some questionable conclusions (some of which used to be bad enough) but those we can actually split hairs on. As they fully acknowledge, [fact checkers have biases](http://www.weeklystandard.com/study-shows-fact-checkers-are-bad-at-their-jobs/article/2008103), including themselves. At least it's not fucking fake news.\n\nNow if we could see whether this publication is at all representative of right wing America. It's kind of telling that a majority of the \"fact checks\" pertain to right wing drivel. Could be that they're just aiming at their own demographic to be the most productive, or could also just be that [there's a greater need for it](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford).",
"Care to provide some examples? You’re just pulling shit from your ass without some evidence here. ",
"Why do you think it doesn't? Did FOX news tell you?",
"Does posting there imply I must believe all their propaganda? You're incredibly simple person.\n\nUnfortunately biased fake news is on both sides of the isle and people like you are so counter productive to clearing that up.",
"In addition, beware of commenters pointing out certain comments pointing out earlier comments to further digress future comments about previous comments from the subject of the original comment",
"Yeah but that takes time and effort, and I'm so lazy and distracted that I can barely take the time to even keep up with the news let alone fact check it.\n\nJust tell me what I'm supposed to believe in a headline, please. I have memes to look at and movies to complain about.\n\n^^^^^/s",
"It's ridiculous that you have such an arbitrary rule.",
"Consult and compare competing sources.",
"Please tell us serial The_Donald poster how sites that lean liberal but post actual facts are “fake”? Do you even know what fake news means? It’s not, information I disagree with. It’s verifiable bullshit stories like Hillary runs a pedo-ring from a pizza parlor. Do you honestly believe that every cited bit of information on the sites you listed is actually fake? If so, you’re a goddam idiot.",
"Dude it's an xkcd joke.",
"Read my other comment.",
"If I had swapped liberal and conservative in the analogy, would you still have objected to it?",
">The truth is subjective.\n\nAre you fucking kidding me",
"Those sites no more have a right to call something a \"fact\" than any other website, and are open to just as much bias and misinformation. Politifact specifically was founded by a left-wing media company \"The Tampa Bay Times\", with the intent being that it appears to be an unbiased apolitical fact-checking service which in itself is just another branch of left-wing media helping to spin stories, and they would in fact reference themselves as evidence of their \"truth\".\n\nIn their defense, the articles themselves, if you bother to read the two pages of details, are generally not complete fabrications, but the brief \"true or false\" could not be more misleading and biased.\n\nFor example, they will phrase the question \"Did the Weather Channel Founder Disprove Climate Change?\" to which they say \"False\". People that were linked the video will then say that's fake news, when in fact [the Weather Channel founder did publish many videos to disprove climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq3LS4BVSA0). Whether you agree with his findings as a scientist and trust his credentials as an award winning climatologist is up to you as an individual.\n\nOr there was another where it asked \"Did Hillary Clinton bleach her mail server to delete all evidence as Trump claims\", where they say \"False\". Of course, if you read further down they explain that she didn't bleach it, she used bleach-bit, when clearly that's what Trump was referring to and is in fact true.\n\nThe hope is that most people only read headlines and so will check those sites and see something is \"false\" and leave it at that, not reading the fine print.",
"Lol snopes is hugely biased. My guess is just that their bias aligns with yours, which is why you're willing to ignore it. ",
"Wow, what school is this?",
"Anonymous bylines, not sources.",
">pseudoscience\n\n>statistics\n\nMan, not even math is safe these days from anti-intellectualism ",
"Correct, just because all three have a bias doesn't mean you should immediately dismiss them.\n\nBut you probably shouldn't rely solely on them for fact checking. It's practically impossible to get away from bias in one direction or another, so at least try to include sites that balance other ones out (left-leaning bias with right-leaning bias).",
"Alt-righters use the woodpecker method to try and discredit Snopes because they're sick of having their lies busted by it\n",
"Your brain\n\nPre-edit: IT'S A JOKE CHILL OUT",
"you know im paraphrasing something they legit said with that all caps sentence right",
"The actual news reporters on Fox News and not the pundits do reporting that, while so biased it's often somewhat irrelevant, is generally not fake news. I'm not talking about Hannity or Fox and Friends, to be clear. \n\nAnd corporate based news like ABC NBC and CNN which are said to be \"liberal media\" I'd say are more beholden to ratings than a liberal bias so they can often mimic some of the same right-leaning/corporate biases. \n\nRedState and The Hill are not without their problems, but they're both very right-leaning typically but are still real news outlets. ",
"the_donald is an echo chamber. The exact opposite of diversity. ",
"Well, since I was being facetious, probably not.",
"This is a reddit thread, complex analogies don't work here.",
"> \"Only FOX news is a propaganda outlet! And anyone who doesn't agree with me is a raaaaaaciiiiiiiiist!\"\n\n1. Nothing I said give any credibility to this statement.\n\n2. You are so easily manipulated. CNN had already discussed the attempted bombing. How long do you want them to discuss a failed bombing attempt when the only reports were \"failed bombing attempt, suspect in custody.\" Once more news came in about the bombing they came back to it.\n\nYou're beyond help kid. You've already been brainwashed and I just hope you eventually grow up and learn to think for yourself. Until then... I hope you're not in a swing state because the fact that my vote doesn't matter and yours might is scary.",
"Those are pretty good, reasonable rules. Without looking, I bet if I sort by controversial we will see a bunch of t_d people bitching about how it has liberal bias. \n\nEDIT: I looked. Yep, a lot of \"fox news is the only non-fake news\" stuff. CNN, snopes, politofact, etc are all fake news. Donny boy's twitter, breitbart, alex jones, and fox news. The only bastions of truth left, stay woke. ",
"[Ahem](https://imgur.com/a/33EyS) \nJust stop man your name is literally /u/swampdrainr",
"You seem to love calling yourself a racist from the perspective of others, despite nobody calling you a racist in this thread.\n\n\nBoth outlets are shitty and report on news that gets them that $$$. Let's not pretend that Fox is innocent here because at one moment, on one day, they were reporting on important news while CNN was circlejerking about Trump's shitty habits. ",
"It's a reoccurring bit that they've done probably at least 10 times if not more.",
"I am unable to find any CNN story stating that Trump removed the MLK bust from the Oval Office. Could you drop me a link?",
"I don't hate you man. ",
"Yes, it’s not like the right trash behaved like disgusting pigs once Obama was elected....",
"I don't suggest any alternatives. I don't believe in letting some site telling me whether something is true or not. If I'm interested in an event or w/e I do what I can to find direct sources. ",
"Why did you have to kill it",
"I remember Snopes labeling leaked DNC emails as fake news. They're partisan garbage",
"Since when did MSNBC become a reputable, unbiased news source?",
"do AP articles have bylines?",
"Facts are almost never black or white, and pretty much everything can be interpreted in multiple ways. Facts without a coherent argument are useless. The objection to Snopes is not the facts, but the argument they make based on those facts. Just because they have facts does not mean that their conclusions are reasonable.",
"Fuck off. That is the correct word usage. I don't post in /r/the_Donald, and I'm not even American, but I'm so sick of the mindless: \"You are Republican and support Trump, therefore, everything you say is dumb and should be ignored\"\n\nIt's fucking stupid and a horrible argument and only serves to show how \"team driven\" you are to hating anyone who didn't vote for the same person as you. American politics is like football. \"You support the NE Patriots? Well I'm an Eagles fan, and I hope you fucking die in your sleep!\"\n\nIt's childish, grow the fuck up.",
"Do you have an example?",
"Are you OK guy? You sound like a Leftist Alex Jones.\n\nAre the Russians turning the gay frogs straight?\n\nAlso not every source reports objective reality. Especially Liberal ones. They all have a bias. Right or Left.\n\nAlso implying that any source shouldn't be questioned because of whatever any reason your stating IS authoritarian you doofus.",
"It's unhelpful to show everyone else that you're completely wrong? I'll call that good discussion.",
"We did it Reddit!",
"Because reality has a liberal bias. ",
"Trump's is in the post",
"Did I ever tell you about the time Brasky took me out to go get a drink with him? We go off looking for a bar and we can’t find one. Finally, Brasky takes me into a vacant lot and says, ‘Here we are.’ Well, we sat there for a year and a half. Sure enough, someone constructed a bar around us. Well, the day they opened it, we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burnt the place to the ground. Brasky yelled over the roar of the flames, ‘Always leave things the way you found them!'",
"They only correct themselves when being called out. \n\nThey are inherently biased as are all sources",
"Hahahayes. ",
"Wait, they brought back civics? That is good news. ",
"Snopes, where you can put your divorce legal fees as business expenses? Yes, let's just trust fraudster(s) to check, or anything else for that matter.\n\nhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html",
"Considering a pack of 100 is only $9, it seems time I buy some of those for friends and family.\n https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark",
"No, you're probably reading some heavily biased stuff (AKA fake news). Reality really does tend to be pretty boring.",
"You were asked about a source literally making up stories. Not about bias. Please stay on topic.",
"Link?",
"Snopes and politfact are themselves FAKE NEWS. So this whole flyer is FAKE NEWS. ",
"Good point",
">Which sources do you use then? List them.\n\nlol\n\n>And at the same time try and explain why the objective truth on fact checking websites is somehow not true.\n\neasy its not objective truth\n\nboy you guys are easy to manipulate, the cia really did a number on your countrymen",
"You do realize the Imperium of Man are portrayed as evil, right? Not as evil as Chaos and the Necrons and all the others but they're still portrayed as being something to avoid, not to emulate.",
"I don't think it's a good idea for a fact checking site to have a satire section that's not clearly marked as satire, there's no way for the casual reader to know what \"lost legends\" means.",
"Only a sith deals in absolutes. ",
"Looks like 2nd floor",
"Fact check - meh. ",
"First Google result in images for \"politifact bias\" brings up this album.\n\n https://imgur.com/gallery/ezyRi\n\nI think the most damning thing in there is the second image with Trump getting \"LIAR\" on the scale and Bernie Sanders getting \"mostly true\" when they both were saying the same thing \n\nEdit: also [this](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-chevrolet-tokyo-japan-doesnt-exist/) is a great one. Trump says Chevy cars don't sell in Japan, they give him \"mostly false\" because there's maybe less than 1,000 Chevy's in all of Japan. Pretty hilariously bad bias, if any Democrat said the same thing it's guaranteed they wouldve said mostly true\n",
">Did you even read them? \n\nClearly, they did not. Someone found articles that *seem* contradictory if you don't actually look into them (aka do the things in the picture above) and started sharing it all over to discredit legitimate sites. I've seen these two articles paraded around conservative sites and on Facebook for this very purpose. It's literally fake news. \n",
"If you want to see ultra triggered then say “Happy Holidays” to a conservative.",
"Isn't it funny how actual self-professed liberals here are telling you you're just making shit up and you're plugging your ears in favor of what is clearly a strawman you've enjoyed building for yourself?\n\nIt's almost like your hatred of the left supersedes your ability to actually analyze other viewpoints. ",
"I've seen some stuff on Snopes that proved some Trump rumors wrong... \nAnd god it's so useful to shut down some stupid Facebook chain letters.",
"Check Snopes, Politico, and Politifact? Talk about the FakeNews support network.",
"News is created by humans, so there’s always going to be some bias. This nonsense about all mainstream media being fake is stupid, though. ",
"A ton of these are biased, just not on left-right axis. Le Devoir is a pro-independence Quebec newspaper ) and left-leaning) and Voice of America is literally a propaganda outlet.",
"who, not whom.",
"Lmaoooo “Fact checo stories with sites like Snopes, Politico and Politifact” \n\n“Basically disregard everything else we tell you in this leaflet and relinquish your critical thinking to these sites that spew our talking points”\n\nWhy is Reddit so cucked? ",
"Did I ever tell you about the time Bill Brasky showed up at my daughter’s wedding? You know my daughter, she’s a beautiful girl. Well, Brasky shows up and you know he’s a big fella. Well, he’s standing right between me and my daughter at the ceremony. He’s got no right to be there, but he’s drunk and he’s Brasky. Well, long story short, the priest accidentally marries me and Brasky. We spend the weekend in the Poconos — he loved me like I’ve never been loved before",
"No Trump supporter would ever do any of those things ever.",
"That's a bit dangerous, because the alternative is to not check facts. The fact that all reputable fact checking sites are considered leftist tells me more about the state of conservitisem than it does the sites themselves.",
"Snopes has all types of problems, as does politico and politifact",
"> If all 'fake news' detection becomes is 'is this what one political party agrees with', then we've lost.\n\nI think it's pretty damned clear I'm arguing the opposite, and pointing out that while no news source is perfect, there are *PLENTY*, both right and left-leaning, that are still real news. It's the alt-right and Trump who have tried to change the paradigm that fake news just means news critical of them and/or their agenda. ",
"unironically closer to the truth than snopes",
"Not a fan of blatant lies. So no plans of chilling out.",
"Plenty. They also don’t go back and make correction to their “fact checks” after it is exposed 3 months later that the person making the claim was correct.\n\nCase in point: they fact checked trumps wiretap claim as false. Even though the NYT reported it as true 3 months earlier, they said it was false.\n\nNow we know not only was her wiretapped but the past administration weaponized the state intelligence apparatus to take him down and then invent a false Russia story to cover it up. Yeah, I don’t think they corrected that one at all.",
"[The claim that the debt went down is true but they rate it mostly false](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/25/donald-trump/why-donald-trumps-tweet-about-decline-national-deb/)",
"I'm sorry, liberals have a monopoly on bullshit, it's hard to find places where the truth is spoken. ",
"Think for yourself. Question authority.\n\nhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfqRPfhxUdc",
"everything except snopes. Snopes has been caught showing bias in the past.",
"...BRASKY!!",
"Lmfao go back to politics",
">use other sites already brought up by OP\n\n?\n\nEdit: holy fuck, this was one line before he edited. This is some serious butt hurt.",
"YES! This is 100% perfect. Always fact check and dig deeper people! Don't believe everything CNN or huffpost or any other awful 'source' tells you. Do your own research and be open minded!!!",
"same here, or at least to find the original design in high res, to print some locally",
"Breitbart readers.",
"You're a twat. 100% verifiable by googling it yourself.",
"I feel like if Fox News just followed this card we wouldn't have trump in office. It was their dishonest reporting that empowered him.",
"Exactly snopes and politifact are garbage ",
"I remember during the election, there was that huge fake news story circulating about uncounted ballots being dumped and recovered in Ohio (and somehow benefiting/blaming Hillary).\n\nThe picture clearly showed the coat of arms of a municipality in England. But that didn’t stop what felt like a good dozen Facebook friends from sharing it around.",
"Are you trying to act like they ignored that news or something? [Are you special needs?](https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/us/new-york-possible-explosion-port-authority-subway/index.html)\n\nEdit: Hell, they even [followed up on it](https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/us/new-york-subway-explosion/index.html), which is more than I can say for Fox. Fox’s only articles on it are from the same day and the next. They didn’t seek further information and report it as far as I can find, just provided spur of the moment info that may or may not be later found to be accurate.\n\nEdit2: Holy shit, the guy that posted that picture on Twitter, Mark Dice, is a nut job conspiracy theorist. He’s published a ton of books on the existence of the Illuminati. Here’s an excerpt from one overview:\n\n>\tLearn the most powerful information about the Illuminati, plans for the rise of the Antichrist, the institutions, people, and powers involved, and how you can fight them. \n\nThis guy’s game is next level. Start out publishing conspiracy theories and move on to spouting other bullshit on Twitter and Youtube so that gullible people will believe and keep watching. I’m not sure if he’s insane or a marketing genius. ",
"Evidence of this? ",
"No I consider fake news to be a one sided show of an event, heavily twisted to benefit one side. \n \nIf the headline makes you come away feeling like you learned something that isn't completely true - that is fake news. \n \nFor instance, the left outlets have been painting Trumps rejection of the dem-memo as Trump trying to hide something - yet in reality the dem-memo was a shoddy rush job that included a lot of classified items that they knew would need to be redacted - just so the dems and MSM outlets could claim Trump is trying to hide something when he sends it back. \n \nSo any outlet that writes a headline like: \n>Trump blocks release of Dem memo rebutting GOP claims of FBI surveillance abuse. \n \nor \n \n>Trump won't release Democratic memo, sends back to committee. \n \nThat is fake news. The reason being is the headline is trying to tell only half of the story. \n \nIt should read like: \n>Trump sends back Dem memo for edits - to be released when it meets security standards. \n \n \nIf the headline tells half the story purposefully the headline, and story, are both fake news.",
"What would you rather have:\n\nDoing a bit more work but keeping everyone accountable.\n\nPeople believing anything they see without evidence.\n\nIt may be annoying but it makes for better discussions. ",
"I'm saying nothing at all, that's the other* commenter. I chimed in to point out that you just wrote \"if you disagree with my point of view then you are the problem\". I wanted to point that out to you. Now based on my downvotes, alot of children can't critically think or read either, so you aren't alone. Please continue your arguing with each other, sorry to interrupt.\n\nEdit, spelling.",
"The rest is good, but really.. politico and politifact?",
"Just remember: On Reddit, if the news is about North Korea, ignore all the rules above.\n\nYes! Give me your downvotes you fools! It only makes me stronger!\n",
"We will see.",
"Can you name one? I’m also curious.",
"Snopes IS UNRELIABLE. Same with politifact. They are both liberal and push false narratives and use liberal messaging. It’s so blatant.\n\nOh.... before you say well your a conservative. I am going to tell you, that’s precisely why I can see the blatant bias and liberals can’t. All it is is confirmation bias site for liberals. Whether it’s true or not, they frame everything from a liberal perspective.\n\nIt’s better to read both left and right and determine the truth on your own than go to either of these sites. Snopes/Politifact is making an argument from authority rather than getting you to think critically. It also never gets the conservative side of the argument.\n\nRemember, bias can also be omission. \n\n",
"This is great and all, but Politico isn't a fact-checking website.",
"Politifact is incredibly bias. All you have to do is look at Trump's \"pants on fire\" statements. Nearly every single one of them Trump has a point, but they still rank it as \"pants on fire\". They intentionally ignore the point he is making. They do not research his statements in good faith. \n\nPoint out the bias and people will say you're making excuses. Politifact is the worst out of all of them, it is trash reporting in every sense.",
"\"Logic and scientific process\"\n\n\"There are 86 genders\"\n\nPick one.",
"That's a ridiculous statement and you know it.",
"Snopes lol ",
"https://i.redditmedia.com/rfWHvp_rRstadJsrH1UQMa02IivDYJnowkvYqazpOAM.jpg?w=576&s=dbed5ccf2662e9d43446cf6aa0a184ca",
"Accuracy is more of a spectrum than a binary is isn’t\n\nSome facts can be spot on, some can be opinions presented as fact and some can be rumors from sources that are never substantiated\n\nYou can put together 1000 different stories based on the same set of facts\n\nBut besides, I think you’re missing my point a little bit. It’s not good practice to claim any one source of information as absolute truth. \n\nThat was the biggest part of my point.",
"Don't jump OP.",
"Because in order for me to know about them I have to be watching 24/7? ",
"You're assuming the amount of bullshit slung is approximately equal just because it seems like it should be.",
"Noooooooo... if your job is to give information to the masses...you need to be unbiased and use accurate named sources that can be verified. That’s journalism 101. But when you have a vested interest in a political outcome...the way you report news becomes suspect.",
"The author being biased doesn't change the fact that the facts they publish are facts.",
"or says \"begs the question\"",
"No they aren't.",
"What an absurd fucking world we live in where people can't even agree the Wall Street Journal has a right-leaning bias. Good lord. ",
"Never. Spez voted for the guy, so he ain't gonna ban his fanclub, no matter how toxic they are. Even after they continuously threatened him and his family with death threats (which is why he edited those comments a few months back), they're still here. ",
"“Snopes, Politico & Politifact”\n\nEither this is a troll or one of the biggest attempts at gatekeeping I have ever seen.",
"> Or why biology seems to lean to more conservative values\n\nLOL. Dear god do you even know a biologist?",
"This is one of the biggest problems with how people react to news. People lazily default to assuming that being fair and unbiased means you basically have to spend equal time covering negative stories about both sides no matter what.\n\nIf a hypothetical candidate A from the Turquoise Party ran against a hypothetical candidate B from the Liberty Party, some people will basically demand and expect both candidates are presented as being equally good or bad regardless of facts. \n\nIf candidate B was caught having people physically intimidate journalists who were looking into previously undisclosed payments to cops/judges that covered up a rape from 2 years ago, certain people would call anyone covering this story as biased shills and demand to know why people aren't giving equal airtime to a story about candidate A and how they pushed someone in a brief argument 2 decades ago that didn't involve any charges.",
"I'm telling you what I have seen on the college campus I live on. Years of living here will supercede an hour on reddit. Sorry I don't cling my life as closely to reddit as you wish I did. Obviously people who lean left will disown any idiotic viewpoints held by their side; it's just a matter of which specific viewpoints are being exposed as idiotic at that moment.",
"Can you give some examples of them being incorrect? Every time I’ve looked at it, they provide citations that seem accurate. ",
"Take a look at T_D. You’d be surprised. ",
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/amp/\n\nThey have a history of injecting bias into their fact checking and doing their best to reject transparency into their practices.",
"No",
"This is was in a lecture at my college. Not the paper but the presentation headline was “how to sport fake news”. ",
"Snopes, Politifact, and Politico are not left-wing or partisan, so the comparison you are trying to make is nonsensical. The American Right is so out out touch with reality that they think \"Not Right-Wing\" = \"Left-Wing\".",
"Without any proof this claim seems more like projection on your part",
"Gorge Soros knows best! ",
"You're right it must be the Russian bots that are manipulating all these votes that are giving conservatives a rare voice in a pics thread. \n\n/s",
"I agree",
"Reality has a left leaning bias",
"I mean... If you want to be a child about it, sure. But it's not really going to affect their life that you decided to ignore their comment.\n\n(hence, nobody's going to provide academic level citations for a two sentence reddit comment they typed out in less than five seconds.)",
"Don't jump OP.",
"Pet peeve of mine that people can spout off any bullshit they want and not expect to be questioned about it.",
"Snopes is a reliable site. WikiLeaks is known to collide with political entities to create lies.",
"well, facts are considered leftist today.",
"Dude, it’s just a second floor railing. You can see the stairs.",
"Sure... everything is propaganda..*Literally goes back to reading actual propaganda* \n\nYou guys literally distrust the most trustworthy sources of information and third-party sources that report on whether or not sources are trustworthy in the first place. There's very little that can change your guys' mind. The only thing for it is to show you how shitty your politicians are. By the way, Alex Jones was forced to admit in court that he runs an entertainment site, not a news site.... so yeah. \n\nHere's your politicians being shitty: \n\nTrump being \"humble\": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R42mFx3_ss&feature=youtu.be\n\nhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/\n\nhttps://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910\n\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/20/president-trump-made-2140-false-or-misleading-claims-in-his-first-year/?__twitter_impression=true\n\n\n**Here's a little extra something that highlights my argument** : https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/01/16/study-42-percent-of-republicans-believe-accurate-but-negative-stories-qualify-as-fake-news/?utm_term=.f0390b74e96a",
"Your local library is open on Sundays?",
"No, it came into popular use when factually inaccurate stories started circulating on social media. An example that jumps to mind: Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring out of a pizzeria. That's obviously not a thing that happened. Candidate Trump saw it was a thing people were saying and started throwing it around to dismiss anything he didn't care for. Turns out that was brilliant. People love it, apparently.",
"I would add if it's interesting or angering it's likely to be click bait, so look it up on Google with the keyword 'fake'\n\nOf course I would have to say that in a much more concise manner to fit it on a bookmark. ",
"Did he say left leaning or hugely leftist?",
"Fact check.....dig deeper....be open-minded.......\n\nJust imagine how much better our country would be if we could get party loyalists to follow this. ",
"I think this stems from the fact that you can see on their site where “[Republican] says ___ is 44%” and they give a false or half true, citing the fact that the Republican is using a specific metric which is not true as a whole, but “[Democrat] says ___ is 44%” and gets a mostly true, citing the fact that while they are using a specific metric, and it isn’t true as a whole, it is true by those measurements. ",
"I tend to believe what you're saying here, but I'd love to see some evidence.",
"You copied and pasted this from a Medium article that, funnily enough, doesn’t cite a single source",
"He's a T_D shitposter, likely a lost cause.",
"CNN conveniently cut short the supposed call to end the violence in black communities after a police shooting where the 'victim' actually eneded with '..take it to the suburbs'. They were clearly pushing the narrative that all cops are racist, trigger-happy killers and all black people are meek victims of oppression.",
"Right, but there are statements like \"Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction when the USA invaded?\". And there isn't a super simple answer to that one. \n\nFirst off, WMD is a made up bullshit term that has been diluted beyond usefulness. But no he didn't have nukes. No he didn't have usable chemical weapons..... Usable.... Because he DID have some sarin gas canisters he buried out in the desert. Now, they were expired or something. Ask ever so slightly different questions like... \"Did Iraq pose a threat to the usa?\" Or \"did Iraq violate the terms of.... Whatever Accord it had?\" Or \"was the invasion justified?\" And you'll get a different set of answers. And don't the order you ask them in doesn't ALSO impact the result. \n\nThe fact that you are the one that made the questions is likely, if only in part, for the discrepancy in the answers. The other part being that conservatives are generally dumbfucks. \n\nBut this is bias. It's ugly. It makes science hard, and it makes politics almost unbearable. Don't pretend our side is simply immune. ",
"You should probably throw an /s tag on there then. I've seen some actual arguments about opinion>fact, shit's wild on here these days, LOL.",
"Realistically these aren’t major stories. A bust being removed doesn’t do much. However when a site posts something like Obama not being an American...that’s entirely different.\n\nThere’s shades of grey and then sheer darkness. CNN will swim around in grey waters while Brietbart just fucking dives into the inky black ocean.",
"Firefox has that too, so I suppose it's ubiquitous now outside of Edge (don't know if it has this feature).",
"The only problem is that if people just use Snopes and the like to fact-check, they won't get correct information on political subjects, seeing as the fact-checker has a strong political allegiance, and a history of lying. Other than politics, the advice will definitely help.",
"You can google the term if you’re unfamiliar with it. No need to get aggressive because your limited vocabulary. ",
"16' (feet?) = 4,88 meter",
"Sure. And in a society where I have an unlimited amount of time to read and evaluate multiple sources of this fucking scandal-ridden presidency and disfunctional democracy, that would be ideal. But that’s not reality for most people. On the heavier, important issues, sure. But on every potential lie that pops out of Trump’s mouth? No way. So I do with news what I do with most interactions: I ask if I can trust it. Does the source I’m using cite things to support it? Has it demonstrated veracity in the past? If so, I’m likely to trust it until it gives me reason not to. ",
"Would you like to provide examples of them not being legitimate? There are dozens of people on this thread making that claim, but so far no one has backed it up. Can you? ",
"I like how the font for \"FAKE NEWS\" is so old-timey, kind of a nod to how tabloids and sensationalism have been around for a long while. ",
"Sharing implies belief. Like why would you share something of no value? \"Hey bro check out this junk news i read\"? It's illogical. So either the right is illogical or it consumes fake news more. Which is it?",
"The fact that it mentions them discredits the whole thing lol",
"What library? I'd like to make some of these bookmarks for my library! ",
"Compared to Fox news, and Brietbart, they are.",
"\\>fact check with left-biased sites",
"It was on a lot of places, but I am sure the stories have been removed and retracted. I think the larger point is that going to a left leaning fact checker to check your left leaning news is going to result in bias. And going to the same left leaning fact checker for your right leaning news is going to result in an abundant more bias",
"Yup. They are a joke.\n\nIt’s like me saying, as a conservative, better do a fact check, what is breitbart saying?\n\nThey use that “fact check” phrase to argue from authority and demand that nobody question their blatant bias and agenda setting function because they are “fact check sites”",
"Are green apples more red than oranges? ",
"As someone who has dealt with people who believe obvious fake news, \"being open-minded\" is largely used as a defense for believing any non-mainstream viewpoint, no matter how bullshit. They view themselves as the open-minded ones.\n\nThere's a quote from a Tim Minchin song that's relevant, about him dealing with a hippy girl named Storm whose obsessive about homeopathy:\n\n>Storm to her credit despite my derision keeps firing off clichés with startling precision like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition\n>\n>[Storm] \"You're so sure of your position but you're just closed-minded\n> think you'll find that your faith in Science and Tests is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist\"\n>\n\n>[Tim] \"Wow that's a good point, let me think for a bit.\n>Oh wait, my mistake, that's absolute bullshit.\"\n\n\n\n",
"That is not my concern since he did not say that.\n\n\"This is true and my side said it\" is vastly different than \"My side said it and it is true\". Echo chambers are bad even if you only said what is 100% correct because you do not have any other perspective on whatever you say.",
"It's when they get into the mostly true/false, people will claim they are biased. Especially in regards to anything Hillary related, they may say it's mostly true/false, and the hyperpartisan response will be \"She's guilty! Lock her up! Snopes is liberal trash!\" Read the content of the articles, it's good and well researched. Don't just read their conclusions.",
"Yes. It's apolitical. Unfortunately, some of the neutral views held by biology are directly at odds with the crap I hear on a daily basis, and those views are considered conservative as a result.",
"And yet CNN still does them...\n\n",
"The forbidden subreddit? Well gee, their opinion on everything doesn't matter now. Phew, close one.",
"An anonymous source is not an anonymous report. You either misread the pamphlet or you don't understand the meanings of certain words.",
"It almost seems like reality has a left leaning bias",
"bernie says 51% \"real unemployment\", then when asked further clarified the stat and provided a source.\n\ntrump says 59% unemployment rate, then when asked doesn't respond.",
"That's upsetting :/ ",
"\"Be open minded but make sure to read Politico\" hahahaha idiots ",
"While this article is not clearly marked as satire as it should be it's still satire and therefore not an example of Snopes getting something wrong.",
"Except that politifact is know to over report a false statement from a conservative, giving it more than one ruling, for example if the false statement is repeated. \n\nWhile each ruling is accurate, the overall representation paints the picture you just fell for.\n\nAdditionally, they also under report liberal false statements.",
"My favorite is that they all call liberals/Democrats the “snowflakes”. Y’all are the overly sensitive ones. ",
"Is that supposed to be an insult? Try again like an adult.",
"ROFL! Fact check with left with resources?! That's exactly how you spot fake news! Dumbing down of America right there. But then again, rich kids typically don't need to go to library's, so it's all for poor people's consumption.",
"What is this \"mute tab\" you talk about?",
"He's not even real and all of you are off with \"He was a good boy. He didn't do nothing wrong. He was getting his life back together.\" Ffs",
"I don't think anyone anywhere said a healthy media diet doesn't consist of *multiple* reputable news organizations. You're nit-picking why any one or one with a bias isn't a perfect, sole-trusted organization. I'm arguing that we need to distinguish legitimate news (which in any organization will be imperfect from time to time) to intentional peddlers of untruths. \n",
"Errr... hello Schindler. ",
"That's not what it says at all. ",
"I just don't like \"fact checking sites\" . More often than not they aren't fact checking they are bias explaining. \n\nI would substitute that with something more academic ",
"There is a lot of stupid shit out there that only takes a second to dispel.",
"The facts on those sites are still factual despite you wishing they weren't.",
"> I used to keep a document of how many contradictions they had, lost track though. \n\nhow convenient",
"Politifact is trustworthy? You are very brainwashed if you believe this ",
"EXACTLY. Folks care more about their \"side\" than what is objectively true. It's fucking up everything, tbh.",
"Snopes is garbage and does not have a “well deserved” reputation. That’s like saying infowars has a well deserved reputation for breaking truth all the time. ",
"Yeah, it's the only thing I didn't like about the leaflet. Other than that I think its fantastic.",
"Are there any that are better?",
"Read my recent comment too. I'm literally asking for a good source to their potentially fake news. Do you not see that I'm actually interested in perusing truth, which is why I try to talk with both sides. Unfortunately things are so toxic over here that I can't even talk with you guys to find out where I'm wrong. ",
"lol thats so cute to say. Its so adorable for you to think it's just the right doing it",
"Clearly he doesn't. \n\nHe's too busy trying to sound smart. ",
"The Truth is usually an affirmation or declaration by someone.\n\nSo of course it is subjective.",
"Leftists and liberals are completely different groups. By most definitions, the former is inherently anti-capitalist. Liberals are to the left in the American political spectrum, but that doesn't mean they're leftists.",
"Then you seriously didn't read a single one.\n\nThe first tells you how to approach a story with unnamed sources. How you should look into it to decide if it's true.\n\nThe second is about three reporters from CNN who resigned after they made up their anonymous stories.\n\nThe third is about a false story written with fake sources by the NYT along with the history of how anonymous sources came to be.\n\nThe fourth is about false anonymous reporting during the OJ Simpson trial.\n\nThe fifth about the NYT fake anonymous reporting on Tupac Shakur, blaming his murder on P Diddy. \n\nThe sixth is about a false anonymous report that riots in the Middle East were caused by Gitmo soldiers were flushing Korans down the toilet.\n\nThe final is the BBC report on the same story as the second.",
"Politifacts isn't about opinions. It's about showing actual and cited facts.",
"To all the Russian Bots posting here: Greetings, Comrades!",
"Trump's definition. Guess what, it's fake, making his fake news the real news. ",
"/shrug\n\nYou can look into it, or you can choose to ignore it. Bothering to comment on it to complain without googling it yourself seems kind of childish. In either case, it's not going to affect them that a bunch of people who enjoy living in bubbles didn't get tons of citations on a two sentence reddit comment.",
"the irony of this comment",
"I like the parts where they said to check snopes and be open minded.",
">Daily caller\n\nYour point is how Snopes is biased, yet you choose to provide a source that is known to be biased? \n\nWhat point are you trying to prove? That \"snopes is bad because they're bias but daily caller is ok because they think snopes is bad and I hate snopes so they must be right\"?",
"Sure, but it's still odd. It says use many sources it should stick with that. ",
"Huh? The right is for sure both fatter and less successful than the right. You’re aware of this, no?",
"Hey look, Snopes is listed as Least Biased.\n\nPolitifact listed as Least Biased.\n\nWow, such irrefutable, blatant left-leaning bias! No wonder the Trumpies and alt-righters hate them so much!",
"Said the ignoramus.",
"Huh? The right is for sure both fatter and less successful than the right. You’re aware of this, no?",
"***FAKE NEWS***",
"I don't really think that's a good response. Of course reality doesn't have a bias. That's the joke. Liberals are just making fun of conservatives who decry anything they disagree with as having a \"liberal bias\". ",
"That's because Republicans are usually lying. Trump alone is over 100 / week these days ",
"exactly.",
"Huh? The right is for sure both fatter and less successful than the right. You’re aware of this, no?",
"owned by the DNC but anyone that complains about it being politically biased is crazy lol 😍",
"http://www.politifactbias.com/",
"Check the url. Does it have CNN in it? Then it's probably fake news.",
"The campaigns' willingness to engage with politifact has nothing to do with the truth of the statements though. Facts are unbiased, remember? ",
"Reddit admins allow anti trump subs on /popular. None are pro-trump. And you’re bitching about r/the_donald? Cut the bullshit",
"They're saying that's how people can disagree with evidence is by not caring about facts",
"Saying immigrants are going to rape and murder your family is an appeal to emotions. Both sides do it.",
"No one is saying not to check the validity of what people are saying, nor does that imply you shouldn't check \"facts\".\n\nWhat I'm saying is that you shouldn't trust a \"fact checking site\", even if they happen to be telling the truth.\n\nAnd to who are they reputable? To someone with a non-neutral stance.",
"***FAKE NEWS***",
"Put simply; no they aren't.",
"I love being open minded, not like my political opponents that use *that* website and post on *that* subreddit.",
"This statement makes no logical sense but redditors will never not upvote it.",
"The thing about being in a bubble is that you don't realize it when you are... there's also not just *one* bubble.\n\nEdit: spelling\n",
"Or firefox's. Look for the sound icon on a tab - if it's making sound, it'll have one. Click it. Voila! No more sound. Click it again! The sound is back.\n\nFirefox ftw.",
"Interacting on reddit is entertaining, mentally stimulating, and mildly educational. You get none of these things from news.",
"Here's a copy-pasted comment that I think aptly highlights the dangers of nationalism:\n\n\n Nationalism is cancerous and leads misinformed people to violent acts over perceived threats that are often overplayed or non-existent. No segment of peoples on this Earth is intrinsically better or deserves more than another. Borders are arbitrary and people move.\n\nThis creates an unnecessary Us vs Them mentality that blinds people into thinking that decisions made are unilaterally right or wrong. To claim that an action or law is \"patriotic\" is no different than legislation that is \"for the kids\". It's never about the country, or about the children. It's about painting dissenting opinion as not just wrong, but \"dangerous,\" \"communism,\" \"terrorism,\" or the new word du jour \"Treason.\"\n\nFunny enough, this type of language is used to pass things that otherwise would be ridiculed as not standing with what used to be considered our core values. Patriot Act? Freedom Act? Happy Act? If the name of the bill isn't an arbitrary assortment of numbers and letters at this point then it's fairly safe to assume that someone is trying to pull a fast one over idiots, of which there are many in this country, no thanks to people's inability to do anything \"for the children.\"\n\nNeo-Conservatives are projectionists. Neo-Democrats, like Wasserman-Schultz, are also projectionists. You have to be in order to fuck over the populace that gave you power by passing legislation or making moves that give more power to the federal government and corporations at the expense of the working class that elected them.\n\nJust like a well adjusted adult, a country should know where it stands with it's strengths and faults. There is nothing wrong with celebrating our accomplishments. There is also nothing wrong for criticizing the actions of elected officials; it's your duty as a citizen. They are supposed to be working for you.\n\nSome people get the impression that by not shouting USA is #1 at every possible occasion, or by kneeling at a fucking football game, that there's a big group of pansies out there who don't like the United States and are just trying to muck things up.\n\nFor those of us that aren't loudmouthed man-babies, let me be the 10 billionth person to remind you that, in fact, we do love this country. It is fantastic. You cannot really get the sociological, political, and economic positions that you find here anywhere else. We span the breath of a whole continent, width wise anyway, and have an unbounded capacity for potential and all manner of achievements.\n\nI hate to bring the Nazi comparison into this, but that's the situation you find yourself in with unchecked nationalism. \"We're the best, we're awesome, we're always right.\" Then things go wrong and, instead of looking at the whole picture to fix Germany's shortcomings, they blamed Jews. And blacks. And gays. And the crippled. Given the political environment, the party just continued to abandon the segments of the German population that weren't as on-board with the idea of racial purity. Who could've guessed :P\n\nThe Germans weren't intrinsically all trying to be racist (most anyways), it's not as if a huge portion of the population suddenly became racist. They were just under the utter delusion that the issue could not possibly be them, and just so happened to be mostly white, and they clung to it tightly because to admit the party was wrong was to admit they were wrong. Their inability to examine their own faults led them to do terrible things.\n\nAll of us \"pansies\" that aren't \"Fuck Yeah Merica\" 24/7 are simply reminded of where that mentality leads. We aren't so insecure that we need to shout it, or hold a military parade in our capital. We know we're awesome. We know we're strong. The only people that seem to need convincing of that are these blowhard armchair generals that think that by not doubling our military budget every year, or by not bombing the fuck out of North Korea, or by not standing for the pledge of allegiance, that we are being weak. No, we're just not subscribing to the insanity.\n\nSide note: I find it funny that some in the football crowd got in a tizzy over people kneeling, calling it disruptive and anti-american. The Philadelphia eagles won the Superbowl and they still trashed the fuck out of things pseudo-riot style. Isn't that disruptive? Aren't you literally destroying American property? Projectionists.\n\nLiberals get labeled as weak and unpatriotic, yet it's always conservatives and the big businesses they put their faith into for \"job creation\" that are always trying to avoid taxes. Democrats hate how their money is being spent, but they still fund the government. Republicans will often do everything to avoid funding the government, even when they're controlling how it's spent. If they love the country so much, how about chipping in now and again? And maybe not waste that money on a fucking parade.\n\n\nEdit: Additionally, here's a piece highlighting the Drudge Report's loose relation with fact. This won't change your mind, but it is independently searchable for you to be able to confirm as truth. https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/who-needs-facts-drudge-report-edition-187556",
"Agree with you there, it would be better if they posted a clear satire banner at the top of such articles.",
"and hey fuck it - some great inferences",
"No it hasn't.",
"Is the \"beauty at any size\" movement a conservative movement or a liberal movement? Is the notion that men and women are equal going to be said by someone who is conservative or someone who is liberal?",
"Lol yeah generally I agree but we’ve seen how much fake news has been pushed with “people familiar with so and so” that you can’t even trust that at this point. ",
"R O C K E T J E S U S \n\nO\n\nC\n\nK\n\nE\n\nT\n\nJ\n\nE\n\nS\n\nU\n\nS",
"If you're gonna claim they are unfairly biased, show me one example. Not truthful reporting on something you don't like (eg. Trump's version of \"fake news\"). But something that a fair-minded person would agree is an unfair judgement. Please! I'd legitimately like to see anything at all that justifies thia opinion.",
"Too late. Australia is now on a downward spiral as well. And our only decent station for fact-checking and attempts at avoiding bias is getting less and less funding every year. (ABC, for those who don't know. Their \"Media Watch\" is very well known for destroying ABC's own news programs in the name of truth).",
"r/nottheonion",
"Snopes is politically biased [1][2].\n\n[1] My feels\n\n[2] Everyone's saying it.",
"Only reason I use ad block. If the terraria wiki only stays alive by auto playing video ads I'm fine with it dying ",
"Never said that. The ones I'm seeing just happen to be posters on T_D and conservative and stuff like that, so they obviously have a bias themselves that neatly lines up with the party line of calling all news sources that aren't Fox News, Breitbart, or the occasional Infowars fake news.",
"Politico, ha!",
"So you really like Wendy's",
"BEST DAMN SALESMAN IN THE OFFICE",
"There should be a sticky post at the top of every Reddit thread answering each of the questions on this list. ",
"I picked logic, but you don't get to magically dismiss every liberal just because there are other liberals making wild claims. Hell, you don't even get to dismiss what those liberals say just because they have an unscientific viewpoint on a single matter.",
"The natural consequence of this phenomenon is that we all drift further and further towards the side that lies more.",
"Just a heads up: \n\nSnopes, Politico, and Politifact are all left leaning sites. So triple check your sources every time.\n",
"Oh wow, you cited a post from the_donald hahahaha. Incredible, truly incredible lol. ",
"They go out of their way a lot to come to the conclusions they want to. The exact same claim can be mostly true or mostly false depending on which side says it.",
"Lol, fact check with totally unbiased sources like, o, idk these three that we randomly picked. Does the other side of this pamphlet have a share blue logo? ",
"Honestly, the question should be \"Does the title elicit an emotional response or attempt to affirm your beliefs?\" \n\nThe problem with reporting now is that it isn't meant to give you the facts, It's meant to elicit emotion and get you to continue reading so that they get more money (ad revenue from your viewership).",
"It's not Fox Moos?",
"Fact check with leftwing fact checking sites! Helpful!",
"Yeah were too busy at work xD",
"I think the last advice is the best.",
"Missing one:\n\nREAD THE FUCKING ARTICLE.",
"you are joking right? Name one true thing Trump has ever said. LOL",
"That was an extreme case as an example, but often it is not that clear. And it may not be a bad source, because depending on the context you want a biased source. And bias is not wrong and can be very helpful, it is human. We are all biased in a different ways. You don't go to medical journals for political news, because they have selection bias and that is a good thing. The issue is, is when you are reading that article about a new medication to stimulates liver growth, but they didn't include that they had an underwriter that works for the company that make that medication. I would say AP, Reuters, and AFP are great sources, but they have to make a paycheck somewhere. With the AP if they are writing stories that are not getting picked up, they are going to move on. And that in itself creates a bias. ",
"False.",
"Probably just on the second floor",
"Hey kids I'm rightly disgusted that no one has called out \"Verrit\" which was designed to combat that evil Russian propaganda fake news. Can we all get a round of applause for Verrit that we use every day? I'mwithher",
"exactly... that booby picture is never in the video.",
"Eh, freedom of speech can be ugly sometimes. Who decides what real news is? There's no official verified truth. People have to piece things together the best they can and hope they find some semblance of what transpired.\n\n\"3 dead. Suspect apprehended\" is news.\n\n\"3 innocent women slain by sex offender\" is biased news.\n\n\"Republican party condemns Hillary Clinton's feminist remarks regarding military veteran's plea of self defense\" is propaganda.\n\n\"So what do you think about this thing with the 3 dead women?\" \"I think it's terrible\" is not news at all; it's a talk show.",
"Pretty much. This entire thread is ludicrous. I'd class myself as centre-left social democrat, and aspirationally a socialist, but Politifact and Politico demonstrate blatant and egregious bias *constantly*. I'm a little sick of it honestly, because it really muddies the waters of credibility trying to fight back against the right. Google will throw up a hundred comparisons of similar claims made by Dems or Republicans which are blatantly \"interpreted\" to make the Republican a liar and the Democrat true. It's like all the \"hit pieces\" about Trump's hair in the mainstream news media- could we be a bit less petty and obvious in our biases and focus on all the clearcut shit they ARE getting away with. Pathetic stuff really.",
"Do you not reddit from work?",
"Funnily enough the people like that in this thread can't even find a fake article to support themselves. They all just claim some variation of \"Snopes is fake because I don't like it\".",
"I don’t think you could find anyone that would say the Browns sucking at football is an opinion, that’s a verifiable fact. ",
"Firefox also has this just so everyone knows. Any tab with noise playing has a speaker icon which can be clicked to mute. Also, right clicking on a tab opens a context menu in which the second item should be \"Mute Tab\" which is useful if you're expecting noise to play and want to mute in advance.\n\nAlso, Ctrl + M toggles mute on the active tab, but there are some conflicts. For example, RES uses this to send messages.",
"Is there a legitimate right-leaning fact checking source? Something that everyone can hold these three up to and compare? I hesitate to say that the right doesn't care about facts, but I seriously can't find a fact checking site that the right would consider even impartial or credible.",
"“Stop being stupid, Trumpkins.” ",
"That's the funny thing about fake news isn't it, outlets will put out the tweet, the story, and all sorts of bullshit out front, get 100K views, then delete the story or retract for the 5K who care that the story be reported correctly. \n\nI can no longer find the link, but it was widely reported that day, right around Trump's inauguration. The source seems to be a TIME reporter who couldn't see the bust in the room and jumped to a conclusion which practically every outlet ran with for hours.",
"Amendment 11: Only think left leaning thoughts. Insult anyone who doesnt",
"> Fact checking sites are a terrible idea. They exist to convince you they're telling you the truth by claiming to be an authority on truth.\n\nSnopes and Politifact convince me that their fact-checking is truthful by showing their work. That, plus a long-built, hard-earned reputation.",
"I like this. It’s not even political. It’s just good advice",
"Also if it says some profesional or science has confirmed it. It a fake.",
"\"Sounds like liberal propaganda!\"\n\nTrump Supporters and Russian Bots, probably...",
"They cite Liberal media sites which in turn have been caught lying over and over especially when it concerns to Trump. What good is citing sources who are endlessly caught into lying?",
"How are they defining \"junk news\"? ",
"Who would ever trust a site with a stupid name like \"Snopes\", and you definitely can't trust anyone who claims to have all the, and only, facts, because they are lying their ass off.",
"Is that an Onion article in the body?\n\nEFIT: Oh. I see. ",
"Oh, right. The Daily Mail is gonna educate me.\n\nDoes this tie into Elvis's role in the JFK assassination, or is that a scandal that I should follow separately? ",
"Oh shit, I guess snopes has a conservative libertarian bias then?",
"Yea because ['fact checking\" doesn't have an agenda](http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/03/fact-check.jpg)\n\nYou don't need a website with an agenda to use critical thought.",
"You were asked about a source literally making up stories. Not about my feelings. Please stay on topic.",
">Check the author's credentials\n\nTypically good, but there are reputable sources like The Economist who don't publish author names.",
"I don't understand your point? These are all actually NOT examples of Betteridge's \"law\". These are not yes or no questions. \n\nSOURCE: Painstakingly asked if Ecology research articles suffer from Betteridge's law. The answer to that...is no. We (ecologists) tend to not ask questions in titles, and when we do, it's usually because the answer is \"eh. Sort of.\" \n",
"Superb ",
"> Fact check with Snopes\n\nAm I missing sarcasm or something? They literally ONLY post the most spammy, questionable articles about the most obtuse shit. In fact, if I EVER see it’s Snopes, that guarantees for me that it’s fake. ",
"He taught me how to love a woman — and how to scold a child.",
"I get my news from the source. I go to fact sites to verify that propaganda is indeed propaganda. They list out the points and give links to videos and quotes.\n\nTrump, his tweets, and the republicans in congress make it very clear what is going on — I don’t need sites to verify that.\n\nWashington Post and MSNBC are the two sources I mainly go with.\n\nI can see bias, you’re not special. I also think conservatives and trump supporters are different. I don’t consider a follower of his the traditional conservative.",
"How come?",
"Bias and propaganda isn't limited to the right. The right just has more obvious fake news than the left.",
"And therefore a shoe-in to run for office",
"You can buy these! https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark",
"Yeah, snopes and politifact are totally trustworthy...\n\nAlso, anonymous reporting (Reuters, for instance) is often accurate.",
"> Be open minded\n\n> use Snopes\n\nLol",
"Can you give me an example?",
"There is no debate because you have absolutely no evidence of them not being objectively correct.",
"Seems to fit, does it?",
"Really? Because shill looks pretty applicable to you.",
"You can also just get a browser extension to turn off HTML5 video autoplay everywhere (and selectively enable it for sites like reddit where you want those gfycat videos to play). It comes in handy.\n\nSometimes it's worthwhile to go even more extreme and use a userscript or userstyle to just remove the autoplay video element from the page. Looking at you, Wikia.",
"What do you do with all the spare time you have not typing apostrophes?",
"one in Minnesota",
"I kinda assumed they wouldn't show up in this thread and I don't even check, thanks for telling me there's treasure to be had- I find those comments supers entertaining ",
"For the sake of the argument, assume they were verifiable, objective facts. No grey area, and that the questions were neutral. What the questions are doesn't matter since it's a very simple analogy. You're kinda overthinking it.",
"\"Fact check stories with [our fake news] sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact.\"",
"This is true but so many people will claim their source isn't biased. I prefer to read at least two sources a left leaning and a right leaning source. (If the original source isn't available) whatever they have in common is the truth the rest is their opinion. ",
"Very true, but trying to spread positive information is a thoroughly good thing.",
"So This Is How Liberty Dies...With a tidal wave of prequel memes. ",
"It's certainly what these troglodytes are doing in the thread itself.",
"\"The facts have a well-known liberal bias\" ",
"So make sure you become an in depth reporter on your reporter to make sure their facts are accurate?\n\nSighs...\n\nFuck this , tell me the news and it will all shake out in the wash later. ",
"If you think that then you’re detached from reality. Politico is straight down the middle, if not leaning rightward purely due to the fact that it’s an industry news outlet.",
"Are you fucking serious? \n\n\nIf you think The_Donalsd is a filter by which things should be judged you are beyond hope kid.",
"Pretty sure most American schools teach it as well. Problem is, most radicals (on either side) tell their kids \"don't listen to your liberal/conservative school\" or just take their kids out and ~~brainwash~~ homeschool them.",
"Huh. I never realized that. Thanks for explaining it to me.",
"People are too lazy to read into anything and simply take it at face value. Sometimes they don't even get past the headline.",
"Reality has a left-leaning bias. Yeah! Hoo-ah!",
"you can just check the URL for /lost/.\n\nand the purpose of it:\n\n> This section graphically demonstrates the pitfalls of falling into the lazy habit of taking as gospel any one information outlet’s unsupported word. We could have put up a page saying “Don’t believe everything you read, no matter how trustworthy the source,” but that wouldn’t have conveyed the message half as well as showing through direct example just how easy it is to fall into the “I got it from so-and-so, therefore it must be true” mindset. That’s the same mindset that powers urban legends, the same basic mistake that impels countless well-meaning folks to confidently assert “True story; my aunt (husband, best friend, co-worker, boss, teacher, minister) told me so.”",
"You dont trust fact checking sites because you instead trust your first reaction to the headline (and only the headline) over anything in the article",
"Obviously will Ferrell",
"Okay dude. I didn't think to read through comics to find out if it was a comic strip joke when the thread is full of people pushing bullshit about Snopes being fake. ",
"Antistar is a neo-nazi (has 88 in his username, which is a nazi term), and Snopes refutes a ton of nazi beliefs. Because idiots like him don't live in reality. Antistar88 hates facts. ",
"Dude I don't have 20 minutes to verify everything I read every time. it doesn't take very little time if you do it seriously. \"a very serious problem with you\" lol get over yourself",
"Like what?",
"Gotcha. So you’re completely full of it. ",
"Edge doesn't have a UI. You just open it and it takes you where it wants to go until you restart your computer.",
"Not sure what point you're making here. Sounds more like the problem lies with false equivalency, and a lack of reasonable discussions coming from the right. \n\nWhen you play a game of go fish with a child, and the child says that it won because it has a 2 of spades and that card always wins, you don't try to argue the legitimacy of the claim. You tell them that's not how the game is played, and they either play the game, or do something else.\n\nThe problem is the left keeps trying to talk about the 2 of spades as if it was a real possible win condition in the first place. The reality, is that the information is wrong to begin with, the end.",
"The success of Trumpism has made it so that facts themselves are \"leftist.\"\n\n*This is the real problem*, but it's impossible to talk about without conjuring false equivalence and being dismissed as partisan.\n\nAt what point is it no longer a matter of partisanship, but rather the most basic, foundational, norms and values of democracy? The far-Right has abandoned truth and accountability, virtually creating an alternative reality. That isn't a political bias or opinion, it's what has literally happened, and it's incredibly dangerous.",
"Or, its a \"video\" that is really just a slideshow of text and photos",
"The very top was is wrong. Just look at Trumps tweets. Before him if you saw in the headlines \"President attacks celebrity with twitter tirade\" youd think it was unrealistic. But nope..here we are ",
"> No I consider fake news to be a one sided show of an event\n\nSometimes, but that's more an example of extreme bias. More often, fake news simply invents stories from nothing - usually to stoke anger and hatred in the target audience.\n\nNeither of your headlines are \"fake news\". At worst, they are biased.",
"Lmao. Far left sources shown as normal and unbiased ones. This is how normalization looks. ",
"My journalism Prof had this handout sitting on her desk at all times. It always did give me a chuckle. ",
"Bias*ed*. It's bias*ed*.",
"Investigation journalism use to be the top tier of journalism. It's like the detective job compared to a cop. Once media profits went into the gutter, the expensive affects of the field were cut. Do they exist? Of course, but it's fraction of what exist plus any story that makes an advertiser look bad isn't reported or investigated because they can't afford to lose advertisers. This isn't some wild theory, this was said in a recent review by somebody who left the field.",
"So instead of trying to censor publications like friggin 1984, why not just let people use their own critical thinking? ",
"I think for a lot of people, they misunderstand the difference between scientific bias and journalism/literary bias. We are taught in school to beware scientific studies that have “bias,” as in bending an experiment to support an existing theory. This can actually change the “facts” found in the survey and warp our perception of reality. \n\nOn the other hand, news bias (when done properly) interprets the facts and perhaps draws connections that support a sort of thesis. Journalists generally don’t invent the facts which they report. Hopefully the difference is clear. It’s as you said, not false truth just because the individual or even the interpretation supports one side. ",
"Take notes r/politics",
"The GOP base is objectively a cult, there is no other way to describe it.",
"*Fake News*",
"See those stairs to the left? He took the picture on a second story ledge. Lmao if you looked for 10 more seconds before writing that, you could have figured it out.",
"Personally, I would say this leaflet is probably well-meaning, but fails in its professed goal. What it fails to account for is the reality that a LOT of the so-called \"fake news\" and propaganda that gets spread today-- and some of the most nefarious-- comes from precisely the kinds of mainstream sources that it is telling you to trust. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post (whose owner now is making multimillion dollar deals with the CIA, if that tells you anything about their degree of bias)... There is a reason that these organizations poll so low in terms of public trust. Because people know, or at least have the general (accurate) sense that they are being lied to by all of the above. \n\nAnd Politico, Politifact, Snopes-- these are extremely politicized sources which I have seen fall on their faces time and time again. If something is just common knowledge, well-established fact, and has absolutely no political angle to it at all, these sources might give you the truth, but on anything the slightest bit controversial, they simply give the establishment narrative as if it's absolute fact. They do not question, they do not investigate, they dismiss and slander anyone who gives a critical analysis as a kooky \"conspiracy theorist...\" IMO this age of simply granting well-financed corporate and highly political entities with the title of \"trusted source\" and thinking that what they say is the be-all end-all is at least as dangerous as the actual \"fake news\" pumped out by mainstream and fringe sources alike.\n\nThe only way to really know who to trust is to take it on a case by case basis, to look at primary evidence and multiple contradicting perspectives and to determine for yourself who is trustworthy. In my experience, it usually turns out to be independent journalists who actually do investigative journalism and tell the truth, lacking pressure from organizations with the institutional imperative to push a certain agenda, but of course one journalist varies from another, and some are bought and sold without even having a formal job at a politicized organization. \n\nJust, please... If you sincerely care enough to WANT to find the truth, then care enough to dig beyond corporate sources, journalists whose \"facts\" rely on Pentagon and State Department insiders (who would obviously cut off access to any journalist who goes against their narrative), and think tanks and \"fact-checking\" organizations with clear allegiance to either major political party. They may tell you what you want to hear on social issues that have no real bearing on the agenda of the ruling class, but they will not tell you the truth about our imperial wars, they will not tell you the truth about the economy, they will not tell you the truth about investigations into their financiers and ideological allies, they will not tell you the truth about so-called \"conspiracy theories--\" even the ones that are true (and yes, some are true). And they will not tell you the truth about any of the hard-working journalists and whistleblowers who would LOVE the chance to actually tell you the truth, if only they were allowed a voice in the mainstream media. \n\nThink for yourself, and as I said, primary sources are about all you can take as credible these days. Everything else deserves a grain of salt, and should be considered only within the context of the motives and interests of the author/source. ",
"No because that's an idiotic thing to do. Do you have any evidence aside from inventing fake situations?",
"f, beaten",
"Who confirmed their legitimacy? The new source? Thats why i dont fuck with anonymous things and just wait",
"I really hope you are very young if you're this fucking delusional and gullible.",
"Wait. You're telling me that you live somewhere where a library is open on a Sunday?\n\nDoesn't that violate a \"blue law\"?\n\nYou must be European.\n",
"Exactly, you can just tell in the name lib-eral lib-rary.\n\n/s",
"If you wanna see it I'm currently formatting it to post on Reddit",
"I am. My recent T_D posts was me asking for better sources on a post, albeit I asked in a crass way that would cater to the community there. \n\nI will check those communities out, thanks.",
"That's the point. And what makes it funny.\n\n>Any headline that ends in a question mark\n\nis the rule given, not any yes/no headline",
"thats just wrong tho",
"keep copy and pasting it, nobody cares about the guardian",
"More propaganda!!!!! :)",
"‘Do you disagree with it?’ Fake news!",
"They are pretty openly far left biased.... ",
"Let's try that out. \n\nWhat's something you have strong views on?",
"Did anyone else just hear a sonic boom?",
"There are perfectly legitimate reasons for journalists to keep their sources anonymous. Usually to protect those sources from retribution.",
"> Every news source has a bias. That doesn't mean they don't deal in facts. \n\nWell, a good journalist knows how to overcome bias, and present facts from all sides of an argument, and keep a neutral point of view. Only there aren't any journalists left it seems ...",
"They only seem more biased because they're about the only dissenting views. ",
"Out all the things you could criticize him for, you think he's mentally incompetent? \n\nI feel like even if I strongly disagreed with all of his opinions, I would say at the very least he's very intelligent and well articulated.\n\n",
"Is it on CNN? If so fake news",
"In the relative sense anything can be made to be ok. In the absolute sense, they are incredibly biased.",
"Understanding that global warming is real and trickle down doesn't work already puts you deep into the libzone. ",
"7/10, pretty good bait job\n\nI think you'll do really well if you keep up the practice",
"What is this? A library for ants?",
"\"It's just the right doing it\" sounds suspiciously like a thing I never said but that you're pretending I said because it's easier to argue with.",
"Which is why conservatives are trying to defund them.",
"Who is making it partisan?",
"I've had some people saying they think BBC and NPR are liberal talk. Those are both government funded sources, they can't be biased. \n \nNeedless to say I don't hang out with those people anymore. ",
"The problem is the people that need to hear this advice the most will look at things like “check fact checking sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact” and write those sites off as “librul media” when they give them the inconvenient truth.",
"Are strong feelings considered evidence?",
"Carl Sagan discussed this very briefly in an [old NPR segment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pWuCmb7wn8) ",
"Fact check using this left wing propaganda sites. They might as well add \"see what Fox News is saying\" to make it \"fair and balanced\".",
"Lol I like how it acts like it's a sincere piece of info but then nonchalantly slips in Politifact etc",
"Check sources with far-left sites. lol",
"because you need to have a bedrock assumption that some things are true. If you assume everything is potentially false then Breitbart looks just as feasible as BBC news. Snopes does a very good job at cross checking sources and giving a fairly apolitical look at speculations. If the chances of something being false are very low then it isn't worth discrediting a source. Sure you should be critical but that doesn't mean you should be cynical.",
"I noticed he was a big T–D fan, but I think there’s no better way to expose BS beliefs than to let them be explained... poorly no doubt. ",
"Why, are you a library regular, Elon Musk?",
"\"Fact check with these completely biased and shit fact checking sites\"",
"The people who need the advice on this bookmark are the people who would probably be livid that the bookmark refers them to Snopes, Politico, and Politifact, because they view all those as biased liberal propaganda etc etc. \n\nTo a lot of people, anything that isn’t bending over backwards to suck DJT’s dong is “fake news” and “liberal lies.”",
"Trump: The sky is blue.\n\nSnopes: FALSE There are periods for hours when the sky is actually black and no blue can be detected.\n\nClinton: The sky is green.\n\nSnopes: TRUE During the winter months the aurora borealis can be observed in the high latitude aurora oval.",
"It means youre ok with it. It means you subscribe to it. \n\n\nYes. ",
"No. You seem shockingly unintelligent.",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism",
"Used by the same people who have taken to calling public schools “government schools”.",
"How are the children supposed to check books out if they can't even fit inside the building?!",
"What does NBC news have to do with Snopes?",
"Ironically the leaflet directs people to known fake news sites ftw",
"More of these please!",
"I remember touring the Boston Public Library with some family and friends when I saw some man watching porn and rubbing himself. I walked over to the library staff and informed them. They gave me a look, rolled their eyes, and went back to their computers. Almost like, ya we know, we are gonna kick him out when he's finished. ",
"This is *almost* the rule. Betteridge's \"law\" is the rule that if the headline is a *yes or no* question, the answer is usually no. \n\nIt does not apply to questions of other types. Examples of non-Betteridge type questions:\n\nHow long will it take to cure cancer?\n\nHow many terrorists are in your neighborhood?\n\nWhy does Bigfoot smell?",
"Sell video ads, which are worth much more than static banner ads",
"A person familiar with this post at the library says you're wrong. 😊",
"The problem is, you're using logic.\n\nOnce you stop being logical, you'll understand the viewpoints of the people who believe that Obama is a Muslim.",
"Alt right republicans very well know the fake news. They just dont care. They are brain washed by fox news",
"Snopes, politico and politifact? Is that a joke? \n\nThe entire \"fake news\" lunacy is people whining about opinions they disagree with.\n\nIf you think globalism/mulitculturalism/neoliberalism is great then you will accept the fake news from the NYTimes, WaPo, NPR and most of the liberal fake news organizations.\n\nIf you think \"BUILD THAT BORDER\", then you will think fake news from foxnews, drudgereport, breitbart, etc is great. \n\n\nIt's simple. Ask yourself what the political motivation of the article, news organizations, etc is. And then figure out what their spin is.\n\nIt's hard to take anything that lists snopes, politico and politifact as \"fact checkers\" seriously. \n\nThat bookmark from your library is fake news. ",
"Except eliminating bias is impossible. What's important is to make sure to view sources from both sides of the bench, to at least eliminate any pure untruth.",
"You're one to talk, calling the Hill, NYTimes, Wapo, Newsweek 'fucking bullshit'. ",
"So, that has nothing to do with the analogy I made, soooooo... What's your point in bringing it up, exactly? I specifically didn't mention any sites on purpose in that.",
"It’s a giraffe",
"Same goes for the DNC bud. They actually rig primaries and their supporters still follow.",
"What an elaborate straw man.",
"I don't think that's right. Fact checkers aren't omniscient. Only the campaign knows what they meant, and if they aren't willing to explain then there's not much the fact checker can do except default to official stats and go off the public comments. A rule like \"if you don't answer their questions then no fact checker can say for sure if you were wrong\" is far too easy for candidates of ill will (not that there were any like that in 2016 of course) to game.",
"“Left-leaning” now means news orgs that use empirical methods to get at the truth.",
"Well it was taught at my elementary school... but only for those who were already identified as \"gifted\" by their skills such as critical thinking. \n\nNot saying a gifted program is bad, just agreeing with you that it should be taught to EVERYONE. ",
">I have not seen one source on any snopes article\n\n>I’m sure there is quite a bit of sources\n\nSo you didn't actually bother to look, right? That's basiacally what you just said.\n\nAlso, is there something wrong with someone who cleans up their life and chooses a different path? You're gonna hold her status as a former prostitute as evidence of her bias or lack of credibility?\n\n",
"How do you determine if something you read is true?",
"source?",
"He didnt say unbiased. You can be biased and yet reputable, such as the WSJ as mentioned earlier. You dont have to like MSNBC but if they say \"X happened\", then X almost certainly happened, and if it didnt they will issue a retraction once the mistake is found.",
"But what about the droid attack on the Wookiees?",
"Not sure about Politico, but both Snopes and Politifact have been proven unreliable on several occasions. Other than that, this list looks pretty good.",
"Its normalization. Far left sources say they are moderate. If enough people believe this it shifts the entire spectrum to the left. Rinse and repeat until you've achieved communism. ",
"Nah I choose to believe he's floating in midair like magneto, just randomly deciding to take a pic of a cool leaflet he found and post it on reddit.",
"Garuntee you no one will be open minded. Reddit has taught me that. ",
"I disagree. Propaganda is effective on all kinds of citizens. The leaflet has good advice in general, but stuff like \"factchecking sites like snopes\" is crappy. Theyre known to outright lie quite a lot.",
"So does me posting here mean I subscribe to the belief that Snopes is unbiased? Do you see the flaw in your logic?",
"No, auto-playing videos with sound are the worst! Auto Playing videos without sound aren't nice but could be worse (they could have sound!).",
"This is what Reddit is all about, post about one subjects, gets totally derailed by jokes, puns and memes. and some part drama and controversy. \n\nI used to love it, but the more I use reddit, the more I dispaise that everything is a joke. ",
"Avoid anonymous sources. So essentially ignore everything that CNN reports ?",
"This is almost the rule. Betteridge's \"law\" is the rule that if the headline is a yes or no question, the answer is usually no.\n\nIt does not apply to questions of other types. Examples of non-Betteridge type questions:\n\nHow long will it take to cure cancer?\n\nHow many terrorists are in your neighborhood?\n\nWhy does Bigfoot smell?",
"AP is not-for-profit",
"Except Snopes provides you with citations. And nice to hear you don't trust people who are fat and/or ugly. What an awful way to live.",
"99%",
"You're just accusing him of pulling shit out of his ass, without evidence. http://www.politifactbias.com/2017/07/politifact-revises-its-own-history.html biased website (duh) but you can confirm yourself through archive.is",
"Did you actually read it?",
"It's really hard to be open minded about ideas though...",
"Source: https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark",
"https://www.snopes.com/POLITICS/clintons/zeifman.asp",
"Also for being pretty far left. ",
"I use my phone at work, but never have enough down time to piss around on reddit usually. \n\n\n\n\nI just think it’s funny that this guy’s excuse for not linking a source is being at work, but here he is... redditing at work. ",
"If you thought for 10 more seconds you may have realised it was a joooooke ",
"It absolutely does make it a bad source.\n\nHow can you guarantee that they aren't using old or outdated information, that they are actually telling you the truth instead of serving their own interests?\n\nFor example, [here's a ruling they made in March 2017 as pants on fire](http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/mar/13/blog-posting/it-trap-story-fbi-issued-warrant-obama-trump-wiret/). With new information today via the recent memo release, this ruling should be changed to at least half true. Yet no update is given on it.\n\nFrankly, I see little reason why such a blatantly left leaning organization is going to work hard to correct their mistake when it suits their own political aims. Which is exactly why blatant bias makes a source like politifact terrible. ",
"Because they list facts. Which facts that they list do you consider untrue?",
"Excuse me. I use the latest and greatest Gopros to record my porn secondhand",
"Admitting to the fact that fake news exist is already a win for Republicans",
"Well actually the Cleveland Browns are really good at football. Just not as good as every other NFL team.",
"Ye--- wait, I know this. No! The answer is no.",
"It's your main opposition, it highlights the dirt your side tries to cover up. Of course you won't like it because it proves you wrong and that makes you mad. ",
"I know you won't like the source but bear with me and check out the links: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6fj0wn/cnn_fake_news_list/\n\nHere's a random one: https://imgur.com/ufpghJp",
".. mainly about the level of access required.\nAny of this on your shit ticket?",
"Some guy I spoke to a few days ago thinks all news is controlled by the liberals, even Fox news. Only Breitbart and infowars tell the truth. The propaganda is effective. Anyone consious enough to take heed to this pamphlet would probably not be the same who would be vulnerable to the extreme propaganda. They are so extreme that even the nuetral or somewhat right sources are 'liberal'. The wall of ignorance is impenetratable. Hopefully, this might help some kids to avoid becoming hopelessly ignorant in the future.",
"If you truly believe that you're in for a rather world shattering dose of reality.",
"Why do you say that?",
"1. You should also find out who does the fact checking on the sites that do the fact checking. \n\n2. Don’t just go by what news reports tell you, look at different sources and news outlets from places you don’t typically go to. \n\n3. If everyone tells you something it could based on lies and misinformation to lead you to believe them.\n\n4. Have discussions about the news reports from people who have different opinions about them.\n\n5. Look at international news outlets they may have a different perspective on the news from the country you live in.",
"You are blatantly lying. \n\nTrump's team did not give their sources for their claim. ",
"I mean, pretty much. When you’ve shown yourself to be a member of a cult of personality that disregards reality and deals in bullshit conspiracy theories (Seth Rich amirite), it’s safe to assume your ability to remain objective is nonexistent. ",
"It's a joke from the Colbert Report",
"Good question, I'd prefer they removed the meter as well. However the meter doesn't discredit the article.",
"Good point. No need to talk about Trump's treason when the droid's attack on the Wookies goes unexplained.",
"You could add “Look for multiple misspellings and/or grammatical errors”. My grammar is bad, spelling ability is worse, but if I can spot these things in “news articles” it says a lot about the author/editor/bot. ",
"Nah, only on talking about biased sources. They could still be completely accurate and factual on other stuff. Virulently Supporting Trump doesn't automatically make someone wrong about every single thing in existence. ",
"I think that you think he \"doesn't trust fact checking websites\" because he is a Trump supporter. The reason I think this is because it's a common belief on Reddit. I may be wrong, but that's my opinion.\n\nALSO, you said that he \"doesn't trust fact checking websites\", but that isn't even what he said. He said they were partisan. IE, that they were biased to support on of the parties. Bias doesn't mean untrustworthy, it means that there is a political downplaying of negative news for one side and a hysteria created for the other. You can present facts in a biased way, most news organizations do this. \n\nHe didn't say he didn't trust them, he *implied* that they are left leaning and may present the facts in a way such that different political parties are treated differently. I'm inclined to believe him, because every news organization I've ever seem has a clear political spin on every topic, one way or the other. It's unavoidable.",
"It means you support one party over another, or judge things strictly in respect to the current political parties",
"You're free to have that opinion.\n\nI'm free to have the opinion that sites like Politifact (I don't go on snopes) use their labeling to mislead people, to imply someone is lying without outright calling them a liar, misrepresent people so that they can give them a rating they want, as well as outright lie occasionally.\n\nI haven't personally found anything that would convince me to believe any fact checking site at first glance, and have seen enough to be actively wary of things they state.\n\nMaybe things were different before, but 2016 led to an absolute abandonment of even the facade to pretend to be objective by most sources.",
"Been using the site for a long time, and I can honestly say this is pants on fire. You might want to provide proof next time, and if you can't find it, it's because you're wrong.",
"They are mostly kids with short attention span. They tend to pick out one or two things that appeal to them to focus on and ignore the rest of the comment.",
">#PizzaGate\n\n\nYes I'll certainly take you seriously.",
"I can't comment on that incident. However, while it is clear that not all Police are racists, when you have a situation like Chicago PD where they operated a \"black site\" (where suspects were detained, denied access to their lawyers, and sometimes beaten) I think we can say that it's a systemic problem.\n\nSource: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site\n\nBesides, I think \"take it to the suburbs\" is a reasonable emotional outburst in the face of such systemic failings. ",
"It means you support one party over another, or judge things strictly in respect to the current political parties' stances on them",
"Can you cite some false Breitbart articles for which retractions weren't issued?\n\nEdit: In the absence of actual examples I guess downvotes are the next best thing...",
"Did you miss the very long and in-depth page at the inscrutable URL https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology",
"Most people don't want to hear others just spout random bullshit that they have no actual idea is true or not (unless it's agreeing with them on something). It is your job. It's everyones job. If you can't be bothered to fact check yourself, keep silent. \n\nThat's my opinion, obviously, not an order. Who the hell am I to give some random guy on the internet orders, you know?",
"100% of /r/politics, r/bluemidterm, r/enoughtrumpspam, /r/esist, etc are fake news. They all have political motives.\n\n100% of the_donald is fake news. They all have political motives.\n\nThe leftists claim their lies are truths and the right is spewing fake news. The rightists claim their lies are truths and the left is spewing fake news. \n\nOP's post is fake news propaganda itself. \"Snopes, politico, politifact\". Give me a fucking break.",
"I study & teach about fake news (and general info-literacy).\nSome of this is good advice - some of it not so much.\n\nFor instance,\n \n1. \"Does the headline sound realistic?\" We just launched a spaceman in a car toward Mars. Does that seem realistic? And just think - politics in 2016 - does much of it actually sound realistic anymore? This is just much too subjective.\n\n2. \"Check the author's credentials?\" How if he's a billionaire businessman who is now POTUS? That used to mean something in terms of credibility. \n\nI could go on. If you want something that really goes into to this well, check out this free book by Michael Caulfield - https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/ He has some great strategies and the general premise is - if you want to understand how to be literate on the web, you have to understand how the web works.",
"Ahh, so YOU'RE the one they made the library bookmark for? Attack the source, not the veracity of the claims made? Snopes is biased garbage run by a fraudster.\n\nhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#75272ab1227f",
"They are leaning over a railing I bet. You can see the stairs bottom left. ",
"Fact check with politico, snopes, politifact ahahahahahaha😂😂 my sides",
"You made me laugh out loud in a library you twat. Well played. Hahahahaha",
"I always thought Politico was more conservative based on content but just not Breitbart/Fox News conservative. Politico is more technical than CNN/USA Today/Fox News.\n\nFacts seem to have a pretty hard left lean lately.\n\nThere's a popular graphic that ranks news outlets by their audience. Is there a ranking by content?",
"Yeah, Republicans just don't like paying taxes to make sure everyone can have porn, regardless of economic background.",
"Just saying 'Politifact is wrong' is not proof of anything. ",
"Looks like a second story maybe, there's stairs in the top left of the photo?",
"The hell? ",
"Fake\n",
"Because it is comprised of a union of Journalist and Freelancers. Much like the NFL is is non-profit because it is comprised of owners and teams. ",
"Find out which CRAZY trick has been discovered to be the oldest in the book, according to a recent scientific study. The result may surprise you! ",
"That has nothing to do with the analogy I made, so what's your point, exactly?",
"Not an answer. Or logical. or true.",
"I like [This song](https://youtu.be/m-PdOubKBDo) for a reference to identify fake or unreliable news. ",
"Unfortunately, that is the case in this day and era. If Hillary's e-mail scandal proved anything, it is that a lot of journalists these days are heavily in the bag for someone. ",
"> Politifact and Snopes are biased pieces of shit. There is no debate.\n\nHelp me out here. What do we call someone who, when confronted with evidence and facts, refuses to evaluate and debate them, and just rejects them by default because they don't fit their own narrative?",
"I think we can all agree that anyone when shot by a cop is a bad thing, even for the cop. Whatever the circumstance the cop pulled out his gun is tragic, only made worse when it's then politicized. \n\nIs there racism, yes, is there institutional racism, yes... does a cop have the right to protect himself, yes, does a cop find himself in random confrontations more often than the general public yes. \n\nArguments for both sides don't necessarily create solutions, but it does create a large number of clicks and those in turn generate income neither for the parties involved or anyone concerned on any side of the argument. ",
"They aren't \"more likely to be false\". You claiming that they are despite a lack of evidence is you literally inventing a lie to say anonymous sources are inherently bad. You're the exact same as the other guy. \n\nThere you go.",
"Ahh, U.S. schools \"protecting\" children with unbiased liberal fact checking, textbook monopolies, sky high tuitions and long term indentured servitude! Why shouldn't you trust them?",
"His life of self taught and hard learned world views challenge the simple and comfortable notions they have been indoctrinated into believing, the ones that support them and other \"victim\"s.\n\nThe degree to which everyone is now wrong is embarrassing, so most just go on living the lie that they are the saviors of western civilisation for voting those who would sacrifice it for handouts. It started with small concessions here and there, now you have an entire society wishing for their mutual destruction in the name of \"justice\".\n\n**Pick an option:**\n\n**A**:I was wrong, a complete and utter tool. A hypocrite of the highest order, a socialist, an angry militant, opposed to freedom and the constitution. I created enemies in my head and drank the cool aid the hostile media shoveled at me as fast as they could produce it. My virtues were illusions created by my puppet masters to shield the disgusting hate they were instilling in me towards western society. I am racist and sexist with every fiber of my being.\n\n**B**: Anderson cooper and Don Lemon are so suave and handsome. I'm so progressive for watching them, I'm part of the good guys. I get such a nice hit of dopamine in my head every time i see something horribly contorted in the leftist ideology. I love having this tinge of \"Am I racist or homophobic? followed by my complete and unthinking acceptance of anything involving gays, islam, and brown people.\" I am a better person than anyone on the planet because I don't think, I just accept things, no matter what. I'm like jesus, if he wasn't a white man.\n\nDownvote me all you want, its exactly what you're trained to do.",
"Is there a website that only posts what's already went through this checklist? I'm lazy",
"Look at how illegal immigration is discussed in the news.\n\n\nEdit: sorry my kid bumped me and I submitted early.\n\n\n\"Illegal\" has been effectively removed from language discussing the issue. That one word changes the facts of the report itself completely. It doesn't matter which side of the issue you are on, you can't know what the factual legal status of someone is anymore because the media conceals it to push a narrative. Reading an article, you'd think \"immigrants,\" including legal ones, are being deported. There is no distinction made even though \"illegal immigrant\" is existing legal language. So how can people understand an issue if something so simple isn't even correctly reported? \n\nSame with concealing the race of a suspect by altering or omitting physical descriptors.",
"Believe me they do. Establishment fake news is the worst - and many in the educated class falsely believe that the media wing of be military industrial complex (MSM) is not lying to them.\n\nPeople need to wake up to the fact that the media pushed is not there to inform us, but to influence our behavior.",
"They tend to be a bit skewed with their ratings (since the space between \"Mostly True\" and \"Mostly False\" is pretty subjective) but their research is a pretty good starting point if you want to come up with your own judgment. E.g., if someone says that the unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in X years, Politifact does you the solid of pulling up those figures so if you decide to ignore their judgment you can just look at those sources and make your own.\n\nAfter all, no news source is ever going to be good enough to just *tell* us what's real and what's not; democracy is a job. A somewhat taxing one for sure but the alternative is much worse.",
"A few redditors posted a link of where you can buy these bookmarks:\nhttps://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark",
"LOL because most business men and women are lefties right? ",
"I agree. 15 is way too old\n\n\n\n\n\nFor a digital camera. ",
"So you sussed out my entire belief system based on my response of a couple of sentences? You had my curiosity, now you have my attention. Do elaborate",
"Just went on snopes. \n\nRight on the front page “ Did Elon Musk Call Donald Trump a dumbass?”\n\nFalse\n\nHe didn’t he actually thanked the president on behalf of SpaceX.\n\nGee sure are pushing a narrative there thanking the president! \n\nLet’s see what else ... “ Is America first” a slogan for the KKK?\n\nTrue.\n\nWhat? This the liberal pushing their propaganda! Not true, fake news ! \n\nLet’s see I’ll double check my sources not to be a partisan hack.\n\nGoogle search “ America first KKK”: images of parades with the KKK holding banners that say America first, david duke praising Trump for saying it, a hashtag on twitter and UK article about the dark history of the phrase. \n\nSo please explain to me how that is propaganda? Or perhaps it doesn’t fit your worldview because ironically YOU ARE THE ONE READING PROPAGANDA.\n\nHahha oh sweet lost child. You don’t like fact checking because you don’t want to look in the mirror.\n\nEdit: so I have supported my side now please explain to me how it is propaganda ",
"> LIEbarys are run by LIEbrul SOCIALISTS\n\nI can totally see this being a real slogan...",
"Politifact is extremely biased",
"Hahahahaha ",
"It's supposed to be taught within every subject. ",
"[Except Politico is traditionally criticized by both sides for influence, so it’s close to center](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico) ",
"So, no examples huh?",
"Trump wiretap tweet. Funny how they felt the need to to fact check that, EVEN THOUGH THE MEDIA GLEEFULLY REPORTED IT 3 MONTHS PRIOR. \n\n“Trump wasnt wiretapped”\n\nThey all Said trump was crazy. Now it comes out he was right all along. \n\nNow it’s come out that this entire Russia thing is total bullshit and was a setup by the previous administration to hide their illegal spying on trump, and their blatant treason,\n\n4th amendment violations \nIllegal spying/unmasking \nEntrapment \nState intelligence apparatus and the government weaponized against a duly elected president.\n\nHas snopes made a correction on that.\n\nTrump was right all along.\n\nThere’s plenty of other examples. Your in filter bubble and you have your own “Model of the word”. That’s why you can’t see it. But you are being lied to. \n\nFurther, it’s funny how people think they are some gold standard for truth. How did that get that way? Some left leaning people just decided that one day and then expected WE ALL GO ALONG WITH IT. There wasn’t a bipartisan commission that decided they were the gold standard. It was Democrats, and media people who are Democrats.\n\nNow that doesn’t mean only get stuff from conservative sites. It means read both sides and then make up your own mind. Don’t rely on some website that a bunch of partisans one day decided should be a “fact check” site.\n\nDon’t you see that they call themselves “fact check” so when people call out their bias, it serves as confirmation bias for left leaning people to totally dismiss the claim.\n",
"Yeah facts often are. ",
"That study is laughable.",
"Just finished writing this up for the folks who sort by controversial:\n\n[Politifact as an unbiased source](https://www.reddit.com/r/the_asshole/comments/7wwue6/politifact_fake_news_compilation/)",
"I wouldn't let one article change your worldview on the pervasiveness of ignorance.",
"Snopes says this is pants-on-fire false, based on an anonymous source. ",
"Are you sure you're replying to the right person?",
"There's \"Fake news\" and then there is \"propaganda\". The original meaning for \"fake news\" were stories made of whole cloth or \"news\" that was used to get clicks/money. Eventually the two were confused by several famous people in the media landscape. \n\nPropaganda can be 100% true yet only telling part of the story or a story selectively. For example citing crime statistics to show that non-white people are more prone to crime. The stats may be correct, but is being used to make you think what they want you to think. On the other hand, it is possible for an article to be both propaganda and fake news. So if a story that the [Pope endorsed Donald Trump for U.S. president](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-biggest-fake-news-stories-of-2016.html) is made up and also intending to push a particular agenda. ",
"It isnt so much communism to me. It that they hand wave a lot of leftist bullshit. Or attacks of moderates too. Just a nice little handwave \"Yea that isnt real\".\n\nLike that guy that got assaulted and his car stolen after the election. Snopes said it was false...even though they played the fucking video.",
"This guy Librarys ",
"I did, and I'm still waiting for evidence that republicans are **more susceptible to fake news.** So far, none of your sources have said that, apart from an interview with a fake news creator (which is about as far from an unbiased, academic source as possible.)\n\n\nUniversity of Nebraska source:\n\n>Abstract: Disputes between those holding differing political views are ubiquitous and deep-seated, and they often follow common, recognizable lines. The supporters of tradition and stability, sometimes referred to as conservatives, do battle with the supporters of innovation and reform, sometimes referred to as liberals. Understanding the correlates of those distinct political orientations is probably a prerequisite for managing political disputes, which are a source of social conflict that can lead to frustration and even bloodshed. A rapidly growing body of empirical evidence documents a multitude of ways in which liberals and conservatives differ from each other in purviews of life with little direct connection to politics, from tastes in art to desire for closure and from disgust sensitivity to the tendency to pursue new information, but the central theme of the differences is a matter of debate. In this article, we argue that one organizing element of the many differences between liberals and conservatives is the nature of their physiological and psychological responses to features of the environment that are negative. Compared with liberals, conservatives tend to register greater physiological responses to such stimuli and also to devote more psychological resources to them. Operating from this point of departure, we suggest approaches for refining understanding of the broad relationship between political views and response to the negative. We conclude with a discussion of normative implications, stressing that identifying differences across ideological groups is not tantamount to declaring one ideology superior to another.\n\nUCLA source:\n\n>Abstract\nTo benefit from information provided by others, people must be somewhat credulous. However, credulity entails risks. The optimal level of credulity depends on the relative costs of believing misinformation versus failing to attend to accurate information. When information concerns hazards, erroneous incredulity is often more costly than erroneous credulity, as disregarding accurate warnings is more harmful than adopting unnecessary precautions. Because no equivalent asymmetry characterizes information concerning benefits, people should generally be more credulous of hazard information than of benefit information. This adaptive negatively- biased credulity is linked to negativity bias in general, and is more prominent among those who believe the world to be dangerous. Because both threat sensitivity and dangerous-world beliefs differ between conservatives and liberals, we predicted that conservatism would positively correlate with negatively-biased credulity. Two online studies of Americans support this prediction, potentially illuminating the impact of politicians’ alarmist claims on different portions of the electorate.\n\n\nBoth of these sources are drawing correlation from rates of *alarmism* and *negative bias* perceived within the two political parties. Neither take into account the fact that conservatives were **overwhelmingly** targeted with fake-news in comparison to liberals, nor can they actually draw a concrete causation between their findings and the supposed \"higher rates of susceptibility.\"\n\nThe two may correlate-- but that is not enough to be empirically true. Again, if it is a demonstrable fact that republicans are more susceptible to fake news than democrats, then you would need a verifiable claim of causation vice correlation.\n\n\nedit: words are hard.",
"My favorite: \"people familiar with ______'s thinking reports,\"",
"Fake news isn't a Democrat issue...",
"Noob question, are those referred sources (Snopes, politico) the standard, non-bias, news feed I should be reading? I avoid news like lava because of drama but it doesn't hurt to get updated every once and a while. ",
"Ya it’s definitely a trippy perspective, I had to do a double take ",
"So many replies. No actual proof. \n\nSad.\n\nLow energy. ",
"The only people who know which features Edge has are the guys who had to program in those specific features.",
"The key is to not trust any particular source as being \"accurate\". Hit up a bunch of sources and figure out the truth that exists usually somewhere in the middle.",
"No, actually. I understand the left’s arguments clearly. I believe in objective truth. \n\n“...rather than accept the FACT that the sources you are listening to are untrustworthy...”\n\nAka “your sources are untrustworthy and mine aren’t”\n\n\n\n",
"Auto-playing videos are the worst. I got a blaring loud, obnoxious one with both music and voiceover the last time I was on the website for Vote Smart. I wrote them and complained and said that I wouldn't use their site anymore unless they either got rid of that video or at least took it off auto-play.\n\nThey never responded to me, so here I am publicly calling them out and I will not use their site. Turns out there are excellent other sites available that can tell you all of your government representatives like Common Cause and govtrack.us. The more you know..",
"I wish I was so brainwashed that I could disbelieve facts just because I don't like them.",
"[or is it](https://youtu.be/1dwu4iVA1yo) ",
"Damn, dude how tall are you? ",
"Well when anonymous sources are used for almost every story big and small about trump you start to wonder.",
"Because if you are taking statements based on numbers, sites like politifact and snopes over representing lies by conservatives makes your entire premise of your analogy wrong.\n\nIf in reality there are an equal amount of lies from both sides, but one side is over reported 7x over, clearly it's working if you think it's OK to judge the side with more negative reports ",
"Did CCN tell you?\nedit CNN, MSNBC, etc. Pick a lib or con site and go to town.",
"we did it reddit!! next stop, world hunger! ",
"What!? Who would build a library so small that books can't fit in the building?",
"Literally all three of those are blatantly biased. ",
"He has cogent, logically informed arguments on his side.\n\nStep out of your bubble. The world is beautiful out here. ",
"On Opera right click the tab and select mute, for my fellow Opera users(I’m sure we exist)",
"And his company has been able to recover first stage boosters by landing them on the tail. ",
"LOL, I'm not an American kid, T_D doesn't dig up jack shit, it fabricates it.",
"I don't feel like writing all the evidence myself... fortunately someone has done that for me here: https://www.quora.com/Is-Snopes-biased-Why-do-some-people-believe-Snopes-is-biased/answer/Michael-Kry%C5%84ski?share=2a550723&srid=dHE3\n\nTLDR: Repeatedly Snopes has skewed their answers to support an agenda. Not just anti-conservative either, even Sanders has gotten the shaft.",
"He's a little kid growing up in an insane family with the entire world shining a spotlight on them, he will never be \"normal\" but saying that he is on the autism spectrum is just absurd",
">Is the \"beauty at any size\" movement a conservative movement or a liberal movement? \n \nNeither. What makes you think that's a \"liberal movement?\"\n\n>Is the notion that men and women are equal going to be said by someone who is conservative or someone who is liberal?\n\nI feel like you're being intentionally obtuse with this one, but I'll respond anyway because why the hell not. \n\nFirstly, I feel like women's rights is an apolitical issue. At least if it's not, it should be. \n\nSecondly, women's rights has literally nothing to do with physical strength. The issue is women being treated unfairly, particularly in the workplace (e.g. wages, position), but also socially. \n\nEither you're conflating those things on purpose to try to make a point (I hope) or you have a serious hard time with critical thinking.",
"Even then I think they have a good bit of value. Their assessments might be skewed but they do a good bit of the legwork when it comes to digging up information. You can just look at that yourself and decide whether it's \"Mostly True\" or \"Mostly False\"; it's a good idea in any case not to outsource your brain.\n\nIt's hard to get a bias-free assessment, since a good bit of bias is unconscious too. Hence the value of debate, deliberation, and independent thought.",
"Ahem, also, use common sense...",
"So they want you to fact check with fake news sites lol.",
"Does he not have a printing pass? Or does he prefer his porn in color?",
"Facts have a liberal bias.",
"That sounds pretty unrealistic too. I think he has hover shoes.",
"I'm not the largest fan of Politifact, but I wouldn't call them \"biased, fake news\". Anyone who does that is just being willfully ignorant.",
"Jordan Peterson is obviously a smart guy but too many people take everything he says as fact (myself included at first). There’s a surprising amount of bullshit mixed in with the truth",
"Second floor of the library.",
"Yeah I fucking hate innovation /s",
"I love how at the end they say, “be open minded. Ask questions” what a joke.",
"Here's a good one, read the headline and then read the content, most of /r/politics is filled with clickbaity headlines that when you actually do a bit of reading you'll find the content often contradicts the headlines.",
"Does is say CNN?",
"https://youtu.be/mZHoHaAYHq8",
"What kind of fucked up source is that lol",
"Maybe they're on Reddit reading this leaflet.",
"or abortion is murder to a liberal?",
"This was the point I realized how biased CNN, NBC, and ABC really are. Fox is biased as well but dont really try to hide it. People get mad when you say the same about the big three, it's pretty funny. Just ask your self when any of those stations ran a story that puts Trump in a postive light. ",
"Waaaaay back in the olden days of 2012, Politico was considered slightly right-leaning.\n\nThe Overton window is seriously red-shifting, in both senses.",
">There, “extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.”\n\nI guess I need to quote it again. Notice the portion that says \"distinct from Republican pages\", it will clear things up for you.",
"You're right, Bill Nye [did call Pluto a planet 20 years ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu0OfErXfZg)!\n\nThat can only have one explanation: THE LIBERAL PLUTO-HATERS BOUGHT HIM UP. You have a responsibility Bill, tell the world the TRUTH! #PlutoTruth",
"That, and how to interact with police and not get shot.",
"Dilly dilly!",
"this goes for leftist too",
"Looks like a balcony. There are open stairs to the left probably leading up to where they are. ",
"Yeah sure, just like this guy, right? https://goo.gl/images/TqD2Ps ",
"Yeah no. They cite the sources for their facts. Not opinions, facts. Your examples don't even make sense. Someone trying to argue against the fact of climate change is not somebody disproving climate change. Therefore both their headline and article would be correct.",
"That was real good. I got goosebumps.",
"A news aggregator does a pretty good job. I use MSN and it doesn't pull from non trusted sources. ",
"Who asked about Brietbart, whose audience is (insert ridiculous fraction) of CNN's? \n\nLies are lies, and journalism at CNN is dead. Their ratings are in the dumpster, they shut off the interviews and broadcast feeds of guests they disagree with, and they spoon-feed viewers what to think. \n\nNo thanks!",
"Or, if I do this for every article I read, there goes my whole evening.",
"And I checked the spiders swallowed article on Snopes.\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/science/stats/spiders.asp\n\nAll the sources exist. I'm not sure what magazine you think never existed but it's not on the page you think it is. Perhaps you were lied to.\n\nEdit: Okay, okay, I get it. I confused two different PC professional themed magazines. One exists. One has no proof it exists. \n\nI'd still trust Snopes saying anything over Fox News or Trump's White House. \n",
"just pointing out that you left out the most pertinent word, not making any other commentary. But boy do you sound butthurt\n\nAlso other dude actually had sources",
"My man",
"What's illogical about that? I've shared plenty of idiotic stuff I've read in the NYT or Guardian to make fun of it.",
"Found the guy who thinks Obama was a Muslim.",
"I get what you're saying. But to actually research something and go find sources takes time. I might have a few minutes every hour to scroll through a thread and comment but I can't take all that time to dig up sources.",
"Snopes definitely not. It's demonstrably biased against Trump and an ultimately unreliable source.",
"LOL",
"Because muslims did 9/11 therefore Barrack Obama is a bad president. ",
"Haha, thanks u/just_maga_memes!",
"http://www.politifactbias.com/2018/02/does-lowest-mean-something-different-in.html?m=1\n\nThey lay this one out pretty well.",
"Yeah, I am not trusting dailymail on anything. But either way, the creator being in a lawsuit with someone else (which hasn't been proven) who stands to gain on that case. In the meantime, the judge has told them they can't withhold the funds which they were trying to do with that until it is over.\n\nNot to mention, nearly every other reliable website I see doesn't say the majority of what DM says, and I am not going to stop using a decent checking tool because one of the founders who runs this large company is involved in an advertising dispute.",
"Not everyone is politically inclined to constantly stay updated. Some avoid politics like the flu. Having a solid reputable source to follow is convenient for people like me.\n\n\n\nI know you should be cross checking with other news sites regardless of reputation but frankly, ain't nobody got time for that. ",
"except that AP is an actual news source and the NFL is not a team. plus they get federal funding.",
"Lol so it is fake news. I can barely read that. That should be another qualifier for the library card: when someone uses a fuzzy image of different pages pasted together and puts an unflattering and unrelated image of the subject alongside it, it’s probably bullshit.",
"Snopes and Politico are known to be biased \"fact-checkers\". They will often say something is false if they personally find it misleading but factually accurate\n\nEdit: example of this would be calling Trump saying \"highest stock market numbers of all time\" false even though it is factually accurate",
"Seriously dude?\n\nAre we going to sit here pretending we're so stupid not to realize that Trump wanted to take credit for the debt?",
"> Like this is a forum it's not my job\n\nSays the person without evidence.",
"I hate that sometimes there is only a video. Maybe I actually want to read the damn article.",
"\"Paraphrasing\" \n\nSo giving your biased view instead of just providing the actual objective source?",
"The Washington times is radical propaganda. You cannot honestly compare it to the Washington Post or Politico.",
"Meanwhile, back in reality,\n\nGuy 1 - \"Hey they're hugely leftist\"\n\nGuy 2 - \"No they're not. Here's what hugely leftist actually means\"\n",
"libraries should ban the bible cause its all fake news",
"The whole point of that page IS the fact you have to read it carefully and follow a link to prove its veracity. They're saying that Snopes isn't gospel.\n\n> So therefore it’s not 100% reliable.\n\nNirvana fallacy.\n",
"I mean he was probably right about being able to shoot someone and not lose any voters.",
"Politifact holds a liberal bias, and has once incorrectly factchecked a Ben Shapiro video as false, even when Ben provided facts for his cases. \n\nI think political factcheckers in general hold a liberal bias. ",
"Fact-checking sites (those mentioned) are pretty biased.",
"My favorite click bait line, “according to a study”. They will never once mention who or where the study was conducted and provide no link whatsoever. ",
"This needs to be answered. \n\nEdit* Answered below.",
"> Can you talk to a liberal without making up things they haven't said?\n\nFunny how that's basically what I just said regarding you.",
"I agree except you shouldn’t trust politifact...",
"That bullet point alone identifies the ideology of the card maker.",
"It's literally a true claim they marked as mostly false because implications rather than what was actually said. \n\nThey even say \"The numbers check out. And in fact, the total public debt has dropped another $22 billion since the Gateway Pundit article published, according to data from the U.S. Department of Treasury.\"",
"http://www.politifactbias.com/2018/02/does-lowest-mean-something-different-in.html?m=1",
"PolitiFact has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives and liberals alike. They've been accused of some obvious biases in the past. \n\n",
"I mean, that's a gross generalization no? There are tons of stories that took the country by storm but was entirely fake. A bunch of bi-partisan stories. ",
"But which fingers? Or is it both hands?",
"It says fact check with snopes hahahaha",
"Or just avoid news sources that write \" a source\" or something like that because in reality they probably don't have a source or its some random dude.. Like when treyvon Martin got shot apperently there was like 500 people that saw it happen or something.. \n\n\n\n",
"http://www.politifactbias.com/2018/02/does-lowest-mean-something-different-in.html?m=1",
"Apologies, so many shit-heels from T_D brigading this post I thought I was reading sarcasm. I guess they must be mobilizing in discord or something, in fact i'm certain of it.",
"Give me one example of Snopes being untrustworthy. ",
"He/she thinks he's a bigot due to his stating facts about clearly observed and scientifically backed evidence. ",
"Fake news specifically referred to this phenomenon that was heavily reported on where people, largely in Eastern Europe, but many even in America, were finding a lot of success in writing absolutely fake stories that were shared on social media. They got money from ad revenue as the clicks rolled in. You can find some interviews with these people if you search for news stories from around late 2016.\n\nOne thread these people figured out they were able to pull is the pro-Trump stories seemed to make more money and be less likely to be identified as fake by the people sharing them. We are not talking about biased reporting, just entirely fabricated stories meant to generate click revenue.\n\nThen Trump called anything he found slightly distasteful \"fake news\" and here we are now ¯\\\\\\_(ツ)_/¯",
"Even if they are, they'd stop at the first bullet point here.\n\n\"Does the headline sound unrealistic?\"\n\n*reads headline*\n\nOBAMA CAUGHT SMUGGLING DRUGS TO HAITI!!\n\n*yup, sounds realistic to me!*",
"I do not adhere to the \"both sides are the same\" narrative. That is what got us here in the first place.",
"I know right? Everyone knows you should fact check with fox News and Brietbart. ",
"And this is one of them ",
"Do we really need to have a pamphlet for this? This is pretty basic stuff. \n\n*Proceeds to argue about news in Reddit comments without actually clicking on the article* ",
"My problem with them is how biased they are with the leeway. If a left-leaning politician doesn't state absolute truth it is \"half true\" or \"true\". If a right leaning politician is slightly off it's \"half true\" or \"pants on fire\".\n\nI lost my original folder but I'm reassembling some examples to edit the first post I made.",
"Snopes is probably the most reliable one on that list. That's why the enemies of the truth have labelled it \"fake news\".",
">Snopes and Politifact do have a bias\n\nFirst thing I said here, literally. ",
"Nope",
"http://www.politifactbias.com/2018/02/does-lowest-mean-something-different-in.html?m=1",
"I'm not sure why the CIA would be so concerned about getting Canada to understand how facts work. \n\nSo you can't actual point to any sources that ou use or any lies portrayed as fact from fact checking sites?",
"this should be stickied",
">Protect yourself from fake news\n\n>Fact check with snopes, politico, and politifact\n\nBit of an oxymoron...",
"TO BILL BRASKY!!!\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=080JFuKz-BU",
"get an extension called \"disable HTML5 autoplay\"",
"Magnificent, aren't they? ",
"just look at a voter map. Not saying all red areas are dumb and all blue areas are not, but in general red areas are behind in quality of life, education, health, etc.",
"There are a lot more outlets than CNN, a lot of them are better. You don't have to look at contemporary events to know CNN is second rate news.\n\nThey reported an arrest of the Boston Bombings that didn't happen. \n\nThey spent weeks on the Malaysia airlines thing at the expense of everything else.",
"[Poor Edge](https://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/funny-Scooby-Doo-ghost-Microsoft-Edge.jpg)",
"Except their bias never goes the other way. They have an anti-conservative bias which is clear as day to anyone who doesn't live in a liberal bubble of the mainstream media.",
"This is the problem. News sites are less about reporting news and more about [just pushing opinion](https://i.imgur.com/FJRupd7.jpg). And we all know that certain opinions are not treated equally in terms of exposure.",
"Fuckin’ lul",
"Anyone else hear Ron Howard when reading this?",
"You clearly didn't even read my post dude. Why are you even replying if you're just going to state an opinion of yours, add something to the conversation.\n\n>Y’all are the overly sensitive ones.\n\nI am not even American, I don't support Trump, I don't particularly support most of the actions of the American Republican party. But *apparently* saying anything that goes against the whole \"any statement that can be construed to be pro-Trump needs to automatically be downvoted and the poster harassed\" counts as being a member of the alt-right and KKK activist. \n\nJust further proof of the sport-ification of the American political system. \"You don't mindlessly circlejerk your hatred of X team? YOU MUST SUPPORT THEM, FUCK YOU!!\"",
"Not the mathematics behind stats, but interpreting them to give results favorable to an argument. Outside of that stats is the class that they put kids into who couldn't do regular algebra.\n\nIf you don't see what I'm trying to infer then you are either are one of those majors, or have never known one.",
"The other people problem is, doing this for every news story you read is unrealistic, time consuming, and boring. \n\nThere are different levels to fake news. There is the stuff that’s obviously fake and can be weeded our pretty easy, but there is also stuff that’s borderline true that just has a really ugly spin on it. Those are the ones that are hard to fight. ",
"Lol fact-check on Snopes, Politifact, and Politico. Should not assume those sources are fair or have their facts straight.\n\nJust be a critical thinker.",
"It looks like OP is up on a balcony.",
"\"The sky is blue\" - Donald Trump\n\nPANTS ON FIRE!!!!!! Once again, Donald, the sky isn't actually a colour at all. It only appears blue because our atmosphere disperses blue light more effectively than any other wavelength. As a side note, it's THE CURRENT YEAR and colours don't exist anymore you fucking xenophobe.\n\n\"The sky is blue\" - Hillary Clinton\n\nMostly true. The sky does, in fact, appear to be blue most of the time.\n",
"My question is, what constitutes a false statement? You can take the same statement \"The sky is blue\", fact-check it, and come to two separate conclusions based on your perspective and process. I find it odd that the same people who subscribe to a postmodern rejection of objective truth now want to appeal to objective fact, particularly with regard to political claims which by their nature tend to be more subjective and difficult to prove/disprove.\n\nThat was my point. Do you get it now, or would you like me to go into more detail?",
"In other words, avoid /r/politics.",
"I believe you are right. If they bother to look and halfway comprehend, they'll scoff and ignore.",
"They’ve never really known. They’ve just trusted the traditional sources to know, back when there were only 3 or 4 TV channels, and they rested on that assumption for a long time but it’s pretty much undone now with everybody being able to find a news media that fits their worldview.",
"You seem like a good faith commenter, yes indeed.",
"I shit you not, I once read a headline: **Young couple accidentally raped a gamekeeper**.\n\nAnd it was actually true. Turned out the couple were into some kinky stuff. They found somebody online, who agreed to roleplay a rape while dressed as a gamekeeper. When the actual gamekeeper struggled and fought back, they thought it was part of the acting... You can't make this shit up...",
"Only crazy right wing nuts think facts have a liberal bias ",
"Good thing CNN isn't the only news outlet. ",
"anti trump subs don't advocate raping/kill people. Maybe if you guys stopped that shit and spam posting you too could be on popular/all.",
"> \"beauty at any size\"\n\nIs faux-liberal capitalistic marketing, the overwhelming point being that you shouldn’t be treated like a lesser person for being flawed. Some of its misguided but this is the furthest thing from representing liberal consensus unlike the way that the right-wing for instance actually overwhelmingly disparages something like climate science.\n\n> Is the notion that men and women are equal \n\nBeing misunderstood by you? Yes. Equal in the sense of their humanistic value and that they aren’t lesser beings, the way they were viewed for centuries. I’ve dated left leaning feminist and even they don’t claim that men and women are exactly the same. Again, you’re falling for values marketing and outrage headlines and treating it as if it’s some kind of actual academia or policy. ",
"Literally nobody here is saying Snopes isn't biased. There's an ongoing fight between people (who post and participate in the biggest fake news aggregator on Reddit) that say \"Snopes and co are garbage because they're biased!!\"\n\nAnd people saying \"Snopes and co are fine... Their bias doesn't really interfere with their work. It's all sourced, cited and allows readers to analyze their sources and methods and see how they came to their conclusions\"\n\n\n\nThat's the big fight here. People who ingest and perpetuate source-less, partisan often flat out fake news... And people saying bias doesn't = wrong or that they can't do their job. ",
"https://www.google.com/search?q=snopes+untrustworthy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=A-GAWsujAdHA8gfB56LoBQ",
"You linked to something about junk news, not fake news. ",
"I automatically leave any site that has autopsy video besides YouTube.\n\nEdit: autoplay.",
"But then how will we make time to learn about cellular biology?",
"If a fact is only an opinion presented as fact than it is not a fact. Facts are facts. Fact checking sites provide facts.",
"I read it, I just like making you mad. And it’s working. 😊",
"Great advice except it lists biased sites for fact checking. ",
"Or pick something like Politico, or Politifact, and get information from a source that simply says, \"This is true.\" or \"This is false.\" -- if all of these sources are 'left-leaning' - why does the right not have similar sources?",
"Which then expressly points out the article you just read was a load of crap.\n\nThe fact you have to read the article carefully to check whether its true is the whole point.",
"Fake news is obviously bad. But the concept of labeling \"fake news\" is actually more dangerous than actual fake news. Now I mean actual fake, made up news, not biased news. People (Trump, CNN, Clinton) are trying to censor their opponents by labelling them as fake news. Any news site that doesn't **knowingly, and deliberately** completely make up news shouldn't be called fake news, but that's how it's used today. Breitbart isn't fake news, nor is infowars, cnn, daily beast or GQ, they're shit news, not fake news.",
"Here's one: http://www.politifactbias.com/2018/02/imperious-politifact.html?m=1\n\nThere are tons and tons of others.",
"I would ban them just because of the fucking hubris, and lying their ass off, in that flyer. \n\nThey claim to be the facts authority, and that they can never be wrong, and everything not fitting to their view of the world has to be Fake News. All these fact checkers and True News sellers are either morons, or lying their ass off and selling propaganda on their own.",
"I think there's just a miscommunication with terminology here more than anything.\n\nLots of people interpret \"leftist\" as referring to Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, etc. In that case, it'd be absurd to group a website that simply favors Clinton or Sanders over Trump alongside them.\n\nBut if you interpret \"leftist\" to be synonymous with \"left-leaning\", then his statement isn't all that weird. But I still would think \"*hugely* leftist\" is a bit of an exaggeration. ",
"Fuck Mars. Let’s fix earth first",
"Being open minded and asking questions will lead you to conservatism ",
"Now we're getting to a place I fear, a place where we outright question the value of reputation. I could answer that the sites are reputable to the majority of political commentators and fellow veteran journalists, but then you'd claim that experts have a leftist lean. To this I can't refute, and you'll claim a victory via logical argumentative fallacy.\n\nNow that we're in a space where expertise and reputation in a field no longer holds value, I don't think anyone could answer you. I think all they could say is that those things deserve to be respected, to which you could say you don't want to, and don't value them. At this point we've fallen into a place where everything is suspect and nothing is true, which is just the right place to see a civilization tear itself apart.",
"\"Donald Trump, President-elect\" ",
"If right wingers didn’t lie significantly more that would be a good practice.\n",
"I mean honestly, if someone proposed bulding public libraries today they'd be mocked as further left than Bernie. \"The government should pay for buildings that give everyone free books!\" \"Shut up, commie nerd!\"",
"There’s that “anyone that disagrees with me must be uneducated” attitude that served your base so well in Nov ‘16.",
"LOL, you think Snopes and Infowars are comparable. Aaaand of course you are another The_Donald shitposter.\n\nAre you guys planning your brigades on discord or somewhere else?",
"So basically avoid /r/politics and t_D",
"That’s a conclusion I reached a long time ago. Most people are not really interested in finding the truth. Truth doesn’t put food on the table or make you feel good. Most people just aren’t naturally curious.",
"KY!!",
"Yes because CNN has never been called out for reporting fake news.",
"I really don’t think it takes much more time than reading through comments in a thread. What he said just sounds like a lame excuse. But he’s not convincing anyone anyway so whatever. ",
"Or they can cite their sources very clearly. ",
"Do you have an example?",
"Forward thinking on reddit in 2018? ",
"The political right is equivalent to flat earthers? Mk... ",
"\"Multiple studies have shown that vaccination to prevent childhood infectious diseases does not increase the risk of autism in the population\"\nhttps://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Fact-Sheets/Autism-Spectrum-Disorder-Fact-Sheet",
"The confederacy was full of racist traitors. Having statues of racist traitors in public instead of museums is wrong.",
"As long as it's just hands and not a slow clap",
"And don’t let this any of this distract you from the fact that in 1998, The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer's table.",
"what makes it half true?",
"Good advice until the Snopes part",
"The real guide to fake news, from the White House:\n\n Does the story make Trump look good? = Real News\n Does the story make Trump look bad = Fake News",
"The Russian collusion story is 100% purely anonymous sources.",
"Dont tell me what to do, I'm just gonna believe you. ",
"https://i.redd.it/b7dke6mo18iy.jpg\n\nhttps://i.redd.it/x7oi5njhf7ry.png\n\nhttps://i.redd.it/0s5uj7ks73tx.jpg\n\nhttps://i.imgur.com/moCRfmW.png\n\nhttps://imgur.com/IxDBFpS\n\nhttps://imgur.com/izSUhwX\n\nhttps://imgur.com/a/vchAZ#CqDs2ns\n\nThis is the shit he's talking about. Their argument is semantics every time, and how Trump phrases it. Never do they actually even try and dismantle the ACTUAL point",
"How about use your best judgment since you’re a free willed human being.",
"Well facts in general are stacked against conservative news",
"Sounds like you're looking for something like this:\n\nhttp://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/\n\nNot directly germane, but a good study on political polarization as it relates ideology: \n\nhttps://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php",
"Do you have any examples of politifact using misleading labeling to imply someone is lying when they're not, or lying themselves? The only time I've ever seen anything like this they've issued retraction or clarification statements.",
"Don't trust everything on that picture mate.",
"Where was Obama during 9/11?! Wake up, sheeple!!!!! ",
"Good leaflet although they should leave out the part about \"fact-checkers\" those are pretty unreliable. ",
"\"Misleading\" and \"fake\" are not interchangeable. It's just that mouth-breathers read misleading articles (and sometimes *just the title*), get duped easily, later realize they were fooled, and run around waving their hands yelling \"fake news.\" Rather than actually fact-checking and corroborating cited sources.",
"I love this, if only more people cared about discerning fact from fiction.",
"....he's on a balcony, you can see the stairs to the left",
"We were doing so well until: \"Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, an Politifact.\"\n\n...make sure to cross-reference it with Vox articles as well. ",
"Okay, how about the source, Oxford, with backed up statistics? It isn’t The Guardian’s study. ",
"No, just the people who eat up establishment propaganda. I can generalize and use exaggeration too.",
"There a difference between a zero rate and a rate not existing.",
"Maybe I've been lucky, but I moderately often engage with people that clearly disagree with me on reddit, and I'd guess about 75% of people listen to me and provide thoughtful responses. Now, I'm sure part of it is that I avoid the people that already seem pretty belligerent, but I feel like we're not doing as badly on the open-minded bit as it can sound. Hope for more of this though.",
"should just say don't watch cnn",
"It's funny this is on the front page of a website with a comically large left leaning slant. Take one look at any political sub reddit and it's clear no one adheres to that leaflet's advice, yet here it is, front page. ",
"Here's the proof.\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/\n\n1. Trump acknowledges that what they said wasn't treason, he is simply mocking them for not applauding for things like the lowest black unemployment in history. Apparently mocking people is a statement that can be rated false.\n\n2. Trump is referencing the hysterical nature of climate change activists, not scientific studies. Trump may be wrong about the environment, but this certainly isn't \"pants on fire\".\n\n3. The diversity immigration lottery is the definition of non-merit based. Trump is criticizing it for not giving us the best people. Apparently this is a lie by Trump?\n\n4. Trump is talking about very large tax programs, not temporary or small tax reform. Trump's tax cuts are the largest tax cuts in the US since president Reagan, this is exactly what Trump is talking about. Trump is completely right in saying this, yet somehow it's \"pants on fire\"?\n\n5. Trump asked a question about Joe Scarborough. Apparently questions are now statements that can be rated true or false. \"Why isn't Joe being fired? False\"\n\n6. Politifact admits in the article that Chicago used to have the strictest gun laws in the country not even that long ago. Yet they label his statement as \"pants on fire\"? I think it's pretty clear they are at least one of the most strictest cities if not the most on guns. They also fail to look at other metrics for determining the strictest gun laws. They failed to even mention magazine capacity laws and other specific gun laws. Politifact is just plain wrong on this one.\n\n7. Antifa is not mentioned once in the entire article for Politifact or Snopes. This is the group that Trump is specifically talking about. You would think they would mention that group had a permit to be there. None of the permits shown say anything about Antifa on them. This one could point out how Trump wasn't specific enough. Certainly not \"Pants on fire\"\n\nI could do this for every single one. Politifact is trash. They do not research claims in good faith.\n\nThey also fail to even include statements that are true so they can skew it to look like all his statements are false. I don't see \"African american unemployment is at an All-time low\" as \"true\" when it's definitely true. Numbers don't lie. They intentionally looked for a statement that included that as well as something else that was slightly wrong so they could mark it down. \n",
"Snopes, politico and politifact are not neutral arbiters of truth. They are for-profit media outlets with their own baggage",
"Not quite. The problem in the run-up to Brexit, the US 2016 election and the French presidential election, and continuing currently, is the collision between\n\nA. Lurid stories are more interesting than policy\n\nB. Money to be made in simply making shit up\n\nC. Russian disinformation campaigns\n\nRussia's tactics aren't really propaganda per se, because they're not trying to convince anyone of anything. The goal is to get both ends to attack the middle.\n\nSo Obama is a Wall Street sellout and a communist. He's in the pocket of the military-industrial complex, and he doesn't respect our troops.\n\nThe government is hopelessly corrupt and broken, and it can't do anything. And the government's every move is controlled by an embedded deep state conspiracy manipulating everything.\n\nThe goal isn't to *convince* you of anything. It's to throw as much sand and smoke in the eyes of critical thinkers as possible and get people to retreat to their biases.\n\nPeople in this thread are saying critical thinking should be required in school. ***It is.*** The problem right now is that it was *already* hard to get people to do it if they didn't want to, and now there are bad actors in the world who are actively trying to make it even more difficult.",
"No one wants a really educated public, because then everyone will know just how much they are getting screwed. ",
"Nothing about it is partisan. \n\nRight-wingers just don't like to be disagreed with and/or proven to be liars. \n\nRather than admit they were wrong and reevaluate their knowledg and information they'll just cry *fake news!*",
"They're on Reddit reading r politics. Jk. Maybe",
"The only people that think CNN is liberal watch Fox News all day. They've got Rick fucking Santorum on their payroll.",
"I wouldn't agree. I know a lot of left-wing \"the secret\" people who also believe in fake news. ",
"Looks a lot like the entrance to a library in SoCal by the beach. ",
"Good except for the garbage fact checking sites. Those need to be verified themselves as they often are partisan and misleading ",
"#1 Don't watch CNN.",
"Problem is that trump supporters consider fact checking websites and Politico \"libtards\" since they point out the orange idiots myriad of lies and inconsistencies. So that pamphlet won't be read past that bullet point and will be discussed later at the local bar as deep state infiltration of public libraries. ",
"Snopes cites data when they make their conclusions, so you can always look up their sources. What do you use as a fact checker and what specific topics do you feel Snopes mislead you about?",
"Eeeeesh, where to start. To understand the issues people have with these you'll have to adopt some empathy and also understand context. This is an exercise that sometimes gets tough for people that see these statues as literally just \"honoring soldiers\" rather than understanding what they *represent*, but I'll follow up:\n\n1. It's honoring dead soldiers while upkeeping segregation. The honor takes a bit of a hit thanks to the fact that that it still finds it necessary to separate these fallen soldiers based on race - as if giving your life for your country deserves any other footnote such as what your race is. The campaign wasn't to remove the plaque, but to replace it. There's no arguing against this other than from a racist perspective. \n\n2. Please understand what the confederacy advocated for and was fighting for. You may meet some Americans that claim the civil war had *nothing* to do with the right to own other humans and retain the right to chain them up, torture them, rape them and commit them to hard labor for life, but they're incorrect and likely very stupid. There's no honor in putting up huge glorifying statues of the folks who fought for that. During that statues unveiling in 1913, the statue was committed with a final anecdote from a confederate soldier veteran Julian Carr (this was literally a prideful story for this motherfucker):\n\n> One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterward slept with a double-barrel shotgun under my head.\n\nI mean, really? They were kind enough to spell it out for everyone in attendance what that statue represents. \n\n4. It may not honor \"hate\", but that statue is in extreme poor taste. The reason to have a poor barefoot black man playing the banjo as a rich white composer sits above is an artistic decision that doesn't make sense to a lot of people, including many of that composer's biggest fans. Of everything on the list, certainly the least egregious. \n\n5. You thought incorrectly. At the end of your response you say \"you Americans\", so I'm guessing you're not entirely familiar with the confederacy and what they stood for. There is a massive amount of information on the intranetwebs, look it up. It's not worth honoring or glorifying in public display, it's worth putting in museums and learning about, just like Nazism. \n\n6-8. Again, I think you may be unfamiliar with the confederate principals and why there was an American Civil war. It's also worth noting that there are many, many black Americans currently here in the US that have to see, hear about and live with these monuments that honor and glorify men that fought and lead troops into battle against the federal government to retain the right to enslave black human beings. \n\nYou're likely not going to read it, but I'm going to post it anyway because the mayor of New Orleans penned the greatest, most coherent, most well crafted argument on the matter when he removed the statue of Robert E Lee. \n\nhttp://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a55218/new-orleans-mayor-speech-confederate-monuments/\n\nHe says it better than I ever could. \n",
"Lol no fucking way dude, the left got basically all the feminist, broke ass college kids and poor adults. Sure the right has the man children and nazis but in terms of fatness the left takes the cake ",
"Are you T_D shitbergs coordinating your brigades on discord or somewhere else?\n\n",
"Fake check stories on fake news websites. ",
"Public libraries are a woefully underappreciated resource, but this is a great thing, I love it.",
"There are still investigative journalists around, like the folks at Axios. [Here's one of them, Sarah Fischer, in a panel discussion about the state of the media and fake news.](https://youtu.be/HOxmIjiRqTw)",
"HRC is a non-entity. ",
"Looked for a screenshot for convenience's sake. Here's the page\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/clinton-compliant-citizenry/",
"> Fact checking sites provide facts\n\nBut who fact checks the fact checkers? What stops me as a fact checker from claiming something true is only half true? Or outright false?\n\nEven PolitiFact a checking site has a scale of how true something is, not just on/off true/untrue\n\nAlso, Politico is ***not*** by any means a fact checking site. They wouldn’t claim to be so themselves\n\nThey’re a media company, just like the Washington Post or The Atlantic, or the New York Times",
"How about you do what historians have done for ages and use multiple sources? Arguing that one source is/may be biased is neither new nor particularly insightful. I mean, there are entire schools of theory based off this premise. Use multiple sources, the raw source if available, and decide (recognising that your own decision is biased)\n\nInstead of arguing on the internet about your belief as to the bias of a site. ",
"Wait, now I'm confused. Is this true or is it not true? This is important to know.",
"So not once does this article list an instance of Snopes reporting biased opinions as fact. Did you not read the article?",
"Then they complain when you drop it because they're so entitled they think they deserve to have someone across the world pour energy into their black holes of ignorance, rather than taking responsibility for their own education and personal values.",
"Are you threatening Trump, Director Mueller?",
"So you basically only read liberal sources? And yes WaPo is very biased. You then go to Snopes or politifact to confirm your bias?",
"https://www.snopes.com/clinton-compliant-citizenry/",
"Yeah I was taught source evaluation from elementary all the way through the end of high school. At first by the school librarians and then usually English or history teachers.\n\nWhat state did you go to school in? Just curious. My education was in CA but it was private, so.",
"Everything.",
"I think this one is required to read this leaflet at all.",
"\"Let me prove you wrong by repeating a whole bunch of misconceptions about liberalism that Fox News taught me\"",
"Liberalism is none of those things. Those are just things conservatives think liberals think because they don't understand the issues.\n\nFor example. Only cons think that libs think there is no difference between male and female. What libs actually think is that both should be treated equally with equal opportunities. Conservatives, especially religious ones, see that as a threat to their dominate-male culture and pull out the strawman like you just did.\n\n*You* have a very distorted view of reality.\n",
"You fools. This only helps to create better fake news articles! Now they know our secrets! ",
"Nice straw man. Nobody is arguing over a fictional person. They're talking about the two supposed approaches to journalism.",
">Skip anonymous news reports \n\nSomeone tell r/politics ",
"With the ever growing emphasis on polls in news it's always important to look at sample size and polling methods. Far too many sites claim 'this group said x' and then point to online polls with questionable methods.",
"I've noticed a bit of that myself; not sure how it breaks down between left and right but sometimes I've questioned their decision to label something \"Mostly True\" instead of \"Half-True\" or \"Mostly False\"; sometimes they give a Mostly True to something that's factually incorrect but kind of in the ballpark if you look at it a certain way, other times that's a Mostly False or even just False.\n\nSo I agree with you there. I don't think it discredits the source, though; instead it reflects a flawed expectation on our parts. In a democratic society, it's important that we remember to think critically and make our judgments ourselves- no matter how credible other people seem to be. I don't think we should look at newspapers and journalists and decide to just roll with their judgments, especially when the most active journalists are usually generalists rather than expert specialists on a topic. Their real job is just to gather data and present it to you, not tell you what you should make of it.\n\nI don't take any Politifact or FactCheck.org/etc. assessment at face value for that reason. I think their ratings are almost superfluous, since the real meat is their research and citations. I also think it would be worthwhile for others to take that approach, since it's a really dangerous road to take if we just expect other people to do our thinking for us. Democracy works *because* everyone exercises their individual power of judgment; the fewer people we have really thinking about the issues, the less powerful our system of government becomes.",
"Glad this was posted because this was on my mind: since when are websites like Snopes untrustworthy for fact checking? Not just in some subreddits here, but some conservative family members that otherwise seem reasonable act like Snopes is a left leaning trash receptacle. This was after my cousin posted on Facebook about Seth Rich and “Clinton Murders”, this is a guy in his 30’s who is an Air Force veteran of all people. \n\nAnd I also have to guess that he didn’t even read the article I linked, if he did I remember it having multiple links to reliable sources breaking down every aspect of the “theory”.\n\nIt boggles my mind, makes me worry about that 30% of America and what our future might be.",
"Snopes certainly has some biases but it's pretty credible still. The vast majority of their stuff is fine and they aren't that bad anyway. People are talking about them as if they are the Young Turks/Breitbart or something.",
"I'm not with the other dude, but how come they can sometimes say 'mostly false' or 'mostly true' sometimes.",
"Union busting is literally what every company and corporation on the planet does. He is no different to any other Executive on the planet in that respect, he has to be competitive. I do however believe the ends justify the means even if ideally I disagree with it. If we can have a more efficient, less polluting transport system and cheaper space flight leading to possible space travel and tourism so be it. Hopefully life as a Martian serf under Emperor Elon's benevolent rule won't be anything like Total Recall.",
"Everything has bias but claiming Snopes is so biased that it fails at its primary role of fact checking is at best muddying the waters and at worst an outright lie. Not every political topic can be reduced to True or False, no - which is why Snopes and other fact-checking sites focus on specific events and the claims around them, which are far more verifiable. ",
">Check the authors credentials\n\nFurther down\n\n>Fact Check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact \n\nFucks sake.",
"While I would argue that they are left leaning, you are correct that they are much closer to the center than the other two. They still inflate lies on one side by fact checking one side multiple times and the other side once for both telling one lie.",
"Edge also has this feature. You can right click a tab and there's an option to mute the tab.",
"That's incorrect.",
">trickle down\n\n\"Trickle down\" isn't a real thing.",
"brb",
"Snopes has a section with intentionally fake news meant to encourage the reader to not believe everything they read from a supposedly authoritative source.\n\nSome idiots like to link those articles as proof that snopes is bad. It's like falling for an onion article.",
"The problem I find is that not many people even understand what critical thinking is. Many people, teachers included, think that “critical thinking” is just something like “really good thinking” or using higher order thinking skills. But it’s actually very specific in that it is about questioning the information and making a judgment based on evaluating evidence. ",
"I'm not that guy and I don't know the answer either way but your argument is far from sufficient and highly condescending. Down voting for not contributing .",
"He taught me how to love a woman...and how to scold a child.",
"I dont know. I dont read much breitbart and didnt make an accusation against them specifically. You can maybe ask OP. I would certainly say that from what I've seen their editorial focus is so bizarrely predicated on so-called culture war BS that they're not worth my bandwidth.",
"Did you reach that conclusion by thinking critically? ",
"That's a good point! It should also say something to the degree of \"figure out the inherent bias, then filter the news for undeniable commonalities and form your own story.\"\n\n Because multiple articles will tell the same story different ways, but they will all tell roughly the same story. Learning to filter out the useful info is an important skill to hone.",
"Protect your Trump supporter from Fake News \n------------------------------------------------ \n* Whatever Trump says is \"Fake News\" is fake news. \n* You know it's true because he says \"Believe me.\" \n* Don't listen to everyone else. They are all whiny losers.",
"That Oxford study you listed [is less than reputable](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_wOzRw76Qs) from a fact checking perspective itself.",
">Or even a multitude of different sources\n\nYou know, like the leaflet says to lol. ",
"Another example of why libraries are awesome. ",
"My school library does a series of lesson for freshmen on this. How to recognize fake news and unreliable sources. Take the CRAAP test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose). If it fails it’s probably crap. Also if it tries to sell you shit on the website (other than a subscription) it’s crap. Looking at you Breitbart and Info Wars",
"Daily Caller gets stories pushed by Russian bots all the time.",
"Found the prog Canadian",
"If you call breitbart fake news, there's no reason why GQ isn't fake news. You're part of the problem here. Fake news is news sites where the news are **deliberately and completely** made up, not overopinionated biased shit news. Breitbart and infowars isn't fake news, just like the daily beast or salon.com isn't fake news. It's shitty news, but if you call it fake news, the term becomes completely useless.",
"[Ben Shapiro gives an instance of the bias I have spoken of](https://youtu.be/eqCQBQTY7vw)",
"Except snopes has been proven false time and time again. But okay.",
"Well now I'm convinced. Which of the facts on those sites do you disagree with?",
"Probably money, politics, I don't know. Similar to the concerted effort to remove conservatives from talk radio? People are insane man. There's only black or white, red or blue, and nothing but hate for everyone involved. You may buy into it all, I don't. No one is telling 100 percent of the story anymore, they are trying to win an argument, that's all.",
"\"Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact\" \n\nLOL. Or try a bipartisan ACTUAL fact checking site instead of a meth addicts excuse for a website like snope",
"Snopes, Politico and Politifact is part of the left wing fake news media.\n\nUse your own critical thinking skills.\n\nEdit: read news from all sources and from all around the world. If they're giving you the facts you're good. If they're telling you how and what to think, take it with a big grain of salt.",
"Snopes says this is false. ",
"Your reading comprehension needs work.\n\nThey were founded by existing left-wing media outlets in order to help spin the news, and as I mentioned it is not the details of their long articles that are the most suspect but rather that the \"true/false\" tag is usually complete nonsense and massively biased.\n\nThey do this because people are busy and have shit to do, and will only read a headline.\n\nSo they create fake tags and fake headlines, and then provide a pinch of truth in the article that doesn't jive with the fake headline or fake tag.\n\nAnd when someone points it out, they jump to the next spin.",
"My god are you an insufferable ideologue. Is there **no** way in which a killing by an officer might be justified?!",
"At least it's not a Tide ad. Or is it?",
"And you as well, with alt-right propaganda? You seem to post a bunch of Deep State conspiracies. Please don’t bother replying to me. I seem to have wasted time replying to your last novel that you copy and pasted to multiple people.",
"What are we disagreeing on? The part where I said no leftist believes in fake news? Because I didn't say that part. \n\nI have no idea why you think \"the secret\" is a leftist phenomenon. It's pseudo-scientific apolitical horseshit written by an Australian. ",
"by right wingers who never provide reasons why, besides \"the founders like Hillary and I don't like the website\", which is enough of a reason to write them off.",
"It has nothing to do with recognizing humanity. It's intention is to stoke a fire and strain race relations, nothing else. ",
"Man. If we skipped anonymous reports then there wouldn't be any news anymore.",
"Yep, you folks keep bringing that up. I guess the DNC is just as bad as the GOP, so better vote GOP.\n\nI mean, on one hand, the DNC [let Clinton throw around her political weight a little more than they should have](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged). On the other hand, the GOP supported a pedophile for office. Gerrymandered away the voting power of many voters in many states, blocked a supreme court nominee, campaigned against climate research, national parks, science education, public schools, unions, a living wage, responsible trade and international policy. Oh, not to mention they've actively worked for the past year to prevent our main adversary suffer any consequences for compromising the integrity of our democracy and have worked to stifle an investigation that will yield nothing if Trunp et al are innocent of any wrongdoing (but you know they're guilty as does everyone else but he's on your team so you're OK with it)\n\nBut yeah, there was the fact that the DNC let the Clinton campaign make hiring decisions makes them literally worse than Hitler.",
"My own, otherwise seemingly normal family members. Makes me so sad. ",
"“Fact check with Snopes”. That is the joke",
"Hmmm this sounds like fake news. ",
"Yes but the article itself is not \"clearly marked\" it's barely marked at all, it's at the end not the beginning of the page, and the generic text \"more information\" doesn't even hint at the true nature of the article or suggest that it's important for the reader to click the link.",
"Just don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.",
"If pushing for \"facts\" and \"truth\" appear to be a LIBRUL agenda you may need to re-evaluate your life choices.",
"Fake news is my jam. ",
"It's a mistake that politifact are aware of and have not corrected. That should raise some serious red flags on the reliability of the site's takes on reality. ",
"Follow the hot links in the article.\n\nI'll do it for you:\n\n\"She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal.\"\n\nhttps://www.inquisitr.com/402558/scandal-envy-behind-petraeus-drama-allegations-obama-ignored-benghazi/\n\n\"She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents.\"\n\nhttps://www.inquisitr.com/32795/video-hillary-clinton-i-am-the-secretary-of-state-beeotch/\n\nAnd on and on",
"I added some examples if you're curious. I'm going to keep going until I get distracted or bored. I'm trying to take care to look up the original page as well because on occasion they'll update a fact check to reflect reality.",
"I’m good with all of that except checking with decidedly left leaning fact checkers. ",
"SEALIONING",
"But imagine if someone was trying to argue against eating and used the following facts in their defense\n\n1. Eating costs money\n2. Eating can bring about new diseases to your body\n3. Eating is a required act in causing obesity\n\nWhile all three of those facts are true, the argument is completely biased and unreasonable. The point I'm trying to make is that if you only offer facts which support one side, you're being biased, but not necessarily untruthful, but some people consider a half-truth to be just as bad as a lie.",
"This is what makes FactCheck.org way better. It lays out the case based on the facts and doesn't oversimplify nuanced issues. The Washington Post Fact Checker is probably the worst at checking facts. It rates claims from a range of one to four Pinocchios in a completely subjective manner, arbitrarily determining what omissions constitute something being misleading. ",
"Where can I get one of these?",
"> there's a guy at the top who know's it's all bullshit. \n\nCorporate donors, Trump, Putin \n\n> In a religion, that guy is dead.\n\nReagan \n\n\nGOP *was* a religion ten years ago but now it's a cult \n\n",
"Politico? Isn’t that just like a normal news agency? I mean I know it’s reputable but no more or less so than other sources, right? ",
"Yup I get double pay from Hillary Clinton to shill on the weekends.",
"I pity you ",
"He must be one of dang Russian bots taking over twitter. No real person would disagree with the Democrats stances on allowing illegal immigrants to getting citizenship before the millions who have been waiting for years because they actually did it the legal way!\n\n/s",
"Even if they were, all but the first step on that card require actually caring and doing some (at the very least) googling so...they aren't going to do it.",
"the fake ones.",
"*And I quote...*",
"Because some sources are objectively better than others",
"Reality has a left wing tilt.",
"reality has a well known liberal bias",
"Look up the definition of shill again. Read slowly and carefully this time. ",
"Thanks!",
"Lol politico and snopes being real news",
"I never understand how people don’t recognize fakes news. ",
"Yeah totally, also t_d appeared out of nowhere during the election, it's not like we were regular users of reddit before that, we appeared out of thin air to haunt your safe space. God, you people are hopeless. ",
"Lol \"fact check\" with sites like snopes, politifact, or any other site with an obvious bias and previously disproven fact checks 👍🏻",
"On what? ",
"Don't forget to try and get people to humanize and sympathize with people who straight up murder cops, just cause they are black ",
"[This... is CNN.](https://youtu.be/BuHfSo5YI_M)",
"Pause a vid, scroll down, and it starts auto playing AGAIN. FUCKERS.",
"You had good teachers. That is great to hear.",
"It’s not credible. They are just like TYT and breitbart. \n\nLet me ask you... who decided they were credible? Ask yourself that. Conservative certainly never agreed to that.\n\nIf you have to put “fact check” in your name or call yourself a “fact checker” it presupposes that your argument can’t stand on its own on the merits and that is obvious ",
"While this is really good, it's simply not enough. There's \"really fake news\" which is completely unsubstantiated, and then there's \"misguided news\" which has a whole different level of attack; it REALLY goes out of its way to provide citations and statistics, but they're out of context, don't present the picture properly, etc.\n\n&nbsp;\n\nI'd say more concretely, a HUGE one that should be on a lot of these are:\n\n* **Appeal to Authority:** News relies almost entirely on quotes from a single source, especially one who makes claims to certainty on uncertain topics\n\n* **Broad Statistics:** The story cites broad and out of context statistics, such as \"Number of crimes committed by [group]\" without context to the size of the group, crimes committed by other groups, etc.\n\n* **Appeal to fear:** The article uses an anecdotal story to influence the reader to fear the opposing viewpoint on an issue. Crime is a useful example here as well; where a horrific crime can induce fear in the listener, even if the crime is extremely rare and virtually certain to not be replicated.",
"And they believe Politifact, Snopes, and Politico are all libtard conspiracies funded by (((Soros))).",
"oh hey you're the 'lazy people should starve' guy",
"That's a tactic by publishers to increase ad revenue. Alot of the demand from advertising nowadays is automated. And sites tend to try and increase their streams or traffic to increase potential ad revenue dollars.\n\nAuto play video is the easiest way to optimise revenue. \n\nSource: I work at one of these digital publishers... in the commercialisation team.",
"muhh *bowf parties are the same*\n\n\n\nRepublicans are the biggest sheep on the planet.\n\nTrump called Ted Cruz the zodiac killer and even insuted his wife and Ted Cruz still phone banked for Trump afterward! Pathetic. \n\nSame for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell; most of the GOP was \"Never Trump\"-ers and now they support him. \n\n\nyour comment is typical GOP projection ",
"We are not talking about either of those two cases, you delusional fool.",
"That's right! \nThey are outside protesting and/or at home spreading the word about this fake news on the internet and adding additional facts (opinions and/or wild guess) to the story.",
"Read the first two.. and you're already presenting false information. \n \nJust as an example, what you wrote:\n>Trump's crime stats are completely true, as cited in article, however because he only stated the number we'll give him a Mostly False. \n\n \nActual Politifact rating: [Half True](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-homicides-are-17-percent-50-bigg/). If you're going to lie about this, probably shouldn't link directly to the contrary. \n\n",
"https://ultratechlife.com/blog/ask-a-science-professor-is-snopes-com-unbiased-reliable-for-skeptics-or-journalists-to-use-for-research-no/\n\nhttp://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/\n\nhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#74742417227f\n\nhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html",
"Another: consider if a video clip is misleading cut. The way the [“Trump tossed in all of the koi food because he’s an uncultured buffoon”](https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond-japan/index.html) story was originally reported infuriated me because there’s SO many other reasons to be angry with him. Manufacturing a trivial incident only damages CNN’s credibility. \n\nIs that REALLY an apple??",
"Citations:\n\n* you know it\n\n* I know it\n\n* everyone knows it",
"no, the people are left-wing and believe in bullshit like the secret and the world was ending in 2012. the secret is new age bullshit, not partisan bs. ",
"It takes a couple minutes to verify things. I found our problem at least, an incredibly slow reading pace.",
"Because most Republican US states are high earners?",
"I am not. Well, almost. Why?",
"I almost started responding to you before I realized that this is literally a throwaway troll account.\n\nJesus the internet is such an exhausting and toxic place...\n",
"Different kind of bookmark required",
"Answered my own post. The pic has the website. [Here](https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark) is a link the website. FYI, I tried this on mobile and got a warning that the website is not secure due to formatting, but regular PC browsing did not bring that up.",
"My critical thinking is telling me that Brietbart literally spent the election being Trump's propaganda machine. A bunch of their people quit because they didn't want to write propaganda. I'd be better off with NYT, and better still with an organization more committed to objective truth like Politifact.",
"Fact check with Snopes LMAO",
"Be open-minded ask questions. \nI had a question about estate tax on r/politics. Most downvoted comment ever. I just wanted to know if taxing family land would be double taxation and might lead to family selling land they can't pay initial tax on. This could contribute to consolidation of wealth imo. ",
"Politics \n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/\n\nSure, it's only half true and pants on fire because she used bleach bit, not something else\n\nSure, unbiased ",
"Oooh, he called us “children,” we must accept we are wrong and flip to his side. Calling names automatically wins arguments, we’ve lost. ",
"Can I ask you a serious question? What evidence would it take to prove to you that there was some level of collusion? Just trying to see where the line is. Im biased,I know I am but im trying to gage what it would take for others to say that there was some level of collusion/ involvment with the Russian government.",
"I've heard a lot of people claim this, but I have not seen anyone point to a clear cut falsehood they claim to be true, or a truth they claim to be false. ",
"You're subbed to a Cult Subreddit. You're the one who needs pity.",
"Thanks for taking the time to source that stuff. You're the real MVP.",
"I know right? Don’t these conservatives know only liberal sources are #realnews",
"It's like you didn't read what that user said. This isn't a partisan issue. Ive seen people prove bias and lies on all three sites. Accepting anything that any site says with absolute truth is a bad idea.",
"I hear you, but my experience is more like 10% of *all* redditors are open-minded rather than 75% of right-wingers, who I see as overwhelmingly close-minded and tribalist.",
"I research the shit out of my news and it's sources, all the way down to individual journalists history and ownerships background, and I try to read the same story on multiple websites from left right and center. However, I agree that Politico in particular has a liberal bias. I'm a leftist, so I'm not coming from the right-wing perspective that I assume (based on 99%of American political discourse) your comment is referencing, but I still don't appreciate seeing a centrist, pro-capitalism, status-quo supporting website being suggested as a reference point for unbiased reporting.\n Snopes is legit and what I've seen of Politifact is at least not terrible, but Politico is neo-liberal as hell. They may not fabricate stories out of thin air (often) but they will absolutely include or exclude elements to further a narrative favoring the liberal worldview. I understand \"unbiased news\" is a myth, but they should have either included sites from left, right and center, or not suggested specifics at all. The last thing this country needs is greater enforcement of the ideas that liberals A) are the left, and B) are one of two choices in a binary system. For a flyer encouraging critical thinking, there is an alarming lack of it in the content. ...Or worse, this *was* thought out.",
"I don't think that a lack of trust in reputation results in society falling apart, it just means you need to develop skills that can interrupt what you see in the context of the creator without taking it at face value.\n\nYou're life isn't going to be any worse if you don't believe political sources without scrutiny, and you can't extrapolate this to every single thing. \n\nTreat Politics the same way you treat your money. Everyone wants you vote or your dollars, and they'll say what they can to get it.",
">None of which are both trustworthy and supportive of your claim. \n\nHow many did you read in four minutes?",
"What library is this? Do you think they'd send me a copy, or mind if I re-used this in my classroom? This is so useful.",
"*Looking at you, Trump supporters*",
"Yeah when you frame something without context, it's easy to make it look biased.\n\nIn reality, the US was already giving Iran $400 million that it had owed the nation since 1979 - the payment had already been decided on and was in the works. The Obama administration saw the opportunity to use the expected payment as leverage, and refuse to pay the debt until those prisoners were released.\n\nAlternative Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/opinion/the-fake-400-million-iran-ransom-story.html\n\nIn fact, this is explained in the very politifact article you linked. Odd, that you didn't read it. ",
"God forbid the truth is boring.",
"> Why does Bigfoot smell?\n\nWell, now I want to know.",
"This guy cited Trump's disaster of a sotu he clearly believes in actual fake news. The trumpers in this thread are attacking reality. Facts are facts, there is no grey area.",
"> Give me a break. CNN rarely, if ever, portrays black men as 'good' when they are killed by a cop.\n\n[Are you sure it's him who should give a break?](https://i.imgur.com/CpyOZaE.jpg)",
"Surprisingly enough, I have found only 1 news thing that didn't fit any of that criteria and turned out to be real. It was a sensational article pertaining a court case out of Europe dealing with a violent crime between a black person and a white person and it had no links to a court document, or pictures or anyrhing. And when I tried finding other sources I would find forums all linking that same article. And at first search, I couldn't find any court documents. So I first concluded it to be \"fake news\". Only after showing the article to a group of friends and doing a ton more digging, that we found the court document. ",
"Bill Brasky was the best man at my wedding, and by that I mean he got drunk, crashed my wedding and made sweet passionate love to my wife in the water fountain of the park across the street. I'm still raising his child.",
"If you read the Bernie Sanders article they rescinded the old claim! So really this only raises red flags about your reliability! ",
"Agreed, I get my facts from infowars and fox. ",
"Because why do any research of your own if you just trust Snopes? Who fact checks the fact checkers?",
"Was going so well until politico/snopes.",
"There used to be a sign up sheet at my local library to access the internet free. This was years ago early 2000. I would sign my name and then sign fake names because 30 mins internet surfibg is not enough",
"*does the article have the word \"CNN\" anywhere?*",
"Because facts are now a partisan issue.",
"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/\n\nOr anything to do with facts ",
"people on facebook seem doomed. One person just posted some trash post about muslims in japan and everything they're not entitled to. Surprise surprise its main talking points werebullshit. It was nice to see the comments to the post calling out the person who posted it though. Shame their mind is likely already set after seeing fake shit that validates their beliefs to them. ",
"Please provide an example of a \"clear anti-conservative bias\"",
"Standing over 2nd floor",
"Lol you got wrecked ",
"but politco typically leans left . ",
"This was pathetically off topic. I'd laugh but you actually think your post has any merit whatsoever.",
"[Fake news.](https://i.imgur.com/mAFL3JC.png)",
"My \"base\"? What are you talking about? ",
"Snopes? Politico? Those are examples of where to get real news?",
"This bookmark is made by the American Library Association (ALA). https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark",
"I did read the article, a general bias based on the collaboration of employees with generally one sided political affiliations and hiding behind the “collaboration” to kill all hopes of transparent isn’t easily nailed down to one specific article written by that organization. Sorry I couldn’t provide your simple mind with one specific example. I know it’s hard for you to digest more than that. ",
"there is no such thing as a 'fact'. Or, at least, while there can be a fact (ie something happened), reporting of facts by itself tells you little eg: Trump was elected is a fact. Why and how he was elected is what is interesting. A person died is a fact. Who caused that death and what lay behind the death is what teaches you something.\n\nAnd as soon as you start talking about why and how then things get into bias. \n\nJust dip your toe into literary criticism or history.\n\nEven if someone purely reported facts to you, how you interpret them is biased. See Post structuralism amongst other fields\n\ntldr: arguing 'just the facts ma'am' is naive and pointless. \n",
"The last one should be first. It's the biggest one. Fake news is fake, but all the media outlets are biased. If it's important to you then read all the material on it form your own opinion.",
"Maybe because you're wrong? Consider that. \n\nBeing right isn't an even split. ",
"The fuck is \"freerepublic.com\"?\n\nOh: \n\"Welcome to Free Republic! \nConservatives for God, Family, Country!\nEst. 1996\"\n\nThis outdated, ultra-conservative blog is not what I would call a reputable source of information.",
">\"Fact check stories with sites like **Snopes**, Politico, and **Poltifact**.\"\n\nYeahhhh no thanks. Those aren't fact checkers they're fact deciders.\n\n",
"1. Because Muslims are terrorists\n\n2. Because you must be a Christian to hold public office in the US\n\nNow, both of these things are very obviously false, but they're both things that Republicans really, seriously, actually believe 100%. That's why they care.\n\nE: I guess whoever downvoted this isn't very good at reading comprehension, and/or completely ignored the second part.",
"And you still haven't said a thing about their fact-checking.\n\n",
"Snopes ain't nothin' but a Monkey Trial. ",
"When the headline says something about Trump and Russia, turn off your brain and believe everything. ",
"Great tips, perhaps journalists should brush up on those too.",
"I guess he does ",
"Snopes and politico are trustable unbiased sources? Get fucked",
"B-B-But, b-but her e-mails...",
"> Except the reputation of the writer and publisher are on the line.\n\nSince when has that ever been a thing in the past ~10 years? You can lie all you want, and retract it. The lie gets headline news, where the retracted claim gets nothing.\n\nThere is no punishment for lying in the media. ",
"I don't think a non biased political site exists.",
"Easy when the fake news disagrees with your beliefs, hard when a fake story is exactly what you suspected all along.",
"Your post has very little to do with the realities of American nationalist ideology in 2018. I don't know any self-avowed nationalist who supports the Patriot Act or wants to start wars in the Middle East/Korea. You're describing people like Bill Kristol, not Steve Bannon.",
"They gave Ron Paul (a Republican) and Jim Web (a Democrat) different scores for the same statement. ",
"Thanks :) However, the article has literally two pieces of evidence, both highly flawed. The first completely ignores that \"unaccounted for\" wasn't even a phrase used in the snopes article NOR its evidence, while the second ignores the content of the politifact article, and how the decision of \"true\" was determined based on the legitimate reasoning that the spokesperson for a group of agencies can be understood as speaking for all agencies. Neither of those (only) two articles appear to be bias at all.",
"That's why I only entertain the notion of speaking to people who post in SandersForPresident.",
"Computer programing. ",
"Why do you instantly resort to insulting someone’s intelligence when they have an opinion that you don’t share?",
">The site is fallible. So is everyone.\n\nDone played yourself lol",
"that's an interesting one. The grading doesn't seem right to me either for that one. They do lay out all the facts though so it wouldn't be enough for me to think of the site as being unreliable. \n \n",
"This guy hovers.",
"Snopes (unfortunately) = fake news and INCREDIBLY biased ",
"Let's not 'accuse' anyone of being autistic (even autistics) cos it aint a crime 👉😎👉 jus sayin ",
"> Because many, many Christians believe that one should ALWAYS submit to God before any man-made laws\n\nUnless it has to deal with guns",
"r/nottheoniom has the best examples",
"I think the rule is that the question could be easily be dismissed. Eg:\n\nQ (Headline): Marriage is a great anti-poverty program. So why does government discourage it?\n\nA: The government does no such thing - this article doesn't actually address the question.",
"Womp here's someone that needs the card ",
"New source? Snopes has been around for *at least* a decade. Maybe the Russian translation is newer, but I wouldn’t know.",
"\"If it's CNN. close the browser immediately.\" They forgot that one.",
"No. \n\nThe goal of the bookmark is to teach people how to vet whether or not the facts presented in news are fake.",
"Hahahaha holy shit, great find. ",
"Well I guess CNN is gonna have to shut their doors; I don’t’ believe they’ve published a single article in their history that isn’t chock full of all sorts of “anonymous sources” A.K.A. Wholly made-up bullshit to fit their agenda.",
"And the pussy grabbing. I believe him on that one.",
"> Politico is straight down the middle, if not leaning rightward ...\n\nSee:\n\n> If you think that then you’re detached from reality.\n\nPolitico is the Wash Post. Your impression of the right is awfully skewed.\n\nI'd hate to see what you consider \"progressive\" ... North Korea?",
"Pulitzer prize winning politifact? FAKE NEWS!",
"Um, you are full of it.\n\nThe Snopes article says that there are high crime areas but that the police *do indeed* continue to go there.\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/",
"*snope* lol",
"Careful. It's usually the people who think they're too smart to fall for lies who are the most susceptible.",
"Thanks man my life was really beginning to crumble around my reality. It totally wasn't a blatant joke that didn't need explaining. ",
"You underestimate the prevalence of fake news.",
"If the shoe fits....",
"They have been incorrect before. Incorrect information is updated to be correct. ",
"Interesting pics, not pics of something interesting",
"Pretty much. Although pretty much any political philosophy aside from Trumpism believes in science.",
"*Reality* has a \"liberal bias.\"",
"Can also be used to start you letter to penthouse.",
"Brought to you by \"Snopes, Politico, and Politifact\" does not go with \"Be open-minded\". Fake news can be anywhere. I agree with everything on this sheet except for directing people to particular sites.",
"*[insert that clip of a Trump supporter wondering why Obama wasn't in the Oval Office on 9/11]*",
"The problem with \"Fact-checking\" websites isn't \"liberal-bias\" it's actually just a fundamentally flawed premise. 'Who fact-checks the fact-checkers' There's nothing about them that makes them any more reputable than any other source, you might as well get your \"facts\" from Wikipedia, but in reality you should just be doing actual research instead of trusting websites to have done research for you. ",
"> http://www.politifactbias.com/\n\nTheir arguments are pretty light weight. For instance, Trump said the Democrats \"were like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said, ‘treasonous.’ I mean, yeah, I guess, why not? Can we call that treason? Why not?\" ...for not clapping at his SOTU. \n\nSo Politifact went with the definition of treason in the constitution, and this site decided that was a biased definition because the dictionary.com term is broader. I shit you not. Weak tea.",
"Last time I checked Republicans weren't insisting 640 genders existed. ",
"Isn't the whole point of something being a fact that it's not an opinion and is an objective truth? Surely you can have a website that simply compares political statements to accounted factual data to determine the validity of the claim? This isn't to say that websites that can't have biaises by cherry picking which statements to fact-check thereby creating the illusion that one \"side\" lies more than the other. I'd say that in order to be properly informed one has to consume news from a variety of news sources from all over the political spectrum and then also fact check those sources on a variety of fact checking websites. The major problem in the modern day of news is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to be an informed person due to the volume and sensationalized news. When being an informed and relatively unbiased citizen requires hours of reading and source checking most people tend to not bother. Developing an educated populace has been a work in progress for thousands of years and we are far from perfect, but we have to hope that as we have improved over the centuries we will continue to do so and figure out a way to deliver the necessary information in an unbiased way to our population so we can maintain our democracy.",
"Everything is fine except for \"check snopes, politificat, or politico.\" The first two are heavily left wing sites with a huge bias. They ARE fake news.\n\nActually scratch that, all three are left wing garbage.",
"I think I get it now - thats where a lot of us are having a disconnect - over this simple point. \n \nFake News - as far as right leaning supporters are concerned, is any article that: \n \n* Has a headline written in heavy bias that, if read alone, paints an image in ones head. \n* Mentions repetitive vague sources (\"a person familiar with his thinking\" IS NOT a fucking source) \n* Writes a story with the main goal of creating a sensational, biased headline \n* Twists facts/video to support their bias (ie - the fish food story) \n* Quickly comes to conclusions about truths (ie the wiretapping stories) \n* Anchors drop feeds, pretending to have connection issues, if the interview isnt going their way \n* Fabricates stories that dont exist \n \nAll of these things are considered Fake News. Please consider adjusting your perspective on this and accepting a wider definition. \n \nOur news should be a bringer of facts and nothing else. Leaked info, interviews, undercover investigations, facts - but they should not be used to make the populous think/feel a certain way with a biased agenda. I think 'news' should be reserved for facts only.",
"Yeah like Kevin Spacey and The King of Norway.",
"What I usually do is cross-compare the news article with other sources and go on websites like Twitter and Facebook and search if people close to the event who are likely to be first-hand witnesses are tweeting/posting about it. The key is to corroborate with multiple sources. Also, I think another key part is, that there are things that are impossible to even happen. In that case, it is more likely that the article is fake than that the event actually happened. ",
"You can fact check them yourself. They provide their sources.",
"That's the point. All media has bias and bullshit. The problem is that both sides think only the other side has \"fake news\". ",
"This is a really great idea. I wish I have had those advise in the lower grades before just quoting anything and anyone without checking the validity. Might have saved me a few embarrassing moments. ",
"Whether or not he was a murder victim is a conclusion, not a premise. The reason why both approaches are bad is precisely because they frame the circumstances in a biased (but opposite) fashion to mislead the audience to a priori believe in their favored narrative. And it seemed to work wonders with people like you, who are unable to critically assess information.",
"Christian fundamentalists object to many of the principles taught as critical thinking. They don't want children \"challenging authority\" especially not Christian fundamentalist authorities. Some Christians **do** want kids to learn critical thinking, but often only if taught via some Christian apologetics authorities/sources. \n\nChristian fundamentalists use scaremongering to show parents how evil such material is [e.g. *they* teach relativism where there is no right or wrong(incorrect)] and so these parents go to school board meetings and do their best to vote down anything with even a whiff of critical thinking. ",
"Haha if only they applied this logic to anything they considered liberal. ",
"are snopes, politifact and politico not biased? ",
"Bullshit.\n\nhttp://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/cnn-announcement-retracted-article/index.html",
"The problem is the very first blurb... people tend to think things sound realistic if it falls in line with what they already believe. ",
"> He is no different to any other Executive on the planet in that respect,\n\nAnd that makes someone in the right? \"Everyone else does it, so give this guy a pass, even though we all laud him as some hero\"? edit: What I guess I'm trying to say is this: If you treat someone like a hero, you are not giving them the true respect of seeing them for who they are. Someone with good and bad aspects we can learn from, in order for us to grow further.",
"Yeah, just not so open your brain falls out. ",
"> fake news is prominent on both sides\n\n> Trump supporters consume largest volume of ‘junk news’\n\nWhere do these two statements contradict? The fact that you just said “It is not prominent on both sides” then shared an article claiming that republicans consume more of it as if that proves your point is absolutely retarded. You really can’t admit that there’s false information all over, on both sides?",
"Politico has a slight left wing bias, not 'hugely leftist', and they are generally reputable. They will not spread blatently false statements like many other fringe (and now not so fringe) outlets do.",
"such as when?",
"Great tips! I would also add \"Check the date.\" If I can't find a date on an article, I almost always disregard it.",
"Can someone point me to a smart person actually doing their homework on the bias of those sites?\n\n",
"If my post history seems hate filled to you, you might be one of those snowflakes I keep hearing about. Now that was intended as a joke and I know that kind of thing doesn’t always translate, but I hear your criticism and will likely soften my approach. Also if you are looking around in my history, please explain to me how I can be so hate filled to people on the right when I am a gun owning, registered republican, who generally leans conservative on fiscal policies? It’s all in there...",
"The problem is people follow the first piece of advice not the last two. If something doesn't fit their view point it is fake news",
"It's bad to have a news source with bias, but until someone figures out how to make a truly objective news source I'm still gonna seek out the closest thing to it.",
"I mean you don’t have to be rude about it. There’s more than one way of telling someone he’s wrong. Ofc I’m guilty of the same thing but...\n\nEdit: jsyk im not the t_d dude who deleted.",
"Someone right above you posted an example of them massaging facts and using wordplay to push a political bias.",
"Would love to! ",
"What is the truth is left leaning biased? #Jaden #MindBlown",
"Great advice until the part where they tell you to check with fake news websites with political biases.",
"You didn’t have to write an essay, I just want the source that supports the statement “most anonymous sources are fake” ",
"Just because you don't like what you read doesn't make them biased. Take a big step back and think about what you're saying. First, accept the possibility that you're wrong. Edit: lol downvotes. Yup don't think about it, just push away anything that challenges your version of reality, fingers in ears lalala can't hear you. Your echo chamber safe space has warped you.",
"The worst part is that this should be common sense...but so many people get pulled away by the first headline they read on their preferred social media.",
"Aren’t they? The conspiracy theories that mainstream Trump supporters believe aren’t far from flat earthers.",
"There are stairs on the left side of the screen, he's probably on the second floor.",
"Don't forget the box that moves with the page!",
"Yeah, but Snopes didn't verify it. So, fake news. ;)",
"Do you have evidence that the people who thought the world was ending in 2012 were more likely to be leftwing? Or is this one of those \"it feels right\" thoughts? Because we should be careful of those thoughts. We should distinguish feelings from measurable reality. Let's start with this conversation.\n\n[Read this abstract:](http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/) \n\n>What kinds of social media users read junk news? We examine the distribution of the most significant sources of junk news in the three months before President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union Address. Drawing on a list of sources that consistently publish political news and information that is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news, we find that the distribution of such content is unevenly spread across the ideological spectrum. We demonstrate that (1) on Twitter, a network of Trump supporters shares the widest range of known junk news sources and circulates more junk news than all the other groups put together; (2) on Facebook, extreme hard right pages—distinct from Republican pages—share the widest range of known junk news sources and circulate more junk news than all the other audiences put together; (3) on average, the audiences for junk news on Twitter share a wider range of known junk news sources than audiences on Facebook’s public pages.",
"As a librarian, we get a lot of \"uneducated\" people. Homeless, drug addicts, people with intellectual disabilities, kids cutting school, DCF visits, poor people who do not have heat or air conditioning in their home... The library is a free place with access to the internet so it really attracts a lot of people. Probably a good place to teach about fake news.",
"Okay, care to give an example? We just went full circle.",
"I saw a similar conversation a few years ago and it seemed like it was the same conclusion. Unless there's something fairly recent, it seems like Politifact and Snopes (and Politico, although I've only ever seen the site for articles and not fact-checking) are your options.\n\nIf people think all of the major fact-checking sites are liberally-biased, either all 3 sites are in on the \"conspiracy\" (that's probably not the right word), or they all naturally, independently reach similar conclusions that conservatives don't like.\n\nI suppose a third option is that, for whatever reason, liberals care about reading fact-checking sites and conservatives don't, so the latter group won't bother to create the sites and/or view the sites to provide them with the traffic necessary to continue operating.",
"I think this is great advice for people of any political persuasion to follow. Due to our own confirmation bias we often seek stories that fit those and are lazy about digging deeper.",
"Where can I order these? ",
"That's exactly what OP was trying to avoid. You're part of the problem ",
"And playing Runescape",
"[Maybe it's a model library.](https://i.imgur.com/zWr14a8.jpg)",
"low barrier for entry nowadays",
"If you read below the first quarter of the page you can see the written justification for their assessment with citations.",
"So after looking over the linked story and both Breitbart and Politifact's articles, I can honestly say politifact is better sourced. They found more prominent experts involved in the history of the town, and cited well, allowing further checking. They also note that physical building wasn't the issue, the issue was financial power, which the town didn't gain until the textile mill boom happened. A boom, that was predominantly fueled by migrant labor.\n\nI see your logic though. Anything can be spun, and any claim can be twisted into something else. However, though this just may be my preference, I think that listening to what people who spent years of their lives dedicated to a subject have to say about that subject, is more valuable than conjecture. Politifact does that well.",
"Nope just a difference in opinion. More like Starbucks having a red cup.",
"I didn't know reality has opinions. \n\nOh, I forgot, for the left their opinion is fact. ",
"Are you new to this world or something? It is the norm that News organizations don't reveal all their sources. They're going to lose them if they do. These are WH staffers. They're going to get fired. \n\nWhy are you citing this bullshit, and not an actually important story? **\"Anonymous sources\"** reported that Trump revealed highly confidential information to Russian operatives. It turned out to be completely true, didn't it?",
"You're the one ignoring his points.",
"How do you know it's good if it's anonymous?",
"Yes, it is impossible to dislike Peterson for recognizably human reasons. The only reason to dislike him is that you hate truth itself.",
"....your last comment as of writing this is calling someone rude for the way they conducted themselves in a discussion. How long have you been suffering from bipolar disorder?",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du3n51u",
">abloo bloo bloo \n\nNow I know you’re 12.",
"Seems like you're the one who's lost. Even Fox News, an outlet with an unapologetic conservative bias that is fully on board with Trump's attacks on the media was on the Washington Post's side on this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/28/how-washington-post-exposed-effort-to-peddle-phony-allegations-against-roy-moore.html",
"It's not for them, it's to improve the next generation of kids. ",
"Fact check with snopes/politifact \n\nBe open minded\n\n👌",
"Suggestions such as these do not bode well for future success at cnn.com",
"I'd make the ruling \"technically true\" maybe?\n\n\"The administration has explained that the $400 million settlement and the prisoner release were negotiated in separate channels and coincidentally reached their resolutions near the same time.\"\n\nYou're also skipping over the actually important part of the article? The part where they say Trump is committing a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.\n\n\n\n",
"Allegedly yes, but really? Not so much.",
"YES\n\nCRITICAL THINKING SHOULD BE PART OF BASIC EDUCATION ALONGSIDE HISTORY, MATH, ETC",
"I agree. The DNC is worse in a lot of ways. Like how the DNC leaders did everything in favor of Hilary so that Bernie wouldn't be the nominee. While the Republican process isnt perfect, I think it's much more decided by people who becomes the nominee. Not having super delegates is a big plus as well.",
"> If it's not in the opinion section of the WSJ, I trust their reporting standards even though I'm not as right-leaning as them at all.\n\nYou trust the WSJ? The newspaper that produced fake news about pewdiepie being a nazi? Give me a fucking break.\n\nYou think a rupert murdoch owned property is trustworthy?\n\nNo media is trustworthy. All of them should be view with skepticism. All media has biases. ",
"Yeah check Snopes! A completely biased website who’s “facts” always lean to one side! What a joke.",
"I think youd be surprised how many people on both sides believe fake news just because it agrees with them. But regardless, if kids grow up with this mindset rather than just \"Fox News is racist\", \"CNN is fake news\", etc. They will be able to form their own opinions and come to there own conclusions which is better than mindlessly listening to anyone",
">anti trump subs don't advocate raping/kill people\n\nYou must be illiterate\n\n",
"The *authors* credentials. Anonymous news reports meaning there is no author. Anonymous sources has been a thing forever and is a foundation of the way in which the press can often keep a check on non transparent governments.",
"Also understand that establishment bias, political correctness, and access journalism are everywhere in news.",
"Such as : CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, MSNBC, Headline news, New York times, Washington Post, most newspapers in general, oh and NPR.",
"Re: #2 \nIt's kind of funny that no one cares about what actually happened, they just eat up that narrative that Fox News was so proud of creating that day. I remember laying in bed that morning and CNN talking about it as it was happening. For quite a little while if I recall correctly. But then they went back to the stupid Trump stories, which I already rolled my eyes at so I turned it off. But then reading Fox News obsessing over their coverage vs CNN's and convincing everyone that CNN didn't care about terrorism or talk about it at all... man oh man. It's all just an elaborate game to them(both).",
"No, it's a joke from a webcomic.",
" See: Rule #7 of this subreddit. \n\n>\"We enforce a standard of common decency and civility here. Please be respectful to others. Personal attacks, bigotry, fighting words, otherwise inappropriate behavior or content, comments that insult or demean a specific user or group of users will be removed. Regular or egregious violations will result in a ban.\"",
"Who uses libraries for porn?",
"He's definitely on the second floor of the library and actually only 5' 6.5\".",
"Been online since the early 90's, pre AOL. \n\nThe rule back then was to read the wires. AP, Reuters, BBC, etc and etc. Glean what you can from the breaking news and then work your way down. Believe it or not Drudge got his start like this. He would link straight to the wires, this would make a one stop shop for news hounds. ",
"I don’t see why someone wouldn’t agree with them all?",
">Isn't the whole point of something being a fact that it's not an opinion and is an objective truth?\n\nThen they aren't talking about facts\n\n>Surely you can have a website that simply compares political statements to accounted factual data to determine the validity of the claim? \n\nNo you can't\n\n>I'd say that in order to be properly informed one has to consume news from a variety of news sources from all over the political spectrum and then also fact check those sources on a variety of fact checking websites.\n\nGood start except for the fact checking websites part, but I would suggest the only way to know for true is to see the source material, otherwise you're getting second hand content tailored and manipulated by distributors.\n\nUltimately, if you take any source as a fact at face value, then that source controls what is fact regardless of the truth.",
"This card alone is smarter than a lot of people",
"Careful, your FauxNews is showing.",
"Except the headline you invented was not inaccurate. And you haven't provided any proof of these misleading articles.",
"Damn!",
"“Make sure to use liberal fact checking sites to filter out any conservative content”",
"I don't care about an advertising dispute. I'm a CPA, I care about integrity. I'm also a CFE, I care about fraud.\n\nThe man is alleged to have run his divorce legal fees and other more surreptitious activities - including marrying one of his employees - as business expenses. The speaks very poorly to his character.\n\nI don't trust Snopes or it's methods. For every bit of important information (that is, it's information that will shape your opinion or action), I encourage people should closely evaluate claims and sources and not trust any single outlet. From every angle, people are out to influence your decisions and even outright manipulate you.",
"sorry, I should have said, trump supporters.. or Mike Pence for some reason. While i myself and fairly in the middle and I think trump is a joke I don't think attacking people who support him will breed anything but discontent ",
"\"Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, politifact, and politico.\"\n\nHow about I question that statement from a paper bookmark.\n\nI've found false information from all 3 of those sources. \n\nNot to mention, they're politically driven sources to go off of. \n\nTake this bookmark with a grain of salt. ",
"I mean.. Of course.\n\n> Why does Bigfoot smell?\n\n> No.\n\n\nwut",
"Excellent advice. But this applies to sites [like Snopes as well](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7b3hm3/snopes_author_facebook_page_shows_links_to/).",
"He's the man who swallowed his arm whole to win a five dollar bet.",
"I find that disabling auto play in FF interferes with useful extensions like imagus and thumbnail zoom plus, which allow you to view video links without leaving the page you're on, which is an especially helpful tool on reddit. ",
"To be frank-- you're proving my point for me.\n\n>What kinds of social media users read junk news? We examine the distribution of the most significant sources of junk news in the three months before President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union Address. **Drawing on a list of sources that consistently publish political news and information that is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news, we find that the distribution of such content is unevenly spread across the ideological spectrum.** We demonstrate that (1) on Twitter, a network of Trump supporters shares the widest range of known junk news sources and circulates more junk news than all the other groups put together; (2) on Facebook, extreme hard right pages—distinct from Republican pages—share the widest range of known junk news sources and circulate more junk news than all the other audiences put together; (3) on average, the audiences for junk news on Twitter share a wider range of known junk news sources than audiences on Facebook’s public pages.\n\n\nI've bolded what I feel to be the important part of this study. What is a demonstrable fact, presented in whole by the sources you have linked, is that repubs were disproportionately targeted by \"fake-news\". Nothing has so far proven that republicans are intrinsically more susceptible, merely that they have been taken advantage of more during the run up to this election.\n\n\n\n>We have a less exotic, but perhaps more disconcerting explanation: Our own study of over 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day shows that a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world. This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.\n\nThis second article is very interesting, and I will have to go back and re-read it a couple times to really dig into their data. As far as my first reading goes, it seems as though they are drawing from a pool of users who share Breitbart articles-- something that I think would be irresponsible to conflate with behavior of \"republicans\". I would argue that anyone who reads Breitbart to begin with is more susceptible to fake news, and to extrapolate that data to infer that conservatives as a whole are more susceptible is disingenuous. Let me know if I'm misreading that one, I'm pretty tired and it's got a lot of numbers.\n\n\nEdit: Something I also find telling about that article is their findings on the \"most shared news outlets of those who retweet Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton\". The top two were Breitbart and the Hill, and the Washington Post and Huffington Post respectively. Having the Huffington post as number 2 does not lend much credibility to the idea that Repubs are more susceptible.",
"One solution to that problem: Spotting fake news is being taught in grade school now.\n\nIt doesn't help the current voting population though.",
"I was following until they tried to say that Politifact is a reliable source.\n\nPolitifact will say that something is *PANTS ON FIRE* wrong, then in the description say, \"Well, it's technically correct, but it has bad intentions behind it.\"",
"~~left~~ centrist leaning bias\n\nFTFY",
"So you don't disagree with them you mean.",
"SmellGibson69's deleted comment:\n>Yeah that’s where I got it, but they don’t say that it’s false in the article, I shouldnt have to check that list ever time I go to their page. So therefore it’s not 100% reliable. Some stuff on the site is satire. The onion is satire. Some stuff on the onion turned out to be true. Snopes is more entertainment than hard facts in my opinion.\n\n>https://www.reddit.com/r/theonionwasright/\n\n----\n\nSnopes created the Lost Legends to make a point about how no one source is 100% reliable and to always look for more information elsewhere.\n\nYour responses to that is saying Snopes isn't 100% reliable and you shouldn't have to look for more information elsewhere.\n\nIt's like reading the Judgment of Solomon and thinking the main message was, \"Solomon is a baby cutting psychopath.\"\n\n----\n\nSmellGibson69's deleted reply to the above:\n\n>Yeah. That’s what I said. I win reddit for the day. Bye.\n>This comment really brought out the autists though.",
"\"$400 for 1984!? What the fuck? Why can't I just borrow it?\"\n\n\"Paying is the American way, don't be a Socialist fuck!\"",
"This? I’m talking about my personal preference for any news. If it comes from an anonymous source then it’s not news for me. ",
"Why do you fanboys have to bring up star wars into every goddamn conversation on this website? Can't there be one intelligent discussion that doesn't devolve into stupid quirks from a series thats aimed and marketed towards children? ",
"Please don't jump. ",
"If everything News Corp makes is absolute fucking salacious trash, is it because the people that work for them and consume their content are brain dead morons or are they intentionally malicious lying cunts?",
"Wrong.",
"I don't think it's them not being curious, I think it's simply that they don't want their \"belief\" to be wrong. My thing is that your belief may still end up being true in the end but there's nothing wrong with questioning things.\n\nYou are right tho, knowing the truth or seeking the truth doesn't make people feel good. Sometimes the truth isn't supposed to make you feel good.",
"[Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/) \n[Politico](https://www.politico.com/) \n[PolitiFact](http://www.politifact.com/)\n\nBookmark 'em!",
"It is a shame that the commander in chief cannot read or will not read that.",
"Bias isn't so bad. Insidious bias, where the site pretends to be unbiased but is actually very biased, is bad. That's Politifact and I wish people would stop saying they are a reputable fact-checking source.",
"You’d probably have a tough time in this school.",
"Hmmm maybe Ron Borges should have been going to the library more often",
"Yes.",
"HRC is a galactic entity of unimaginable power.",
"Yeah but for that you have to use *Safari*.",
"Nope, it's a Tide ad. Look at those clothes!!",
"Whoa. Two whole stories. Out of thousands in a year that they report on. You've cracked the conspiracy wide open.\n\nIn all seriousness though, the number of stories they get right far exceeds what they get wrong, and usually when they do get it wrong they issue an update or a retraction.\n\nAnd as someone else asked, what right wing fact checkers are there that you can reliably point to?",
"You know what they say, reality has a liberal bias.",
"Not sure why you're replying to me. I never said anything was fake. I hate everything with deep spin, hating Buzzfeed and Breitbart in equal measure. ",
"I have no idea. I'm just making an assumption that you disagree with the facts they provide.",
"Looks like he’s on the second story. Note the stairs in the left of the picture",
"I got banned from /r/The_Donald for this post and this post only:\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7jg30u/the_salt_the_sallllllttt/dr65whp/?context=3\n\nIf you can't read it, here's the post:\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7jg30u/the_salt_the_sallllllttt/\n\nand here's the comment chain that got me banned:\n\n> fuzzyslipperz23\n\n> 51 points 2 months ago \n\n> will blacks ever get off the democratic plantation??\n\n> > imtheproof\n\n> > 6 points 2 months ago\n\n> > i mean, why would you expect them to vote for roy moore, the guy who said things would be better off if every amendment after the 10th was gone? (includes their right to vote).\n\nIt's a special kind of subreddit. Its entire purpose is to push an \"us vs them\" view, where \"us\" is Team Trump and only Team Trump. Nothing else. Beloved adviser leaves the administration? Trust Trump. Says something bad about the administration? Find any reason at all to degrade that person. It's about pounding the dividing drums, nothing else.",
"Except even with fact checking sites you should double check what they're saying, a lot of their stuff is politically biased. It's like wikipedia, decent for getting sources but you really shouldn't rely on it.",
"T_D is the safest space on the internet, don't kid yourself.",
"Since when is snopes the standard? \n\nWhy the free pass?",
"Agreed. It's the reason why I don't visit Forbes anymore. no adblock allowed and autoplay videos? trash site",
"They are standing on the second floor.....",
"Who decides which way they lean?\n\nFox news doesn't just lean but is fully cuckoo biased.\n\nDo we determine left and right by comparing the sites and sources to each other? If so that is a very flawed system.",
"ITT Because the right is worse than the left, we should ignore similar antics and flaws of the left. \n\nBold strategy. Let's see if it pays off. ",
"And this is why the “both sides” meme is a total fraud. You couldn’t even come up with a single thing “the left” actually believes.",
"They weren't saying the same thing at all. Bernie was talking about a specific demographic's unemployment rate and Trump was speaking about the overall unemployment rate.",
"I believe he's affected by homelessness. Also, black and white prints are 20¢, color 50¢. ",
"What have I left out? If you are referring to the other response I got, all he did was expand on what was already said. Does not change the fact that Politfact said Trump was lying, when they then openly state he did not lie but isn't responsible.",
"The first point on this list should actually be: Check on REDDIT if this shit is true, and then if it is yell \"Hallelujah!\" to distract others in the library.",
"It’s a shame many on the left also have just as equal “anonymous” source then act as if it’s only the right that spews bs. ",
"That's bullshit. Detached from reality? Someone that DOESN'T have a left leaning bias can spot it a mile away. But when it agrees with your echo chamber, of course you see it as perfectly reasonable",
"Fact check with snopes and politico? Fuck you\n\nMight as well \"fact check\" with r/ politics",
"CNN repeatedly lies and makes shit up. Their executive editor for investigations had to resign last year for publishing a fake story about Trump Jr. getting early access to the DNC wikileaks emails. \n\nOn Trump's inauguration day, they published a fake story about how Nancy Sinatra was upset over a Sinatra song being played. \"Nancy Sinatra not happy Trump using father's song at inauguration.\" That was later changed to \"Sinatra on Trump picking 'My Way': Remember the first line\" with zero explanation why they made up her being \"not happy.\"\n\nCNN makes shit up. Routinely.",
"I agree with truth.",
"Lol you got me there. We can all be hypocrites together! Doesn’t change the fact you respond to me and not the other dude tho lol.",
"How do you know you can trust snopes/politifact?",
"They aren't considered left leaning. They ARE left leaning. \n\n",
"We did actually learn about this in my (American) middle school. When we started writing research papers, the school librarian taught our class about how to identify disreputable sources, and most of the points from the OP's leaflet were covered.",
"If you have a Mac, it's the best option. My favorite browser anyway 🤷♂️",
"I blame Facebook ",
"You think you are a beacon of open-mindedness? Look at your comments.. you go out of your way to bring politics into everything and bash \"idiot conservatives\" and \"close-minded\" right-wingers every chance you get. Your rhetoric, broad paint brush, and incessant need to bash others is concerning.",
"Hue hue hue Russian bots ",
"They were talking about bringing up irrelevant questions starting with \"What about __?\", so I brought up an irrelevant question that started with \"What about __?\"",
"It was a quote from a comedian at George Bush's correspondents dinner for the record",
"/r/murderedbywords",
"I'm aware that there's a decline in investigative journalism. I shouldn't have taken your initial comment at face value and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. You obviously weren't saying it doesn't exist at all.\n\nAs an aside though, some small local news outfits still do great investigative journalism in their own communities.",
"I was on board until it recommend sites like Snopes LOL",
"Too many “reliable” news sources have Fed their agenda with anonymous sources. No thanks. ",
"You didn't provide reputable (or any) citations for what you're stating as fact.\n\nAlso, you're delusional.",
"Thank you so much for contributing and showing me the way \n\n",
"OH NO left-leaning! Gasp. she must be part of the deep-state conspiracy.\n\nThere's nothing about being left-leaning and admiring Bill Clinton that makes her agency untrustworthy. Ask questions, follow up sources. Everyone leans to one side, it doesn't mean they are biased.",
"Open and shut case.",
"https://m.imgur.com/gallery/R390EId",
"Way to brush aside Uranium One scandal, Telecommunications Act of 1993, Storzk and Lisa Page bias, Hillary rigging the DNC primaries with Donna Brazile, shit - even Brazile's entire book exposing DNC corruption and pressure to quiet Bernie, Fast and Furious scandal, Schiff colluding with Russian pranksters for fake Trump nudes, IRS Tea-Party Targeting, I can go on obviously. \n\nIt takes intelligence to recognize truth on all sides. \"Muh bowf parties are the same\" is a very real statement grounded in this, as Democrats are nefarious for calling the kettle black. THAT is actual projection, and a little sad you're so easily duped by partisan mudslinging. ",
"Literally all you have to do is find out what is sourced in an article, find out what the stated facts are and if they are true. \n\nSomeone got shot? Okay all other news sources (left and right say the same)\n\nOnly some are reporting without a source that the guy did nothing wrong? Probably a bias there.",
"Did you see the quantifier? Alot? If you consider yourself one of the children then go right ahead. Join my side? You are welcome to hop on the bench and have some popcorn while they go at it. I think both the right and left are ridiculous. The last decade has seen more polarizing points of view and intolerance and hatred by both sides. The media feeds it because it makes money. As long as consumers are busy hating each other they aren't fighting the real problems. But you made a snappy retort, so at least there's that. ",
"I prefer the \"civilizations don't build themselves\" guy",
"Anyone who would consider Snopes tainted is primarily interested in authority. I was not being balanced in my analysis, I was viewing it (the hypothetical article) through the lens of a hypothetical authoritarian. ",
"What organization wrote the pamplet, and who left it in the library?",
"There's a site on the bottom that says alastore.ala.org ",
"You said non profit, non profit does not mean news. non-profit=/=news. Also government funding does not equal non-biased.",
"Media Research Center is right-leaning and produces quality, verifiable content... At least any time I've ever gone there- which isn't much- they've seemed on the level.",
"Careful, no one cares. Those website are left wing garbage sites whether you like it or not.",
"Name one major thing from a reputable source about the investigation that hasn’t been corroborated? Keep in mind, if they are reporting that someone or some document says X, it is not them saying “X is fact.”",
"\"Fact check with with sites like snopes, politico, and politifact\"\n\n\nAhh yes. nothing like left leaning websites to help with that \"beware the bubble step\"",
"It's called math.",
"No it isn't. What got us \"here\" is people drinking their own koolaid far too deeply. The thing being pushed was never \"both sides are the same\", and you know that. You know what the issue was, and yet you deny it. You deny it because it may make you question your own allegiances and beliefs.\n\nMaybe the people riding the crazy train should get off at the next stop and check a map. That's all I'm saying. Be aware of your surroundings.",
"If something sounds a little outrageous, just google it. You would think that would be people’s first reaction. ",
"Reminds me of my old historiography class in college. We had a lesson on recognizing reliable sources. This was a while ago and the internet was a different sort of beast then.",
"> \"Make sure the headline and/or picture matches the content.\"\n\nGotta say, this is big problem with reddit too.\n\nNormally on reddit the headline isn't blatantly false, because mods usually take care of that.\n\nBut... about half the time when reddit is up in arms about something, if you actually read the article, the situation is lot more subtle and it's usually not a case for pitchforks.\n\nI personally had gotten into a bad habit of reading the reddit headline then reading the comments. Lately I'm making sure to read the article too and... uh... reddit is off base a shocking amount of time.",
"So in OP's view, we can't trust the press, and we can't trust fact checker websites. Better to avoid any attempt at staying up to date with political issues at all I guess.",
">dragoneer complaining about other sites",
"Yo rather than whining about downvotes, how about you back up your assertion with an example?",
"did not the guy who created and managed a fake news empire say that he focuses mostly on things that will trigger the right because the left is outed as fake new too quickly as the left tends to fact check more. ",
"and coding.",
"Where was he?!?! Hmmmm.... maybe he was the one driving the planes straight from Kenya!!! ",
"I think they're all biased, but whichever one isn't \"in power\" becomes more biased. I remember back when Obama was president Fox News had guys like Glenn Beck who would go off on batshit crazy rants about Obama and how the world was going to end. Now Fox News is still biased, but they are able to report more fairly on a republican candidate than they can about a democrat. I think the same is True about left wing news, they can report more fairly on a democrat than Fox News can. ",
"Well, study says that.",
"The fbi has confirmed all this. And they aren’t exactly friends of trump. \n\nWhy don’t you tell me who exactly decided we should trust snopes and politifact?",
"There are several chrome extensions to block them.\n\nAnd sites with autoplay should be burned in a ritual fire.\n\n",
"Wait... so you mean... Iran held the prisoners as leverage to get something they wanted refusing to release them unless they got what they wanted, but this was most definitely not ransom?\n\nI mean, I can go to the depths politifact went to to discern the truth here:\n\n> Definition of ransom\n> 1 : a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity\n\nRegardless of money being previously owed, the money was only paid once the prisoners were released. So... ransom.",
"Weird how your first article disagrees with you and none of your articles have an example of incorrect articles.",
"Pretty much every news site does it regardless of whether they have a cable outlet or not. ",
"The three sites that chose to cite may have been amusing but the underlying point -is- valuable. When you discount the whole position by cherry picking one source you dislike it’s very amusing because you’re defending your ignorance. The purpose of the post is to dispel ignorance and you just doubled down on yours. I think that’s called irony.",
"Thank you. Came here to hopefully see this. ",
"I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this person is out on a limb here. ",
"And, you're the flaming asshole this card was made for.",
"I specifically cited the thing where Bill Nye attended the State Of The Union and was castigated for it.",
"ITT : People confirming why this is needed",
"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford\n\nThat study has been cited by a significant number of other news outlets, some of whom presumably verified the information (e.g. BBC, al-jazeera, ABC)\n\nhttps://news.wgbh.org/2017/03/15/politics-government/major-new-study-shows-political-polarization-mainly-right-wing here's one citing a [Columbia University](https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php) which demonstrates how the bias on the hard-right is much more concentrated to the end of the spectrum.\n\n&nbsp;\n\nAmusingly, Fox published a story saying the Oxford study was, itself, fake news, which is hilarious.",
"Anyone of these nine suggestions would get you banned from the_dotard. ",
"Whoosh. ",
"Look at me being a weird freak not using left-leaning websites to objectively verify news /s",
"People who care about their country have this weird habit of reacting when internet trolls try to shit up discourse with deliberately misleading arguments, how strange",
"Just a heads up:\n\nFox News is a right-leaning news source. So triple check your sources every time.\n",
"What a bunch of nonsense. How often does CNN cover white victims of police brutality, who make up the majority of all victims, at all? Did you ever think that pointing out the ex-con status of a hero might be an attempt to portray ex-cons as good people? CNN was also caught selectively editing the (black) relatives of a man killed by cops. They might it sound like a call for moderation, when she actually told people to riot and loot in white neighborhoods. To imply CNN has an anti-black agenda is as retarded as to imply FOX is anti-white (as the alt-right does). All it does is portray you as a fringe-lunatic.\n\nAnd nobody justified murder. The debate is about whether it constitutes murder or a justifiable killing. Yes, killing a person can be justified. Obviously.",
"They forgot “Does it say CNN in the bottom corner?",
"People take the term \"fake news\" too literally. Yes, there are dubious sources of news to look out for, but major main stream media networks (all of them folks, left and right) misrepresent realities of issues daily. \n\n \n And they are even worse. Because they mislead in a way that's always refutable. Leaving out major fact, crediting information to \"sources have told us,\" spinning everything to fit a predetermined narrative. That's the problematic \"fake news\" that divides us, not fake articles.",
"That blows out pretty much all news, most of all cable and network news. I watch none of them, they are all divisive biased garbage. ",
"The library has to be at least three times bigger than this!",
"Nice username. How would snopes rate the following: donald trump is such a political genius that he hired people knowing they would be fired or resign in his first year. This was his way of keeping his campaign promise to drain the swamp.\n\nSee I wouldn’t buy that. I’d say trump is terrible at this job, and his hiring decisions are just one indication of that. But I guess you would disagree getting your news from the_donald and conspiracy. At least they’re unbiased and well-sourced.",
"Ublock 🔑",
"None of that supports the idea that anonymous sources are **more likely** to be false. ",
"All very good information. I wish the \"fake news\" phrase would die though. ",
"Go back to 2012 and it's flipped, they are incredibly biased because they are not \"in power\". Fox News was by far the worst when Obama was president. ",
"> I guess the DNC is just as bad as the GOP, so better vote GOP.\n\nNobody is saying that, fucking hell. They're just saying DONT ONLY refer to Snopes, Politifact, and Politico as they are also funded interests. ",
"Like you?",
"Remember kids: Libraries, as a concept, are Socialist as fuck. Justsayin",
"Why not? Those are the same two series of events. Trump said a true statement, Politifact says he is lying because while the statement is true, Trump isn't responsible for that statement being true. What am I missing there?",
"Then where do you go Stanley?",
"Snopes. The mom and pop fact checking site where Pop embezzled nearly 100k, spent it on hookers, left his wife for a hooker, and employed said hooker at Snopes. Look no further for people you can trust to give you the truth.",
"And law enforcement is heavily in the bag for someone. ",
"Great post, and the saddest part about it is, since you cited educational institutions, it will be debunked as \"liberal,\" due to this weird and frankly fucking *pervasive* idea the right has that all institutions of higher learning are couched in liberalism. \nSome people are going to hear what they want to hear, and immediately discount any source that isn't supporting their preconceived ideas or narrative. \nThus, \"post-fact.\" Even if something can be concretely proven it will have its detractors. If you think about it, it's actually nihilistic.",
"You've been asked multiple times to suggest what sites to use and you keep avoiding the question.",
"http://www.politifactbias.com/?m=1\n\nThere's a whole website dedicated to pointing out their bias. Interesting reading.",
"Okay. Maybe you just need to sound out the words then.",
"I get that, but is there any truth to it?",
"You're the exact asshole this card was made for.",
"Either way, it's still a filter bubble. So be aware anyway.",
"He wears a rattlesnake as a condom.",
"Firefox. Just Firefox.",
"What really bugs me about comments like this is that you have a point, but then you (or people like you) eagerly consume media which doesn't even have the pretext of objectivity or fairness and then quibble about journalistic standards of the media which presents things you disagree with. Yes, the NYT sometimes prints retractions. Fox News exists as a propaganda outlet. And you know that, but you still pretend to care about journalistic ethics. If you really did, you'd apply those standards uniformly to all media ",
"Again it's you. If you don't want to put the effort into doing so you've got no one to blame but yourself.",
"It’s innoculated via education so America seems doomed tbh. There is a phenomenal movement that prefers to judge on feelings over fact. ",
"Asking important questions",
"Good lord how tall are you?",
"what is 'Trumpism'?",
"Just reading through your example, the statements on the left are extremely questionable while the ones on the right do actually have some wiggle room. \n\nYrump and Bernie are not not not saying the same thing at all. Trump is talking about the overall employment rate (and thus the health of the entire economy) for the whole country and Bernie is talking about a specific group who we all know is disenfranchised. The former statement would be all arming, the latter is kinda a well yeah you hear about that all the time.\n\n",
"They do have equal opportunities, liberals just want equal outcomes. They want equal pay for unequal work. They fire people for saying that men and women have different interests and are slightly different in their probability distribution graphs(reality). I'm atheist and very anti feminist. The only thing they want anymore is positive discrimination in their favor.",
"\"Face check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico and Politifact\". ..............LMFAOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.\n\nI thought we were trying to stray away from fake news?",
"Lol it’s like you guys need a librarians help even after reading this.",
"Nice catch ",
"well those places site sources so theres that\n\ndo \"right wing\" debunking sites that provide sources exist?\n\nthen on top of it thats literally one step out of many which is the whole point of the multiple steps suggested...",
"Seven debatable (I've done it before) politifact rulings, which are ultimately opinion-based.\n\nOut of over 15,000 politifact rulings.\n\nA 0.05% incidence of bias.\n\nThat's...woah I'm going to have to sit down here.",
"You are being ridiculous. Politifact should be about taking statements and distinguishing them as true or false based on well-defined evidence. What this politifact article clearly demonstrates is that even though what Trump said is correct, which they confirm, they instead go on to provide an opinion piece on why it doesn't matter that it is correct, and grade it as mostly false. Anyone, no matter what side, should be able to read this article and see that the website has gone awry in this case.",
"Lol. There’s fake news on both sides. A lot of it. Stop it. ",
"Liberals and conservatives both enjoy masturbating in public. ",
"Rule #4",
"r/therewasanattempt",
"No, they haven’t.",
"I was thinking about the uneducated working professionals who pretty much go to work, go home, and sleep with little spare time to get informed about better (and tougher) ways to get informed. People who are uneducated by choice rather than as a matter of circumstance. ",
"It's a nice gesture but any of the fake news loving coprophagics just assume snopes and politifact have a librul bias",
"A lot of Redditors are gonna only follow like half of this advice and pretend the rest doesn't apply to them because their ideology is \"correct\".",
"It was at that moment that I realised the librarian giving me advice on fake news was eight stories tall and was a crustacean from the Paleozoic era.",
"> to name a single instance in which snopes was wrong\n\nYou're a fucking idiot lol",
"Snopes and politifact. So close yet so far. ",
"I mean, the rule also says that \"the answer is always no\". This implies that if you can't answer NO to that particular question, it doesn't apply.",
"Whenever someone claims anonymous sources are just an excuse the \"MSM journalists\" use to make up lies, that's a pretty gigantic red flag on the future quality of that conversation.\n\nI saw someone a few months ago lamenting that journalism used to be so good because they never used anonymous sources and was just amazed that people somehow believe that. More than 4 decades ago, WaPo helped bring down Nixon despite Nixon having similarly antagonistic views on the Press, and they did it using anonymous sources. We didn't even know who the hell Deep Throat was until decades later. Their reputation is on the line, and most people trust them due to their track record. \n\n\"PatriotCuckWatch.info\" could run a story using anonymous sources, but they have no reputation and often don't even list information about the individual who wrote the story. If they spent decades writing huge stories that overwhelmingly turned out to be true, people would start trusting them and their \"anonymous sources\".",
"This seems like pretty good advice and tips, except that Snopes, politico, and Poltifact are all guilty of manulipating that truthful/lying ranking system to favor left wing politicans. ",
"They changed these to match years after the fact once they got caught.\nhttp://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/aug/24/jim-webb/jim-webb-says-us-didnt-have-income-taxes-until-191/\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jan/31/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-federal-income-tax-rate-was-0-percen/\n\nThe difference is simply the party of the person that said it.\n\nAnalysis of their [word counts](http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/) shows that they consistently put more effort into finding pro-democrat results in their rulings.\n\nI'm sure you'll ask for a more neutral source as well so [here's US News](https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans) pointing out how far out of their way they go to get the non-conservative results they want.\n\nI will end with pointing out that Politifact is owned by the Tampa Bay Times which is [far from neutral.](http://mediatrackers.org/2012/09/06/politifact-parent-tampa-bay-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias/)",
"I really hate how \"there's two sides so both must be right\" is such a prevalent thing right now",
"I suppose I should expect a /r/The_Donald frequenter to post Trumpist Tweets as factual.\n\nCNN posted its third best Jan in its lifetime. The same cannot be said for Donald as his approval rating still sits below 50% which is lower than some Vegas odds have him at bring impeached (currently averaging ~57.3% probability of impeachment). His current averaged approval rating is only 41.5% according to Real Clear Politica which averaged out multiple polling firms ratings dating from 1-25 to 2-8.\n\nHe is currently tacking as the least popular POTUS since Truman. Anderson Cooper is more liked than Trump is. \n\nCrazy.\n\n\nsource: http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/january-2018-ratings-cnn-has-third-best-january-in-network-history-but-finishes-no-3-in-prime-time/356291\n\nsource: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/",
"Maybe it just needs a “don’t believe whatever’s comes out of people’s mouths” tip. Maybe they felt that was a little obvious for 5th graders.",
"the issue is that many schools are cutting librarians- the fact that “fake news” is so rampant shouldn’t be a surprise when we devalue this profession. ",
"> never write misleading articles\n\nMaybe misleading, never outright garbage fire liefest like the right wing sphere of political websites.",
"No idea why you've presented this. They provide a factual timeline for when things happen. Whether you agree with their conclusion or not is up to you. If you expect your news to think for you, you're not really reading news. That's propaganda, mate. ",
"Cool. Ill give them a look. ",
"I would have that a goverment funded company would be the most likely to be inadvertedly biased",
"Authority and emotion are two very different things.",
"good joke",
"Fair enough ",
"That's what I'm screamin. You can't. Having it on there is laughable.",
"> controls 90% of news media \n\nNot really.\n\nWhat's interesting, and what really causes this mindset, is [This Study](https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php) which looked at the distribution of candidate bias in reporting. What's notable is the *how concentrated* the right wing news sources are to the right.\n\nIn essence, the \"liberal news conspiracy\" is nothing of the sort, it's just that the news sources on the far right are SO FAR to the right that the mild (and, *completely understandable in light of the scandal-ridden candidacy and presidency to date*) bias of some major outlets makes it LOOK like they are much further left, when in fact, the right wing itself has just gotten that much more partisan.",
"OP is Robert Wadlow.",
"All are good facts except the fact checking sites listing are known to be flawed",
"To be fair have you ever been to Alabama or Mississippi lol",
"Ive seen you all over this thread doing the same thing, while dehumanizing the right. You're the asshole here.",
"If the authors last name is “Goldstein” it’s instantly a fake article",
"I mean, isn't that kinda like saying \"Why have headlines if people could just read the article?\" Or moving away from politics, \"Why have a review score if people just need to read the review?\" I'm not defending any specific website here, but some people just like to have a rough idea of what they're gonna read before digging into it.\n\nOr, sometimes people just don't have the time. Obviously everyone should be conscious of bias in their news and double check what they can for themselves, but sometimes people really are just too busy with what's going on in their own lives. And on top of all that, in the \"information age\", there's so much to fact check that a single person couldn't be expected to be the same level of thorough with everything.\n\ntl;dr People might be lazy if they go to the \"meter\" instead of checking for themselves but tbh it's unrealistic to expect people to always go the extra mile for everything",
"Just don’t be a fucking idiot. ",
"By that reasoning, none of Tarantino's Allen's or Spacey's movies are any good because they are all douchebags/rapists.",
"Except that Politifact, Snopes, and Politico aren't without their own biases. They've been proven wrong many times, and it's foolish to use them as the authority on truth.",
"No, no, the left-wing-ism and the belief in the secret and 2012 are not related!! i'm just saying I know people who ARE left wing and believe in fake news like bush did 911 just as hard as right-wingers. ",
"I agree but it should say *Propaganda* instead of *Fake News*. Using fake news shows it has a left leaning bias as we connect that term with the right, then it may lead people to believe that propaganda is only something the right uses. Which is misleading because that is incorrect. ",
"They could use this over at r/politics.",
"Surprised \"find an adult\" isn't on there",
"That's not really childish, that's just common sense.\n\nAnd yeah, if you put no effort into your comment, you *shouldn't* care that no one takes it serious. If you want to be taken seriously, cite some sources or some shit. ",
"Just out of curiosity, why? Safari is fast, best for battery life by far, TouchBar support, etc. Is there anything Firefox has over it?",
"No",
"Yeah! I love J.P. I used to think religion was a total load of crap, but after listening to his take on everything I'm OK w those moron Catholics. (Born raised and confirmed Catholic, but still think most people who practice are bafoons)",
"Ok, I was more interested about snopes, as my other comments were defending it. Politifact I can’t speak to but I’ll check this post out.",
"The right is waging a war on science right now, but there are morons on the left too.",
"Or a red card.",
"*eye roll*\n\n",
"Thanks!",
"Yeah. People think they can trust them because they say they \"fact-check\".\n\nBasically they tell you who to believe, and you're supposed to be able to trust them because they tell you to.",
"*you're\n\nAnd shocking, the only way the common redditor knows how to have a conversation is to first search for their Trump Derangement Syndrome trigger, and then make their reference to something that has nothing to do with him. Bravo, psycho. ",
"Yes they are, it’s just a matter of severity. Fox News is the ultimate fake news source but all the major outlets are incredibly biased. Fake news by omission is fake news. ",
"No the alternative isn’t to “not fact check”. The argument was made against “fact check *sites*”. \n\nThe problem with these sites is often that they act as if there is something factually wrong with an argument (usually right wingers), when in reality the facts are right but they’re simply giving their own different conclusions drawn from those facts, and pretend that they have fact checked, as if there was a factual error when there was simply a different opinion. \n\nIndeed, the preferred option is to simply look at different sources with different biases, evaluate who is: firstly, using factual information, and secondly, who is drawing the most sensible conclusions from them. \n\nRemember that “facts” are not “conclusions” \n\n“Trump’s immigration stance is bad” is not a fact, it’s a conclusion you could draw from facts. ",
"As they should be. The \"fact checkers\" at Politico, Politifact, and/or Snopes are generally good at getting the objective facts correct. The problem is that after they give you a rundown on the objective facts that should tell you whether a claim is true or false, they then do a subjective analysis to spin the objective facts to suit whatever story they want told. If \"fact checking\" were just giving the objective facts relating to a claim to the reader and letting them come to their own conclusions, there wouldn't be any problem. Unfortunately, the subjective analysis transforms their work. It becomes opinion at that point, which is dangerous when it's published under the guise of journalism.",
"Is snopes that bad? I've only read 2 or 3 articles on it and they were pretty well cited. ",
"Tbf something outlandish is usually worth learning more about. Why the hell is musk selling flame throwers like that one article said one line about? Oh there's an interesting story behind that. ",
"Thanks for the reply, I was genuinely curious. \n\nI agree that mainstream media is all about ratings. ",
"> Despite snopes and politifact being unbiased\n\nAgain, they're not. A little research would teach you they are nowhere near the standard \"fact checking\" should be held to.",
"Well, that doesn't show anything about lying, which was your claim. I'll take a stab at this though. \n\nFirst claim: Georgia has the lowest minimum wage. Rated Mostly true because it is tied with Wyoming. \n\nSecond claim: Texas unemployment is at the lowest it's been in 40 years, and Texas led the nation last month in job creation. Rated false. \n\nHere's why both ratings are correct: the first claim gets knocked down from True to Mostly True because it ties for lowest in the nation. There is still not a minimum wage lower. Slightly misleading, which is why it got knocked down, because there is no one state with the lowest minimum wage. There are two tied for lowest. \n\nThe second claim actually makes TWO claims. That the unemployment is at the lowest in 40 years, AND that Texas led the nation in job creation. The first part of the claim is right in the middle. The way it is said seems like it does set some record, when it ties. This part _should_ be mostly true. \n\nThe second part, that your source conveniently does not highlight and completely ignores, and is actually the biggest factor here: That Texas led the nation in job creation. Federal data shows that Texas had a **decrease** in jobs during the timeframe Abbott mentions. If there were any states that had positive job creation during the same time period, then his claim is a flat out pants-on-fire lie. \n\nHaving a complete and total lie combined with a technically-true-but-misleading claim takes away the benefit of the doubt there. The first claim gets the benefit of the doubt because it makes one claim that is technically true but slightly misleading, so it only gets knocked down one. The second makes two claims, one a total lie, and one a technically true but misleading. This brings the whole claim down to False. \n\nThere is no lie there at all. Abbott made a blatantly false claim that he knew was a lie. That negates any mostly true claim said in the same breath because they were in the same sentence. Had he said them in two separate sentences, he would have been rated mostly false or mixed. ",
"\"Filter Bubbles\" \n\nLooking at you Instagram, it just keeps giving more inflammatory news and just makes me angry ",
"Lol snopes...",
"That may be applicable in some cases. My experiences have been mostly along the lines of getting the names of involved persons wrong, or identifying the wrong person. There have also been some times where technical details were reported very, very incorrectly. In these cases, I can definitively say that the journo was wrong.",
"\"this thing is non-partisan\"\n\n\"actually this study says otherwise\"\n\n\"stop it\"\n\nThis is peak reddit.",
"It would be easy to link to that... ",
"I feel it man. All you wanted was to share but got bombarded with idiots with no common sense or trolls",
"That's some advanced paranoia. ",
"Yep, there's open-minded and then there's ignoring your brain completely.",
"Give this to Trump. Haha",
"> the world was ending in 2012\n\nis that to differentiate from the multiple predictions of the return of jesus and the beginning of the end times from right-wing evangelical cults?\n\nSince when was 2012 a leftist phenomenon in the first place? This is the first I've heard that.",
"Sad that this has to even be explained.",
"Nothing is ever neutral. How we possibly have a completely unbiased news source? It's literally impossible. \nDo they just cover both side equally? Do they have to have the same amount of negative and positive comments about each side and each issue? \n\nNews is written and checked by people and people have a bias one way or the other. \n\nPeople needs to stop worrying about leanings and bias. Let's start by separating easily proven facts from easily disprove lies. \n\n\"I said this yesterday\" \nPhotos and video prove otherwise. \nThere.... that's how you identify fake news. When someone tried to direct a narrative away from the truth, or completely refute something that actually happened. Sometimes it can be hard to prove but often it's fucking absurdly blatant. \n\nStart with that, and you'll sort through 80% of the bullshit. ",
"The problem is when you present fact checking sites as neutral on an card like this and not only that but you *only* present left leaning fact check sites. You can't do that and then be like \"oh but everyone has a little bias!\"",
"It's everywhere on Reddit. And Twitter, and Facebook, etc.",
"I took no issue with your analogy.",
"I feel like the US has turned to a point where other people have to tell other people to not do something bad or rude. It's like an NYC subway but at a grand scale. The fact we need to tell people to think critically is pretty sad.",
"It’s actually hillarious how many people are missing your point completely, and doing exactly what you said shouldn’t: take a biased article/approach and take that as truth, even in this case where the situation is totally hypothetical.\n\nAlmost nothing in this world is truly black & white situation.",
"Daily caller is generally garbage.\n\nThis article might be fine, but daily caller is so often far right garbage that I won't give them the ad revenue. If you have a different source that would be great.\n\nDaily caller pushes a narrative that needs to undermine respected fact checking sources like politifact and snopes, though every are subject to inaccuracies as well. Snopes tries WAY too hard to be fast.",
"I guess you aren’t aware of the fact that red states have higher rates of obesity, welfare, and unemployment relative to blue states. \n\nhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/09/01/the-states-with-the-highest-rates-of-obesity-infographic/\n\nhttp://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8\n\nhttps://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm\n\nI guess you could say the right is full of fat losers who are usually getting fucked by the world. ",
"The thing is, even if everything in that piece of \"journalism\" is true, it still says **ABSOLUTELY NOTHING** about the accuracy of Snopes as a fact-checking site. It's just your standard, garden-variety clickbait muckraking. \n\nSo, yeah, this is a perfect example of attacking the source rather than the veracity of the claims.",
"I think that's his point.",
"Nobody said not to scrutinize, but if an investment banker with 20 years experience and a stellar record in his field tells me it would be a good idea to invest in So and So tech firm, I'll believe him. Nobody can be an expert in everything, and at a certain point, we need to know who we can and can't trust.\n\nWill I still look into So and So before investing? Most definitely. But I'm not going to go through 5 years of my life trying to prove the tip wrong either. \n\nMy issue is the game of degrees. People take being cautious to mean that thinking everything needs the same level of doubt is the right way. However, all this does is make people paranoid and exhausted. The more efficient option is to learn the skills you need to find real honest professionals, and tell them apart from those that wish to misinform you.",
"Be open minded. \n\nBest advise to anyone ever. ",
"Correctomundo.",
"Well everything i spent thousands on for my history degree neatly fit on a bookmark. Fml.",
"Lots of libraries are open on Sundays. The 1-5pm Sunday times tend to be the busiest all week for libraries that are open. The better funded the library is, the more likely it is to be open 7 days per week. ",
"Five of the first eight results in that link disprove your claim. ",
"If any amount of critical thinking were required to pass my gen ed classes in high school, our graduation rates would've plummeted.\n\nMany of the students were so used to being handed the answers that they would've never tolerated being required to think. ",
"Anonymous articles, not anonymous sources",
"No, that's too logical. we can't have that now, can we. Reporting the facts rather than play people for views? absurd and unheard of!",
"We are all on the list on this blessed day",
"Three stories.",
"...but it does help a lot when it comes to checking. Do not avoid them.",
"Oh look, a woman hating Trumpster. You're killfiled too. ",
"Sounds like a lot of work. I'ma just read headlines thanks. ",
"I got banned from them too. I'm not saying its not an echo chamber. I'm saying its not the only one. Far from it.",
"Let me just share this to all of Facebook right quick. ",
"but Sanders was specifically using a figure for youth aged between 17 and 20 who were high school graduates who were not enrolled in further schooling and who were under employed \n\nTrump claimed his figure applies to 'all AA youth' and then tried to justify the claim by citing figures that included as 'unemployed' those people not actually looking for jobs\n\nSo its hardly 'apples vs apples'. Now you could argue that Sanders' description of the figures he used was not entirely accurate (should have used 'underemployed' rather than 'real rate of unemployment', possible - although plenty of people understand that the technical definition of 'unemployed' does not capture underemployment and that the phrase 'real rate' is used for that purpose). But his statistics were accurate\n\nTrump's statistics were not accurate at all. He specifically used 'unemployment' and then tried to use completely irrelevant numbers to justify his position. ",
"Basically. Bypass western media",
"“Snopes?!? My son/niece/grandchildren always link to that liberal rag when I post about Obama being from Kenya and Hilary running a pedophile sex ring! This can’t be real if it supports a liberal rag like that!!!!”",
"Is this a scientific question or a philosophical question",
"Most important:\n\nConsult and compare competing sources",
"Me too man. ",
"Trust these sites that are questionably funded and are looking to profit, they'll tell the truth!",
"R/fellowkids",
"Trumpies don't read much.",
"Wow, this is like a warning you should get before going into /r/politics",
"There is zero evidence of this.",
"The problem is echo-chambers like the one you reside don't even echo back an opposing truth. Obviously Snopes seems like the best thing ever to you, it affirms that Trump is *always* wrong. \n\nWe both know that's not *always* the case.",
"Lol what? \n\nThey lie, this is proof of their bias",
"...\n\nHe's absolutely right.",
"It's because they can't be arsed to take the time and follow step 5. \n\n\nAnd they think news is supposed to make them feel like they belong to a greater purpose, instead of challenging them to decide for themselves what that purpose is.",
"hhhhhhh",
"I obviously read the article. Your problem, like politifacts, is the comprehension of what you're reading.\n\n>The Obama administration saw the opportunity to use the expected payment as leverage, and refuse to pay the debt until those prisoners were released.\n\nUsing money as leverage to get prisoners. AKA, ransom. Is this hard?",
"I really did not get your comment it appears. What do you mean by \"until reality attends the SOTU\"? I had to look up the bill Nye incident. I don't even know why he was invited when there are more qualified scientists out there. ",
"#5\n\nConsult and compare *competing* sources\n\nSo important ",
"Donald Trump? *The reality show host?* Then who's vice president, Kanye West!? I suppose Rosie O'Donnell is the First Lady!",
">Not sure what point you're making here.\n\nThe irony.",
"I'm so confused. Like this is how I live my life with information and yet 98% of the comments and people here really give the impression they don't. But now this info is front page and people are agreeing with it. What is going on?",
"And this right here is an ad hominem!",
"Politifactbias is also bias against politifact.",
"\"Fact check stories using only these left-leaning sources which totally never write misleading articles\"\n",
"\"check Snopes, politico, politifact...\" \n\nThere's no hope for these people ",
"If only certain elected officials could grasp such a rudimentary concept.",
"Just tell them they concede the original argument since they are starting a new one. Then they will argue that they never conceded so you can try getting back to the original debate. It works about 10% of the time. ",
"Is this guy 9ft tall?",
"Nobody ever accused them of having consistent logic. However, many Christians also believe that the Bill of Rights was written by Christian founders acting on their belief in God, and that the rights are God-given. ",
"I don't really look for fact checking sites that are \"right wing\" that defeats the purpose of a fact check. I just know that the ones listed are no where near unbiased. I think the other steps are great. ",
">So how exactly would someone write an article that would get you to acknowledge a racist police department that aims to ramp up violence against blacks due to intentionally hiring people who hate blacks? Or would that just be impossible? That scenario has happened many times across the United States across history.\n\nYou show the evidence? Did the user complain about this? No they didn't. But you don't get to use evidence of *a* racist police chief somewhere, sometime, as proof that *every time* a cop kills a black man it was due to racism. Especially not if both the cop and his superiors are black men, but not otherwise either.",
"These are examples are all funny. This one is a time series vs a matter of fact.\n\nIt's one thing for a tie to occur in the same year as a gauge of the actual state of things. But to imply something is the best it's been in 40 years, when it's been that two other times, is literally false. You'd have to change that 40 number to something else. The implication is also that someone recent and good caused the all time high, but if it's been that way not so long ago and also multiple times then it stops looking so great. ",
"Smells like another Soros plant.",
">Snopes\n\n>Left-leaning\n\n\nPick one ",
">Go straight to the source. If a news article links a study or report, read that too.\n\nThat's step 7.",
"Politics doesn't translate well to every other field. Most investment bankers aren't in a position to take your money, and if they are, you better believe you should question their statements.",
"Facebook Feeds: Follow Step 1, screw the rest of the steps ",
"> Probably money, politics, I don't know.\n\nThat is an excuse why something does not exist. I mean Devon Nunes started a website. The problem is that there has been no 'right-leaning' site like this because none have been able to follow the narrative of both right propaganda and fact. I think it is funny that when a site actually points out what is true, you assume it is biased.\n\n> Similar to the concerted effort to remove conservatives from talk radio? \n\nHave you ever listened to conservative talk radio? They will literally scream about Jesus not wanting poor people to have healthcare... and how Muslim extremists live on every block! Tbh - if there has been an effort to remove conservatives - it's been mostly done by conservatives imo - look at Tomi Lahren.\n\n>There's only black or white, red or blue, and nothing but hate for everyone involved. You may buy into it all, I don't\n\nWell, that's why you find the best news sources you can... and cross verify them.\n\n>No one is telling 100 percent of the story anymore, they are trying to win an argument, that's all.\n\nBut that is not true, news sources are not 'liberal' by nature. They make a living getting viewers (hopefully) by being a good news source. I mean I look at the whole argument that if I had evidence that Hillary Clinton 100% was at fault in Benghazi - I would absolutely turn it over to the FBI, or at the very least a news outlet. I have no such evidence - she gave over 12 hours of testimony. What is the problem with letting Trump speak about Russia to Mueller or any one of the 3 probes into it we know about?",
"No.",
"REMOVE THE FACT CHECK SECTION THAT SUGGEST WEBSITES. THIS WILL BE USED AS AMMO AGAINST THE COMMON SENSE THAT THIS FLYER PREACHES.",
"No, if there's an \"if then\" statement made, and something doesn't fit it, then it's a contradiction to the rule. The rule was made because it was funny, so it doesn't matter.",
"“Don’t believe everything you read.”\n\nK stopped reading I’m good. ",
"Obama supporter version: \"Does the story reflect poorly on Obama? If so, it's fake news.\"\n\n",
"check w/ snopes & politifact? actual LOL",
"I'm a teacher who teaches govt. and history. I posted something like this on my personal Facebook a while back with links to fact checking sites as well as sites that evaluate the political leaning of news sources. I actually had parents of students get upset about this.",
"> To be fair Politico does have a hugely leftist bias.\n\nBias and fake news are combated by the very things in OPs image. You should always corroborate your source, follow the resources used in those articles, and read dissenting views. If you do those things, the name at the top of the page is meaningless... \n\n",
"heh, did you have to copy xkcd word for word? ",
"You are the problem in this world. Die.",
"No. People who believe fake news are at libraries too. Everybody believes fake news.",
"> Holst, Lisa Birgit. “Reading Is Believing.”\n> \n> PC Professional. 7 January 1993 (p. 71).\n\nFind it. Just point me at a library that has a copy.",
"Not as good as every other NFL team is being very generous to how bad they are. People here in Ohio would rather put Ohio State players on the field rather than the Browns at this point, at least they might improve over time, the Browns haven’t improved at all...",
"Source?",
">Wait... so you mean... Iran held the prisoners as leverage to get something they wanted refusing to release them unless they got what they wanted, but this was most definitely not ransom?\n\nNo, in fact that's literally the opposite of what I said. Maybe you're having some trouble understanding this.\n\n* The US was preparing to pay a debt, owed to Iran.\n* Iran was holding some US prisoners\n* The US *halted payment of the debt* until the prisoners were returned.\n\nYou see how that works?\n\n >Regardless of money being previously owed, the money was only paid once the prisoners were released. So... ransom.\n\nNo, that's... not the way that works. I think you have a serious problem understanding the very dictionary definition you're quoting.\n\n* Iran did not ask for payment to release the prisoners.\n* The US was already going to pay Iran the money regardless of the prisoners existing.\n\nIf someone I owe $50 to has a book they took from my house, and I use paying them back the $50 as leverage to return the book, it doesn't magically become a ransom.\n\nHere is a new dictionary definition for you to learn and understand: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/intent",
"And how. It's practically a the_donald brigade up in here.",
"> They're pretty well regarded\n\nFound the echo chamber.",
">snopes politico and politifact\n\nAll liberal paid for sources that have a very poor track record. ",
"> You guys literally distrust the most trustworthy sources of information and third-party sources that report on whether or not sources are trustworthy in the first place\n\nCNN is the least trustworthy ",
"I agree with most of these points but Snopes, Politifacts, and Politico are extremely biased and not reliable for fact checking. ",
"So are state capitals.",
"Yep. \"Don't believe everything you read! Make sure to double check with the Ministry of Truth first!\"",
"An unrealistic news source would be something along the lines of \"Dragons attack Toronto\", not something that leans left or right.\n\nWhat do suffixes / substitutions in a website's name have to do with it's articles validity? \n\nAnonymous authors are a problem, so are anonymous sources that are used daily by the MSM.\n\nSnopes, Politico and Politifact are biased and are fake fact checkers.\n",
"well, thats an unbiased source. I'm convinced",
"[r/coolguides](https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/)",
"Nice. I just avoid CNN. No tip guide required.",
"Packs of wild dogs run most US cities.",
"Local news stations do this all the time. \"Is a contamination in the local water source poisoning us all? Find out at ten!\"",
"Why bother with that when they can pump out clickbait bullshit that their followers lap up? They rake in the advertising money either way. ",
"Great sub for news on how Americans want to lynch black people, organize militias to round up immigrants, recruit right wing terrorists and start a theocracy. You've convinced me. Oh wait, didn't a T_D subscriber kill his dad? And wasn't the Charlottesville neo-nazi rally organized there? Didn't they lie about the death of a young woman? You know, the one who was run over by a T_D poster? \n\nYou're known by the company you keep.",
"You're missing the point... They don't give a shit if you want to cover your ears and scream nothing is true that goes against your political biases unless it has a million sources... They're just going to go about their day, while you keep responding with trivial complaints to my comments. And like I said, expecting them to put that much effort into a reddit comment on the whims of a stranger is absolutely stupid.",
"Actually the person said:\n\n> I'd like a single example of something they got wrong that stands uncorrected. PLEASE! Prove them wrong. I'll be right here waiting.....\n\nwhich is quite different than saying all the articles are true.",
"Nice reframe, Cathy Newman, but I think it's pretty clear from what they typed that they don't trust \"fact checking\" sites because they aren't consistent and will use the exact same set of facts to come to two very different conclusions.",
"“Fact check stories with sites like Snopes...” 😂",
"> Snopes, Politico, and Politifact are objective fact checkers\n\n>-The people that need this card. \n\nFTFY.",
"Really? Point it out to me. Cause all I see is someone linking an article that proves that false. ",
"Oh look, here comes the Pro Trump Religious Super Squad to defend their comrade in arms. You're killfiled too, Trumpster.",
"Oh my sides",
"That's how it works now. Put your blinders back on",
"Whats the lie? \n\nYou CAN'T prove Hilary delete her emails to hide something. The legal definition of proof requires a lot more than you believing it happened. \n\nIt's not about bias. If they claimed she did delete them to hide something that would also be a lie. They have no evidence to back it up. Just because you think it's a lie does not make it a lie. \n\n",
"National Review is the more questionable one... I believe 10+ years ago they were sane-but-conservative reporting. It's just swill now.",
"That sub is shit but nice try. ",
"Snopes probably shouldn't be on there",
"Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep voting Democrat. Hopefully you don't end up supporting the candidate they decide to screw over next.",
"Cite examples or go home.",
"They are on a walkway/second level. There’s a staircase on the left and a lot of libraries have galleries/observation decks on a second level for smaller rooms while the stacks are floor 1.",
"Do you have a better alternative? I think they present their cases fairly and they list all the sources leading to their conclusions. You may as well be saying “lol, thinking is biased, I don’t trust it”",
"Run for Cover by The Killers",
"Where did I suggest I didn't? I read media with wide ranging political opinions, I don't think you can understand the world from one news source. No, I don't agree the NYT and Fox News are vastly dissimilar.\n\nWhat conservative media to you read? If you don't read any I would suggest you shouldn't criticize anyone else for their media habits. ",
"> you get a good grasp of how true or false the claim is\n\nThat is absolutely not true. A lot of shit they claim as \"mostly false\" is nowhere near being able to even prove as such. OPs comment is testament to that falsehood. ",
"What would you recommend instead?",
"Not my fake news ",
"aaand ruined by referring to snopes. Everything else, spot on! Thanks for sharing",
"Do you think that falls on the students though, or are they the cultivated product of the education system?",
"I don't think that's a kid thing exactly. Kids are more prone to it, but it's not something you can count on people to grow out of",
"My dude. Are you fucking kidding me?\n\nAre you really pretending to not realize that Trump wanted to take credit for the debt by mentioning it?\n\nI guess when he also tweeted about Ford bringing back \"jobs, jobs, jobs\", he just wanted to inform people about a business decision made under Obama's economic legislation, and when a Trump presidency wasn't even a possibility. I also assume that if Politifact ranked that tweet as \"Highly Misleading\", it would've seem extremely biased to you.",
"Not to mention probably the biggest blunder CNN pulled so far, which is literally editing out a person’a speech, completely reversing the speaker’s intention.\n\nCNN took a black woman’s speech from a BLM rally, *calling for fellow black people to literally riot*, and turned it into a speech about moderation and holding back. Come on, really?",
"And they cite sources and the end of their articles just like much of Wikipedia. No one wants you to trust Snopes without checking what their sources say. If you doubt them --go look over their sources/source material. ",
"I agree with that, save for the sixth step. ",
"Woman hating Trumpeter? What the fuck? Are you talking about the fact that I hate Graces part in Wolfenstein 2? I'm a Libertarian?\n\nBesides. Killified? You're such a psychopath that you invent bullshit about political rivals and want them killed.\n\nDamn, your insanity is worse than I thought",
"Well it's true. Of course a bleeding heart libtard dipshit will be in favor of anything that gives you confirmation bias.\n\nStop being a lemming and taking sides and think for yourself.",
"Lmao at that statement. Good god. ",
"It is a library for ants. ",
"You're right. I'm sorry. I am going to work on a detailed anaysis of some Snopes articles. Will share when I'm done",
"The world digress to 1984 ",
"> No, it's just that those \"fact-check\" sites are being portrayed as non partisan when they're really not. I'm all for the average person to do more research but you shouldn't put biased sites on there, then.\n\nPolitifact is non-partisan and non-biased though. There is this thing called professionalism and journalistic standards and editorial independence. Plus, you can check all the articles yourself - they give you all their sources. Dismissing them out of hand is more anti-intellectual than trying to frame them for bias.",
"The police do an unbelievably great job based on the actual statistics, but if you visit some websites you’d think there were millions of police deaths a day. ",
"Seriously, you can skip stories with a question mark in the title. It always goes like this: \n\nHeadline: Is there a reason to doubt the official story/ a widespread belief?\n\nArticle: No. ",
"This is media literacy. \n\nThere is no such thing as fake news, there is only media illiteracy. ",
"Be open minded. ask questions\n\n“Close eyes cover ears and start screaming fake news”\n",
"So he's like the most interesting man in the world, but not a marketing ploy to sell gross beer? ",
"I'm sure there are dozens of you!",
"#[**_THE INTERNET IS FOR PORN_**](https://youtu.be/LTJvdGcb7Fs) ",
"Let me check this washingtonpost article on politico.\n\n> Politico founded by former washingtonpost employees.\n\noh.",
"Wow, I knew it was left leaning but never this bad. Thanks for posting those. There goes another \"legit source\" that cant be trusted and wont be using anymore. Will save these for when someone tries to prove something as fact by using them as a source.",
"- \"Both sides!\"\n\n- \"Here's a source that shows how it's really mostly just one side.\"\n\n- \"How does this evidence prove anything? You're absolutely retarded!\"\n\nI don't even... yeah\n\nI don't know if the trolls are getting lazier or stupider, or if this is just the next level of \"post truth\" disinformation - flat out denial of any sense of reason, logic, or respect for empirical reality. Blatant, in-your-face contradiction and refusal of facts. It's... bewildering and exhausting.\n\nBut that's also part of the design. Repetitive, infuriating, distracting, divisive bullshit that eats up everyone's time and attention. Which is why no matter how frustrating it is, it's still really important to *call this shit out*.\n\nSomeone needs to make a bookmark type thingy for identifying troll accounts. Then Reddit needs to have a viable policy for dealing with them, or risk this place devolving into a 4chan-sequel cesspool of nonsense and toxicity that no decent user will patronize.",
"They tend to give sources",
"It really isn't. I know I read stories all the time where you either don't learn the legal status at all without Googling around for it or it's buried in the context of the article.\n\n>But it *has* become a litmus test for outlets that do and don't think of those folks as human beings.\n\nBut empathy is irrelevant to the facts. Empathy is literally bias because it is completely subjective. That doesn't have a place in a factual news report. So the real \"litmus test\" is which outlets can report dispassionately and factually on an event and which ones can't, and the latter should be looked at carefully to determine what's fact and what's emotional interjection.",
"Fe-fi-fo-fake news!",
"A ransom is when money is demanded or paid to release prisoners or property.\n\nThis money was already being paid, regardless of the prisoners existing. \n\nThe intent of the payment doesn't change just because a condition was added to it.\n\nThat's very simple logic for you to understand, how are you failing that?",
"Don't pretend the left doesn't do this either.",
"> Way to brush aside Uranium One scandal, Telecommunications Act of 1993, Storzk and Lisa Page bias, Hillary rigging the DNC primaries with Donna Brazile, shit\n\nOf course I brush aside partisan GOP propaganda \n\n> \"Muh bowf parties are the same\" is a very real statement\n\nThe \"both parties are the same\" BS has been disproven ore times than you can count\n\n\n[If You Think Both Parties Are The Same, This Graph Will Show Why You’re Wron](https://forwardprogressives.com/if-you-think-both-parties-are-the-same-this-graph-will-show-why-youre-wrong/)\n\n[/u/ohaioohio addresses the accusation that \"both parties are pretty much the same\" by listing Republican and Democrat voting records on numerous issues popular with reddit, eg Net Neutrality, money in politics etc](https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6pc5qu/democrats_propose_rules_to_break_up_broadband/dkon8t4/)",
"Like virtually all rich attractive actors and virtually all rich attractive athletes?",
"I'm curious, twat waffle, how do people like you interact in real life when you don't have that profile search function? When a real life person makes a comment that literally has nothing to do with Trump, are you just so programmed that you spew your blind hatred and nonsense completely off topic? It must be a tough life to be so overwhelmed by having Trump in your head 24/7.",
"LOL nice cherry picking bud. If thats all you believe the DNC has done then theres no hope for you. I'm also not republican.",
"well if im going to snopes to check if something is true or not im taking the snopes people word for it for sure, so the same criteria still apply\n\nthey are either providing sources that are legit or they arent\n\nso i feel like any human adult would be able to parse that i dunno just me",
"Completely agree. Are they bias? Most people are, and I would say yes. Are they wrong? Not to my knowledge. Like everything else, I look at the fact pattern, and then I will determine how true or false it is. They do a good job with presenting the facts, I don't need them to tell me the conclusion. Bias also includes what you cover and write about. I can make 100 stories that are completely true that support either left ideology or right ideology. If what I say is 100% true, it doesn't mean I'm not bias.\n\nEdit: Grammar",
"The flamethrower is pretty Boring though.",
"Apparently we do care",
"This is a garbage website, with garbage examples, by someone with an axe to grind. Speaking of \"comically biased.\"",
"The term \"Fake News\" was originally created by the left you know.",
"Well, for one example, they originally treated the now infamous \"If you like your plan you can keep your plan\" statement to true. It eventually was rated by them to be the lie of the year.\n\nBut I think most conservatives take issue with how they rate statements. They would say that democrats seem to get the benefit of the doubt and get the \"half true\" or \"mostly true\" ratings when Republicans get the \"mostly false\" rating. Even if the statements are similar in nature. ",
"I agree with every one except the fact check one. All sites listed are very left leaning. There are times where 2 politicians say essentialloy the same thing, and the one on the left gets a good mark, and the one on the right gets a failing mark\n\nI think a better way is to find the same story on left leaning sites and on right leaning sites. Wherever the stories are in agreement, theres the truth. ",
"Except for the times it kinda doesn't? I'll give you that a large amount of the conservative base has their heads up their asses, but everything should be case by case and people really should stop feeling high and might when they or \"their people\" are right. ",
"\"The national debt in my first month went down by $12 billion.\"\n\nThey admit that this is true, so how does it get a \"Mostly False\" rating? What part of that is false? I don't see him claiming that he was responsible for doing it, just that it happened.",
"I never said it was right. I said I can understand his justification. Competition. I understand your point of view and generally agree.",
"Part 3 isn't great. The Economist doesn't credit their writers per article (partially because most of them are written by a lot of people), and they might be the most reliable large news source.",
"Sure, but over there at the_donald, they have extensively researched this issue, using the finest 4chan posts, and proved that Sweden is indeed full of no-go zones, and that Michelle Obama is a man. Who are you gonna believe, that liberal propaganda Snopes, or a respected and measured outlet such as the_donald?",
"> what police call “problem areas” are places where criminals have basically set up a parallel society. It presents a challenge to the work of investigators...because they do not communicate or cooperate with police. ",
"Anonymous sources.",
"Goodness me you made that chap rather grumpy. I'm afraid I can't give his opinion any respect since he missed the opportunity to say you Force your fanboyism into every conversation. Sorry, I'll get my coat.",
"It's sad to realize that this advice is utterly useless with the vast majority of the American public, including myself. We're too impatient, and enjoy feeding our biases too much. I'm trying to be better, but I hardly notice when I do it.",
"The claims are independently verifiable elsewhere. *Is that source wrong?*\n\nIf you find that they are wrong, *or if you simply take issue with the source on face,* you should still deal WITH EVERYTHING ELSE in that post. Just whining about a source you don't like doesn't refute analysis that doesn't stand on that source. \n\nSnopes is a darling of the left, so one would be hard pressed to find a source that plays to your preferred confirmation bias which is critical of it. *Indeed, for any source presented, one can always complain about the bona fides of that source.*\n\nSo long as we are only willing to consider information from our \"tribe\" we will be trapped in an echo chamber of Huffpo and Fox News. If you really want to know what is going on, then you have to accept that, *for some purposes*, BBC, Russia Today, Al Jazeera, Fox News, etc., will state some facts or investigate some stories that other sources don't. \n\nSome of what that card gets right is \n\n>Consult and compare competing sources. \n\nand \n\n>Dig deeper. \n\nwhich is funny, because it ONLY recommends \"fact-checking\" with \"lefty\" sources. \n\nEven funnier is \n\n>Check the author's credentials.\n\nbecause Snopes has NO special credentials. **They are people who Google shit.** \n\nCheck with Snopes and Politico, shouldn't even be on the list, because they are lazy shortcuts. \n ",
"\"Did it appear in your Facebook news feed?\"",
"So your evidence of this is an article of Daily Caller basically exposing themselves as the original liars and then trying to catch snopes on one of the many pictures they posted as being liars?\n\nThe daily caller lied, there were flags on stage \n\n\"No Visible American Flags Present At The Democrat Convention\n\"\n\nWas the title of their article, what you linked is little more than an attempt by the website to save face and \"both sides\" the situation.",
"...by right-wing partisans who get salty when you fact check them.",
"I'm not saying it's biased. I don't know how you'd take it that I was.",
"I don't have to pretend..... pretending what the truth is is a right-wing phenomenon ",
"They tend to list their sources though. Nice try.",
"They’re on a balcony",
"So you're mad they didn't spoon feed you the answer in an exercise deliberately designed to show you that you shouldn't expect to be spoon fed answers",
"You can question shit but when someone says something that is easy enough to google (so that you can review the various sources for yourself, which is better than being linked something anyway), or makes statements based off of easy to review or search for news articles then it's not surprising that they don't engage further with lazy people who clearly aren't interested in having an actual, reasoned discussion. Googling things is easy, it's only when you refer to specific sets of data that things generally require a direct reference for.",
"Yeah, that's what happens when one party spits more bullshit than the other. The truth develops a bias. (ironically the people that run snopes are conservatives) ",
"I mean, a progressive bias, technically. But.. yeah, they obviously do.",
"In my observation, 77% of the cases where a site asks me to turn off my ad-blocker are on sites which auto-play videos. I just leave it on for good measure, and I'll take it a step further and actively block the video elements in uBlock Origin as an extra \"fuck you\" to the ones that slip through.",
"I just feel bad for any young Presidental children. Barron is what? 12/13? Nobody at that age needs to be in front of the cameras. You are awkward and weird. Maybe the kid is shy.\n\n\nThe grown up ones are fair fucking game, because they stuck their heads out. Like Tiffany is only fun because they don’t remember she exists, DJ, Ivanka and Eric all opened their mouths. ",
"Better. So how does this prove your point?",
"Ehh... Those at the top who are taking advantage of people, for sure. But I think the general public would like a more educated general public, and since we all have a voice now, I think it is possible to educate one another more so than any other time in history.",
"Try reading the article or better yet the [study] (http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/) it's referring to before making claims",
"great advices, but... \nit's sad that we live in a world you need to give others advices like these ;/",
"The left wing thought bubble is what you're describing.",
"They are targeting to an audience that can handle the subtlety required for more complex thought. I prefer they don't dumb things down simply from preventing the red team - blue team people from crying on the internet.",
"Maybe because the formor title is eye catching and gets clicks. Plus it's a common article title archetype. As for the first note, you should be happy he resigned then. Looks like CNN is keeping itself honest. \n\nLook, journalists are people, and journalistic empires are just like anything else made out of people, fallible. The answer isn't to distrust everything that comes out of them. The answer is to just check sources, and know when a story is made to inform, and when it's made to titalate. ",
"Anything hosted on Wikia is ad-riddled garbage. I wish game creators hosted their own wikis as a service to the users.",
"Source?",
"My point is that they think those sites \n>will use the exact same set of facts to come to two very different conclusions.\n\nbecause they dont read past the headline.\n\nMy point is that if he had read past the headline he'd see thats not what happened.\n\nOr maybe he wouldnt. Maybe hes like you and has no reading comprehension anyway.",
"I wish I knew what company made those... Would leave them everywhere! ",
"To loosely quote someone else earlier on in this sub-reddit: Humans are not infallible truth machines. \n\nIndeed, we’re not infallible or machines at all. If you were to expect another human being to be, then you’d be opening yourself up to fake news in the first place. What you’re doing right now is looking down on someone for not meeting a standard that is, as a human being, entirely impossible. We are inherently biased creatures.\n\nHuman beings are allowed to cry if they believe that everything they’ve been working for (for months, maybe years) has been for naught. Say, like maybe trying to spread support for a certain candidate in a presidential race. They’re allowed to believe (falsely or not) that the person that has just been elected will wreak havoc on their nation and uproot all they fight for. But even more than all of those things, human beings are allowed to make mistakes. Even mistakes as big as crying on television when they’re supposed to be comporting themselves professionally. It doesn’t matter whether or not you agree with why they were crying. Those tears come from a real place within a real person. Have some fucking empathy.\n\nDon’t expect everyone else to do your thinking for you. If you know news anchors are biased and if you know that the people that write articles are biased, then use your head to try to figure out *why* they are saying/writing what they are saying/wring. Figure out why they believe what they do. (Most of the time these people really do believe what they’re reporting for some reason or another. They’re not ‘out to get you’.) Once you know why, you can tease apart opinion and truth on your own without becoming a mistrusting, jaded individual. \n\nAnd when you do see cognitive dissonance, do try to call it out without calling someone an idiot or otherwise belittling them. It’s difficult to temper something your unconscious quite literally steers you away from consciously noticing. Pointing fingers only raises hackles and makes people that much less likely to realize their mistake. (Like you might be with reading this particular paragraph after my other comments above? The irony! Easier said than done, I suppose.)\n\nEdit: Word choice",
"What would you suggest instead?",
"She literally smashed phones with hammers to get rid of evidence when told to hand them over\n\nYou don't smash phones with hammers unless you're hiding something ",
"There is clearly a president that uses his leverage to push fake and purposely misleading stories all the time.\n\nAt a rate about 100x higher than the news media outlets you whine about so much.\n\nBut you don't care about that part.",
"I don't know if you are serious or not. But I think some other people may be.\n\nTake a good look at the left side of the picture. Those are stairs. He's standing on a balcony, overlooking the first floor of the library.",
"I didn't much like how some people reacted to Bill Nye attending and was making a bit of a jab at that. And of course there are much more qualified scientists out there, but Bill is a celebrity science advocate.",
"Did somebody mention two broken arms?",
"The problem is, there wasn’t collusion. If there was we would know about it by now. Talking to some Russians isn’t collusion. And even so, that isn’t a crime. But if you’ve been paying attention, it has come out that that was a setup by fusion GPS. The entire thing was a setup.\n\nI’m a lawyer. I also worked for the doj once upon a time. This entire thing was the weaponization of government against trump. Have you been paying attention? MSNBC isn’t reporting this. This is bigger than watergate and as soon as the tides turned, notice how the media went quiet on this? \n\nFurther, business deals or Trying to do business deals in Russia isn’t a crime. The left wing media is trying to make you believe that. The fact is, You don’t use the government illegally against political opponents like the obama admin did. That’s a constitutional crisis \n\nAmazing — and hardly any coverage—despite damning evidence! Yet the first six months of his presidency non stop trump Russia stories that were all bs.\n\nDigging up process crimes on other people also isn’t collusion and the cases will likely get tossed because the entire basis was founded on a fraudulent basis.\n\nThis isn’t a peaceful transfer of power and this goes beyond left or right at this point. The obama administration weaponized the forces of government against a political opponent illegally and used cooked up evidence to do so! ",
"I'm an academic librarian at a community college and I still cover information literacy in every library information session I teach. I also give a copy of the CRAAP test with every class. ",
"You are mentally deranged.\n\nAntistar is a music by massive attack. 88 is my birth year.",
"The amount of mental gymnastics you are going through to attempt to paint this as anything other than ransom is impressive.\n\nThe previously owed portion could not possibly be less relevant. Would the US have paid 400 million if the prisoners were not released?\n\nNo.\n\nDid they pay it once the prisoners were released? \n\nYes.\n\nDid the US hold the 400 million dollars in ransom from Iran in order to get what they wanted? \n\nYes.\n\nDid Iran release the prisoners only so they could get the 400 million?\n\nYes.\n\nWould Iran have released the prisoners without the 400 million?\n\nNo.\n\nYou are grasping at straws when you claim it is not ransom because Iran specifically didn't ask for the 400 million. The only reason Iran took these people captive in the first place was to gain leverage over the US and ransom these US citizens back to it.",
"I read the economist and the wsj. And if you don't agree that fox and the NYT are vastly dissimilar then you don't care about objectivity or journalistic ethics except when it's convenient for you politically. Which is exactly the transparent hypocrisy that drives me nuts which you say doesn't apply to you. ",
"And if you never listen to their argument, they'll never change their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are...",
"Where is the line for “Does the information appear on reddit?” ",
"Snopes, Politico, and Politifact are all partisan, and have all got caught with their pants down rooting for left wing causes. ",
"They will literally scream about Jesus not wanting poor people to have healthcare...\n\nUhh, wut?",
"His statement doesn't say he was responsible though. Are they rating him \"Mostly False\" based on interpretation rather than objective facts?",
"You are so full of shit . We have a large tent. We welcome both sjws and scientists. You welcome the religious right. Prove me wrong.",
"basically every msm article is anonymous this, person who thinks similar that, anonymous former this, etc.. snopes, politico and the other one are garbage af. if you fact check with snopes, you're doing fact checking wrong.",
"No, it's just that the op of this comment thread said something about fake news being partisan, but left-wingers also believe in BS. not that 2012 is left-wing BS, it's just non-partisan BS. ",
"And words like “anonymous” and “credentials” exceed their syllabic capacity. ",
"Not in Texas",
"I’m pretty centrist (and do not watch Fox News) and I can identify CNN as having a leftist bias. CNN is more incompetent and dishonest than biased, though. ",
"You're in MASSIVE denial right now. How can you possibly act like the extreme left doesn't exist? That's what this dude is talking about.\n\nExtreme right and extreme left obviously exist. People just overestimate their numbers and they get outsize coverage because their viewpoints are so easy to mock.",
"You know what's scary regardless of what you believe. I just tried to find a fact check where snopes directly contradicted itself by calling a statement they themselves recognized as true, but they mark it as false.\n\nSo to find this I opened Google and typed in (snopes contradiction) knowing that it is pretty well known that they make blatant false claims on occasion. The search took me to no negative articles on snopes. None, not one. Switched to Bing and it found exactly what I'm talking about.\n\nIt's frightening that Google has so much power to censor what we see to shape opinions. Especially the opinion of children or young people who don't know better. ",
"And that is why you always have a safe word. ",
"Or, like, leaning over a second story railing, dummy. ",
"Bias should be weeded out by the critical thought explained in the bookmark. It's odd so many here simply are not getting this. \n\nBias, fake news, etc... are mitigated when you take these steps. The name at the top of the web page is nearly meaningless when these steps are employed. \n\nShunning entire news sources simply due to a belief of slight bias doesn't make sense to me. \n\nDo you believe Politico is biased in the same way Breitbart is? Does it matter which one is more *factual*, biased or not?",
"Didn’t say it’s right or wrong, it’s just how it is. People don’t like boring. ",
"Ah, I see. We're at the classic bugaboo for Trump Loving Conservatives. \"That we found one thing wrong/false with a media company means every single thing the media company says is fake news\".\n\nTypical Republican/Russian propaganda point used for demonizing the media.\n\nPathetic. ",
"Actually this is kind of backwards. You do this to find non fake news. The vast majority of news you see is fake or at least so biased its worthless. You're better off just assuming everything you hear or read is a load of crap and verify everything (if you care at all) even if its from a news source you normally trust. \n\nNo one cares about informing you any more, only recruiting you.",
"You should dig deeper into the validity of a source by not going to convenient TL;DR sites like Snopes or Politifact. Digging isn't supposed to be easy.\n",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/the_asshole/comments/7wwue6/politifact_fake_news_compilation/",
"Oh you came back with evidence proving our agenda. Better say its cherry picking.",
"Don't be so sure. You could be a very smart dude who studies something like neuroscience or whatever in a library, then you stumble upon an article that says something like \"Hillary wants to fist babies and use them as boxing gloves to beat other babies\" and your confirmation bias kicks in. ",
"So does reality. Especially in the age of Trump",
"CNN's favorite source",
"Exactly. We've seen a huge increase in \"anonymous\" reports and sources and most of the information is either completely false or so salacious that it will never be confirmed. For example: reports of Trump firing Rex Tillerson, Comey expected to say Trump is under investigation, Scaramucci Russian \"ties\" that resulted in the resigning of three CNN reporters, etc",
"Fair point, but they and the AP are generally considered among the least biased sources. So it's funny but not in a good way to see people say they think these sites are liberal scum, then tune in to Fox & Friends. ",
"Who is your daddy and who does he work for!!",
"It’s a trap!",
"Did...did Spacey diddle the king of Norway? ",
"Hm",
"Boy, you need to go back and read the article again.\n\nYou've just literally explained how you're making a post hoc fallacy.",
"Or liberal, or progressive, or left wing at all. It'd be purely neutral.",
"RNC has an anti truth bias. They say global warming is false, and they're wrong. They say evolution is fake, and they're wrong. They say trickle down economics works, and they're lying. They say everyone who gets a raw deal is lazy, and they're emotionally manipulating you. They rely on fake news as a political strategy. \n\nFacts have a liberal bias. Any fact checker worth a damn is going to call them out on their bullshit",
"Yep! And recent studies suggest that Conservitive news articles tend to be shared more widely than liberal ones. ",
"Unfortunately though, the fake, biased news is the news we see on popular tv channels every day. ",
"Watch this video\n\nhttps://youtu.be/OjlKIjLWq-Y",
"Lmao this is so desperate",
"Wait, an organisation is? So should I not use medications from Pfizer because they have dodgy business practices? Are you saying that taking the drugs my doctor prescribes is a dangerous choice because someone further up the food chain can be unscrupulous? Because what you ARE saying is that the boss of an organisation is the only influence on the trustworthiness of the organisation.",
"1-5",
">Snopes, Politico and Politifact\n\nLet me guess: Fox, Breitbart and whatever garbage Nunes is putting out now?",
"The reputable fact check sites - the ones listed - might not be bulletproof, but they're a fantastic tool that improve things a lot. There was a This American Life episode about someone trying to make up their mind about a refugee issue in a small Alaskan town that had none (!), and came to believe absurdly false things because he found articles on Breitbart.com spouting them, and he'd \"heard the New York Times was biased\". This was a generally apolitical, not firebrand person, who changed his view when given the opportunity to speak to a BBC reporter about the questions he was asking himself.\n\n**tl;dr** Point is, people are fucking bad at conducting research, fact check sites make everything a lot better, and you can double check their sources and reasoning yourself.",
"Red states also have the highest minority populations so I don't think calling them dumb on reddit isn't the best idea unless you want to be called a racist.",
"Beware “filter bubbles”\n\nI’d say that accurately describes the current political climate...",
"And snopes.",
"Snops, Politico or Politifact. LOL all three sites totaly discredited as leftist owned propaganda websites. ",
"Y'all ever consider that he might just be taking the picture looking down from the 2nd floor 🤔",
"Nope.\n\nReality just tends to have a liberal bias. Economics, philosophy, culture...",
"Here's the thing...",
"They aren’t saying it’s automatically fake. ",
"Thanks for clearing that up",
"> Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy\n\nI don't think he made the fallacy, because the State Departments words were used. He didn't invent the causation. He is interpreting that causation from the State Department's words, which directly state that there was explicit causation.\n\n>Negotiators took advantage of the convergence in order to ensure that Iran returned the prisoners by withholding the payment until the American detainees were in the air and headed out of Iran.\n\nThe payment was made conditional for release of the prisoners. That is a literal ransom. A ransom can be a payment for OR demanded by the captors. Because the payment was already owed, but the delivery was conditional, this is 100% still a ransom. \n\nIf your boss says, \"I owe you this performance bonus, but I won't pay until you close this important client\" your boss is holding that bonus ransom. Even though it may be your bonus, and it may already be your job to close the client, the delivery of the bonus was made conditional.",
"Next you'll tell me Facebook isn't the arbiter of truth!",
"Just using snopes as an example: their truth grading scale is extremely susceptible to bias, where \"mostly true\" and \"somewhat true\" are subjective differences where some might say that \"somewhat true\" is also \"somewhat false\". I don't think they are helpful at all. If looking for real sources, use scholarly articles and books, not the internet. Plus, omission of truth is also a form of lying, which is common even in history books read in public schools.",
"Dude, what are you talking about",
"All the non-liberals wondering why liberals don't trust your complaints about fact checking sites, this comment is a prime example. If you can't understand the nuance in either claims, and don't read beyond the headline, don't bother to comment.",
"These are great tips that promote critical thinking. Every little bit helps. I forwarded this image to my family who could all benefit from just passively absorbing whatever their favorite news channel tells them. Thanks for sharing this OP :)",
"> yet in reality\n\nWho's reality? Where's your proof? Have you seen this memo, compared with other (R) memo and fact checked it yourself. \nIt's already been proven that the (R) memo that was released was changed after the senate voted on it. Regardless of the severity of those changes, it's a bit shitty to that and certainly doesn't \"look\" good. \n\nYou're countering \"fake news\" and \"bias\" with your own bias. You've proven nothing. \n\nThe two headlines you gave as an example are flat out true. It's not fake news. He blocked it. Neither of those headlines claim to say why. \n\nYour \"should read\" headline proposes a reason and draws a completely unsubstantiated, hypothetical conclusion. There's zero proof or promise that it will ever be released. He could just as easily block it forever. \nThat's the exact definition of fake news. Making up alternative facts that draw a conclusion, can't be proven and drive a biased narrative. \n",
"I know, i saw in the link. All of the stories seem to be about spin. Im not sure how that invalidates my previous statement. ",
"The part about fact checking with snopes or politifact...liberal spinning Shill machines.",
"There definitely is. A great example of fake news that targeted the left around election time was a bogus quote from Trump with some comment about how he'd only run as a republican because they are the \"dumbest group of voters.\" That was, simply put, totally fake news, and[ Snopes did its part in disproving that one.](https://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/)\n\nBut it would be a mistake to equate both sides when it comes to the creation and spread of fake news. A recent study from the University of Oxford shows that [liberals don't share or believe fake news as much as those on the right.](http://www.newsweek.com/liberals-dont-share-believe-fake-news-much-right-wing-study-finds-800219) ",
"In what world do you live where *Politico* is *leftist?* They do not give a damn about ideology, they're all about the horse race.",
"Yeah, only trust websites with truth or freedom in the name.",
"I don't understand how the left pretends to have higher moral ground when they say things like this. I honestly find republicans much more welcoming and kind.",
"Again its me? Again? What is that in response to?\n\nIm saying that this flyer offers good advice, but that many people will take the laziest path possible and just check snopes and be done with their \"research\", instead of putting any effort into it.",
"Lol great rebuttal",
"For some strange reason libraries tend to have in door balconies in them. ",
"Yeah same here, but if my phone doesn't vibrate and open 3 windows, and I don't win an iPad or an iPhone, then I don't trust that website. I personally like when I have to struggle to tap the tiny x with no discernible hit box in order to read the article. If you're not fighting for your content, then it isn't worth your time.",
"What CNN did back then was disgusting imho. They turned an issue everyone can agree on, that the American police is too militarized, too trigger happy and too aggressive, into a \"blacks vs whites\" issue, which insured that nothing would actually get discussed since racists from both sides jumped onto the bandwagon and made a whole shitshow out of the event.",
"#1: If it's on Facebook, it's fake.",
"To be clear, though, tu quoque is only fallacious when used to argue something isn't bad/wrong because others have done similar (as those similar acts could also be bad/wrong).\n\nTu quoque is, however, an acceptable way to rebut arguments that something is unprecedented or violates norms. \n\nI just feel like when people on the internet discover logical fallacies they tend to take them too far, using them well beyond their utility. I've seen a lot of people instinctively react to \"it's a slippery slope\" arguments with \"that's a fallacy\" when in fact it is perfectly reasonable to oppose something because you think it's a slippery slope . . . it's only fallacious to use the slippery slope argument to say something is inherently bad because things it may lead to are bad.",
"A big problem is that it is hard to discern what is fact and what is political bias. Also, Snopes is a terrible place to get your facts from. They are opinion based and politically charged. They have put a huge left leaning spin on every political topic they've looked at and I doubt that will ever change.",
"If you think the Economist is conservative you are a whack job. So you read exclusively Trump-bashing \"conservative\" media? How so diverse of you!",
"Honestly its a travesty. When win 10 was brand new edge was actually impressive. Somewhere around when win 10 was first being forcefully pushed is when edge started to slow the fuck down. \n\nLike a kid trying so hard to be nothing like his parents (IE) and then turning into them in the end anyway.",
"He's the best God damned salesman to ever grace photocopiers. I tell ya, we did a tour in Afghanistan together, we found ourselves in an opium den and got stoned up to our eyelids. I got kidnapped and sold into slavery in that new fangled Caliphate they have, and when I got rescued I get home to find Bill Brasky sitting on my porch counting money he got from selling me into slavery. God bless him.",
"To be fair, right wingers on reddit don't do themselves favors as far as open-mindedness goes. I'm sure it's at least partially because the online presence in general is left leaning and therefore defensiveness is more reflexive for the right wing, but I don't believe it's entirely at fault for that by my real life experiences, and there's absolutely a degree of anti-intellectualism and anti-discussion and analysis present in the right wing. There are open-minded people on both sides and closed-minded people on both sides, but it's clearly not an even split.",
"Oh God that was so much worse. \"Please pay negative attention to me on the internet\"",
"Need a jolly rancher?",
"All three of those sites are leftist owned propaganda machines. Your point is invalid. ",
"thank you ",
"Sounds like that question would fit better on a finance or tax subreddit, nothing really political about it. ",
"r/thingsForAnts",
"Where was the good argument? He made a claim and failed to back it up, when asked for proof. If such a poor job of articulating his point is enough to sway you, I would argue deep down you already had made your mind up on the issue. ",
"Yeah bill likely got many children in to science fields over the years. ",
"No, it's definitely partisan.\n\nHere is one glaring example I remember from the 2016 campaign. Bernie and Trump both made similar claims about the unemployment rate of \"black youth\". PolitiFact decided to use two very different age ranges to define \"black youth\" when \"fact checking\" each. For Trump, they said he lied because it was way under 50%. For Bernie, they said it was true and likely higher than 50%. If I hadn't just read one a few days before the other, I might not have noticed.\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/\n\n>Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics.\n>\n>We rate his statement Mostly False.\n\n \n \n\n>Sanders’ choice of statistics actually understated his broader point. Since it’s reasonable to assume that dropouts have an even higher unemployment rate than high-school graduates, the figure for \"young people who have graduated high school or dropped out of high school,\" as he put it, is probably even higher than 51 percent, since that figure includes only high school graduates.",
"Yep. Over on that one angry political sub they believe those sites are out to spread globalism",
"Hmm source?",
"\"Don't go to infowars if you're a liberal. You'll return salty AF.\"\n\nNo shit.",
"Unfortunately people who go to the library aren't the ones who need to read this.",
"Herein lies the problem: Snopes, Politico and Politifact are all considered liberal left-wing Jew owned sites. The alt-right have insulated themselves from any form of reality.",
"Don't forget that politico was created by former washingtonpost employees and they were embroiled in a \"pay for play\" advertising scandal. \n\n\nhttp://www.newsweek.com/mike-allen-chelsea-clinton-gawker-story-apologizes-399475\n\nhttps://www.salon.com/2013/12/19/hack_list_no_1_mike_allen/\n\n\nThe fact that snopes, politico and politifact ( owned by liberal newspaper company ) is some idiot librarians idea of \"fact checking\" just shows what a joke OP's post is. \n",
">How about you do what historians have done for ages and use multiple sources? \n\nHow about you pose an actual argument against what I said? All of the recommended sites in the card are left leaning. Recommending that I use multiple sources doesnt follow logically because we are challenging what is being recommended on the card and nothing has been said about our personal methods of fact checking.\n\n> Arguing that one source is/may be biased is neither new nor particularly insightful.\n\nWhether it is new or not has no relevance to the matter. Arguing that they are biased is significantly relevant to the matter because they are being recommended as authorities. This poses a significant problem because, people such as yourself, will go to all three sites and think that you have looked at \"multiple sources\", when in reality you have only looked at \"mutiple sources\" that have the same exact bias and so you have done nothing test the integrity of a fact. What one should do is to check multiple sources that come from authors with **different biases.** ",
"Interesting is a non word, and this site isn't using good sourcing to back up their arguments. If you're headed there then you've already made up your mind that you don't trust things that you don't like. \n\nIt's fine if you're biased, but stop sharing your biased source all over this thread.",
"> They have a very strong 'team' mentality in politics where their side is always right no matter what.\n\nAnd that's why your side is always right ;) Yeah team!",
"According to OP's librarian, yes. ",
"You linked Forward Progressives you fucking idiot. How less self aware can you get? ",
"Politico and snopes lolz",
"You are absolutely right, however, Fox was not mentioned on the bookmark and isn't particularly relevant to this conversation.\n",
"Yes, because pizzagate is totally real and Hillary Clinton is running a shadow presidency, right?",
"False... They are far more trustworthy than Fox news, Drudge Report, etc. and this can be assessed. I'm trying to write a paper right now, but I'll link you some sources a little later.\n\nOn another note, I've seen you around quite often. I believe on /r/politics\n\nAlso, can you comment upon the material I linked in regard to political shittiness? I did my rhetorical due diligence on yours",
"Don't believe in those so called \"authenticator's\", remember the credit agency's and the loan debacle? Live by \" buyer beware\" or in this case reader beware. We can do this!",
"The bookmark is basically propaganda for that reason. Most people won't recognize that though because they hate the right so much.",
"He’s on some kind of balcony. This looks like a pretty upscale library",
"Go straight to the cited source in an article until you get the raw source. If an article can’t provide it, don’t trust it",
"Or life just tends to have a liberal bias.\n\nEver thought about the fact all of these come across as 'liberal' is because that's the reality in most cases.\n\nI'd love to see someone try to create a right wing 'fact' check website...",
"If I call someone an illegal alien I still think of them as a person. A person who had broken a law. When you break the law, you pay the price.\n\nPer our laws, illegals get deported.\n\nIt's that simple, sweetheart.",
"Very well said.",
">If in reality there are an equal amount of lies from both sides\n\nThat's a pretty big \"If\"",
"Dude what you saw there was standard PR operations **that Republicans 100%, guaranteed conduct exactly the same way.** People don't just jump on media unprepared and spontaneously, it's a give and take between the relevant parties where they try to gain advantages. This goes for all politicians, no exceptions.",
"Isn't it fun to portray one's own biases as enlightened intellectualism so that you can dismiss anyone critical of your whole meta-narrative as an idiotic, anti-intellectual bafoon not interested in truth... ",
"If you look closely you can see a set of stairs, they are most likely on the 1st level leaning over the balcony railing taking the photo 👍",
"Lies are not \"an opposing truth.\" Snopes links their sources; you can click through and read for yourself.\n\nAnd you've set up and knocked down a strawman here, congratulations. I said Trump lies about nearly everything, not that he's always wrong. That is true whether or not Snopes exists.",
"No, the key is getting your information from multiple sources with opposing biases to create your own picture of the whole truth.",
"A grocery store has more employees than snopes does. I'll hope that you can rub your two braincells together hard enough to understand why that's relevant.",
"No, I’m not wrong. ",
"Here's the game we're playing, which is what I'll refer to as an Internet Argument. I presented an argument, and then you disagreed, which was both of our prerogatives. I sited a few studies that supported my point of view, and then you deemed them imprecise, as one is wont to do in an Internet Argument. You might have also dismissed them as suspect sources, or dated, or relying upon erroneous data, or just ignored my response altogether. You will never have said, \"Hey yeah, cheers. Thanks for the link.\" Because this is an Internet Argument. \n\nInstead of disagreeing with you, which I did, I just linked a study that exactly reinforced my argument, which is that the right is more susceptible to fake news. My study said that the right is disproportionately targeted by fake news, disproportionately circulates fake news, and disproportionately consumes fake news. This satisfies by criteria for \"susceptible,\" but it will never satisfy yours. Because we're in an Internet Argument. And nobody wins an Internet Argument. We don't want to be convinced we're wrong, we want to convince somebody else that we're right.\n\nThere are no sources I could find that will relieve you of your disagreement with my premise, which is consistent with my non-scientific theory that Internet Arguments are a complete waste of everyone's time. \n\nLet's just agree that there is no evidence that the left and right are equally susceptible to fake news, and that to claim otherwise--to claim that fake news isn't partisan--is not a statement that has been particularly well-supported in this conversation. It is not a statement that is easy to support with scientific data, as best as I can tell. \n\nLet's also agree that false equivalencies are destructive. I like this quotation from Isaac Asimov:\n\n>When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.",
"Whereabouts do you live? ",
"Some guy from Sweden. OOOOOoooh. Great source.\n\n",
">This money was already being paid, regardless of the prisoners existing.\n\nWrong. I rate this sentence mostly false.\n\nWhat the administration said was, \"[we] saw the opportunity to use the expected payment as leverage, and refuse to pay the debt until those prisoners were released.\"\n\nThe money was not being paid if the prisoners were not released. Maybe there was a plan before the prisoners existed. But after they did, AKA in real life, the payment was made conditional upon their release. Commonly known as ransom. Just slow down, you can do this.\n\n",
"Calm down, kiddo. ",
">Isaac Asimov\n\nIsaac Asimov *aka* The Good Doctor",
"Lol snopes. ",
"“My side is right”",
">Look, it's been said facts have a liberal bias.\n\nThis is something aggravatingly stupid, yet arrogant, people say.",
"The real problem is that the kind of people who are really vulnerable to fake news don't understand or _care_ that Snopes/Politico/Polifact are trying to be neutral arbiters of the truth. It's easier for them to believe that such sites are \"liberal propaganda\", same as CNN and college professors and all of Europe and credentialed scientists. \n\nBasically, if it doesn't come from the propaganda mouthpieces they like to listen to (and come packaged with a side serving of hatred of the poor/minorities/complaining women/intellectuals) they don't _want_ to believe it. So it must not be true.",
"I don't think people who live in small towns are as naive or unintelligent as your comment seems to be making them out to be.\n\nI'm saying this as a person who has lived in big towns, suburbs, small rural towns, college towns, and (currently) in the heart of a major american city.\n\nPeople in small towns have similar public education that the rest of us have, sometimes significantly better, and they also have the internet, just like us.\n\nI'm going to have to disagree 100% on this... Telling someone to blindly believe X journal, because you think they must be stupid, is not the solution to this problem.",
"Reality is reality. There is no educational advantage for the left over the right. It is a fact that those are partisan sources, and theu've been caught repeatedly demonstrating this. This coming from me, a very well educated moderate who is neither a Republican nor Democrat. ",
">A big problem is that it is hard to discern what is fact and what is political bias. \n\nPrecisely.\n\n",
"If you feel like going into the other persons ground is being so open minded your brain falls out, maybe you're not so open minded after all..",
"I know the whole \"fake news\" thing is a trump buzzword and makes people on both ends of the political spectrum kneejerk hard, but this little card is pretty fucking right...",
"You can be. But as it stands in the US today it's not likely. \n\nFake news and lies are not exclusively a right-wing thing, but at the moment they *mostly* are. \n\n\nhttp://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/\n\n\nNow, obviously that can change, but at the moment being the center of what one would consider \"right-wing\" has shifted very far into the extremist territory. ",
"I should send this to CNN and .Mic",
"They’re on Snopes thinking it’s actually a reliable source of information",
"If you're too lazy to do it, so am I",
"...any you would recommend though that do this regularly?",
"He's said he has no plans or wishes to go to Mars. His explanation was that the first people there will be in extreme peril and, while he understands the pioneering urge and would like to go there, he pragmatically understands the risk is far too great in his position. ",
"The why and how are, by definition, opinion. That’s now news, that’s why someone thinks. \n\nNews can be reported neutrally. Reporting a fact and both the left and right leaning opinion is a neutral way. It can be done, but it’s not good business. ",
"I also resort to non-sequitors when I have lost an argument",
"Not the issue. The issue is that they would treat anything she said leniently and anything anyone right wing said with the most technically picky reading.",
"Not even close.",
"CNN is centrist af dude stop with this bullshit you fascist",
"You can buy a pack of 100 for 9 usd + $9 S/H",
"That's what I'm saying. This leaflet is about the original, legitimate, use of the term. It's not about the post-election ridiculous manipulation of its meaning. It's not about biased news. It's not about CNN or Fox. \n\nThis leaflet is about fake newspaper websites that were pushing fake news stories designed to go viral on social media in order to earn ad revenue on the back of American Facebook naivety and tribalism.",
"I need these to give out to my students. ",
"There's studies like [this one](https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf) that discusses the right wing bias (and interestingly, references the NPR article in passing). They don't provide statistical conclusions about the prevalence as it was out of scope. It also shows the significant decline of GOP trust in 'mainstream' media, far exceeding the similar decline by Dems.\n\n&nbsp;\n\n[here is another, earlier study, later cited by NYT as well](https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/trump-supporters-far-more-likely-to-read-and-share-fake-news-on-social-media-study/) that strongly supports that most fake news stories are right wing *and are shared more often by right wing aligned parties* (back to the idea of who is 'susceptible')\n\n&nbsp;\n\n[here](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Becky_Choma/publication/309694338_Cognitive_ability_and_authoritarianism_Understanding_support_for_Trump_and_Clinton/links/582c70f508ae004f74b90bdd/Cognitive-ability-and-authoritarianism-Understanding-support-for-Trump-and-Clinton.pdf) and more directly [here](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cognitive-ability-and-vulnerability-to-fake-news/) discuss predispositions for trump voting and vulnerability to fake news, with the second link mentioning the need to '[control for] Right wing authoritarianism' when calculating the responses. \n\nAlthough the studies don't link directly, lower CA weakly (but significantly, if I'm reading that right) correlates to RWA and Trump support (but interestingly, not necessarily *voting*).\n\n&nbsp;\n\nLook, the hard truth is the right wing is simply far more pervaded by things called 'fake news' and then things that are simply 'outlandish conjecture.' The Nunes memo, most spectacularly, but 'pizza gate' and many other notable examples continually reinforce the notion that the right wing is drastically more out of touch with what appears to be the objective truth of reality right now.\n\n&nbsp;\n\nThat's a hard place to come back from, and maybe you're just being an edgy internet troll, but there's just no way around the fact that there is no equivalence any longer, the GOP is nakedly out to grab, maintain, and abuse power on a level that's **wildly** out of line with historical power in the USA and the democratic party, specifically.",
"**No, that little move matters and matters significantly.** \n\nFacts matter, *tremendously.* We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Telling people to go to lefty-land for their fact checking significantly biases and undermines all the other good advice on the list. And Snopes is very rhetorical in framing questions and answers so that the cold hard \"facts\" found fit a narrative which is favorable to their brand of politics. They are not an objective source.\n\nTelling people to engage in critical thinking, but directing them with regard to the most important issue of all, the facts of the case, from a website that just repackages Google searches by people without credentials outside of \"porn actress\" and \"escort\" hurts more than it helps. And it rigs the game. \n\nThat you're tripling down on politicizing critical thinking (let's tilt this game ever so subtly in our favor) only shows why cognitive authority should not be surrendered to party, website, or bookmark from your library. \n",
"The best genes!",
"So, in one comment, you've complained about the left putting words in other's mouths. In that same comment, you put quotation marks around something that nobody in this thread has said.\n\nKind of impressive.",
"Most people also don't know the difference between formal and informal fallacies as well, or the differences between formal logic and real-world debates.\n\nTake *ad hominem* arguments, which are a fallacy in formal logic, but make sense in actual arguments as the source may not be reliable or might have a particular agenda in what data they're presenting. A source with a history of doing so is less reliable than one which does not. This argument is refuted by showing that the data is indeed valid/reliable/representative.",
"If you watch enough CNN I suppose I can see how one would think so.",
"The political \"ideology\" of Donald Trump. It consists largely of doing whatever you want, whenever you want, for whatever reason you want. Other highly encouraged behaviors include categorical denial of facts/science/reality, constantly ignoring experts, and filling every job with the least competent and most malicious people possible.",
"That's the problem. It needs to be a formalized goal, along with empathy.",
"Which is why I just put this on Facebook for friends/relatives that I know click this shit. Added proper credit to OP.",
"And right on cue, here comes the cries of \"buh-buh-but *both sides!!!*\"",
"Uh oh! You got me!",
"To be fair, the one about unemployment rate and job creation is a double barreled statement.\n\nI think politifact's rating on that one was more focusing on the \"leading the nation in job creation in Sep. 2017).\n\nYour website \"Politifactbias\" failed to mention the following found on politifact.\n\n\"By email, the bureau's Abbot showed that Texas didn’t lead the country in job gains for September (again, the latest month of available data).\n\nIn fact, an October 2017 bureau press release indicates Texas wasn't even among the five states that experienced job gains from August to September 2017.\"\n",
"They did show quite a bit of bias, which is why their reputation is in the dumpster now.",
"> Facts have a liberal bias\n\nJesus Christ, facts like what? 640 genders exist? \"By 2013 the ice caps will be gone\"? If you like your healthcare you can keep it? Shit, look at the denial from progressives in media that deregulation has had a good effect on the 2017 economy. Reality is anything but a \"liberal\" or \"RNC\" bias, it's the two that desire to spin it each thier own way. ",
"You can if you care more about someone not being exposed to fake news than you are worried some liberal inherent bias is going to corrupt your poor news viewer. \n\nThis card would only piss me off if it had actual fake news outlets on there. There is no requirement you always must be exposed to equal amounts right and less bias. The problem with American news exposure is lack of actual real news. Not biased news. ",
"FoxNews.com \n\nIt's gone beyond partisan and straight into propaganda.",
"When people think Trump represents the entire political right, yeah. Which they shouldn't do, but this is reddit, so I expect it anywaysm",
"Fuck no lol ",
"Then you offer both sides. Report the fact, then left and right sides as opinion. ",
">Well, you've convinced me. Snopes is literally hitler. \n\nMore like CNN.",
"I'm not sure I'd be believing anything the Daily Mail or News Corp is so intent on shitting on.",
"> Sure, but over there at the_donald...\n\nYes, because t_d is the only political sub on reddit that use biased and/or unreliable sources to make their arguments. /s\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that parts of Europe (e.g. Sweden) are experiencing some amount of problems with a large influx of migrants not properly assimilating and crime rates much higher in these insulated areas. While t_d might make some exaggerated and unfounded claims, the left leaning subs seem to completely ignore the issue, which is arguably just as bad. In order to get a fully rounded view on current politics, I'm sorry to say that I have to rely on t_d to communicate news that isn't convenient for the left to admit.\n\n",
"Pretty sure OP's sitting on a ladder ",
"https://i.imgur.com/KiLg5D3.jpg",
"Wasn't the Snopes guy debunked when it turned out he was actually using the donation money on coke & hookers tho?",
"kappa",
"what’s the joke?",
"LOL \"use snopes\"",
"Wait, what the fuck? Statistics? Do you know what the field of statistics is? Like confidence intervals, relevant sample sizes, regression models? The study and application of which is an integral part of businesses and sciences? Cant tell if youre trolling, if so, apologies.",
"They are, at least Peterson, don't know Haidt. Peterson says all the time how we don't know shit",
"Too late for any of this, since \"fake news\" has been made to mean \"undesirable information\" by certain groups...",
"Lmao it's so cringe to hear people use terms like libtards and reptards.. sounds like something a five year old would do.",
"That's an elaborate nonsensical hypothetical to justify ignoring liberally biased reality you got there.",
"I've heard a lot of republicans claim snopes is bullshit. They also think politico/politifact are liberal.",
"Riiiiggggghhhhttttt. \n",
"It's like you just discovered 4chan a few weeks ago but don't quite get how you can make them think you're a cool kid edgy internet badass yet. Cringey shit dude.",
"So pursuing the truth instead of blindly trusting news sources is a bad thing?\n\nAnd you say ALL Americans can't identify lies.\n\nSure bro",
"All modern media is made to titillate. Are you suggesting that CNN is not primarily concerned with profits? That their objective is to inform the people?",
"Of course they have problems. The difference between you and me is that I hold leaders accountable for their sins while you'll give yours a free pass for literally treason",
"And it's not a fact checking site. I wonder if its inclusion was a typo?",
"Obstruction of justice is the most easily proven seeing as he went on national television and admitted it. There's also the Conspiracy Against the United States that his son confessed to. And then you've got his violations of the Emoluments Clause and his general refusal to execute the duties of his office. Once Mueller gets him in for an interview you'll be able to add perjury to the list. ",
"I agree with that first point, but it doesn't invalidate the card. Every other tip is good, but it actually does refer you to ONLY left leaning fact-checking sites.",
"~~That Obama issued a fisa warrant not on Trump but one of his close advisors within the same building.~~\n\nI was wrong on rereading the article.",
"...especially lately.",
"Upvotes beg to differ, shill. \n\nBack to goolag with you. ",
"I'm not sure I get what you're biting at. Could you share an article where Politifact isn't testing a claim against history and experts? I need an example of Politifact going out of its way to make spin in order to manipulate its audience to believe someone lied. I've been using the site for a while, and they're always very well sourced, and usually don't make their own conclusions. They simply test the validity of others.",
"Yeah I was confused too... but Bill Nye did spread science to a lot of kids, there is no real Bill Nye out there that I can think of for the next generation. \n\nFacts are facts.",
"There are areas like that in every large city. Police still go there it turns out. ",
"I'm not mad about anything I'm disagreeing with your original comment that these articles are clearly marked, they're not clearly marked. I don't think a generic plain text \"more information\" link at the bottom is a clear marking.\n\n[edit] Actually if they were clearly marked it would defeat the purpose of those articles which as you point out is an exercise in critical reading and judgement.",
"It's funny because politico is biased too",
" Do you have a better list?",
"I don't know if this can go here but here is information on the woman who put out that card. Take it for what it's worth. \n\nJoanna M. Burkhardt\nJoanna M. Burkhardt is Full Professor/Librarian at the University of Rhode Island Libraries. She is Director of the branch libraries in Providence and Narragansett and the URI Libraries Collection Development Manager. She earned an MA in anthropology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an MLS from the University of Rhode Island. She has taught information literacy to both students and teachers since 1999. She has given workshops, presentations, podcasts, keynote addresses, and panel discussions about information literacy. She is coauthor or author of four books about information literacy. She addressed the topic of fake news at the ALA Annual Conference in 2017 and designed a poster and bookmark on that topic for ALA Graphics.",
"Can you imagine the outrage if that happened in some very red district deep in Alabama? The parents are already very distrustful about the public institutions there, and are already told by their preferred news source, multiple times a day, about how schools and colleges brainwash their little kids to be Muslim socialists. The outrage from doing this would be gigantic.",
"What your saying is journalists do make mistakes and purposely leave out information to make a story more interesting. Which I agree with...sometimes but mostly a respected journalists won’t do that.\n\nEspecially when it comes opinion pieces which I see mistakenly cited in many arguments. So yes people make mistakes but not as much as you make it seem In your claim. I also find it hard to believe that you only take news from first hand account because there is no way you know that many people in the world. So you must be referring to reading articles who use quotes from people that were there. Which is relying on journalists who according to you often make mistakes. So I’m confused and I think I’m probably misunderstanding you beachside it would seem you are contradicting yourself. \n\n\nNow as far as snopes goes it is a great way to START your research. Often they will give you links to articles with great sources so unless you just read “ true “ or “ false “ and move on I fail to see how it is unhelpful.",
"And right on cue, here you are... \n\nAre you saying one side doesn't have a political motive? \n\nWhich side doesn't have any biases? The enoughtrumpspam crowd or the T_D crowd? ",
"That's bizarre to me and may be a product of where you are, but even among \"legitimate\" sources, if you're going to look at reporting from Fox and reporting from MSNBC, there's clearly one that is better at fact-based reporting, otherwise known as reality. That's what I mean. And if you're going to go right of Fox to places like Breitbart? There's no brain-based reason to read a word of drivel published on that kind of \"news\" source. Even Fox is pretty fucking questionable, but their *reporting* isn't necessarily gutter swill.\n\nThe left only has higher moral ground when you get to moral issues, but the left also seems to adhere more strictly to the notion of facts.",
"Or you could just limit your exposure to the news. It has little to no bearing on most people’s daily lives and just makes most people sad, angry, or depressed, so what’s the point? Unless it’s local news or if you’re in a field involving politics or govt.. I see no reason to read “world news”. ",
"Having a bias allows for spin.\n\nWhen you have a bias, you have a tendency to spin things in favor of your bias instead of remaining neutral and just reporting the facts.\n\nThis is true for liberal and conservative outlets.\n\nThis is why, ladies and gentlemen, you read both sides, from several sources, stick to the facts they report and not the bullshit feefee shit, and form your own opinion.",
"I just posted this in another comment but I'll copy it here.\n\nThey don't \"lie\", per se. They just use specific wording or statistics to reach the conclusion they want.\n\nHere is one glaring example I remember from the 2016 campaign. Bernie and Trump both made similar claims about the unemployment rate of \"black youth\". PolitiFact decided to use two very different age ranges to define \"black youth\" when \"fact checking\" each. For Trump, they said he lied because it was way under 50%. For Bernie, they said it was true and likely higher than 50%. If I hadn't just read one a few days before the other, I might not have noticed.\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/\n\n>Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics.\n>\n>We rate his statement Mostly False.\n\n \n\n***\n\n \n\n>Sanders’ choice of statistics actually understated his broader point. Since it’s reasonable to assume that dropouts have an even higher unemployment rate than high-school graduates, the figure for \"young people who have graduated high school or dropped out of high school,\" as he put it, is probably even higher than 51 percent, since that figure includes only high school graduates.\n\n>The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.",
"The thing that kills me here is how badly the DNC wounded themselves and how they still fail to realize it. They were successively baited into maiming themselves on the national stage. I used to tout names like Warren as being the next thing. I used to talk about President Warren being possible. Now? She's a joke. She was put in a situation and abstained from making a call, and then buckled to pressure. She abandoned those she had previously supported. A total betrayal of the idea of her having integrity.\n\nI suppose it was better to learn it before it became an issue, but god damn that hurt.",
"Fake news takes several different forms. Propaganda is the worst form of it.",
"while this is great by itself, it mentions checking on snopes, which I'd be all for some years ago but nowadays, snopes has a quite clear bias. dunno about politico or politifact",
"https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html\n\nWell it starts from the top. \nLucky for us, even without any bias is pretty easy to find 100s of examples for Trump contradicting himself or lying about what he said just a few days before. \n\nYou don't even need to fact check any sources. You can litterally compare his own tweets or speeches from one week to the next. ",
"I just check the sources of the article itself if I have doubts or want context. Its not so much the sources they cite but the narrative they try to craft when they attempt to fact check conservatives. ",
"\"treason\" I don't think you know what that word means. Also, I didn't realize the investigation was over and evidence has been released, weird. ",
"I once saw him scissor-kick Angela Lansbury.",
"Politifacts is fake news. ",
" like the library said you have to check them and decide for yourself. ",
"Good advice!!",
"Lol you seem smart",
"NPR i would have to agree with you on that but the BBC... not so much. And i agree that your pals are the pot calling the kettle black however you shouldnt detach yourself from friends because of superfluous reasons such as politics.\n\nAnd friends is a perfectly legitmate show to tune into",
"DAE Reality has a liberal bias?",
"Edge is kind of like the wooden axe in Minecraft. It’s only use is to download a better browser. ",
"For those like me who were confused by OP's post--\n\n**THIS IS A REFERENCE TO AN XKCD, NOT A SERIOUS ACCUSATION AGAINST SNOPES**",
"Extensions, customizability, multi-platform support, no one has ever used the touchbar, lightweight.",
"These comments make me sad. Far too many people can't accept when the facts contradict their worldview. They think reality has bias. ",
"I am saying that just because one side does it more doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem on both sides. Can you not acknowledge that? And lol to your comments about me being a troll account. Talk about an ad hominem attack. I am nothing close to that, I just call it as I see it. Actually I rarely comment on political topics, I spend most of my time on /r/wallstreetbets and /r/robinhood losing my money. Your comment was just particularly egregious and caught my attention. As to your last two paragraphs... congratulations dude you’re doing a real *service* to reddit right now, you absolute hero. Here’s a [reddit silver](https://www.imgur.com/gallery/f0Iu0xE) for your courageous efforts.",
"Only if....",
"a) Point me to instances where Politifact spread factual disinformation? I've never heard of any.\n\nb) You just constructed a meta-narrative, dude. ",
"FACT CHECK WITH SNOPES? Are you serious????",
"Op is standing in front of a diorama of the library.",
"Talk less dude. You would be doing yourself a huge favor.",
"Aww. Are your fee fees hurt?",
"Throw me that research, dude",
"> Boy\n\nCondescending statements like this say far more about yourself than they do me.\n\nAdditionally I'm not playing the reddit fallacious circlejerk game. If you're incapable of making your own arguments, that's fine - but haughtily pointing to some abstract authority (ha! appeal to authority fallacy, look I'm circlejerking now too!) is just lazy.",
"Fortunately it doesn't, it's been abundantly obvious that the GOP is balanced on a precarious stack of fear-mongering propaganda for a couple of decades, built upon decades before that when [it was explicitly the purpose of the republicans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy) and [criminalization and fearmongering](https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html) since Nixon and on through Reagan. People raised on that hate and single-minded dog whistling are now running the entire GOP establishment as true believers in racism, authoritarianism, indoctrination, and police state.\n\n&nbsp;\n\nThe GOP is literally running a [Nazi holocaust denier](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/us/nazi-congress-illinois.html) for Congress in Illinois.",
"Needs to have a bullet on here about de-friending folks who share false information that they know to be false. ",
"That doesn't mean anonymous sources.",
"Bullshit. You don't need to rely on t_D to talk about leftist shenanigans. I talk about the problem with leftism all the time and I never go on t_D.\n\n\nThe only thing you need to go on t_D is to support Trump without ridicule. That is the sole function and purpose of that sub.",
"Ok, you aren't going to believe this, but it's absolutely true. Texas Republicans tried to ban exactly that from schools. \n\nsource: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html?utm_term=.d9a476ec1b0c",
"Ill disagree with you. During the election, trump was touted as lying more than hillary. I didnt vote for trump and agreed he lied his teeth off. What I noticed though was that Hillary was saying things like most politicians do that cant be called out as a lie but is definitely stretching the true. I dont necessarily believe this explains the left leaning biases in those websites as a whole, this is just one example. I am pretty anti left and right and think they lie equally. For whatever reason these websites do lean left.",
"I'm struggling to understand what I've said that you disagree with. Let's call it a night.",
"No shit. How does he have positive karma for that comment? Oh right, some people are upvoting the OP but not actually applying the things it is talking about by the time they hit the comments.",
"That is debunked... thank you. It is nice to see someone is still working for Russia though.\n\nHey why didn't Russia ever release the Republican emails? ...and how exactly did Trump get nominated again?",
"quips, not quirks...",
"Jesus Christ.\n\nYou people are unreal.",
"Beautiful, the times font on Fake News makes it.",
"Your mental gymnastics game is strong.\n\nYou're as bad as any breitbart reader.",
"It sure means don’t believe everything they write without further research though. ",
"Actually yes, here's a source:\n\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html?utm_term=.d9a476ec1b0c",
"So extreme left = liberals all of a sudden?\n\nThat's what I mean when I'm complaining about the other guy's strawmen. It's *easy* to pick on extreme views. It's even easier to pretend everyone holds those extreme views so that you can mock the group without breaking a sweat.\n\n\n\n",
"Let's face it, his kids are 100% vaccinated.\n\n\n\nThis is just for his voter base.",
"Yep, they watch CNN and MSNBC.",
"I think it was MSNBC that coined the term to discredit emerging and social sources. But by then MSNBC and CNN has already lost so much credibility that it backfired hugely when Trump turned it around on them.",
"People seem to be getting the wrong impression, like I mean it as any kind of insult. I only ever formed the idea to try and rationalize exactly the quote I was responding to, how Trump would come to be an antivaxxer.",
"They explain those labels right in each article though, and give sources.",
"It's a good rule. It allows you to understand what is being said or happening in its true context without the bias of another person. It allows for free thinking.",
">\"Fact Check with Snopes, Politico, and Politifact\"\n\nDefeat the entire purpose of the bookmark then",
"Where can I buy that bookmark? I need about a hundred.",
"Most underrated comment I’ve ever read. If I had the money I’d give you gold ",
"Can someone fact check this bookmark? Looks like Fake News to me.",
"So the reason you don't trust those sites is because you don't bother reading the articles?",
"It's was a response to a post about inheritance tax. I explained that I was all for taxing million dollar inheritance but taxes on property that children might not afford seemed questionable. I should have said that in my original comment but didn't want to make a wall of text.",
"Fact check news with fake news... How about no. That's a recipe to get fake news every time.",
"I knew it was the wrong word when I typed it :(",
"Safari has extensions, customizability, and I use the TouchBar all the time. But I appreciate the list.",
"if there are fact checkers with a different political leaning they definitely should have added those too.\n\neven good newssources often have some articles that read like complete shit if you already are wellversed in the topic due to too much bias being added.\n\neven if those articles arent common for good news sources, they do happen.\n\nwhen reading an article that sounds wrong somehow factchecking might not help you, they may not be factually anything wrong in the article, it could just be heavily biased, if youre checking the same story someplace with the same bias you arent going to get the full story.",
"For the people who don't know. Texas Republicans tried to ban critical thinking.\n\nsource: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html?utm_term=.d9a476ec1b0c",
"Sure. You're absolutely right. And that's what the meme was saying - he changed his mind.\n\nThis doesn't make the meme false.",
"didn't say red states, said red areas.",
"https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-phones-better/\n\nAgain, can't prove intent. And I thought the issue is she wasn't secure enough? This article seems to imply destruction of the devices is a way to protect the data. \n\nSo again, your bias makes you believe that article is a lie. And your bias is based on a not total understanding of how security measures work for technology. \n\nThe wired article says her biggest flaw was the private servers, I don't disagree. But your whole \"she smash phones\" spiel isn't conclusive of anything. \n\nStill can't \"prove\" anything. \n",
"Yes. Go to several sources. Several respected sources. This notion that truth from protecting any inherent bias relies on an exact mix of liberal and conservative bias in a 1 to 1 ratio is absurd. Just being actually informed and skeptical is what matters. You can still be an informed citizen without ever listening to a single Fox News, WSJ, Hill or Red State story even though that would mean, gasp, by listening to NPR/WaPo/New York Times you're exposed to a slightly more liberal basis typically. \n\nOh the fucking horror that would be /s. ",
"Scientific fact is not opinion. Go pray to god and hope you are cured of brain damage vs. taking medication that is proven to cure brain damage. Two different things.\n\nEDIT: Downvoted by someone with an opinion.",
"Snopes? Haha",
"Missing *\"Just don't even bother with wapo and cnn\"*",
"See my comment history. I've already posted one example twice. Don't feel like copying it again but I'd like to hear what you think about that example.",
"It can be. It assists democrats in drawing such brilliant lines between:\n\nBlack people are only 13% of the population yet they make up 35% of all jail inmates therefore the police and judicial system are prejudice against African-Americans, and white oppression forces them to come from lower social and economic backgrounds which in turn leads to higher incarceration rates.\n\nMen are 49% of the population yet make up 90+% of jail inmates, however it's because they're \"inherently violent\", and not because men are subject to greater discrimination and oppression than women.\n\nAgain not the math, but how people *use* that particular type of math.\n\nEdit: spellcheck",
"well sure, skip all the extraneous bs\n\nbut the point is, snopes is one of the few places that will atleast attempt to point you to an actual source which is the important part",
"Jesus Christ. People like you are fucking impossible",
"Like stuff you see at r/nottheonion ?",
"> LOL\n\nNasty question if you have stopped laughing: do any of the websites you mention as alternatives, have an ACTUAL name?",
"Ok buddy, enough posting for you. ",
"...and where the e-rumor was right.\n\n\nFunny how you call me an idiot yet you don't name any such instance",
"The thing is when you write about only good facts about one politician and only bad facts about another. When you dont try and have bad facts for the politician you support that can still show you are biased and is still bad for the reader to see as it makes the reader assume that their politician hasnt done anything bad when its just the website never looking into those facts to prove it.",
"It would be funny if it were true. ",
"This is why lying isn't even necessary anymore. There's such an overabundance of information, you just need to change what information you present and compare to. ",
"*crickets*",
"Ok this was good advice until it told you to consult Snopes. That website itself has lied or been misleading about things so many times it’s absurd. Who fact checks the factcheckers?",
"Did you actually go through the list and check each one on politifact? ",
"Do you have an actual example of that? ",
"\"think for yourself, question authority\" - Tim Leary",
"You don’t get to decide your own fucking facts.\n\nFuck. \n\nYou people are exhausting.",
"Well as someone currently living on a college campus (in New England, so it's definitively liberal), I can confidently say you have no idea what you're talking about. Are there perhaps a dozen or so students who totally reject any facts that interfere with their worldview? Yeah, I can believe that. Does that mean every single liberal (note that college students are often more extreme in their political views on both sides) is like that? Absolutely not.",
"You might want to sit down for this",
"[Holy flying fuck, that thing took off!](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/elon-musk-reacts-spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-space-science/)",
"Check to see if it has CNN logo...",
"Not only this but be understanding of others. If someone comes to a different conclusion than you, you should understand that a logical thought process got them there. Try and figure out why you came to different conclusions. Was there mutual knowledge? If not, share information and state new conclusion. If there is mutual knowledge, then respect that they have different values than you. If knowledge is mutual, and you come to different conclusions, then most likely there isn't a definitive answer, no matter how badly you want there to be.",
"So if the story has anonymous sources or high level administration official I can disregard the story?",
"No, Alt-Riiiggggghhhhttttt.",
"I completely agree with you. In fact, the need for the identification of fallacies in formal debate is largely because very similar arguments are quite common (and entirely proper) in more casual forms of deliberation and decision-making (such as the types of casual discussions and value judgments made in comment sections).",
"The disconnect is that there is no adhered to methodology were there is an objective data set. They are subjectively deciding which of the 1000's of politician's statements are worth checking and then editorializing just like any other news outlet except most news sources don't pretend to be the arbiter of fact. When you look at the report card on fact checking sites its not an objective representation of anything and often shows the bias in aggregate from journalism like [this](https://imgur.com/gallery/ezyRi).\n\n",
"Problem is the term \"fake news\" (prior to being co-opted) was meant purely for troll-farm-created fabrications that were being pushed on social media.\n\nStories like \"Pope Francis shocks world, endorses Donald Trump for president\" that are 100% bullshit, posted from intentionally misleading sites like the fake \"WTOE 5 News\" that *sounds* like a real local news station, but is just some random asshole making a site that shutdown right after the election. \n\nThose headlines were complete bullshit, used by spammy temp sites and pushed using bots on social media. There were similar headlines about Comey receiving millions of dollars from the Clinton Foundation, Hillary secretly approving arms shipments to ISIS, etc.\n\nNow the term has been co-opted to mean just mean \"someone ran a story I don't like.\"",
"So uncivilized.",
"ugh, if people like you seldom entered these types of threads perhaps discussion wouldn't be so headache inducing.",
"Is that any different from other president or prominent public figure? When people are revealing information that could put their life or career at risk then it's an obvious decision to remain anonymous. Same reason military intelligence is anonymous.",
"That's not how politifact operates, though. It's more along those lines. It's more like this:\n\n>Conservative politician says he's not aware of blue apples. According to the 2008 study by X, 33% of apples are red, 30% green, 25% yellow, the rest other - but none of those blue. His statement is technically true. But implied in the wording is the possibility for blue apples, which do not exist. We rate \"mostly false.\"\n\nOf course they don't do that uniformly for everyone they check, regardless of background. And I can think of specific examples that fit this example. These organizations are all biased.",
"I remember learning this in Middle school when I wrote my first research paper.",
"They publish news- they’re not a fact check site.",
"And even if it somehow did, the implication that people would rather let their child die than raise an autistic child is disturbing enough.",
"I was looking for a paid for by Hillary logo actually.",
"Yes because the administration that payed the ransom is totally going to say that it paid a ransom and not try to save face.\n",
">you complete dipshit.\n\nWoah now, let's use some of those critical thinking skills here.\n\nDid anyone say we should get rid of anonymous sources? No.\n\nDid we mean you just need to be a little more skeptical of anonymous sources and research stuff? Yes.\n\nSo why then are you so adamant in blind acceptance of the press? That's the stuff that facist regimes thrive on. So who is more likely to be pushing an agenda here? The people calling for healthy skepticism or you?",
"So do actual facts.",
"To be honest I'm all for more taxes it just seems like aspects of inheritance tax could unexpectedly affect lower income family's.",
"Sends them to three heavily left biased sites for confirmation\n\n\nSnopes has been caught knowingly lying and its founders are under criminal investigation \n\n\nPolitifact is basically a pr arm of the democratic party ",
"It is more a rule of thumb. Not even a very good one.",
"Are you going to provide an example, or just keep saying you've \"heard\" some things?",
"It's hard to see your own bias",
"If I had to guess, it's the big feet.",
"Show people Snopes, quackwatch or similar sites. Comes in handy when explaining that a bowl of garlic hovering in the room won't cure shit, no matter what the autoplay video on FB says",
"If by \"far left\" you mean \"barely left of center\", then yeah.",
"I know this is controversial, but I tend to believe politicians when they say things on the campaign, and then when they don't do the thing I wanted due to their own fault, I vote them out. Politicians don't control anything, the voter controls what ideas permeate our government. This is why liberals tend to be so even handed in office. They know if they don't do exactly what they said, they'll be voted out.\n\nAdditionally, experts like to check on statements that may effect their field. So if I ever want to know what might happen to a particular facet of American life if Jane politician passes the bill she wants in Senate, I can rely on them to tell me. ",
"Everything on the card was great except for that part.",
"I've not only read it, but I've watched the source episodes.\n\nThe words were said in one of his episodes while focused on a refridgerator, which doesn't work for a meme. So the meme author switched it to Bill Nye's face, which, while not making it true, doesn't make it false. Slopes has a \"mixed\" rating exactly for cases like this.",
"Consult and compare competing sources.",
"Beware CNN",
"And most people won't bother with even 1 item on this list.",
"\"Righty Republican gave a speech in North Carolina where he said we should restore the African slave trade\".\n\nLet's check with Snopes.. \"Partially true - he *did* give a speech in North Carolina so....\"\n\nSame story about a democrat? Just a big red \"False\".\n\nSlight dramatization but that's how Snopes spins without technically lying.",
"What do you mean by this ",
"Right? Also many people thinki critical thinking = 'agrees with me and doesn't say anything too outlandish'",
"Well they largely support someone who thinks climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, vaccines cause autism, and our last president was not born in the US so I would not say they are far off. ",
"> to discredit emerging and social sources\n\nIf by \"emerging and social sources\" you mean \"websites pretending to be local newspapers in order to make made up stories go viral so that they can earn a lot of advertising revenue\", then these emerging and social sources discredited themselves and this leaflet is right in its warning against them.",
"This website needs to format its content better. Jeez my head hurts after reading through a couple one.\n\nMy recommendation is to actually go to the original politfact and read what they actually said. Your website does a lot, and I really mean A LOT, of cherry picking. ",
"He didn't make it partisan though...",
"> skip anonymous news reports\n\nSorry Patrick Brown",
"Did you read the article?????\n\n>Snopes is Childish, Very Biased\n\nAnd it gives an example. Keep putting your fingers in your ears.",
"And again. Leftists will shame other peoples political points of view and censor them any way they can. This is how *you* got our current President in the White House.",
"Like I said, they could be lying by omission and you wouldn't know.",
">You know what the issue was, and yet you deny it. You deny it because it may make you question your own allegiances and beliefs.\n\nAnd what is the mythical issue you are talking about?\n\n>Maybe the people riding the crazy train should get off at the next stop and check a map.\n\nYES! Thank you! Thank you! What country annexed Crimea?\n",
"Probably looking over a balcony.",
">Trumpies don't read much.\n\nI didn't vote for Trump, but I find it amusing you think I did because I attacked Snopes.",
"*Pulls out flyer*\n\n\nFake News!",
"Where do you cretins learn to spew this meaningless bullshit?",
"Reddit Birthday \nDecember 14, 2017",
"Anti ad blocker\n\nhttps://jspenguin2017.github.io/uBlockProtector/",
"The only way you don't think the economist is conservative is if your definition of conservatism is defined by social/racial grievance instead of economic policy. I'm not interested in debating the merits of that worldview. Good luck in the 2018 elections ",
"Snopes is where truth goes to die. What a joke. \nGoogle them. Nuff said.",
"They don't care about anyone who isn't a multi-millionaire contributor. ",
"When i saw it the first time i read it as Fox News",
"Also open source.",
"Fact-checking sites tend to be liberally biased by their very nature; fact-checking is to question authority, which is a liberal thing to do.\n\nIt is pretty much inevitable that a fact-checking site will be liberally biased for this reason; authoritarians might question the authority of others, but not their own.\n\nThe issue is more that they also tend to be biased towards the left. I suspect this is because journalism and academia in the US is biased towards the left, and most smart people on the right tend not to go into journalism but other fields, like finance and business.\n\nLiberalism and leftism are not the same thing; socialism is leftist, but not liberal, being a highly authoritarian philosophy.\n\nThat's not to say that people on the right never do fact checking, but they don't have websites set up for that exclusive purpose. You will sometimes see people on the right do fact checking.",
"This thread is edgy af",
"Theirs a stairway on the left.",
"I've read through this whole thread. Seeing as all you T_D trolls haven't posted one actually source to your claims of snopes being untrustworthy, I'll consider that evidence of their trust worthiness.",
"Last week, the school actually gave a presentation on this by class in the library. Keep in mind, this is high school, so it was quite redundant",
"5th time I've seen this reply. I'm starting to wonder if you're a bot. Anyway I'll say it again: This is why the left will continue to lose elections.",
"A) what does me posting on TD have to do with anything. Logical fallacy champ. \n\nB) who decided snopes was reliable ? Democrats. Because it is a liberal ran site which pushing liberal framing.\n\n“Alt right” lol I don’t think you know what that means. Is that supposed to get me to just “shutup” and not challenge you to a debate. That would make me Mexican American alt right. \n\nName calling doesn’t make a point. \n\nSo you go through my profile and engage in ad hominem.\n\nDeep state is real. It’s just more accurately called the administrative state or the civil service. I used to work for it.",
"Only 10 false statements from a liberal? Really?\n \n.\n \nAlso, only 70 false statements from a conservative? Really?",
"I'll give you that one for sure.",
"Umm, k. Seems a bit stupid to have an absolute rule like that, but ok. You do you, buddy.",
"who fact checks the fact checkers? ",
"\"I agree\"\n\n\n*reads headline on next story*\n\n\n\"Well I'm sold\"",
"That's exactly right - these snowflakes are living in their own universe sometimes.",
"Those sites have been proven wrong on many occasions. Don't let your personal bias skew reality.",
"For real. You should hear the stories about the progressive silicon valley bubbles, in environments like Google. It's insane.\n\n",
"Fact checking is biased. Time to not think at all! #MAGA",
"Pls deliver on source.",
"Exactly. Gender isn't even real.",
"Found the_Donald whackjob of the day",
"You mean correct you bigot? ^^^^s",
"Not reading or replying.",
"Have you ever heard a conservative talkshow host in favor of free universal healthcare? Me either.",
"Lol how original. I’m sure you got that impression because I actually am aware both sides can be just as bad. \n\nI swear. You autists can believe there’s 86+ genders on a gender spectrum, but believe there’s only progress (the left) and anyone right of that is a Nazi. \n\nLol. I guess mental health is a real issue in this country. ",
"No freaking shit, if I hit pause i don't want you to play ",
"Well, your response might hold some merit if the comment I responded to only mentioned Politico, but they also threw in two sites recognized as fact checkers, so... ",
"They’re on the second floor. Stairs are on the left in the pic. Probably a wrap-around balcony",
"I think so too. Too bad republicans don't think so. At least Texas Republicans. They don't need no stinkin' \"critical thinkin' skills\".\n\nsource: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html?utm_term=.d9a476ec1b0c",
"Skimmed through the study. Its methodology is subjective at best, the list of sources written off as 'fake' are absolutely bias, and the sample size is of a shockingly short period of time. It's a bunch of meaningless data points arranged to push a narrative.\n\n...one might call it fake news.",
"I notice you did not dispute his assertions. Interesting. ",
"Yeah - it’s a few things - video ads pay several times what text/static ads do, and video plays are a major metric when people do ad sells.\n\nThe worst part is the newer initiatives to keep the video viewable. You usually only get paid on an ad/count on a video play if it’s in view, so everyone uses these horrible plugins to make the video minimize to a corner when you scroll.",
"My point is MSNBC and CNN had already lost so much credibility, that it backfired on them hugely.",
"snopes politico and politifact\n\noh ok.",
"> I'm going to have to disagree 100% on this... Telling someone to blindly believe X journal, because you think they must be stupid, is not the solution to this problem.\n\nThat's not what I said at all. I said fact check websites are a fantastic tool, not bulletproof. That means all of the above criteria in the library's card apply - but fact check websites *list sources*, emphasize the discovery and research process, and never push for other people to believe certain interpretations (\"we rate this claim\" rather than \"look at those lying republicans/libs\" or whatever). Telling people to start on fact check websites is a fantastic idea because it teaches skills and sources, and to not blindly believe things, including fact check websites.\n\n> I don't think people who live in small towns are as naive or unintelligent as your comment seems to be making them out to be.\n\nThey're not unintelligent. But making judgements about media and doing research is difficult (see: OP), and your lived environment measurably makes a difference to your worldview. If you grow up in a small town with no ethnic minorities, your impression will be shaped by media. [And that affected this guy's conundrum on what decision to make on refugees.](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/621/fear-and-loathing-in-homer-and-rockville)\n\n> People in small towns have similar public education that the rest of us have, sometimes significantly better, and they also have the internet, just like us.\n\nSure, but my point was exactly that this well-meaning, intelligent guy's access to the internet and \"what he'd heard\" meant that he disregarded the Washington Post and New York Times out of hand because he'd heard they were \"biased\" (do they have an editorial lean? sure. are they trustworthy? on the whole, absolutely, they have high editorial standards), and instead followed a rabbithole of sites like Breitbart, which is a nakedly partisan, ideologically extreme website by design that has absolutely no editorial standards it cares about.\n\nThe fact is, the internet has dissolved people's instinctual and intellectual skills we'd developed in the 20th century for filtering out bullshit. Now, it's a whole different world where good people end up believing the craziest shit.\n",
"I like politifact. Some times I don't agree with their final ruling, but they provide decent objective evidences in their rationales.\n\nJust like with anything, you don't want to just jump to the last paragraph and read the conclusions. ",
"Except the \"fact checkers\" are only confirmation bias machines. Just because far leftism is normalized, doesn't mean it is right.",
"That’s gonna make a great bookmark.",
"Ugh. This doesn't solve the fact that people interpret *bias* as being fake news. This bias could be very real or imagined. No one that ever claims *fake news* would bother to research further because anything they interpret as opposing bias is dead to them.",
"What the fuck? Uhh nope, Snopes and Politifact have been caught being extremely misleading or outright lying multiple instances. Here’s a good example. \n\nhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-2008-politifacts-2013-lie-of-the-year-that-you-could-keep-your-health-plan-under-obamacare-it-rated-true/#c284cc57c144",
"No one ever said that statement. I said they were more likely to be false and that is true.",
"That might be true if you saw that headline in one or two sources, and if those sources didn't have a long history of reporting true things.\n\nInstead, what you tend to see now - especially when it comes to the Administration - is a large number of sources, some of them with very good reputations (NYT and WaPost among these) reporting the same stories. Yes, those stories refer to the anonymous sources within the Administration, because you're quite unlikely to have those sources willing to disclose their identity for obvious reasons - the President is quite vindictive, if you haven't noticed.\n\nSo that leaves basically two possibilities - either these sources are likely reporting the truth, or there is a large liberal conspiracy across a very large number of mainstream media sources, all orchestrated by Soros to support Deep State against Trump. You get to decide which one is more likely.\n\n",
"The Socratic method is much more valuable than Critical Thinking™ ",
"This is bubble-think.\n\nYou're just pointing at something that's worse to take responsibility off of the in group you're a part of.\n\nA bubble is a bubble, no matter if one bubble is more outlandish, echo chambers should be avoided *at all costs*",
">it doesn't matter\n\nYa damn right it doesn't",
"Librarians do it again. Handy info in the palm of your hand.",
"Call me optimistic, but yes. Nobody becomes a journalist unless they want to inform people. Fluff has always been in news, but it's there in order to fund the real news. I have a real problem with people being so jaded that they think every company exists to extort them. They provide a service, and need diverse clientele to stay afloat. They need those that want news, and those that want to be entertained. Both.",
"To be fair, your lot should be shamed. And insulting and giving you advice isn't censoring you. I fully support your right to have dumb viewpoints.",
"Of course.\n\nhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-2008-politifacts-2013-lie-of-the-year-that-you-could-keep-your-health-plan-under-obamacare-it-rated-true/#c284cc57c144",
"If only the politifact / snopes section wasn't there this would be perfect.\n\nGreat little bookmark though",
"Which subs would you suggest?",
"Even if they are bias that doesn't mean they aren't great resources.. are the the end all be all? No. Are they a great place to start? Generally, yes. Look at the fact pattern, and then look elsewhere to see if there is more to the story.",
"I don't think politico belongs in that list.\n\nBut good luck getting the people that *need* this to check the other two because they have been the target of conspiracies and all sorts of things for years now. That's how people in the US justify willful ignorance now. They'll try to make something \"real\" by sharing it over and over. Before you know it, you'll have people going: \"I can't use those sites because xxxx on facebook said they're liberal only.\"\n\nThe problem is, when it comes down to black and white, ignoring nuance for a moment, people often fall back on an old phrase: \"Facts are liberal.\"\n\nThe people who accuse those 2 (forget politico) sites of being liberal, or even slanted much beyond center, are the same people who ignore all the fact checking they do of liberal stories and speakers. \n\nAnd honestly, right now, you'd expect to see more fact checking on the opposition, but because of the White House they're busy with just those statements. Even right leaning sites have pointed out how often fact just doesn't play in the White House game at this point. It's a brilliant strategy because it's working. No matter how outlandish or ridiculous something is, there are people who will believe it because they want to believe it. Reality or fact checking be damned.",
"I am displayed that they became normalized instead of being shamed out of existence.",
"It's not false. An old episode of Bill Nye states there are two genders.\n\nI'm not saying it is true, since it was a character on his show that said it instead of him... but it was on his show.\n\nThis is what Mixed ratings on Snopes are supposed to be for. But because they've aligned themselves politically with the left, they misrated it as false.",
"We only need one example to destroy the narrative.",
"The most unbelievable part, is that someone went to a library ",
"When the left started using the term they didn't use it consistently either.\n\n\"Fake News\" is inherently broad, redefining it later doesn't change how it was actually used.\n\nWhich, at the time could mean what you describe, as well as classical propoganda and classical bias as well.",
"> This is a garbage website, with garbage examples, by someone with an axe to grind\n\nSo, just like politifact?",
"Ha ha ha, I don't 'frequent' any website say maybe bloomberg, seeking alpha, and professional research sites for work.\n\nReddit is an occasional dive, and yes from what I see over at 't_d' they talk about many relevant points, but I don't agree with the prevailing stance on all topics obviously. How does that bear on my professional opinion as a CPA or CFE again? I do REAL reporting of financial and investigative data and express professional opinions that are seriously weighed.\n\nI couldn't care less what Trump's approval is with the exception that he gets re-elected. I care about the effect of his policies which I'm happy to debate about. \n \nRatings? Look at CNN over time please. When you can articulate how far it's fallen over the last 10-15 years, then you maybe you can defend how it competes with Nick(elodeon) at Nite; last I checked it was being beat by it.\n\n",
"Aside from recommending snopes politifact and politico, great card. ",
"It's crazy because it's such a common tactic. Like when the conclusion of a study or poll says something crazy and you look at the data/questions and it's saying something completely different. But most people don't bother to make that second click. They just read the headline, maybe the article, see the word \"study\" and say \"yep, that checks out\".",
"Snopes and Politifact? What lol?",
"> It is the norm that News organizations don't reveal all their sources. They're going to lose them if they do. \n\nOr in this case, they might have to make up new ones.",
"I don't trust anyone nowadays. People pretending to be doctors giving mental evaluations on Trump when they've been sued for malpractice. ",
"There is no bulletproof fact checker on things like politics. Doesn't mean they aren't good sources. ",
"Don't get your news from Facebook. Got it. ",
"Love it!",
"Your bias is saying you wouldn't smash phones with hammers under federal orders to hide some thing \n\nThe fact that I have to explain that is proof of your bias \n\nThe fact that it wasn't on secure servers is a crime countless people have been charged for without having to prove intent. \n\nThe fact that you think smashing phones with hammers is a method to protect secured data when federally ordered to turn it over is intent to hide evidence \n\nBut hey, that article told you how to feel and what to think, what do I know, I was only held to the same standards as Clinton ",
"It all seemed well intentioned until they included that.",
"You have a very distorted view of reality.",
"I was down until it said use Snopes and etc. \n\nThat just completely undermines the 'think for yourself' this thing is going for. \n\n",
"How would you not know from the explanation of those labels?",
"Not sure you know what unbiased means? or missed the /s",
"There are stairs leading to a second floor in the upper left corner folks, clearly OP is standing by some sort of railing overlooking the lower floor.",
"This. I've noticed people using the names of fallacies and acting as if that's a valid substitute for an argument.",
"i still think that someone who posts to t_d and is republican or right leaning can have valid opinions that are worthy of discussion and whose opinions are not automatically dismissed because of their political affiliation.\n\nIs this too much to ask? Too naive?",
"Or just bash everything that disagrees with you as fake ",
"Just think... All of this came about due to the amount of misinformation in the news to try and make sure Trump was not elected. It is a sad state of our media where this is a common practice on a daily basis and we accept it.",
"You make a really good point, so I think it deserves a long answer. The fact that Snopes started as just two people in a basement shouldn't mean they aren't doing good investigative work. Even if it was just one journalist in their basement, that wouldn't discredit it, if the research and writing was good enough. And on Snopes, it often is.\n\nI guess my problem is that Snopes built a reputation by pretending to be some neutral, fact-finding organization, when in reality the editorial bias has always been in the direction of the founders (a little left of center, from my perception, in the context of the American political spectrum; this bias is manifested both in the myths they choose to dispel, and the manner in which they dispel them). I think it's problematic that people continue to perceive Snopes -or any other editorial site, really- as any kind of definitive source of information, as opposed to, say, relying on their own ability to assess information from multiple sources, and use their own critical thinking to sort through the facts. This \"protect yourself from fake news\" information lists a series of sources that arguably lean in about the same direction, a little left of center. It's not unlike a resource saying, \"to find out the truth, make sure you also go to CNN.\" Except that CNN is a big network with lots of journalists of potentially differing opinions -all ostensibly \"neutral\"- whereas Snopes started out as just two people.\n\nNow, you may well say, trying to find the truth tends to put you a little to the left of center, because the right these days is so full of shit. I am partial to that argument. It's been that way for awhile. (The left has their fair share of shit, too, but in my estimation the right wins the battle of bullshit). But to pick any editorial venue -with their own political leaning, whatever it is- as being the arbiters of truth, is to do precisely the opposite of open-minded, critical thinking. To recommend those as the sources to combat \"fake news\" is to inject your political leaning into the process, to introduce bias. Not only people on the right should be complaining about those left-leaning sources being singled out as the \"go-to source\", but everyone who cares about critical thinking should, because defaulting to those sources is a bias of its own. I think this should be more obvious when you realize it started as just two people, posturing as being \"neutral\", which is really no different than your standard news outlet (all of which claim to be \"neutral\", and practice \"journalistic neutrality\").\n\nI don't mind Snopes for dispelling simple myths. I would say it is a useful site. But I really have an issue with people defaulting to Snopes as the standard antidote to \"fake news\". It's a shortcut, which is a bias. I understand that the world is complex and messy and sometimes people find cognitive shortcuts useful -\"go to Snopes!\" or \"go to CNN!\"- but I have a problem with those shortcuts making their way into guides ostensibly for critical thinking. Defaulting to any source is not a way to protect yourself from fake news -it is a way to trick yourself into thinking you're immune to it (\"I know the truth because I checked Snopes!\") and basically ensuring that you will eventually fall victim to it.",
"The implication of any fact checker having \"bias\" is that their fact checking is untrustworthy, therefore you can go on happily believing those e-rumors. If you think that not what was being implied, I'm a Nigerian prince who can help you make lots of money. Case in point: OP's picture is about identifying fake news, not slanted news.\n\n\nBesides, I invited him to name one instance in which snopes was wrong and the e-rumor was right. He obliged, and I debunked it. ",
"Far too much of the legacy media are closet activists and have already given up any semblance of unbiased reporting. Even when I listen to NPR and I can hear their sighs and vocal inflections when Trump says something they hate. The funny thing is that its been this way for quite a long time but it takes a Reagan or a Trump for people to see the massive liberal bias that comes from commie professors indoctrinating the youth that turn into activist journalists. The progressive vision for America increasingly looks like a dystopian hellscape and the mainstream media is simply the marketing wing of the democratic party. ",
"You can be hugely biased towards the center-left (in which case you'd be dismissive of communists and center-right people alike).",
"No, the opposite of that.\n\nI get that you don't like it when someone points out your politicians are lying, but facts don't care about your feelings.",
"just use a script blocker.",
"This message was brought to you by politico, Snopes or politifact. ",
"\"Facts are almost never black or white\". Facts are facts dude, unless I've entered some sort of bizarre alternate universe where things that are things aren't things. You'll probably counter with some horseshit about context, but one constant remains, a fact is a fact. ",
"Then why has no one tried to sue them? Oh that's right, because they're not putting made up information like you think they are.",
"Its a sad day when Alex Jones is more on point than any MSM station. Maybe that should be a wakeup call",
"https://www.google.com/search?q=Bernie+Sanders+white+people+don%27t+know+what+it%27s+like+to+be+poor&oq=Bernie&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0j69i59l2j69i60l2.1386j0j4&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8\n\nI mean here's a Google search where snopes is saying something didn't happen right above a video of it happening.\n\nThis isn't even the only proof but you guys are really bad at doing any work to disprove what you already believe.",
"And my point is that Fox and CNN should be irrelevant in this thread. \n\nThis leaflet is not about them. The original meaning of the word \"fake news\" is not about them.",
"The worst are videos that show they're going to auto play, so you hit pause, then 5 seconds later after you've scrolled down a little they start playing anyway.",
"Or the people that are forced to know it due to client preference. Persuasion away from it is always step one. Usually the answer is “I thought I was using internet explorer. It has the e.”",
"OP's statement: The press and common fact-checking sites have a (typically left-leaning) bias that influences their position on how positions and opinions are framed. There was a decent opinion write-up on the issue of fake news and fact checkers at large at [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#5622252f227f) that brings up some good points about these organizations and the general miasma of half-truths spit out by fake news producers.\n\n>the “fake news” community would fight back against fact checking – by running a drip-drip of fake or misleading explosive stories to discredit and cast doubt upon the fact checkers.\n\n>In the counter-intelligence world, this is what is known as a “wilderness of mirrors” – creating a chaotic information environment that so perfectly blends truth, half-truth and fiction that even the best can no longer tell what’s real and what’s not.",
"That's because facts lean left these days. The only way to run a conservative leaning competitor to snopes or politifact would be to lie about things or very carefully omit information.\n\nLike, how do you fact-check Trump's claim that the memo \"caught democrats red handed\" with a conservative bias and without lying? You can't, because three objective truth is that he's spouting bullshit. The same goes for most of his statements.",
"“According so a source familiar with Trumps way of thinking, “ is what they’re trying now. ",
"Yeah, because people who read books are much more intelligent and better than the rest of the mortals, right? /s",
"\"Everybody who calls out issues with my perfect party are evil Trumpies!\"",
"Snopes, Politico, Politifact... *and then the pamphlet completely contradicted itself*",
"The left seems to adhere more strictly to the notion of facts!?\n\nLet's compare who we have.\n\nThe left:\n\n* CNN, [which is just a total shit-show](https://i.redd.it/ucwfu27sp0f01.png)\n* MSNBC, [another total shit-show](https://i.imgur.com/HU0cEBr.jpg)\n* [The New York Times](https://i.redd.it/wtywpaszb78z.jpg)\n* Slate... [LOL that didn't take long!](https://i.imgur.com/TcgiaDW.jpg)\n* The Huffington Post ([tbf I don't think even alt-leftists take this one seriously](https://i.imgur.com/PL5zE0K.jpg))\n* Philly Times: https://i.imgur.com/IDC9BfS.jpg\n\nAnd see my other comment for a huge compilation on politifact LOL\n\nRight:\n\n* Fox News.. [What a joke](https://i.imgur.com/Nup1qC9.png)\n* Breitbart: LOL let me just link their page\n* Infowars and Drudgereport for the Sandy-hook shooting victims ",
"Politico is not non-partisan but quite conservative leaning.",
"Where's these examples then? Yet to see anyone post anything close to evidence of bias, yet alone showing them to be untrustworthy. ",
"Snopes political and politico are all left wing biased as hell",
"and how does that support the claim that Obama was issued a warrant for wiretapping?",
"Is there a way I can print this out and hang it on my desk near my Breitbart-loving conservative co-worker?? ",
"Does Reddit count as one news source?",
"Ehhhhhh, maybe if Iran was the one who demanded the money in the first place FOR the prisoners it'd make sense. At the very least, the original interpretation by Trump is very misleading with this context.",
"Agreed.",
"> wasn't the Charlottesville neo-nazi rally organized there?\n\nJesus, really?",
"Aren't those \"fact check\" sites now all smeared as\"liberal lying fake news\"?",
"[This is an example.](http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-dnc-emails-wikileaks-2016-7) You'll note that Business Insider even went so far as to say \"sending an advanced copy of a story to a subject represents a break from typical journalistic ethics.\"",
">The objection to Snopes is not the facts\n\n\nI disagree. When certain media outlets attack snopes, the are trying to tell their readers that they can go on happily believing those e-rumors forwarded from grandma.",
"And? I had to delete my last account because the account name was sort of tied into my real name. And even if I was just a new redditor, how does that discount my opinion?",
"Many would disagree.",
"Sitting in the middle, you don't look much different than hard rightwingers who call everyone they disagree with a cuck. How about trying to elevate the general discourse instead of playing down in the mud like a child?",
"[This infographic](https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2016/12/15/Photos/NS/MW-FC101_news_20161215131112_NS.jpg?uuid=dd9266d2-c2f1-11e6-9176-001cc448aede) does a pretty good job explaining the bias of the major English-language news sites. As for sites not on this list, you basically have to read them and make up your own mind.",
"Don't misunderstand me, please-- I am grateful that you even responded. My prerogative is not to disprove you, but to focus the conversation more onto what is and what isn't conjecture.\n\nMy issue was not with the idea that republicans consume more \"fake-news\", but that they are inherently more susceptible to fake news. I have no problem conceding that your studies prove the former definitively. There is, however, no data to support the latter. Until Democrats are targeted to the extent that the Republican audience has, there likely won't be.\n\nFully agree with the idea of False Equivalencies being dangerous and destructive, btw.\n\nEdit: I feel like I may have not made it clear enough originally what I was disagreeing with. Apologies.",
"If they base the labels off of the facts they give you, but they leave out some important facts, then you would be led to believe that something is less or more true than it ought to be.",
"Politifact literally rated Obama’s claim of “if you like your health care plan you can keep it” true, and then later rated that as their lie of the year. They acted as a PR outlet for Obama’s re-election campaign. They also routinely nitpick certain conservatives say and rate them pants on fire and shit for very minor inconsistencies ",
"Not sure what you're implying? My statement works for any news outlet. Check sources, and if they seem deliberately false, then don't consume their product anymore. CNN has problems, yeah, but it's not the devil people seem to make it. Just a victim of circumstance, and the issue with 24 hour news cycles in general.",
"Mm hm.",
"That list reads like a anti-phishing phishing email where the ‘Fact check stories with Snopes, Politico, and Politifact’ being the malware site/trap.",
"His penis has a toenail!",
"Downvoted with no retorts lol typical",
"And MSNBC ",
"Snopes, Politico and Politifact are partisan leftist outlets. That point is garbage and demonstrates the insidiousness of propaganda... Disguise it as \"fact\" and slip it in to a bunch of reasonable points as camouflage. ",
"It tends to correlate though.",
"Then who is taking out all the shitty romance novels that show a ripped shirtless guy on the cover?",
"Whoa whoa, I never disagreed with Trump vs Obama. Clearly Trump is a compulsive liar. The OP is claiming *right wingers* and *left wingers*. I'm not seeing any sources for that yet.",
"I always love the propaganda that asks legitimate questions but really means to act as a \"what you are thinking right now is the truth!\". I just want to answer \"Yes, that's a legitimate question. You should probably do some research on that if you want to know why.\". ",
">You are grasping at straws when you claim it is not ransom because Iran specifically didn't ask for the 400 million\n\nSaying this situation was ransom would be like saying you are holding your own $20 ransom when your friend tells you to stop doing something stupid or else he wont give you back the $20 he owes you. In that example, your friend is the one holding money ransom and demanding you stop doing something. Saying that you are the one holding your friend at ransom in this situation is clearly not how that word works in the english language.\n\n\n",
"CNN is center-right. Fox News is so far right though, it makes them look \"leftist\", but still, they have almost more ex-Republican machine employees than some Conservative news outlets.",
"Ain’t nobody got time for that ",
"I remember stumbling on a news story saying how foreign troops had recently invaded/taken over the town next to me. I live in central Massachusetts. It was written with such detail and seriousness For a brief second I was trying to comprehend this. This was my introduction to the absurdity going on with fake news. What was even scarier was the comments section below the story with people preparing for having to deal with the foreign troops. It's brought to the forefront of my consciousness how these stories can influence how people think, feel, vote, and act. \n\n*grammar edit",
"he had a much more complex explanation than that, and if I remember correctly he never said what was in the text of the meme, making the meme itself blatantly false.",
"I took a rhetoric and writing class in college that was summed up in this photo lol",
"You can't claim what you don't earn. These sites didn't become reputable by just saying they were.",
"\"This is why we need communism\"",
"It means they should probably have more than one person be a \"political fact-checker\" to avoid bias, especially when that one person is very partisan.",
"Yeah, good choice for lies:\n\n1.ice caps: there have been extremely wide ranges in estimates for ice loss, and we are seeing massively accelerated ice loss lately. The earth is getting warmer, and it's negatively affecting climates everywhere.Not all scientific models are exact, but disregarding it as folly\n\n2. Genders: who the fuck cares what gender you identify as. This is the sort of thing they bring up on Fox and.friends so they can guffaw and say \"this is what liberals say, nobody watching wants to be a silly liberal\". Nobody's gender affects you.\n\n3. You can keep your healthcare. [Yeah too bad none of the liberal fact checkers called out this lie](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/)",
"I liked the list until it said use “Snoops, politico or politicfacts...”. Then it lost me. These are skewed sites that promotes agendas all the same as well. ",
"It absolutely does ruin his point. Bernie camp supplied their reasoning and data to show what he said was right. Trump didn't have anything to show they were right, therefore Trump was talking out his ass and therefore it's false, while Bernie had actual facts to back him up and therefore it's mostly true. \n\nedit: If you downvote, explain how exactly Trump is correct when he can't supply his sources, and bernie is wrong when he can supply his sources. ",
"Except that you evaluate merit based on where a user posts. That's not diversity",
"I love that the three fact checking sources are editorial liberal rags. No agenda there!\n\n\"How to avoid fake news: listen to only these sources and never open your mind to anything else! If we say it's fake, then ignore it!\"",
"Bet he's looking over a balcony or something. ",
"Lmao what moron checks snopes? ",
"Cuckservatives: \"But Politico, Politifacts and Snopes are liberal fake news MSM\"",
"Is Snopes the one run by a guy with a prostitute addiction? ",
"Half my FB friends need this. ",
"Isn't this the fallacy of the middle ground? Just because a site is moderate doesn't make it more factual or more truthful.",
"> I don't trust anyone nowadays\n\nThe only thing that is just as bad as trusting everything you hear is not trusting anything. ",
"“The left only has higher moral ground when you get to moral issues....”\nMoral issues like abortion? Is it ok to kill a baby 2 or 3 months from birth? ",
"Your statement makes it appear as though you believe a specific party has fake news but not the other",
"Snopes, politifact and the such are regularly purveyors of fake news and tend to lean left with their support and or coverage. I'd strike that point from the handout. Aside from that, most of the other points should comprise a typical rule of thumb.",
"You know that ALA was supporting leftist garbage since like 70s, right? \n\nOther than \"sources for true facts\", it's a pretty nice leafet tho.",
"That's convenient.\n\nCome on man, it's absurd to claim that this isn't the result of bias. \n\nWhen they want things to be true, they'll look for facts to back them up, and when they don't, they'll look for facts to despute them. ",
"What does the mainstream media obtain from pushing this narrative? Also what narrative are they pushing? Why do you exclude CNN from them? Are they not mainstream? If so, why not? Who are these liberals who are willingly giving up rights? Also why are they doing it? You said to get their way but you never said what way. Can you show me valid links of liberals openly giving up their rights? ",
"Not OP but let me correct your \"mental gymnastics\" as you like to call them:\n\n> The previously owed portion could not possibly be less relevant. Would the US have paid 400 million if the prisoners were not released?\n \nWe don't know. That's a fact.\n \n> Did they pay it once the prisoners were released?\n\nYes but this is a technicality.\n\n> Did the US hold the 400 million dollars in ransom from Iran in order to get what they wanted?\n\nYes but you just flipped it around. Trump said Iran held prisoners captive and demanded a ransom. It's not the same as the US holding money in ransom waiting for Iranian prisoners. It's the exact opposite.\n\n> Did Iran release the prisoners only so they could get the 400 million?\n\nWe don't know. That's a fact. (But probably. However this is a technicality.)\n\n> Would Iran have released the prisoners without the 400 million?\n\nWe don't know. That's a fact.",
"Except for Nat Geo. There they just have bad scripting for the documentary clips.",
"Mother Jones was one of the few publications who took the Trump/Russia scandal seriously before the election. \n\nhttps://www.motherjones.com/media/2017/10/the-trump-russia-scandal-is-a-huge-media-fail/\n\nHere's the NYT admitting they fucked up in regards to this: \n\n\"If the allegations were true, it was a huge story. If false, they could damage The Times’s reputation. With doubts about the material and with the F.B.I. discouraging publication, editors decided to hold their fire.\"\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/public-editor/trump-russia-fbi-liz-spayd-public-editor.html\n\nIt's important to remember, on one of the biggest news stories in a generation, only Mother Jones had the balls to publish it.",
"Perhaps if you're looking at politics like it's sports, and you're rooting hard for one side, maybe that's the problem.\n\nActually yes. That's it.",
"“Yes, there are bad people on both sides... both sides. Bigly. Believe me. I know it. You know it. Everybody knows it.” said the mentally ill commander in chief.\n\nAnd his parrots repeat.",
"Business Insider which is typically considered an unbiased media source went so far as to say that what Politico was doing \"represents a break from typical journalistic ethics\". \n\n[Source.](http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-dnc-emails-wikileaks-2016-7)\n\n",
"That reminds me of the time I met bill Bradley, we sat outside of a random field and they built a bar around us, and then in 1998 the undertaker chokeslamed mankind off the roof of the hell in the cell ",
"Right? Who knew Steve Buscemi was a firefighter on 9/11?",
"Imma ask again for an actual study on \"right wingers\", not just a link to a right leaning website and your statement.",
"Good job *not reading the rest of that sentence*. The *exact* point I was making is reading more than just the meter is how you can get a good grasp, which is true, even in OPs link.",
"no, it means that they don't have to 'make a paycheck' which is what you claimed was the reason for their 'bias'.",
"this is dangerous",
"So statistics are a-okay when using them to support racist arguments? ",
"I'm sure the people who believe fake news will take the time to read this card lol",
"They proved their bias during the election. ",
"Wut. Explain please.",
"This is the question I came in here with because I knew people were going to call those biased. I highly doubt there is any.",
"That's easy, FAKE NEWS is ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX",
"Coming from Austria, this is completely wrong. Clinton and Obama would **not** be in our rightwing parties, neither conservatives, nor populists. They'd be perfectly fitting for our Social Democrats, and no doubt identify with them the most. The same goes with the US media landscape. It's very much comparable, and the NYT would most certainly not be a rightwing paper.",
"> Only hyperpartisans believe Snopes to be left or right leaning.\n\nSnopes was just a dude and his wife from California who started a website debunking urban legends in their basement. I say \"was\" because he cheated on her with a prostitute/ex porn star from the 90s and divorced his wife. \n \nAnd yes it is left leaning, and they're rather crafty about it. If there is some sort of (true) news that makes the left look bad, they won't post it as \"true.\" Instead of addressing that claim, they'll look for some hugely exaggerated/crazy claim involving that story that is clearly false and include that craziness so that can rate it \"Mixture.\" ",
"R/politics wouldn't accept anything from anonymous sources about the Clinton investigation but will blindly accept anything about Trump",
"The real problem now is that people aren't going to consider that vaccines *can* be harmful.\n\nBelieve it or not while most vaccines (like the common ones everyone takes) are not harmful but some *have* turned out to be harmful.\n\nWe must keep it an issue of science, not a belief system.",
"Well - it is biased. So are Politifact and Snopes. \n\nThis just demonstrates the insidiousness of this propaganda... Somebody has inserted a propaganda dissemination tool into a series of otherwise reasonable points as camouflage. ",
"Uh, “fake news” isn’t a partisan issue.",
"Fake news *is* predominantly right wing though. Very few people (and not including OP based on his followup comments) are going to assert \"left wingers **never** believe fake news\" ... But there's a host of interlocking studies and traffic/sharing data to conclude that 'fake news' as *politically targeted echo chamber generating stories* (I.e. a set of false, misleading, or mischaracterized reports or statistics) is inarguably more right wing.\n\n&nbsp;\n\nTo assert there's equivalence in non-factual or propaganda style reporting on both sides of the American political scene right now is basically indefensible. Even *relatively* coherent reporting outlets like Fox routinely spread misinformation.",
"the problem is subtle. Take for example snopes. they could rate something \"mostly false\" when they set up a strawman for the details and report that all those details are false but the general thing ppl check snopes for is true.\nfor a direct example, imagine the moon landing. \"mostly false\" by snpes, because: it was claimed humanity reached other stars, this didn't happen. humanity also didn't colonize planet X because it doesn't exist. there are no star gates. sure, we landed on the moon, but all the other things are false, so mostly false",
"And that's why, after 8 years of this, people have stopped voting Democrat.",
"Arguably, that is what school is about. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, especially when there are 35+ horses for each cowboy and less and less time to do so",
"I think they're the cultivated product of the education system. I don't think anyone set out with the intention of \"hey let's make kids not think for themselves\" but when you so heavily incentivize good scores on tests, you get kids that are good at regurgitation. ",
"There it is, I lost a chromosome.",
"Aka don't read CNN or fox. ",
"By whom, though",
"It's been nice shitposting with you, have your virtue signalling friends come and downvote as well. #MAGA",
"Maybe the issue isn’t Politico, but the sort of sites that do perpetrate fake news. \n\nWe know those sites have a huge conservative leaning (Fox, Breibart, etc). So is it up to Politico to only check an even amount of sources from “both sides?” Or do they have a job to snuff out the fake news, which does tend to be conservative. It only appears as a bias because “left-leaning” sites aren’t as awful. \n\nNow there are left-leaning fake news sites, but I think they pale in comparison. ",
"everything on that bookmark is good except number 6 all three of those sites have been caught peddling fake news.",
"You can't just make these huge jumps to justify why you didn't take his argument at face-value. Why does the left always do this when they get called out on their bs? It's like the people you always see in the movies dragging string across billboards, making jump after jump to prove their conclusion\n\nCan you, right now, in good faith say that politifact and the rest are unbiased fact checking sources?",
"CNN is ISIS.",
"COMPLETELY missed the point. I don't know what I expected.",
"...",
"Apparently he called the wiretapping by Obama way before it was uncovered, and fluoride in the water was turning frogs asexual. A broken clock is right twice a day. ",
"Don't worry haha it's no big deal 😊 just commenting incase someone picks that up as their go-to word when talking about autism and get tackled by a particularly sensitive aspie😂",
"OK, so just no-go zones for regular citizens.\n\nMuch better.\n\nhttps://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11861/sweden-feminism\n\n\n\n",
"So nothing on r/politics should be read then? \n\nGot it.",
"lol",
"Don't know why so many people can't understand what actually happened, I'm floored at the people arguing against your logic. Like you say, it's not ransom.",
">Politico's writers and editors were wrapped up in a lot of wikileaks emails talking about stuff like private dinner parties and strategy sessions with leftist politicians\n\n\n>win elections by using their platform to spread positive information on Hillary Clinton \n\n>and negative information about Bernie\n\nTIL that Politico teamed up with \"leftists\" to discredit an actual \"leftist\"/group of \"leftists\" so that the more modrerate center-left/Neoliberal coalition, led by the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama types, would look better and win more elections.\n\n\nAnd as if WikiLeaks isn't any different anyways. Considering they've withheld RNC emails to make Trump and the RNC look better than the DNC/Hillary. And there's all kinds of loose ends between Assange, Roger Stone/Trump Campaign and Nigel Farrage. \n\nAnd how convenient of you to act like WikiLeaks is some bastion of impartiality while you ignore all of the shady shit they've pulled ever since Russia annexed Crimea and the Obama administration began walking back their prior aspirations to work with the Putin admin. \n\nRemember when Mitt Romney-Republicans got laughed at by Obama for suggesting that Russia was our biggest threat and that Obama was way too soft on them (le red line guiz XDDD)? Then just 4 years later the RNC adjusted their platform, at the sudden behest of the Trump campaign, to have a much softer stance towards Russia and the whole Ukraine/Crimea deal? Yeah, of course not.\n\nThis is why your whole assessment is one giant blob of dissonance. It looks like someone just threw a bunch of random shit at the wall hoping some of it would loosely stick together to form a halfway coherent argument.\n\nAnd when people like you are throwing the term \"leftist\" around while trying to discredit Neoliberal Democrats then you know the word never meant anything in the first place. The people using the term the most don't even know what it means.... \n\nIt makes about as much sense as calling Mitt Romney or John McCain types \"alt-right Republicans.\" When in reality they're Neoconservative and center-right. \n\n\n",
"stairs. ",
"I really appreciate that Reddit can still recognize this as true and upvote this comment",
"I know what the description of omission means, that's not what I mean. They provide sources so how could you not know?",
"No, they marked it mostly false because half or more of the tweet was implied, and that part was false. Trump was obviously and clearly implying that he could take some of the credit for the drop. The fact that he didn’t come out and say as much in words is irrelevant.\n\nIf you take that tweet at its face value, you’re either naive or being stubborn.",
"Yea. We don't even need to look to the news to get this information since Trump n' Friends own public actions and admissions are enough. Just waiting for the greater accusations to be made. With the illegal track record of Trump affiliates and Trump's obstruction of justice/constant intense denial of US intelligence agencies' info that Russia even interfered with the election *at all*, you'd think the average conservative would be more suspicious. Everything is fake except for what Trump says! Cause that sleazy billionaire *totally* has the general public's interests in mind.\n\nThey will claim firing the head of the FBI who's investigating you *because* he's investigating you is not obstruction of justice. And you're not guilty because you said so. Nothing is enough.",
"Dude, this isn't even political, it's just an interesting video about the 8 spiders thing. He is also extremely in depth with his sources and where he is getting his information. I would recommend watching the video not to prove a point, but just because it is interesting on internet phenomenons.",
"Try that shit on /r/science and see what happens.",
"There was a stickied post about it up the week before the \"event.\" I reported it to the admins but they didn't see fit to remove it.",
"On Firefox you don't even need to right click to open the tab menu. If a tab is playing or trying to play sound it'll have a little sound icon you can click right there to mute it. Though I haven't used chrome in a while, so it might have that feature too",
"\"Be open-minded\" but also blindly trust highly biased sources like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact. Genius!",
"As you can see, there's a stair case that leads to the higher level they are on. ",
"Except don't check Snopes. Fake News",
"I work in stem where men are in reality discriminated against, but the news still acts like women are victims. Is it in liberal arts where women are the victims? Places like Hollywood? Maybe your personal experiences make you think women are victims. Is that because you victimize them?",
"Can you blame me though? Not only has my trust in everyday people been soiled for years, but now I can't even believe the \"news\". When you have anxiety and paranoia and shit, ya can't really help it. ",
"Nice of them to try, but do not forget that the library is required by law, U.S. Constitution notwithstanding, to report to law enforcement agencies which material you have checked out and when you used library computers connected to the internet, and that if library personnel inform you of requests for information about you they can be charged with a crime? I hope no librarians accepted this travesty of legislation willingly, and I know that some of them put up a serious fight against it. However, Big Brother and the war state won.",
"Which things?",
"Shame on me I didn't read news.... I only read comics and play games and make YouTube videos... \n\nI think these will help me identify fake news. I don't know why people want to fake news. I think they are bored and have nothing better to do. \n\n",
"US \"liberals\" are certainly center-left. Not everyone right of Marx is a rightwinger.",
"\"Turn off Fox.\"",
"I had classes teaching me how to judge the validity of sources by middle school, and this was almost 20 years ago. Yet fake news is still a thing today. ",
"This leaflet is as good as saying don't believe fake news..",
"[Funnily enough they do](https://www.snopes.com/snopes-staff/). And I wouldn't call left-leaning and admiring the president with the highest final approval and one of the highest average approvals since polls began as very partisan. Is there anything to show that she is anything more than centre left?",
"> Check the author's credentials. Skip anonymous news reports.\n\nRight along with this is \"Skip news reports that rely on anonymous sources\".\n\nMost anonymous-sourced reporting is just to get people worked up, and later turns out to be crap.",
"Yeah, the whole point of this is not using any one thing as the only source. Snopes, like it or not, has proven a very reliable place to crosscheck on the whole. It is not perfect, but so far it has proven pretty accurate. ",
"All it would have to do is exactly what Snopes and the others do. Take a tiny deviation from the truth. If it’s a liberal position, say “mostly true.” If it’s a conservative position, expand the tiny deviation and say “pants on fire.” It isn’t hard. Tiny deviations from the truth are everywhere.",
"See, the mistake you're making here is attributing \"hard truth\" to specific sources. No one outlet is \"the hard truth site\", you have to cross reference or verify with primary sources. You're just falling for trumps rhetoric of shooting the messenger to avoid criticism.",
"The Daily Caller was started by Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson had Jeff Mason from the White House Correspondent's Association on once, and Carlson said his show is an opinion show, and that it's not a straight news show, something that Mason then said \"I suspect many of your viewers think this is a straight news show.\"\n\nYou can't trust a web site if it's started by someone so absolutely slanted to one side or the other. You just can't.",
"Good job dodging my point. \n\nHave fun dodging the truth in the Alternative Trumpverse.",
"I agree with his conclusions, but the response is a bit of painted-up nothing much.\n\n>Oh wait, my mistake, that's absolute bullshit.\n\n...*is* closed-minded and blindly faithful, on its face. Now, there's a chance he could have a reasoned position for his conclusion, but he's not exhibiting it, and flinging derision about being right in lieu of that really isn't admirable.\n\nNow, you might say that it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be articulated, but that just opens the door for orthodoxy, laziness, and bad ideas hiding out as obvious ones. If I'm convinced that something is so simple that it's beneath explanation, that puts it several floors below \"so simple I could easily explain it\". If nothing else, it's good to know what you really think, not just what conclusions you carry around. \n\nNow I'll grant that every conversation need not be a point-counterpoint debate, but if someone throws it in your face that you're closed-minded and blindly faithful, simply coming back with \"You're wrong, that's stupid, I'm out\" is all but proving their point for them.\n\n(For the record: Science has an element of faith, but the process and goal tries its damndest to whittle that down to the merest unavoidable sliver of faith: that something that's worked a hundred times before will work a hundred and one times the same way. Homeopathy and other woo-woo fills in all the cracks of missing knowledge (or even opposing knowledge) with faith, loading heaping on scoops of faith in lieu of determining whether \"works\" or \"doesn't work\" has that hundred successes behind it, filling the void of missing knowledge with reassurance, not assurance.)",
"I can use politifact for the work they provide. But I don't use their analysis and conclusions. Nor do I use the collection of their data to state that certain politicians or parties lie more than others. What I don't use it for, seems to be what is most often spread. Which is why I tend to not like it as a source.",
"Good news! The CDC already has [a very robust vaccine safety group](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Committee_on_Immunization_Practices)! That's where [the recommended schedule comes from](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html).",
"> Its normalization. Far left sources say they are moderate.\n\nYou are right, they shouldn't be calling themselves moderate, seeing as by any objective measure the democratic is a right-wing party.\n\n>If enough people believe this it shifts the entire spectrum to the left. Rinse and repeat until you've achieved communism.\n\nLiterally the exact opposite is happening, where the right is going further and further to the right year after year, to the point we have a wannabe fascist in the white house.\n",
"[:\\^\\)](https://i.imgur.com/TtLRFof.jpg)",
"I feel like society is often like a middle schooler kid that knows no better... We should know better than to believe fake news.",
"My aunt post crazy shit on Facebook every week that can all be proven false with a quick fact check. The last few months I'll simply respond with a snopes article that breaks down why the story is made up. \n\nAbout a week ago i saw her share a post about how Snopes is nothing but a liberal tool that's untrustworthy. I explained to her how that's not true but she's convinced she's right because she read about it in \"multiple places.\"\n\nCorrecting her propaganda is tiresome and frustrating. ",
"I went into Firefox's about:config and fucked with something I'd have to re-look up again lol. But basically keeps shit from autoplaying until you tell it to. Even animated .gifs were a unintended casualty of this. When I open animated .gifs people put up on here I have to right click and play the pictures. But worth the trouble if it keeps sites from blasting bullshit at 100x the increased sound of everything else on your computer.",
"Tiny human call this paper \"poster\", I call tiny paper \"bookmark\".",
"Examples?",
"They report on things that follow the left narrative.\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/2018/02/02/nunes-memo-drops-flops/\n\nThis has nothing to do with a \"liberal bias\", there are many people that would agree the memo didn't \"flop\" and that it is concerning that information was left out of a FISA warrant on top of the warrant being issued on an uncorroborated dossier. But this snopes article seems to think otherwise.",
"Snopes and Politifact are heavily biased",
"Skip Anonymous sources... thats all there is anymore. ",
"r/NotTheOnion",
"Or the alternative is to do one's own research.",
"Why should I listen to an opinion piece if I can't trust anything else on a news site? \n\nBut in all seriousness, keeping abreast of current events is a treacherous task.",
"I love this, EXCEPT for the “check sources like snopes” etc etc. I’m not outsourcing my thinking to some lady and a cat somewhere in the Midwest.",
"Right, I agree with every one of these except the first one. It's called confirmation bias. If I don't think it's real, it must not be real.",
"The “better alternative” is to just believe whatever trump says. Look at his comment history. Anyone who believes that idiot doesn’t have a grasp on reality.\n\nEdit: To anyone reading this, if you look at [this person](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546796/donald-trump-sentence) and think, “this guy should rule the world,” then you are in fact a dipshit. It’s no wonder you’re offended by fact checking websites. Facts contradict your delusional worldview.",
"And r/politics isn't a beacon of critical thinking. I don't know why you think that your comment somehow goes against my point.",
"lmao \n\n\"consult snopes, politico and politifact which cannot possibly be fake news\"",
"You’re so politically tribal that is actually funny how retarded you actually are. \n\nIf anything I said something center more than right and you immediately jump to alt right. \n\n*no such thing as alt left*\n*attacks anyone who’s not on the left* \n\nPeople like you are why trump won 😂",
"Dingo ate your baby!",
"People made wooden axes? The only wooden tool I ever made in that game was the pickaxe, which I immediately dropped after getting three blocks of stone.",
"A huge bias can be one towards a moderate stance...",
"And Forbes dot com, which I personally did not expect. ",
"So what you're saying is that...",
"Sorry, I assumed you were a Trumpie because you unironically think Snopes is left-leaning. My bad.",
"Good point, I misread the article and going back to it I see that it doesn't support the claim. I'll edit my previous comment.",
"The problem largely lies in representation. A democrat could be accused of something and they will rate it mostly false. A republican accused of the exact same thing with the exact same thing will likely be rated mostly true. \n\nEven if the article essentially says the exact same thing, that rating is your difference. ",
"CNN would appear center-right only if your name is Mao Zedong. ",
"\"No way I'm doing all of that every time I read an article.\" - Me in primary school",
"I'm not being an \"edgy internet troll\". I am also not arguing the fact that dissemination, consumption, and belief in \"fake-news\" has been an almost completely Republican centered phenomenon. The *singular* thing that I am arguing is that repubs are intrinsically more susceptible than dems to fake news. There is no way to prove this. None of the data that has been provided says anything to the effect of \"If you're a republican, you are inherently more likely to believe fake-news.\"\n\nLook- I'm not arguing for the right here. All I'm saying is that it is an unwarranted assumption to say that anyone, by virtue of **political affiliation**, is more or less likely to fall prey to fake news.",
"Mmm, pancakes!",
"just make sure you read farther than the verdict. I dunno about politico,, but I know that snopes deemed stuff \"mostly true\" or \"mostly false\" that weren't so. Their details were correct, just not what they deemed \"mostly\"",
"Yeah “biased” =/= “Wrong.” In fact, you could make the argument that they’re totally unrelated.",
"> How does that bear on my professional opinion as a CPA or CFE again? \n\nWhat does a CPA's or CFE's opinion have to do with rating a Presidency? Our foreign relations have nose dived. Europeans are turning to Germany for leadership. Our POTUS can't seem to stop sucking up to dictators.\n\nOne of our closest and longest allies - England - had to be skipped by Trump because he wasn't welcome. America's Commander in Chief was not welcome to visit the Queen. What does that say about his policies? \n\nWhat about how he can't keep his own government staffed - or hell even get it properly staffed. Let's not dive into him appointing questionable choices - he can't even get questionable choices. \n\nAnd now he's attacked the FBI and the intelligence community as a whole? He's attacked Democrats for releasing their own version of a memo that the Republicans substantially modified to make a situation appear where one didn't exist.\n\nWe're talking about a POTUS who has done more in his 1 year term to divide, anger, and embarrass this nation than any President in history. And I'm purposefully skipping Andrew Jackson and Nixon - because at least their failures weren't exactly international embarrassments when they happened.\n\nHell there's a whole section of this site dedicated to finding Trump criticizing Obama in a tweet in one year and then sometime later DOING THE SAME FUCKING THING HE CRITIQUED. And yes, this includes policy positions.\n\nSo how does your CPA or CFE professional opinion even matter for those aspects? You're a fucking bean counter - not a political analyst.",
"You're never going to convince anyone of that if they are people who have trained themselves to look at politics like it's the same as sports. There's one team for U.S. citizens and it's the United States. But people often want to be left or right exclusively, and they go far left or far right, and they wave an American flag as fast as they can trying to convince us they're for the country, when it's all for the party.",
"Calm down, skippy.\n\nIf a statement is true, then it's true. Their political interpretations are exactly what makes them biased. ",
"Hey man, believe what you want. \nI only made one claim and it's that proving Clinton acted to hide something is unprovable.\n\nI'm not a security expert and the article explains her methods were wholly ineffective. So if she really wanted to hide the data she would have done more (this is a claim I am making). \n\nI did not claim it was a way to protect secured data. I said, \"the article seems to imply\" if you had higher than a third grade reading comprehension level, you'd get that. \n\nShe already turned in the emails. You just want to believe she's a criminal. I personally do not care. \n\nThanks for the chat. I believe it was wholly unproductive. ",
"They could just claim the study was biased.\nThere is no reality anymore.",
"That's an interesting choice for a claim to combat. Just five years ago, nearly everyone - left or right - would have likely agreed that not clapping at the President's speech is not tantamount to treason. \n\nInteresting road we've traveled.\n\nEDIT: Here's their full verbage:\n\n>In fact, \"treason\" has a broader definition than PolitiFact allowed:\n\n> 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.\n> 2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.\n> 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. \n\n>Failing to applaud good news about one's state would, in a sense, violate allegiance to one's state. And, more to the point, one can define words as one likes. One could, for example, choose to define the word \"Rump\" to refer exclusively to President Trump. One can do such things because words are ultimately just symbols representing ideas, and people can choose what idea to associate with what symbol. \n\nSo, their conclusion is:\n\n1. Failing to applaud is indeed treason.\n\n2. You can redefine words as much as you'd like anyway.",
"You say that like you think the right *isn't* in an echo chamber or absolutely trivial to spot.",
"Thank god for Sanity Sunday. \nUsually when someone brings up CNN on a default sub its always \"predictable\" if you know what I mean. \nThis was refreshing to read. \nThanks random internet buddy. ",
"> Take a tiny deviation from the truth. If it’s a liberal position, say “mostly true.\n\nThis doesn't happen though. The absolute worst these fact checking sites have been pinned for doing is having a slight bias when it comes to selecting who and what to fact check. That is it. Every objective measurement shows that they are not biased in their actual fact checking.\n\n",
"Snopes and Politico fact checks aren't the most credible sources out there, though... I feel like this pamphlet could be a victim of fake news spread as well.",
"To be fair, many left wingers I've entered discussions with have tended to illicit logical fallacies and refused to acknowledge evidence thay disputes their preconceived notions. Also, I feel that I must add that, no, I did not vote for Trump and I do not support *all* of his policies. I also don't oppose everything he does because of my personal opinion of him. In my opinion, both sides of the two party system are chock full of hypocrites and close minded bigots. When both sides continue to lean towards more and more extreme ideologies, our country as a whole moves further and further from a solution that will benefit all people. ",
"Just don't watch cnn abc etc",
"Let's all just stop to appreciate the valuable input from the [/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DU6SkCEUMAE3_6Q.jpg:large) crowd.",
"Why is this such an artsy photo? Lol",
"CNN a victim of circumstance...lol. Tell me your opinion of Fox, are they too a victim of circumstance? \n\nThe problem is all of the msm is full of shit. Journalism for the most part is dead. Very few take a neutral stance.\n\n You're better off getting from your news from h3h3 or Pewdiepie than Don Lemmon or Hannity.",
"Someone hit a nerve",
"I can't think of a particular example, but one way I've seen Politifact introduce bias is by their choice of questions. For example, if conservatives had some burning question about Clinton that they think was true (and therefore detrimental to Clinton), Politifact would raise a modified version of that question and declare it false. It's infuriating because the Politifact version of the question wasn't the real hot-topic question. \n\nSorry I don't have a particular example, but I remember thinking this multiple times.\n",
"Cnn",
"This",
"Hm, I think your charts actually puts the media a bit more on the left than it should. \n\nBloomberg and CNN for example are traditionally considered to be - more or less - in the middle.\n\nReally. At the moment being a bit to the average opinion is simply what it takes to be unbiased. There's actual evidence that **at the moment** the right lies more. That can change and it's not like left-wing populism didn't exist, but right now it's less.\n\nhttps://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias\n\nhttps://www.allsides.com/news-source/bloomberg-media-bias\n\nhttp://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/",
"I can not stress this enough use some common fucking sense and follow up on all your sources.\n\nI spent my college as the prick who would rather write creatively than write dribble. I can tell you for a fact I made up every source. I'd pick an existing newspaper from Kansas City or in the middle of fuck nowhere make a fake quote slap a fake name choose a random date and I'd write freely without being hindered by having actually do \"research\" it worked well cause my papers were exciting to read using fancy vernacular and catchy words to incite or trigger emotional responses. It was without a doubt the funnest part of my college years. My grammar isn't the best but fuck that it's about the showmanship! Just use common sense when it comes to fake news and here's the shocker. Both sides will lie to you, one side preys on the weak minded and uses their basic lizard brains to incite emotional responses that will undeniably cause dissent among the people. The other side takes advantage of those who simply wish the world was fair. Well guess what the world isn't fair. The people at the top don't care about you so long as they're well feed and taken care off,the poor stay poor, the rich get richer. Look into who owns what, follow the money. Understand that anyone who has even an ounce of credibility or talent will be bought or discredited. Most importantly for the love of fucking god don't just go looking for answers to solidify your own beliefs. Challenge your own point don't be afraid to question and be ready to admit that sometimes when everyone says your wrong...you may in fact be wrong. Remember the only fake news is news that which is manufactured with the intent to mislead and misinform the people. Lastly keep in mind the truth is relative and facts are facts until something comes along to challenge it or disprove it. The world isnt flat.",
"This is awesome. If people would follow this 100% then they'd be shocked at how often CNN/MSNBC and all the rest of the MSM quote anonymous sources and conversely how rarely places like Fox news do. \n\nEDIT: Spelling",
"Snopes, Politico and Politifact are the recommended fact checking sources? LOL might as well fact check with the DNC.",
">It means they should probably have more than one person be a \"political fact-checker\" \n\nThey do though? Why are the critics of snope and politifact so fucking stupid every time they bother to open their stupid fucking mouths?",
"How is that iffy at all? I’m legit curious.\n\nSnopes literally said: \"The statement is real, but Bannon didn't say it.\"",
"Probably because at the time it was an honest part of his plan and only until negotiations did that part get removed ",
"Well, there's your problem: trying to rationalize anything Trump does. ",
"But Snopes, Politico, and Politifact have a left-wing bias!!!\n\n/s",
"Only because you dont want to hear it.",
"Unfortunately the truth supposedly has a left-leaning bias these days.",
"This was as underwhelming as I expected. All the articles address the points you made in your original post. Thanks for trying, keeping biasing. (I don't think that's as cute as I think it is)",
"They are rating him \"Mostly False\", based on the common fucking sense, that Trump tweeted about it to take credit for it.\n\nA unbiased person would instantly, and clearly receive that tweet as bragging and misleading.\n\nA biased person would circumvent common sense, and argue that Trump didn't technically stated \"i am personally responsible for it\", therefore, he's just informing you of something he has nothing to do with, because that's what Trump does. He tweets about random facts of life.\n\nEDIT : By the way, the quote posted wasn't the whole thing. Trump accused the media of being bias for not reporting about the debt drop during his first month. (I'm sorry, informed you of the random fact that the media did not report the other completely random and irrelevant fact that the debt had dropped during his first month.)\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/25/donald-trump/why-donald-trumps-tweet-about-decline-national-deb/",
"I know what treason means, and if anyone is charged with it you'll rush to their defense. And I'm sure you see it, on t_d, all the folks saying that when the charges are pressed, that's when they \"take their guns and march on dc\" or whatever. Y'all don't care who's guilty of what as long as your guy is in power",
"Yeah, I'd say that this is most likely a symptom of cognitive dissonance, people want to believe something so badly to support their overall view that they throw the regular skepticism that they would apply to any information source out the window. \"Trump threw babies off a cliff!\", Well shit, must be true, he is evil incarnate... Except not in the least... I mean does that even sound the least bit reasonable? Of course not, yet we all know that the frothing left would jump on it in a heartbeat, actually they may not even care if it's true, they would still spread it knowingly... Question, who actually pumps out the fake news? More so the left by far is my estimate, and that should be obvious to anybody that acknowledges that they hold control of the medium to begin with...",
"They are brigading this thread, hard.\n",
"Facts lean left.",
"\"Fake news\" is a pretty non-issue compared to the effects of misleading headlines and articles that smear and distort the facts. The reporting of things like the Google \"anti-diversity\" memo shows how \"real\" journalists can completely smear someone and distort their arguments to a stunning degree, particularly when their views are widely shared by other journalists. ",
"FactCheck is one of my favourites. Pair it with using Politifact and Snopes for other sources if you need to (and not just the rating they give), and something great like Reuters for a pretty unbiased and accurate article and you are good to go. I find using them all together works well, and if you want to see slant go visit fox and cnn for how each side will spin it.",
"I thought it was okay until it plugged those websites. It's a Trojan. ",
"[How about this?](https://i.imgur.com/V2Re1jI.jpg)",
"I think they set out to produce factory workers and soldiers. So...",
"What you are describing is sociology and not the field of statistics. You need to read more about what both of these things are before you make statements like the ones you have. Ironically, based on your misunderstanding of what constitutes the field/study of statistics, I would actually doubt that you know any statistics majors yourself.",
"Of course many would disagree. Many people always disagree on any point. \n\nIt doesn't change the fact that this leaflet is clearly not about biased reporting in mainstream media but about made up stories on social media.",
"Lol snopes",
"http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/\n\nThis article references a few examples which politico to later corrected. Regardless, it's a well written article which could help you form your opinion",
"That's a terrible example. They whine about it being a tie for lowest minimum wage and then compare it for being a tie with the lowest unemployment they've had in Texas.\n\nThe issue is that his statement wasn't limited to unemployment rates in Texas, but also included a claim that they led the nation in new job creation, when it wasn't even in the top 5, either by percent or by actual numbers. And the federal numbers actually showed that they *lost* jobs.\n\nThe latter statement does make the statement false. However, if you combine a \"mostly true\" statement with a \"completely false\" statement, what rating should it get? We might quibble over it, but I would hope the decision would at least be between \"mostly false\" and simple \"false.\"\n\nBut, none-the-less, this is a bad comparison because it compares a verifiable number single point statement, to a similar statement that was made in conjunction with another statement.",
"Posts don't get 300 upvotes by doing nothing more than childishly insulting snopes and politifact without a brigade. Sorry to break that news to you.",
"So a \"couple of minutes\" to read competing sources, stories in snopes, politico and politifact, follow up on sources and quotes and check the author's background. Wow you must really be a genius or a machine to do all that in a \"couple of minutes\".",
"\"Anonymous sources report\" ",
"Fact check with politco, snopes, and politifact.... ohhh they tried so hard but fell victim.",
"Also if the web site's name is hyper-patriotic it's probably BS. ",
"“Be open-minded. Ask questions.”\n\nThat is a lesson all of humanity must understand.",
"They forgot\n\n>Only fact check opposing sides. Always believe articles that support your belief structure.",
"Do you find that curse words make you sound more or less informed?",
"Why does Reddit allow T_D's obvious brigading?",
"The Ministry of Love is just around the corner if you ever need a safe space too. lol. ",
"From your original response to my comment:\n\n> flat out denial of any sense of reason, logic, or respect for empirical reality.\n\nSounds a lot like what you just did when I gave you a reasonable response to your argument...",
"That's a quality answer right there. /s",
"Not when listening to music. ",
"Depends where you live, sadly. So much of American educational quality depends on where you live.",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du3n51u",
"That is why they say mostly true or mostly false",
"be careful....these soon will be banned",
" I hate playing the Devil's advocate; but the right tries to dismiss Snopes, Politico, and Politifact as liberal. Mostly because they deal in fact, but it still has a manufactured bias according to the people I know that lean red. ",
"Saying that a broken salmon flies high on the fribbniffle would make as much sense, since both of those statements are demonstrably false. Thanks for the response though, have an upvote.",
"Ok, but \"Obama\" never wiretapped Trump. Or anyone for that matter. The FBI wiretapps people, not the president. Trump and his associates were incidedentally surveilled when they interacted with suspected criminals who were under active surveillance. We've been over this, it was all done \"by the book\". \n\nUnless you somehow think that it's Obama's fault that Trump chose to work with so many people who happened to be under FBI surveillance.",
"Yes, they hired a bunch of people after getting famous for building their brand as the definitive, neutral source of true facts.\n\nThe point is that, like any other investigative outlet, they have their own bias. Which is more obvious when you realize their roots as just a couple of people who wanted to produce their own editorial publication. They get credit for writing according to the principle of journalistic neutrality and for fact-checking. And they were quite successful in building their brand. But to treat them differently than any other editorial publication -as in any sense more definitive than any other outlet- is to do yourself a disservice.\n\nThe advice to \"go check Snopes\" is as objectionable, from the point of view of critical thinking, as the advice to \"go check CNN\". The fact that it started as just two people brings that point home, I think. Snopes is not a panacea; it's a publication.",
"And beyond that, fake news is bipartisan.\n\nAnyone who claims their party doesn't produce fake news needs to look at the leaflet.",
"Well I will say doing things like that are wrong and looking at the one website listed below they just shouldn't list things as false or true, but at the same time facts are still in the article I know it's asking way to much of people to actually read an article, and really they shouldn't have to because they shouldn't be a bit misleading with truths and false, but I wouldn't say they aren't worth checking out just read headlines with a grain of salt. Sadly all news outlets spin wording a little. I use BBC politifact, Fox news tons sadly people just need to read a little",
"“Don’t trust everything you read” .... “check sites like snopes...” really ?? ",
"Basically any left leaning site has what you are saying, fake news enough said!",
"I actually agree with a lot of your premise, but this shouldn't be an issue of left or right—it should be an issue of what is and is not accurate and truthful.",
"Every time I see people saying \"Politico have a leftist bias\", they never have an actual example, they make up a fake anecdote and when pressed to cite an example, they say \"google it\".",
"Facts don't \"lean\" anywhere.",
"Especially for that age range. Plenty of youths in that age are full-time high school or college students. Seems like OP just read the headline and not the article :/",
"45: I'm using the Master Shake defense (video plays showing ~45~ Master Shake committing a crime), clearly you can tell that is me 'Director' Mueller.",
"I think the filter bubble is the best advice. Alot of people are in an echo chamber here.",
"Right like the time Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump made the same statement about black unemployment, but Politifact labeled Bernie’s “mostly true” and Trump’s ”pants on fire”",
"Not in the slightest. Every independent and objective review of their material has found that, at worse, they seem to have a slight measurable bias towards what things they choose to fact check, and what they choose to not fact check. And mind you, that is the worst possible interpretation of the data. Their actual fact checking is spot on and irrefutable short of additional information not previously available to the public being released.\n\n",
"Just... just give up man. This website isn’t for you, or for open minded discussion...",
"Must be hard being so wrong so often.",
"Politifact, not politifact, but this is one that was called out several times.\n\nhttps://pics.me.me/half-true-ron-paul-pol-act-says-the-u-s-federal-5391946.png\n\nHere's a decent article from The Federalist about their bias. After this article, they changed the rating on Jim Webb's statement to match that of Ron Paul's.\n\nhttp://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/\n",
">politifact\n\n\n“While what the Republican senator said was technically correct what he *actually* meant was this and it’s totally false, so we’re rating this Pants-on-Fire.”",
"The entire idea of Politifact being used to rate candidates truthfulness is ridiculous. Even when they're not biased in rating actual statements the statements they choose to \"fact check\" candidates on allow them to make it seem like anyone is either overwhelmingly lying or telling the truth. ",
"They've aligned themselves with the left broadly. Bill Nye was representing progressive values with his episode on genders, and the meme was attacking him for changing his mind.\n\nSnopes called this attack false because... he changed his mind. This is a clear example of bias.\n\nYou're right that one example doesn't prove a rule. There needs to be a broad trend for a claim of bias to be true. You can research those yourself, as there is a lot written on the subject of Snopes' alignment over the past year. Maybe start with the Forbes article on them, as it alleges nothing about them but reveals that they have partisans who work for them.",
"The Economist is the only news source I read where all of the authors are anonymous.",
"I don't think you know what literal means. Let me give you a link. You may want to look up other words while you are there. It's the children's edition of Merriam Webster. Enjoy the rest of your weekend!\n\n http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/literal",
"Are you going to give me an answer or are you going to deflect like a kid being scorned because you know you're wrong? Can someone please introduce me to a leftist who can debate like an adult and not just whimper off when someone stands up to their nonsense?",
"Do you have an example of where a liberal outright lied and snopes covered?\n\nOr where a repub told the truth and was made to be a liar",
"Hmm about that #6 advice....hmm",
"your example is backwards here, because the boss is holding the bonus ransom, not as a ransom payment. Likewise, the US is holding its payment ransom, contingent on release of the prisoners. the money itself is not a ransom payment. ",
"I mean, most of this is actually really good advice for when your using the internet for research",
">Implying those sites are unbiased fact checking sites.",
"It's Not a leaflet at all. It's a 5 foot cardboard cut out.",
"> what are some *alternative fact* checking sites \n\nHeh...",
"I am neither a staunch Republican or Democrat, but fiscal conservative; everything else imo is fluff/ distraction. However, the arguments I find myself in with the far right are very different than those of the liberal left. Religious Zealot, not saying Christians many of which are tolerant, but the ones that cram their beliefs down your throat and look down in pious disdain use guilt or judgement as a means of attempting to convert or win an argument. The liberal left, I would go so far as to call them Fascists as they have perfectly adopted the stereotypical stance of calling their enemies what they are, hide behind academics, pointless certifications to justify their arrogance and hubris, cherry picking of data, group thought, group stalking/ bullying (ironic as they are the supposed combatants of bullying) and gas lighting to attempt to undermine and de-ligitamize what they perceive as their enemies. Slander and libel are also tools of the far left, as is conformity to a collective. What puts true conservatives at a disadvantage, statistics prove no correlation between political affiliation and intelligence despite the far left's make believe claims, is the right's dependence and adherence to individuality and privacy. In other words, 100 dumb people grouping together can make one person, far superior in intellect, reason, and research seem incompetent or even \"dangerous.\"",
"I am a Liberal. So, call me Libertard. \n\nYou are a Republican. So, I will call you a Retarded.",
"As a 40-year journalist who hates the term and all it stands for... I sure hope so...",
"Fact check with snopes. Trolllllololol\n",
">Snopes\n\n\nAhahahaha! What a joke",
"Now, if only people who believed fake news went to the library.",
"On the left side of the pic, there are stairs. It is a multi-level library. This pic was likely taken over the railing of the \"balcony.\"",
"Snopes and politifact are left leaning and have been wrong way too much. Politico is more “establishment leaning” so if you have an outsider there is a bias \n\nRead all sources. Make up your own mind",
"Sounds like an assumption. Especially given the fact checking sources they recommended. They would have had a lot more credibility without that bullet.",
"Pretty much. Politifact is the worse tho. \"Mostly false\" for things that are essentially true but one little detail that they deliberately took too literally was able to be their excuse to label it false. Or \"Mostly True\" with egregious misrepresentation or oversimplification. I don't trust it at all anymore. ",
"I doubt in a year unemployment for black youths went from 51% to 16-17(or whatever)%",
"Does it sound jewy?",
"Is Snopes owner/leader/etc known to be very much not impartial?",
"Funny considering Reddit political subs are the biggest source of fake news I know about online ",
"r/Conservative is only a hair better than t_d unfortunately. If you want a center-right sub you could check out r/tuesday or for a fun politically center group I personally recommend r/neoliberal.",
"> Right like the time Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump made the same statement about black unemployment,\n\nThey didn't though. In context, bernie was talking about underemployment, and cited government statistics to back up his claims. In context, Trump was talking about actual unemployment, and refused to provide and sources for his claims when confronted about his lies.\n\nPeople like you are exactly why politifact needs to exist. You are so fucking stupid that you will read some random infographic on reddit and immediately dismiss one of the most reputable sources of information on the planet.\n\n\n",
">Skip anonymous news reports\n\nconveniently forgot to mention consider skipping stories with uncited, 'anonymous' sources and no evidence beyond what those potentially nonexistent sources 'say'.",
"That's not a translation, that's a fallacy.",
":: drools ::",
"The rule is just poorly worded. It should be \"If the headline is a yes or no question, then the answer is always no\". \n\nLike you said, it's not an actual rule so it doesn't matter. It's definitely meant to be humorous but there's a lot of truth to it though.",
"That's literally the stupidest idea in this whole thread.\n\n\"The Earth is flat\"\n\"The Earth is round\"\nYou: \"let's hear both sides out, the truth is probably in the middle\"",
"Where's cnn",
"Probably the part where they show the email and then claim the words in the email aren't actually there.",
"[Here are some examples](https://i.imgur.com/TtLRFof.jpg)",
"Pure \"fake news,\" or objectively false stories are probably a good thing in that they make people more critical and skeptical of the misleading tactics that \"real\" journalists make use of on a daily basis. ",
"No, they're not that clever. They truly believe reality has a \"liberal bias\" when in fact the opposite is true. Reality arguably only exists because we're perceiving it, and the directive of every biological organism is to conserve itself and procreate. Therefore Reality is conservative. ",
"> consult and compare competing sources.\n\nI've been told that Snopes has a left-wing bias, but I can't find any substantial evidence on that other than right-wing sites claiming it has a left-wing bias.",
"Trump says black youth unemployment is at 59% - [Politifact says Mostly False](http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/), because although Trump is referencing a real statistic on black employment, it is not the specific statistic normally used to measure employment. \n\nBernie says black youth unemployment is 51% - [Politifact says Mostly True](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/), because although Bernie is referencing a statistic which is not normally used to measure employment, his general point about blacks being under employed is true. ",
"Snopes misrepresents the claim they are referring to. The quote they have is,\n\"The shocking attack [of bottles being thrown at police] on the on-duty officers is just one of many incidents, as officials have placed more than 50 areas on a ‘no-go zone’ list where they admit they do not have control.\" which is different from the claim they are contesting that 'police don't go to these areas'.\n\nAre Swedish laws being enforced consistently between these 'no go' or high crime areas in line with the rest of Sweden? If not, does that indicate a lack of ability or presence from the police and their application of the laws? These are the sort of questions you would generally want to be talked about.\n\nSnopes tries to disprove the claim in a few ways;\nby saying that the police don't use that phrase 'no go zones' in their report - this is irrelevant since the police using or not using that term doesn't impact the reality of the situation. It's like people thinking a nation is democratic because it says so in its name.\nAn anecdotal story about walking through one if the neighbourhoods during the day - irrelevant (anecdotes dont disprove the claim) and if anyone thinks that a daytime walk with a police officer is any reasonable indication of the ability to enforce the law then I just feel bad for them.\nAll other points they make actually support the claim that the law isn't enforced equally (or is more difficult to do so) in these areas, though are worded as though they are combating the claims that police do not go there physically, which again is a misrepresentation.\n\nSo snopes misrepresents a claim and then uses really poor evidence to 'disprove' the misrepresented claim. This is actually a great example of why snopes is pure trash, and anyone who actually reads into most of the things they 'fact check' will see straight through their low quality propoganda. It really is misinformation aimed at the lowest common denominator in our society.",
"Your statement is an articulation of the [argument to moderation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation) fallacy. Consider applying it to both sides of the flat earth “debate,” for example: is it really wise to read a flat earth website and a scientific journal, then decide that only the facts they agree on are true and the rest just opinion? No, of course not. But this is exactly the fallacy upon which politically motivated sites w/ low journalistic integrity thrive upon: if a true statement is politically inconvenient, simply express very vocal disagreement and people will decide said fact is “controversial” or mere “opinion.”",
"Ah yes, the Blame Society: Where only good news is true about my side, only bad news about their side and... I want to have my cake, eat it too, not get fat, have someone else pay the bill - and if I can't, it's the government/media/xxxx's fault. Cognitive dissonance as a way of life...",
"And you're the arbiter of what is and isn't a respected source? No? Who is then?\n\nOh...that's right...it's a BIAS OPINION on which sources are respected.\n\nDoubt any liberal will say Fox is a respectable source. Doubt any conservative will say CNN is a respectable source.\n\nNPR shills so hard it's hilarious. I listen to it every day when driving. You can feel the bias just oozing out of your speakers.\n\nThey report their opinion or their feelings as fact, or focus purely on it and graze over the actual facts.\n\nBasically, tbh...it all falls on the listener. If you're not smart, if you're not a logical or rational thinker...you'll succumb to your own bias as well as the media you listen to.\n\nThere are over 7 billion people on the planet and maybe only 10% are smart enough to actually survive and deserve to be here.\n\nThe rest are only alive because of medicine and laws.",
"*cough* CNN",
"Snopes is a heavily biased website, and uses anonymous fact checkers, AND they rely on a lot of liberal politicians, but fail to disclose that information. \n\nPolitico, while significantly more trustworthy, will definitely spin things to favor a liberal world view.\n\nIf you view those as the infallible, and never cross check them, well, you're still susceptible to fake news.\n\nHell, you should always get a liberal and a conservative source for any issue, see where they differ, investigate those inconsistencies further, and after seeing which side is either omitting/downplaying relevant information, or emphasizing irrelevant information, THEN you can rest assured that you know what's actually going on.\n\nCompletely dismissing conservative/liberal news sources or opinions as wrong before you hear what they have to say will only have you looking for information that you want to hear ",
"Its sad when your bullshit bias has to be \"brigaded\" in the first place",
"Snopes, Politico, and Politifact? They just contradicted the rest of the bookmark!",
"You’re right, the pickaxe was what I meant, it’s been quite a few years since I’ve played ",
"That's bias, not fake.\n\nFFS, why is this hard to grasp?",
"They are standing on the second story balcony. You can see stairs in the picture. ",
"Sanders said 51% and offered an explanation that allowed Politifact to understand why he came up with that figure. Trump said 59% and his camp refused to defend the figure.\n\nYou cherry picked the facts to make it appear as if Politifact was choosing a side. There were clear differences that tell the whole story.",
"Yes those are the only other options",
"In attempting to read this snippet, I could only make it to \"Fake News.\" At which point I Youtubed Fox news, and found myself listening to why fake news is destroying this country. I'll be sure to stay tuned into Fox so that I can make further attempts at understand the liberal agenda.",
"> I get assholes here on reddit asking questions every damn day, but they won't listen to answers. \n\nAskholes!\n",
"It’s clear as day that pretty much from the middle onwards there is a vast difference of opinions, while within almost the entire right wing, they have coalesced around an extremist radical ideology that is largely devoid of grounding in fact or reality.",
"Actually the articles are pretty straight forward and worth reading. The comments are just a circle jerk but sometimes you get good information from a few people who put nice lists together.",
"Depending how you define it, I could agree with that, however, I think bias often leads to fallacy.\n\n\"If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against.\n\nThe struggle between \"for\" and \"against\" is the mind's worst disease\" -Xinxin Ming",
"TIL \"no-go\" actually just means areas of high crime.\n\nWho care about goal posts, really? Definitions mean nothing! Weeeeeeeeeeee!",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man",
"So you're saying he's an idiot? I wonder if Snopes mentions that.",
"also a pic of Hannity and Alex Jones would help simplify things! :D",
"Most mainstream outlets do this. You can tell the truth, but maliciously omit information to make your reporting a lot more cut and dry.",
"cnn is a joke",
"> The campaigns' willingness to engage with politifact has nothing to do with the truth of the statements though.\n\nBut it does when they can clarify that you are misunderstanding the context of what was said, and then can provide data to back up your interpretation of your statement.\n",
"“Don’t go on Facebook”",
"It is thought in every subject in my school , but the kids are to fucking stupid and take opinions like facts, while some teachers are shoving their political bullshit down our throat, so it doesn't teach them shit.",
">Remember, bias can also be omission.\n\nDefinitely agree with that, and I'm sure Snopes and the other fact checking sites display this kind of bias.\n\nHowever, \"unreliable\" seems like a stretch. If I want to find out if a claim is true or not, or verify/disprove something that might be a myth, Snopes seems to be pretty good for that. Do you have any examples of these fact-checking sites actually being *wrong* about a topic?\n\nI've asked this question before, and I've been given some (usually right-wing) articles criticizing Snopes/Politifact. There's a lot of criticism out there, but their examples don't tend to stand up to scrutiny - universally, the criticism boils down to some nitpicking about a detail irrelevant to the overall analysis (i.e. where their claim falls on the true-false spectrum).\n\nAre there any articles that Snopes claims something is false (or true), when the truth is demonstrably and unequivocally the opposite?",
"No u!",
"I think we're all going to be just fine. You might have to increase your budget for pee-pee panty replacement, but I still think you'll get through it just fine. In a few years, you'll get a new flavor of horrible to vote for and everyone's roles will reverse.",
"thank you!",
"If the headline is framed in the form of a question, it's probably fake news",
"I hope I didn't paint the picture that that's the only reason for the Civil War, that would be a gross simplification. However, the two main themes of the succession of the confederate states were states' rights and slavery. *Every single* confederate state declaration of succession specifically cited slavery, it's advocacy and in a couple instances the desire to *expand* slavery. It's something that's been argued over in the states for a long time because the southern half of our country is statistically far less educated and was, quite clearly, on the wrong side of history during this conflict - combine that with decades of intentional fact and truth bending and you've got a substantial part of our population that thinks it had *little* to do with slavery, which is absurd. The confederate states that succeeded from the union wrote declarations on *why*, so there's not much to conflate. The Civil war was, primarily, fought so southerners could maintain their economy by citing states rights to continue enslaving other human beings. \n\nIf you haven't read it, I strongly encourage you to read that speech I linked. To me that's honestly the golden standard on the side of the debate advocating for the removal of these statues. You may find you disagree, but I guarantee you'll think to yourself, \"I completely understand and it's a justified stance.\" if nothing else \n\nEDIT: I'll never get seceded vs succeeded right, I'm leaving it. ",
"1. There STILL is no evidence of Russia collusion\n\n\n2. Obama ruined his image by pulling this big brother shit\n\n\n3. The FBI always has been, and always will be shady. ",
"Links to examples, please?",
"Answer to what? All your points are trash. The article about the debt going down under Trump? \n\nIf you'd taken an Economics class you'd know that fiscal changes take month to take effect or even show on the macro scale. The debt didn't go down because of trump, it went down because it was already doing that. \n\nYou cherry picked statements and made false claims about the articles. They address the nuance, and you choose to remove all of it. \n\nThere's nothing to respond to because your list is only convincing to people who already believe what you believe. \n\nYour bias makes the list good, to you. But on any factual basis, it's crap. Is this the answer you wanted? ",
"Err... your response to being asked to provide proof that they're biased is an article that shows they correct their bias when noticed?\n\nThe rest of the article just seems to take umbrage at the thought that Republicans could lie more than Democrats, and some strange offense that when things are called lies, more words are used to explain that.\n\nI don't really see anything substantially damning here. If anything, it's more reason to believe politifact.",
"You passed the test.",
"He’s saying that a right wing fact checking source would be great. I interpreted that as a joke because sometimes the right (yes, and the left) distort facts to support them, so even though fact checking websites tend to be liberal, it’s because of it was republican they wouldn’t be true facts. Want an example of ‘distorted’ facts? When Obama was president, Bin Laden was alive, when Trump was president Bin Laden was dead. You get it? Makes Trump look good until you think about it.",
"Is there any evidence of that other than them contradicting anything you choose to believe?",
"> 'Someone claimed 20 gringots were whoosawats - X FALSE. blah blah blah blah paragraph 5: the actual number is estimated at 19.8 gringots'\n\n",
"That’s usually my thought when I see people on social media complaining about school curriculums. Do you honestly think the kids who don’t pay attention to biology are going to suddenly start paying attention to a critical thinking class?\n\n",
"My local library is open 12-5 on Sundays! ",
"I actually picked this one because it puts middle of the road sources a little to the left. I thought I'd be accused of being biased myself if I had a chart that showed them as neutral. Right wing subs here consider CNN as biased as the left sees Breitbart. ",
"yeah wasn’t so bad until then",
"Reality has a liberal bias",
"I adore this comment. Thank you for writing it.",
"Wasn't looking to give you one.",
"Source? ",
"Fortunately the burden of proof is not on him. I as well can say things.",
"Fact check stories with sites like... ***Politico?????***\n\nWhat did they not have enough room on there to also mention The Young Turks?",
"DAE think libs are the real ignoramuses? Tune in to t_d and discover the Truth (TM)!",
"Like using bleach bit? That's something else politico called false, trump claimed it was something else \n\nShe really didn't though, that's why she was smashing phones with hammers, they found more on Anthony wieners laptop's. Honestly, they keep finding more every time one of these things that are going to take down trump are discovered.\n\nBut hey this has been uninformative because I haven't told you how to feel.\n\nYou honestly think she turned them a over is truly fucking insane and why you don't understand what's going on. You have blinders on ",
"That doesn't mean you don't have to provide arguments, evidence and sources.",
"\"When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? It doesn't exist, folks.\"\n\nHis statement, if we are strictly literal, is completely false. They do exist, even if it is only 1000. This could easily have been given a \"false\" rating, and I don't think I would have batted an eye.\n\nHowever, they gave it a mostly false rating. You know why? because \"Trump has a point here.\"\n\nTrying to claim that they are biased to him because he said something that was literally false, and they rated it only \"mostly false\" because \"he has a point\" is incredibly weak.",
"What would a “justifiable” reason for one shooting have to do with any of the other unjustified murders that take place? Did you miss Daniel Shaver, Andrew Finch, etc? Being against police murdering citizens, and I’m an ideologue. Carry on, but I don’t think you have any idea what you’re saying.",
"Sure, you can say that, or just vote with your dollar. Yeah, Fox News is a victim of circumstance. They sell a product that people like. It just happens to be mostly opinion based rather than factual. However some people want that product, and they're rewarded for it. CNN is a bit of a mix. They can't be all opinion or their reputation would tank (despite what you may feel, they're still widely trusted) but if they were always dry and factual, people would get bored. \n\nIn this case, I read articles from CNN that ring factual, and check sources to make sure they are, and go on my way. I don't do the same with Fox because usually the sources don't match the claims, and the reporting comes off deeply spun. That's it. Easy shit dude.",
"I think both sides have distanced themselves from center, and that both sides are pretty rabid. The left has lost their marbles like the right did during Obama.",
"And this was carl azuz with cnn10",
"You fool. Did you not see the recent [eclipse?](https://imgur.com/hBQem9M)",
"The difference is something like CNN will say undocumented immigrants and Fox news will call them illegal immigrants. While both technically true they both put a spin on it this is where a bias comes into play.",
"I was stoked to see they're [easy to order](https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark).",
"Yes nicely corrected after they were called out on their bullshit.....",
"Also, the people reading fake news think politifact and Snopes are liberal-biased fake news.",
"You do know that journalists have been using anonymous sources for decades if not longer, right? It's done to protect the safety of the sources, because people have and will be murdered/assassinated for giving information to the press. ",
"Holy god",
"Where's fox",
"> Doubt any liberal will say Fox is a respectable source. \n\nI'm a liberal who just said Fox, when not an editorial, is generally still a reasonable source that one shouldn't necessarily call fake news, just extremely biased news. And lots of conservatives who aren't alt-right Trump crazies should acknowledge CNN is a generally respectable news source despite its own different problems. Same with MSNBC. Same with the New York Times. Same with Wall Street Journal. Same with ABC News. \n\nIt's a pretty recent phenomenon that we have all these politicians and alt-right crazies saying a majority of established and consistently respectable news is now entirely fake and fabricated, just because some stories aren't flattering to Trump's behavior or the awfulness of the alt right. \n\nAnd maybe NPR is consisting of mostly liberals but, ya know, exactly like the point of been making from the beginning, NPR is not fake news. It's real news worth listening to if you want to be more informed. \n\nIt's like some people think good journalism doesn't exist across a broad spectrum and has for a long time. Stop drinking the alt-right, Orwellian kool-aid where facts are up for debate and bias matters more than truth. ",
"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/donald-trump/donald-trumps-false-claim-refugees-migrants-are-mo/\n\nClaim being analysed: \"Among Syrian refugees and migrants coming into Europe, \"there look like very few women. Very few children.\"\n\"Donald Trump repeated a false notion Thursday at the South Carolina Republican debate that the flight of Syrian refugees and other migrants is largely men.\"\n\nTheir conclusion: Trump said that among Syrian refugees and migrants coming into Europe, \"there look like very few women. Very few children.\"\n\nThe data in no way supports that claim.\n\nThe majority of more than 4.6 million Syrian refugees entering Europe are women and children 17 and younger. Of migrants arriving by sea -- about 1 million people -- 31 percent are children and 19 percent are women.\n\nWe rate this statement False.\n\nDirect quote from the EU asylum statistics Politifact cited: The distribution of first time asylum applicants by sex shows that more men than women were seeking asylum. Among the youngest age group (0–13 years), males accounted for 53 % of the total number of applicants in 2016. There was a greater degree of gender inequality for asylum applicants who were 14–17 or 18–34 years old, where around three quarters of first time applicants were male, with this share dropping back to just over three fifths for the age group 35–64. Across the EU-28, female applicants outnumbered male applicants in 2016 for asylum applicants aged 65 and over, although this group was relatively small, accounting for just 0.6 % of the total number of first time applicants. [Note: the source used by Politifact is constantly updated so we're not looking at exactly what they were looking at, however, the info on gender proportion of migrants is almost identical to that from when the article was written.]\n\n-----\n\nFor the record, I wrote them when the article was first released because of what I just cited and also because the author annoyingly classified the entire Syrian refugee population, all 4.6m of them, as 'entering Europe', which is obviously ridiculous. There was a problem where a large proportion of alleged child refugees turned out to be adult men after age checks were performed. I only ever received an automated reply.\n\nI think that's a pretty clear example of Politifact being wrong and not correcting themselves.",
"That's the right's tactic, label any bias as fake news, it plays really well unfortunately",
"The difference here is between the authors' assessments of what \"unemployed\" means. While people make an assessment of politifact as a whole, it really should be broken down by author. \n\nWhat unemployment rate should be judged is entirely subjective, one author thought that it was fair to assess total unemployment and the other thought that federal standard for unemployment should be used. \n\nRather than concluding that the two authors have differing opinions, people are going to conclude that the website is liberally biased.",
"Snopes? Politifact?\n\nYah no thanks. Both are alt left propaganda.",
"A couple things with your assessment...\n\n*Sanders is using the age range 17-20 where Trump is using what? Since the Trump campaign did not respond to request for clarification they are forced to look for a likely source that makes sense. The Sanders campaign was forthcoming about how they came to their numbers.\n\n*Trump is (by politifact's estimation since the Trump campaign did not clarify) using the inverse of a separate set of statistics to come to a conclusion on a different age range and without the same caveats of high school dropouts or graduates. The difference in age ranges can have an effect and also the inverse of employment is not necessarily unemployment. Of course it would be easier to compare these two claims if evaluating the Trump statement didn't require a private investigator to figure out what he's actually talking about.\n\nPoint being I don't think it's fair to compare these two claims and say that politifact is biased again st Trump.\n",
"This chart is a joke, as in it actually made me laugh. MotherJones & Salon are high quality? USA Today is neutral? ",
"Given that \"fake news\" was a term started by liberal outlets, it's less trying to change the paradigm of the term as it is trying to change who it's directed at. Which has been almost entirely successful.",
"What library is this? ",
"So antifa, SJWs, and Communists don't exist? You're the delusional one here. The entire of the right isn't radicalized. They're fringe groups, like the crazies on the left. You're just dehumanizing people like an asshole.",
"I find that that Politifact / Snopes tends to report more republican statements than democrat mainly because there are more republican statements that are false than there are of democrat statements. That combined with how the statements that republicans tend to make more extreme-false statements than democrats do.",
"Did their bias cause them to lie? That's the key question. As far as I can tell, their facts have always been accurate, it's only their rating scale (which is subjective, not objective) that has been called into question.\n\nI don't care about their political commentary, only their fact-checking. As long as their fact-checking is accurate, they're a good source for that specific purpose no matter how biased they are.",
"If one side of the political aisle is wrong about something, and a web site reports on that, it doesn't make the web site biased. It makes that political party incorrect.\n\nJust because a political party has been screwing up royally lately doesn't mean that media is biased if they report on it. Why not concentrate on the political party that's been screwing up royally, and asking why they can't get back on track?",
"Pretty sure Obama supporters were more than willing to criticize Obama on a number of issues, especially drones and his deportation policies",
"It shouldn't be that hard to find an example if it's that prevalent.",
"Before the talking heads say \"duh... any thicko should know this\" please remember...\n\nA) we all forget it when titillated with the correct emotional input (outrage or re-affirmation of current belief)\n\nB)The tactics to do this are becoming very very sophisticated. The subtly that clicks and opinions are farmed nowadays would barely register on the scale of what was considered propaganda 20 (or even 5) years ago.",
"Why should that have been completely false? The substance of the statement is actually true. It's source is incorrect. Which snopes points out.\n",
"so your trash is ok cause someone else did it too..... gotta love the mental gymnastics you cry baby idiots pull. ",
"Can I ask just what *is* fake news at this point? I hear it thrown around so much. And it's commonly used as an insult or something? Where did it begin? In what instance was there legitimate \"fake news\" that seeded this whole pile of crap? \n",
"No shit. ",
"Politico *is* biased, though they're generally pretty high-quality as far as biased sources go. Salon they are not.\n\nSo I think they're still pretty trustworthy, but make sure to keep in mind the bias when you read what they have to say. Sometimes they're reporting truthfully but with a bit of a partisan nudge to it. Doesn't mean you can't be informed by it.",
"the problem with the far right claiming everything they don't believe in fake news is that now, reality itself is bias. \n\nColbert said it best \"reality has a well-known liberal bias\"",
"Yes, that's what I said. Left on the political spectrum != Leftist.",
"It is an assumption. It's also the only assumption that makes sense. \n\nThe leaflet wouldn't be telling you to check for weird URLs and if the author of the article is named if they were talking about the New York Times, would it?\n\nWhen it comes to the fact-checking sources, they're absolutely credible when it comes to actual fake news. Again, not when it comes to biased reporting about something that did happen, but made up reporting about something that didn't happen, like the murder of an FBI agent who doesn't exist, in a town that isn't on any map, reported by a newspaper that isn't actually a real local newspaper.\n\nThe political bias of an established fact-checking source doesn't matter when it comes to determining whether the moon is made of cheese or not.",
"I like how they slipped in \"Check out these sources we approve of\"",
"My first gold! Thank you kind stranger :)",
"I would just ask the liberal to say 100 things they know about gun laws and I'll get 110 lies.",
"I don't really use Politico but Politifact is on the level",
"As close to the original story as you can get",
"Did anyone else save this picture to have as a reference to fake news? Lol",
"Does someone have a printable version of this? Maybe 6 each on a 8.5 x 11 PDF so anyone can print and distribute from home?",
"Exactly. The term was created recently because of all the influx of literally fake news. Not news that can't necessarily be trusted or that is so biased it's misleading—literal clickbait stories fabricated out of whole cloth either just for views (or to sow misinformation). \n\nTrump and company didn't like this term being directed at news so often flattering them, so now he calls the vast majority of news outlets fake news. That's so offensive to basic American values it on its own should be impeachable. ",
"Actually I don’t think that’s biased. Both articles go into explaining their reasonings and talk about the data the quotes were sourced from. If Trump’s media team bothered to respond to politifact then maybe we would have more information on where they are sourcing their stats and a better explanation of what’s going on.",
">Or maybe people in general saw their bias. \n\nBullshit.\n\nBias =\\= fake\n\nEveryone has a bias, but Snopes still reports the facts",
"Snopes, politifact and politico are terrible fact checking sources.",
"\\#10 Follow article sources and read them to confirm what the original article is using them to say is actually what the referenced article is saying.",
"Gonna double down on that stupidity eh?",
"You are correct that statistics can be used to make BS arguments but overall that is not the case. People pointing out that black men are more likely to commit crime and use that statistic to back them up would fall under that category. Men being more likely to commit felonies because they are 'inherently more violent' is slightly less wrong due to testosterone levels being linked to aggressiveness but that still gives a horribly incomplete picture.\n\nYou seem to think that is a Democrat only issue which is absolutely absurd. It is an issue due to reporters having to simplify information to the average person. In that simplification, they may include their own bias which I agree is an issue. But statistics can and often does get used for things that are extremely important. Researching medicine uses a shit ton of statistics to make sure there are not deadly side effects. You would agree that statistics is fime there, right? Or say the government thinks a specific program may be economically beneficial. They could do a small scale study to means test it. Using the statistics from that, they can decide if it is beneficial to scale up. ",
"For future reference, don't read the rebuttal only, read the actual politifact article. Abbott made *two* statements, one that was about a tie. Evans made one statement, about the tie.\n\nI believe it was the other claim that got Abbott the \"false\" rating, because he claimed \"Texas led the nation last month in new job creation.\" when, according to the federal data (Abbott provided none), Texas wasn't even in the top five (by percent or real numbers) and had actually lost jobs.",
"But what if you do this and come to find out T_ru_mp didn't lie on one subject and you post it. It will be deleted.",
"Good luck getting your average teacher to teach that their teachings should be critically examined.",
"Good, solid rules, well worth following.",
"> Naa, we don't care what shills believe cuz we know there are shills to distort the truth and that's a fact. We just say it how it is and leave, y'all need to get up all in people's faces to make everyone think like you, fuck that believe whatever you want.\n\nThe topic is fact checking and how you can know a site like Snopes is legitimate and you're saying \"nah believe whatever you want.\"\n\nThe fact that you need to call people shills for requesting sources when someone makes a ridiculous claim is telling. We're just in here asking for evidence of what you claim but no one - not even you in all that you typed - has provided it. ",
"or just use AP, because it's what journalism should be",
"The people that you use that don't go to the library. ",
"The Economist freely admits it is [fiscally conservative and \"sceptical about grandiose redistributive schemes\".](https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0) While it does tend to be center-left on social issues, it is definitely conservative when it comes to the economic issues that are the bulk of what it covers.",
"Fake news was literally used to refer to actual fake stories from places like worldnewsreport.com that are literally fake, but were among the top shared Facebook articles just before the election ",
"If anything, that makes it worse.",
"politifact generally does have true facts in their explanation but I think their simple half truth.pants on fire is biased. ",
"Breitbart is biased as well. I wouldn't recommend. Factcheck.org is probably the best I've looked at.",
"The library card says to compare sources. Your willingness to make an asshat comment over checking the validity of the claim yourself is what purpotiates the fake news cycle. \n\nAnd no, I'm not saying he is right or wrong - I'm hilighting your actions. ",
"^I ^saw ^what ^you ^did ^there",
"Politico. Probably the best source but is often now “biased” or “fake” due to actually being even handed and having things that disparage people other than just Trump :/",
"Politifact is like video game reviews. Never read the \"score.\" Always read the substance.\n\nThey tend to have informative, accurate writeups, and then condense it into a single verdict which, sometimes, is biased.",
"I use a Chrome extension, [Silent Site Sound Blocker](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/silent-site-sound-blocker/hkbdhiphllimobjnfeeekaogfibmdgfe) that asks if you wants to whitelist/blacklist a site before any audio is played. ",
"We've done it Reddit, we've come to something we can ALL agree on. What a time to be alive!",
"True, but things wanting to label themselves as fact checkers should do a better job trying to be impartial.",
"It's stupid. I remember getting into an argument with a Trump supporter about Snopes, and I wrote to them that I couldn't find any research or evidence that Snopes has a liberal bias. All I could find were OP-Eds written by right-wing sites like The Daily Caller.\n\nThey didn't reply back to me because they couldn't find any evidence written by a neutral party. It was hilarious.",
"Like I replied in the other thread as well, the two claims are not identical and the details surrounding them likely make the difference in how they are rated.",
"You're aware that the majority of every demographic that makes over 50k a year voted for Trump, right? You're empirically wrong, conservatives are happier and wealthier on average. ",
"How so?",
"> Be open-minded. Ask questions.\n\nThat'll get you banned and muted from the likes of politics, enoughtrumpspam, T_D, etc... \n\nBe careful out there. ",
"People weren't paying attention. The media gives people the news they pay for and pay attention to.",
"DON'T EVEN START ON YOUR IQ",
"Can you just give us some evidence instead of complaining? ",
"Snopes and politifact used to be good, but they’ve been heavily biased and use sketchy tactics for their “fact checking”\n\nDefinitely stay away from those sites",
"please stop calling it fake news, it's propaganda and always has been. Fake news, real news is fake articles published on shitty sites from eastern europe and asia with the sole intent of generating ad revenue. What we push in the west is propaganda, how can this generation and the ones to follow know any truth if you don't distinguish it for what it is!",
"Politifact isn't credible, thought. They're very well-known to be biased with their incredibly arbitrary and subjective scale. ",
"K. I mean more people voted democrat in the last election than republican. But sure.",
"“Be open-minded”\n\nFrom the same card that lists Politico and Politifact",
"Mozilla Phoenix was supposed to be a lightweight alternative to Mozilla, too. Edge just got there faster!",
"If it's impossible to find the \"truth\" everywhere you look, maybe what you believe isn't the truth. Ever think about that?",
"I said literal - and that is what I meant. I am glad if I taught you a new word but how many times have you listened to conservative radio talk about this: https://thinkprogress.org/roger-marshall-poor-people-do-not-want-health-care-obamacare-repeal-b49325664fd9/.",
"I've been looking forward to this!",
"Before you read this comment I want to make it clear that I'm (by American standards) far-left, I'm not some T_D troll.\n\nPolitico probably shouldn't be considered a good source for fact-checking given that they fell for a troll so obvious that Salon (of all websites) called them out on it: http://archive.is/YDMix\n\nThey also ran a story based on an entirely made-up premise: http://archive.is/loJB6\n\n[Here's](https://i.imgur.com/NysKf3z.png) a fact check they did that's straight-up wrong too.\n\nThey also run a bunch of sensationalist stuff that's unsubstantiated but not provably wrong.\n\n[Here](https://i.imgur.com/zfjjf51.jpg) and [here](https://i.imgur.com/ocjrKv9.png) and [here](https://i.imgur.com/EYLaPto.jpg) are some memes about Politifact's fact checking. It seems that Politifact are technically correct with their fact checking, but are a lot more likely to be lenient with a \"Half True\" if the person making the claim was left leaning.\n\nFor Snopes, they do seem a bit biased but they aren't too bad. They did make some stuff up about GamerGate, the waters around that are so murky that it's not easy for me to describe succinctly. [This article](https://archive.fo/ItVON) does feel a bit unlikely and overly-charitable.",
"So no. \n\nAnd I’ll bet at best your complaint is essentially “they rated this half true or mostly false but I think it should be mostly true”\n\nEdit: Actually saw your “evidence”. Turns out you are essentially ignoring context in an attempt to make a point. Not very good work on your part. ",
"This is so mind bowlingly stupid, that I'm legitimately shocked. How do you manage to function when you live entirely in your own brain?",
"CNN really bad at this",
"Yes really ",
"It is like that, except for the fact that fox news is a propaganda machine tjat regularly puts out bullshit, and slopes is legitimate and fair with actual sources. ",
"Yea, like whole 5 people will actually do those checks. Usually you either can tell immediately when something is fishy and when it isn’t. And the rest of the people will just tend to accept those “news” that correspond with their political views.",
"Politico only one of those three that is worth anything.\n\nOddly, this doesn’t give the **most important advice**:\n\nGo directly to primary sources from .gov sites where the documents being talked about can often be found.\n\nPretty much *all news outlets* are 75% opinion now. There is very little objective analysis based only on facts. It is sad.\n\nExample:\n\nQ: Did Hillary lie about classified info on her server?\n\nA: yes, it is not even a question, documents directly from the government now show this.\n\nQ: Did Trump do anything illegal with Russia?\n\nA: The only answers right now are guesses and opinions, there have yet to be solid facts to show anything, what is out there does not establish anything illegal.\n\nQ: Did Trump’s administration give Equifax a free pass on the most important negligent failure of sensitive personal info ever in history?\n\nA: Yes! And the sad part is that this is a *huge* story that isn’t even being covered because Russia gets more emotional reaction. Also, the Democrats were happy to also let it slide for the most part also, why didn’t they fight him on something like *this* that really matters to US citizens!? (Probably because of donors).\n",
"you do know that an anonymous source with no other form of corroboration of any kind in a story, is a story that doesn't merit printing without further research, right?\n\nsorry, i realize lazy journalism is all the rage but it's a net negative for everyone but the people printing the story.",
"Curious why you'd look to make a point of it being a quality answer when I didn't give ~~to~~ two shits about giving you one, then.\n\nI just stopped by to mock you. Later.",
"RIP CNN",
"I still don’t get the point. The idea that you can trust any source to be honest and accurate 100% is completely wrong to me. And when you talk about so called fact checking websites even the decision on which statements to rate is subject to bias ",
"I think this is fantastic and a great resource for the library to provide! Plus it functions as a bookmark too!",
">didn't build reputation on fact checking politics.\n\n>got reputation from papers that fact check politics.\n\nOkay.",
"Source on that claim?",
"I don't know, something about:\n\n> # Breaking: Top Leftists Call For Civil War\n> ## The global elite are preparing for a major operation\n\nstrikes me as possibly not the most unbiased way of reporting.\n",
"This was a good attempt, but they only enhance the problem by calling biased news \"FAKE NEWS\" rather than solving it. Spreading a useless and dangerous word, even at the expense of education, is deplorable.",
"Sanders gave a specific age range, so that's the range they used when discussing his argument. Trump did not give a specific age range, so they choose a range that they thought was appropriate.",
"Your screenshots are pretty misleading. Let's take one of them and debunk it.\nYour screenshot says \n> https://i.redd.it/x7oi5njhf7ry.png\n\nHere's the part of the article cut off of the screenshot:\n\n\"The administration has explained that the $400 million settlement and the prisoner release **were negotiated in separate channels** and **coincidentally reached their resolutions near the same time**.\"\n\nIt was two separate negotiations that reached conclusion at around the same time. The $400 million dollar was for a different thing that the US owed to Iran. That's not ransom. Trump conflated the two and made it a \"ransom\". And saying it's \"just\" semantics is bs.",
"10) avoid Fox News, Breitbart, and Infowars. ",
"Do the research yourself!? Research that the earth is flat, autism causes vaccines, and Alex Jones is the only one who can save us from the lizard people who run the deep state.\n\nIs what is imagine they would respond with",
"I agree. Always double check from multiple sources.",
"No, he’s saying that they updated their statement based on new information. You know, like an adult should do. \n\nYou should try doing that occasionally. ",
"He specifically said leftist.",
"That’s not true. You don’t think redditors’ fall into the fake news trap? A recent example is the series of tweets talking about Mike Pence protesting the Korean entrance which is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Even now, some may be getting annoyed that I’m seemingly defending him (Looking at a situation objectively and fact checking is not the same as defending someone). That’s an example of bias and why you may miss fake news. Anyone who thinks they aren’t susceptible to fake news and that it’s only other people who fall trap to it are just making themselves susceptible to fake news stories. ",
"Five years ago, nobody thought we'd ever have a president who claimed that the other party was treasonous for not clapping during SOTU. This is not good.",
">There were clear differences that tell the whole story.\n\nThey obviously cherry-picked their sources to reach the conclusion they wanted. Their own article says that \n\n>In May, the bureau said the employment-population ratio for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 41.5 percent. Flipped over, that would mean that the unemployment ratio - although such a statistic is not published by the bureau - would be 58.5 percent. That’s pretty close to the 59 percent figure Trump cited, Sinclair noted.\n\nSo they had a number that lined up, and still chose to return mostly false. Whereas for Bernie, they say \n\n>His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-American youth have significantly worse prospects in the job market than either Hispanics or whites do. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.\n\nEven though\n\n>Sanders didn’t really describe it the correct way. He twice used the term \"unemployment rate\" and once used the variation \"real unemployment rate,\" a vague term that doesn’t have any official definition at BLS and wasn’t mentioned in the EPI research he was quoting.\n\nIf you can't see how biased that is, I can't help you.",
"I think this is a worse response",
"Lol.",
"No I am saying that his claim was true at the time but then turned out not to work out",
"He said she acid washed them and he said she bleached them. But I don't care about this topic. It's irrelevant and done with. \n\nI can't discuss this with you because I don't know enough about it. And that's how fact based conversations should go. \n\nI see me saying you shouldn't let an article tell you how to feel has perturbed you to the core! You keep trying to use it as an insult, but you have no idea what it means. \n\nYou can't properly read my replies, you can't properly read fact checkers, and you can't properly fling back insults. \n\nTake care! I hope your day is lovely. :-) ",
">Did you miss Daniel Shaver, Andrew Finch, etc? \n\nI did. I don't follow all US crime stories habitually. Point out to me where I've stated that there's never been an unjustified killing by a US cop before, please. Does that make *every* instance automatically unjustified? Your attempt to drag unrelated cases into this to frame the debate is precisely why you're an ideologue, and more interested in your agenda than truth.",
"So;\nBuzzfeed\nCNN\nDailyKos\nHuffPost\nFactCheck\nLiberalOasis\nso basically any far left progressive and or alt right extremist sites and just about anything on facebook . Check",
"1. Ice Caps\n\nThat was straight from the mouth of Al Gore, not me. Keep backpedaling. \n\n2. Genders\n\nI care when entire educational institutions are teaching kids they \"may be in the wrong body\" because muh identify as. Progressives ridicule using GMOs yet turn face and demand SRS hormones get pumped into innocent confused kids, sometimes on taxpayer dollar. \n\n3.) Health care\n\nYou're a fucking cunt. LOTS of people including myself had my healthcare fucked up and raised after the \"keep yours\" shit. It absolutely was not true, no matter what goalpost moving, revisionism you spew. \n\n",
"\"Fact check at snopes...\"\n\nSome fact check sites have been caught misinforming. Don't trust them just because they say \"fact check.\" Many are biased.",
"Hey, as a fellow liberal, let's not call people bigots until they, well, say something bigoted. It just fans the whole far-right delusion that liberals go around calling people \"bigoted\" with little to no evidence.",
"Disabling Media.autoplay.enabled in the about:config disables autoplay videos, gifs, and pretty much everything. I find it's worth the extra hassle on the things I do want to watch. ",
"Savage. ",
"Soo you want me to go to an alt-leftist website and give a second left-leaning opinion on their articles instead? Because that would be a fair summary. I'm trying to point out the ridicule here.\n\nBut to address the one point you clearly stated, you said yourself the debt went down. It couldn't have been caused directly by anything that Trump did that month, but Politifact still gave him a poor rating on a true fact *being* that the debt did in fact, go down.",
"Politico flat out lied today. How are they considered \"fact checkers\"?\n\nCan we not say \"Ignore stories with anonymous stories\" \n\nCan we not say \"ignore stories that claim to be familiar with the thinking of another party\"\n\nCan we not say: CNN is a great example of fake news?",
"I would still take those with a grain of salt. Just because it's been posted on Reddit, that doesn't mean it's true... ",
">I get it.\n\nNo. You really do not. ",
"In looking at both of PolitiFact's assessments regarding each claim, they both mention that the caveat to Paul's and Webb's statements is that a temporary income tax was implemented during the Civil War as a funding mechanism for the war. They both even quoted the same expert — Joseph Thorndike, director of Tax Analyst's Tax History Project — in both pieces, and he said the same thing both times. In Paul's, Thorndike called the Civil War tax a \"relatively small caveat\" and in Webb's it was \"an anomaly.\"\n\nHere's how PolitiFact came to their conclusion on Paul's statement:\n\nPaul’s statement that the federal income tax rate was zero until 1913 reflects the timing of the constitutional change enabling the current tax. But his claim disregards two pre-1913 efforts to impose an income tax — one of which was in place for a decade. This debate claim rates Half True.\n\nAnd their conclusion on Webb's:\n\nWebb said \"we did not even have a federal income tax in this country until 1913.\"\n\nThe modern income tax structure, complete with Form 1040, was born in 1913. But in the interest of history, it should be noted that Lincoln ushered in an income tax in 1862 and it lasted 10 years.\n\nSo we rate the statement of Webb -- a historian himself -- Mostly True.\n\n",
"Literally 100% of the people talking shit to me have posted in T_D one their first page of comment history.\n\nDo you guys PM each other when it's time to go brigade?\n\nWe have 1 of 2 scenarios here. Either literally the only people offended by my are T_D posters, or one offended T_D poster goes and gets his friends to talk back.\n\nWhich is it? I'm curious.",
"Funny how you clearly didn’t read the wikipedia article.\n\n> As with similar \"laws\" (e.g., Murphy's law), it is intended to be a humorous proverb rather than the literal truth.",
"They are on all subreddits too. Uplifting news had an article about the first openly gay Prince in India and they fucked the comments section with vile, toxic bullshit. ",
"AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT THINKS THIS SHOULD BE AN ENTIRE CIRICULUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLERS",
"Fair enough, but there's no sense complaining at that point.",
"Lol you got called out, nice resorting to a strawman ",
"TO BILL BRASKY!",
"If you want to know why people laugh at places like politifact google \"politifact who lies more\"... I mean bloody hell, Hillary second most truthful person after Obama? Dumbest thing I saw today...",
"All of that is accurate until it came to snopes and politico etc. all heavily biased sources. The rest of the content is very good though and should be plastered everywhere. People need to learn to think for themselves ",
"That's how you get called a conspiracy theorist ",
"It is fake?! News",
"Semantics. I'd say it's the same. Like Romney is a right-winger.",
"And I think you're missing my point. If they don't care, neither does anyone else. I'm not saying they care, I'm just saying that no one else does either.\n\nAlso, this has nothing to do with politics or my bias. Why are you even bringing that up?",
"Source on that claim?",
"The fact check sites are actual garbage but everything else rings true.",
"http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jan/31/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-federal-income-tax-rate-was-0-percen/\n\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/aug/24/jim-webb/jim-webb-says-us-didnt-have-income-taxes-until-191/",
"We wouldn’t have problems dealing with fake news today if critical thinking courses were required in high school and college.",
"Finally trump is doing something for Education. ",
"Did you guys not do a shit ton of source analysis’ in high school social studies?",
"And yet they are. What a coincidence!",
"Is that from \"Dude, where's my car?\". \nI remember this. I don't remember the context.",
"I would add, \"consider the biases of the author, and if someone claims to be unbiased be especially cautious.\" Everyone is biased, even you! ",
"Snopes is a lazy 'REFUTE OPPOSING ARGUMENT!!1!' button that employs specious, pseudointellectual reasoning and subtle liberal commentary thinly disguised as fact checking. The news is carefully dissected with a liberal perspective, rarely employs its stated 'methodology' to evaluate claims, and is on par with other infotainment. \n\nTheir investigative, uh, 'talent' rarely list any credentials or professional experience/accolates but are keen to let you know their oh-so-idiosyncratic leisure activities. \"BUT MUH PROFESSIONALISM\"\n\n \nPlus their management is being investigated for fraud? Clickbait muckraking, you're right, I'll pass on Snopes' credibility!",
"I never said the claims were identical, just similar.\n\nBut if you look at their reasoning, it's clear they gave Sanders the benefit of the doubt and Mostly True, while doing the opposite for Trump. In the article about Trump's statement they even say how he could have reached 59% using the terminology they gave to Bernie and yet still called it false.",
"What worries me more is that they are arguing about it at all. Does it matter? Did they not do the right thing, here? Are they arguing that we shouldn't have paid them the money that we owed them, or that we shouldn't have used it as leverage to have prisoners released?",
"Any science class that covers how the scientific method works covers critical thinking which is the core skill people need. \n\nNot that their aren't other ways to cover critical thinking but teaching the scientific method is already fairly standard in most places.",
"I thought politfact was pretty unbiased? I mean, I know it had some biases but I didn’t think it was bad enough to be considered untrustworthy. ",
"Furthermore, the statement was published on a news site that Bannon served as the *executive chairman* of. You know what he did as the executive chairman? He decided the angles writers were going to take and he guided Brietbart to becoming the alt-right platform it is today.\n\nIf he didn't agree with what the statement was saying, it would have never been published on the website. He didn't say it himself, but you bet your ass he approved it. Mixture is a fine rating for this, and at the moment it's the only piece of evidence for these claims that exists in this thread. I'm sure the owners of Snopes are shaking in their boots over being exposed in such crushing fashion.",
"There’s a difference between “black guy killed by cop” and “black guy reaches for gun which led to him being shot by cop”.\n\nI mean the fact that the cop killed the black guy isn’t a wrong fact, but it omits other facts, which is what they do",
"You spelled the word philosophy wrong. ;)",
"> What libs actually think is that both should be treated equally with equal opportunities\n\nBullshit.\n\nLibs think men live a life of extraordinary privilege and that women are second-class citizens in society, and yet completely reject just how many examples of institutional sexism we have that overwhelmingly benefit women. Then they get all angry and shitty when you point this out.\n\nGo ahead and tell me I'm wrong, right after you explain why the fuck millions of people are wasting their time on these idiotic \"women's marches\". Go ahead and tell me why we 'need' women's marches and how terrible women have it while explaining why the Duluth Model isn't **literal fucking sexism written and practiced by the justice system**. \n\nAfter that, please explain why it's somehow fair for women's insurance healthcare costs to be offloaded to men, while men get far less sexual health issues covered by insurance. Make sure to contrast that with how it's totally common sense that all men have to pay more for vehicle insurance just because they have a penis.\n\nLiberals straight up lowered the standards for firefighters because they thought it \"wasn't fair\" that women couldn't pass.\n\nhttps://nypost.com/2015/05/05/fdnys-unfit-the-perils-of-pushing-women-into-firefighting/ \n \nhttp://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/city-council-pushes-fdny-female-firefighters-blog-entry-1.2040918\n\n\nFucking pull the other one.",
"This is the exact thing that made me furious that Trump was even considered for nomination. He was appealing to conspirators and was either clearly 100% misinformed or flat out lying. The man has no credibility.",
"Everyone on Reddit needs to look and read all these points ",
"Picture doesn't match the content.",
"Hey on your way out would you wanna buy some deathsticks?",
"Reddit's populace is a big offender too. And it's so obvious to tell: Based on upvote patterns and the highest-voted top level comments it's often easy to see when people are interpreting the title instead of reading the article.",
"https://imgur.com/6N9DrCo",
"Do realize that both sides make this argument, and everyone sees the opposite side as brainwashed by the media they watch. So, should I be item minded about birthers claiming Obama want a US citizen? That sounds as crazy as the possibility of a US President being a Russian asset set out to destroy the US Government from within...",
"Really? You honestly believe Politico *isn't* biased?",
"My points on the comment went from positive 5 to negative 10 in just a few minutes just now. Go figure lol, they got nothing better to do.",
"Adblock sold out awhile ago, check out uBlock!",
"Well it's fucking true. They are pure shit sources of \"fact\" checking.",
"So then we are really getting the \"fact checker\"s best guess at the fact, which then clearly can become biased. This back pedaling to \"oh well yeah they're not perfect\" completely contradicts the claim seen so often that \"facts can't be biased\", because how they are presented is obviously part of the bias. No, I'm not going to assume politifact is only made up of well intentioned individuals who are just trying their gosh darned best",
"This kind of shit right here. My almost my whole fucking family... ",
"No I don't want you to do anything. You call the articles hypocritical but you're wrong. All the points YOU personally made are bad and incomplete. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking. I think the articles they wrote are good. What you said to criticize them is bad. \n\nYes they gave him a poor rating because he was trying to take credit. It's disingenuous and WRONG. which is why he got a bad rating. ",
"I mean, are they wrong though? I'm a fairly liberal person and have been called a nazi for:\n\n\nTalking about men's rights and showing that they have it worse in America\n\n\nTelling people to wait on facts of a video that was made to look like a white guy pulling a gun on a black guy because he was wearing a hoodie in which \"woke\" people got all triggered and wanted whites to be shot and such, and me getting banned from said page before the evidence comes out that i was right and it was in Brazil and it was an off duty cop being jumpy because hooded guys were assassinating them\n\n\nTold i was a rapist for telling one girl that she wasnt raped when she went over to a guys house explicitly for sex but then said he felt \"aggressive\" so she went down on him and then left\n\n\nDoxxed by male feminists\n\n\nHarassed by atheists for being a theist\n\n\nEtc etc\n\n\nIf I were you, i'd do what I did and not consider yourself a part of that disgusting movement anymore",
"You’d be surprised. Plus, a library person might take it home and give it to a non-library person :) ",
"didnt snopes have former employees run for public office as democrats? i recall reading an article about that .",
"Oh no, bias, anything but bias!\n\n\nThey don't get the facts wrong, they're not fake news",
"Insane person thinks climate change is false is different than proving it false. ",
"If only Reddit followed this shit.",
"Skyrim on a full gaming rig at the library knows no boundary and applies to all. ",
"Basically what you just said is that reality has a left leaning bias? That is outstandingly fucking hilarious mate thank you. What a start to week for me hahahaha",
"gotta love a library pointing you to 3 .COM resources... American academia in a nutshell....",
"What argument? Stop fucking trolling. Stop trying to derail the discussion. My original comment was 100% valid and relevant, yours have been irrelevant bullshit and desperate false equivalence.\n\nThe people who actually create \"Fake News\" have experimented with content for a liberal audience, but they found that liberals/mainstream normies just [*\"wouldn't take the bait.\"*](https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburb) Apparently only people on the Right have enough of a deficit of critical thought to perpetuate the conspiracies and nonsense of fake news campaigns. **The phenomenon is overwhelmingly a rightwing thing.**\n\nYou may dislike this fact, but that doesn't change it, and neither do your failed efforts to deflect it.",
"👍There you go thinking again.",
"All of these methods of checking for fake news are great ways of assessing content critically. Out of all of them, I agree the most with ignoring anonymous sources or ‘sources familiar with the matter’ because the evidence often boils down to rumor. One I disagree with is using fact checker websites. Politifact and Snopes should be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes they are very liberal with what constitutes “stretching the truth”, such as mistakenly getting a date wrong and other minor details. It’s simple now to search out sources to back up a claim thanks to search engines.\n\nGreat advice from the library.",
"Can someone please sneak post this on to r/The_Dipshits ",
"I would add “Does a headline try to make you feel angry or afraid? The article is likely biased and exaggerating.”",
"There's a big difference between \"asking questions\" and performing what amounts to a [Gish Gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop).\n\nAlso, the \"Be open-minded\" part implies that you're asking questions to be potentially challenged, not as setups for your clever slayings of people who disagree with you.",
"It's a very specific claim to say that someone directly said a certain quote. If they were to say that he supports that sentiment, it could make sense as a partial truth.\n\nHowever, a CEO of a large news website isn't going to be paying attention to every single line in every article that's published. That's unreasonable.",
"Something tells me you've never been on r/politics, because every post on there has an actual author.\n\nMaybe I shouldn't interrupt your circlejerk though ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯",
"Or you could just go to the actual website, and see the blatant lies and obvious propaganda efforts for yourself, but I really doubt you're here to try and learn anything.\n\nBut just in case, here's a study for you.\n\nhttps://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php",
"I never claimed the articles were written a couple of days apart, just that I read them a couple days apart.\n\nYou should go work as a fact checker for PolitiFact. You'd fit right in since that's EXACTLY the kind of BS I was talking about.\n\nI'm not gonna copy paste the same stuff a million times but check my last couple of posts for a more in depth explanation of how they clearly gave Sanders a mostly true despite him using incorrect terminology yet give Trump a mostly false for the exact same thing.",
"\"Fact check stories with left leaning sites\" ",
"Is the ultimate source a shadowy espionage agency? Or just Judy Miller?",
"I think it means go to Politico or Politifact to fact check the stories you read - not that those sites are the problem. ",
"Had to get the perfect lighting.",
">fact check >snopes",
"No deodorant in Northern Canada.",
"Biased presentation of news can be real and true, but it can also lead reader or viewer to question whether or not it's actually true, or how much of it is true, how much is false. \n\nBias is ultimately self-serving and tends to show that the point of presenting news in that manner isn't to \"find the truth\" but is instead to push a narrative or agenda, and present things in a way that best aligns with their narrative or agenda",
"Do you notice how I said a “vast difference of opinions”? That includes those groups. Can you read? The right wing has become such a radical political group devoid of factuality. The vast majority of them stand behind Trump and his entire loony bin of racists, billionaire Wall Streeters, wife beaters, and morons who have no idea how much they are doing to facilitate the decline of the country relative to China. Whatever distraction, that anyone with more than two brain cells can see is a lie, that the state television network hammers on about becomes reality for the right wing, let alone what the even more reality-free propaganda conspiracy outlets push.",
"Yes but you can (and bloody well should) take objective steps to reduce its effect upon what you right e.g. get both sides of the story, write evenly and without pandering to your own bias. Get someone else to vet your work.\n\nJournalists were trained to do that for years before blogs ever existed. It's possible.",
"I think that you're half right, but when they are providing their \"service,\" it has become increasing true that many people want to consume the media that confirms their beliefs. There is more profit to be made if viewers regularly return and your content makes them feel good (confirms their bias). If people who don't like pro-Trump content become turned off from your content, you now have to weigh the loss of those people, versus the loss of the \"moderate\" people who might prefer your news to be neutral (and occasionally this means a pro-trump story when he does something good).\n\nBut none of that really matters when it comes to fabricating news. A website can clearly be a \"right-wing\" news site, and they don't ever have to tell a lie in order to operate. Mostly these sites use editorialized versions of the same story that everyone else is covering. This is very clear when you look at Jim Acosta's coverage of the White House. He is clearly not a fan of Trump, and his behavior at the press briefings, along with his tweets, writing, etc..., clearly shows this. While he may have once been a more objective journalist, he is unable to hide his bias. He routinely misinterprets White House statements, and twists anything he can into a fake headline or story. ",
"Well yeah but facts are unbiased and they only report facts which just seems liberally biased because reality has a liberal bias! Go back to Infowars lol!!\n\nAm I doing this right",
"Just checked the top five posts on the front page of /r/politics. All have an author listed. So no.",
"Why would a wookie, an 8 foot tall wookie, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two foot tall ewoks? That does not make sense! But more importantly, you have to ask yourself, 'what does that have to do with this case?' Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.",
"Chose an age range they thought was appropriate huh?\n\nEven though in their article they had a statistic that was 58.5%, and they gave Bernie the benefit of the doubt when he used incorrect terminology? Interesting.",
"The only one making generalizations is you. My first comment was about how the MSM spins the news to pander to their viewers. You’re carrying on with this whole straw man thing, saying police shootings (where i use an actual example, contrast to whatever it is you’re trying to say) are unrelated. You’re projecting pretty strongly, and if you read the convo after some time, I think you’ll understand my confusion at what it is you’re getting at from what I’m saying.",
"Uhh, yeah.. the only ones spreading misleading and false statements are the right (again)... Go figure.\n\n\nYou and your \"source\" cherry pick this story as \"proof politifact yadda yadda REEEE\"\n\nit ignores the nuances (typical of right wingers pushing an agenda).\n\nThe plan obama proposed AT THAT TIME (2008) was very different from the plan that came to be in 2010.\n\nFunny how you guys gloss over that fact, huh? \n\n\nIt (politifact) even mentions a detail of Obama's plan as it stood in 2008 that is notably different from the final product: \"as of now, the Obama plan only includes a mandate for children\" \n\nAnd then politifact also includes the caveat \"obama's plan **should** allow you to keep your doctor\" . \n\n\n\nSo here we have another right winger peddling his right wing article proven to be-- surprise surprise -- full of lies, distortion and misleading claims. \n\nFake news is like a flame and the American right wing is like a moth. ",
"Sticky videos to lift viewability. Literally pitching this to advertisers as 'high quality video products'. ",
"The important bit: Correction (Dec. 20, 2016): This fact-check initially published on Aug. 24, 2015, and was rated Mostly True. Upon reconsideration, we are changing our ruling to Half True. The text of the fact-check is unchanged.\n\nLuckily, it seems people fact checked the fact checker.",
" Not true, it’s mostly Republicans.",
"This should literally be common sense to everyone. Sad that people have to be reminded constantly about these precautions",
"I have a friend who keeps trying to sell me on zero hedge. I told him that 1) I dont believe in following anything or anyone that follows a “manifesto”, and 2) anonymity in reporting is the worst idea I’ve ever heard",
"You should click on the two links. It's pretty clear where the changes were, and also why the two statements are rated differently.",
"Some of these Facebook videos are cancer man. People believe everything they see. ",
"Chrome also recently added the option to mute site, so any return to the site is automatically muted.",
">You can't just make these huge jumps to justify why you didn't take his argument at face-value.\n\n\nIt's not that big a jump at all. If you're talking about the factuality or falsehood of a story, reference politifact or snopes then someone says \"psssh, as if those guys are unbiased\" that person is clearly implying that he or she doesn't want to believe any actual facts and will continue believing the internet rumor regardless of how baseless it is.\n\n\nBias isn't the issue when you're dealing with facts and statements of fact. That's what politifact and the rest deal with. ",
"http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jan/31/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-federal-income-tax-rate-was-0-percen/\n\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/aug/24/jim-webb/jim-webb-says-us-didnt-have-income-taxes-until-191/\n\nThat person won’t link it but I will. I don’t care what your bias is if you state it, but snopes and politifact are not unbiased sources.\n\n\nI have an article that lists them out but it’s from a conservative news source, I looked at the article and checked the quotes.\n\n\nEdit: Politifact edited the article a year and a half after it was released, this was three days after [this article](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/11701/11-worst-fact-checks-facebooks-new-fact-checkers-aaron-bandler%3Famp) was released showing that they did it.",
"I see now. I didn’t read the “with”. Thank you for the correction. ",
"Except this was their money so it cannot really be ransom. ",
"They do have a bias, but they also cite reliable sources within each article (such as AP). Left-wing sources tend to exaggerate at worst, but do not lie (their base calls them out on it). Right-wing sources tend to lie (their base eats it up). ",
"Wow so profound ",
">Isn't this the fallacy of the middle ground? \n\nAbsolutely",
"> bubble\n\nI find this to be important too. And ironic, because reddit is on of these bubbles / echo chamber. ",
"Was going great until “snopes” was mentioned, snopes is really biased.",
"It was just proven that this is demonstrably false and you just stick your fingers in your ears and scream \"lalalalalalala\" 😂🤣",
"Obviously you didn't read the articles. If they used the same standards for everyone, they either both should have been Mostly True or Mostly False. They gave one the benefit of the doubt and not the other, despite coming up with a 58.5% figure for Trump.",
"Because Reddit is the gold standard of objectivity....",
"> though are worded as though they are combating the claims that police do not go there physically, which again is a misrepresentation.\n\nNo, that is exactly what conservative media has portrayed: that there are areas that the police simply *do not go*. Hence the term.\n\nChanging the definition of \"no-go zone\" to simply mean high crime area is a brazen and transparent example of goal post shifting.\n\nFor example Ami Horowitz, through Fox News, released a video about the subject:\n\n>Finally, Horowitz’s film claims that there are so-called police ‘no-go zones’ – immigrant ghettos in cities where the authorities are unable to patrol because it is too dangerous for them to enter. To be clear, Swedish police have confirmed that there are no ‘no-go zones’. Two Swedish officers, Anders Göranzon and Jakob Ekström who were featured in Horowitz’s film, were also surprised at how their statements were taken out of context after being interviewed by the filmmaker. “It was supposed to be about crime in high-risk areas,” say the officers in a subsequent interview with Sweden’s largest morning newspaper, Dagens Nyheter. “There wasn’t any focus on migration or immigration. We don’t stand behind it. He has edited the answers.”\n\nhttp://blogs.timesofisrael.com/whats-really-happening-in-sweden/",
"The last one is hardest for people",
"Of how accurate they are? Great job. ",
"Saying it's false would lead people to believe that it was never said either, it was, just not by bannon, thus it's a mixture.",
"You Lib-rary lovers and you're fancy words.",
"You consider t_d news?",
"This used to be called 9th grade English / reading class. No?",
"Because anyone who doesn't agree with you is left leaning? Buy a brain. \n",
"You post on t_d. You don't get to call anyone an idiot, or question someone's self awareness under any circumstances.",
"Except it originally meant actually fake news. Kids in Macedonia writing articles about Hillary's super cancer AIDS or whatever.",
"You are right, it is very sad that the only way your shitty opinions gain any validity are when you brigade and skew the actual votes on your favor, despite any intelligent person vehemently disagreeing with your premise.\n\nThat is very, very sad for you.\n",
"Multiple CNN reporters got disciplined because they published an article without the prerequisite level of sourcing required *by CNN themselves*.\n\nBrian Williams got fired for lying about an event that happened to him in the Iraq War.\n\nJust two examples off the top of my head.",
"Open Edge... type \"chrome download\"\n\n\nAdvertisement: Are you sure? Edge is the worlds fastest browser blah blah blah\"\n\n\nHate that shit...",
"This comment is actually scary. Your hatred of republicans and evil “right wingers” seems to have consumed you",
">In May, the bureau said the employment-population ratio for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 41.5 percent. Flipped over, that would mean that the unemployment ratio - although such a statistic is not published by the bureau - would be 58.5 percent. That’s pretty close to the 59 percent figure Trump cited, Sinclair noted\n\nif you read more than the first sentence. it may not be the best unemplyment metric but its not made up. ",
"Use the term propaganda, not the made up fake news. ",
"What is a \"left winger\" and a \"right winger\" anyway? \nIt's hard enough to define those terms let alone quantify their views. \n\nIf you take the most extreme views then both sides are equally insane. \n\nWe'll never be able to compare every right and left citizen. All we can do is look at the representatives, politicians and those who's words and actions get recorded. \n\nI used Trump as an easy example but it shouldn't be hard to find similar results for most of the GOP or White House. Even looking back at the last 40+ years of government shows some pretty obvious trends. \nOne that pops into mind is criminal indictments split by party. \n\nAs for right and left wingers in general. They tend to parrot whatever they are told to say/think. If the leaders at the top are compulsive liars, then it's not a stretch to say those at the bottom are too. Whether it's blissful ignorance, brainwashing or malicious lying doesn't really matter. ",
">Skip anonymous news reports\n\nBut if it's more anonymously sourced hysterical anti-Blumpf red meat courtesy of the Washington Compost, vacuously assume it's all true.",
"So you think Snopes/politico/politifact *aren't* left leaning? ",
"Are you genuinely asking? \n\nHOW is it mind blowingly stupid? I'll be honest it's kind of hard to stand by the kind of equality we were taught growing up that made so much more sense than this identity horse shit.\n\nI could honestly say the same thing about the things the left spouts off.",
"You are doing exactly what this picture is warning people about. Disregarding the truth because it doesnt align with your beliefs. Look in the mirror, kid.",
"I'd say Snopes is a good source. It has a lean, but they source their works to reliable sources and have even been used by Google as official fake news fact checkers. \n\nSo yeah, if Google trusts them enough to put their money on it, I trust them.",
"Supporting the sitting president makes me a cult member. Nice logic idiot ",
"This is the most important. People treat reporters as if they're a monolith. People need to stop doing that.\n\nIf the story has an anonymous source, and the author has a great track record that possibly includes a Pulitzer, I'll likely pay attention to it or even believe it.\n\nIf it's the opposite, then I will ignore it and I'll be less likely to believe it.\n\nIt isn't hard people.",
"Yet people are still clinging to this bullshit idea of \"fact Checkers\"\n\n\nLet me break it down for you:. The left picked three of their most loyal, yet least *obviously* bias outlets, put them on a pedestal and gave them the made up authority and title of \"fact checker\" so that they could, with little to no effort, control and propagate their own fake news and narrative. It would be clever if it weren't so audacious.",
"Lol politifact",
"The food on the table is the only truth many of us will ever know. ",
"Both sides have biases, nobody is claiming otherwise. Is how they use or avoid them though, and one side definitely outright lies a fuckton more than the other.",
"They should’ve put an asterisk for the Economist ",
"The problem is these people also don’t believe these diseases are real threats. They think measles, chicken pox, rubella (etc.) are “typical childhood diseases” and the western obsession with eradicating them isn’t natural or whatever. \nWhat they never listen to is that sure they are normal childhood illnesses...but when we say normal it’s that everyone got them. They are not benign. The fatal complications are pretty rare, but they’re real. \nI also met people who blame the polio vaccine for cancer (which like...there’s thousands of types but whatever) and say that polio’s been eradicated and this is all for profit and refuse to vaccinate their kids against it..it really upsets me because for plenty of the world polio IS real. \n\nBasically this is just like first world problems at its finest.",
"Hahahaha, no",
"The problem is that there is no actual unbiased fact checking.\n\nYou can see it when you look at how politfact compared trump and sanders talking about the true black unemployment rate. They said basically the same thing, only Trump got shit on, while Sanders didn't.\n\nThere's still bias, which is why it's important to review raw stats and do your own research, instead of relying on talking heads to explain things to you.",
"consider editing your post given the other replies?",
"That has both claims listed as \"half true\". Kinda ruins your point. ",
"Still that’s a year and a half before that edit aid it happened three days after [this article](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/11701/11-worst-fact-checks-facebooks-new-fact-checkers-aaron-bandler%3Famp)\n\n\nI don’t care about a source being biased on either side as long as it states it,",
"Yet you eat up any anti trump article that contains the words \"sources say\" or \"officials say\" 🙄",
"High school librarian here. My #1 goal is trying to get students to evaluate sources and determine if they are accurate, authoritative, relevant, etc.\n\nI try to get into as many classes as possible and drill this into them. It is...not easy.",
"The biggest issue with the political fact checkers is usually the 'rating' system. There will be a Paul Ryan quote marked 'mostly untrue' over context, and then a Chuck Schuemer quote marked 'mostly true' that has no fact, and just a glimmer of 'similar to something true' to it. But if you read thenanalysis and ignore the ratings, they tend to be pretty good. ",
"So is Quantum.... it does use a hell of a lot less memory then Chrome (quantum that is, fuck edge).",
"Maybe not, but they’re on reddit looking at this picture.",
"Isn’t that the mark of a quality publication? Prominently correcting mistakes they inevitably make?\n\nCompare that to, say, Fox or Breitbart, who not only don’t prominently correct, but intentionally make mistakes and mislead their audience.",
"It probably was what he implied. However, politifact should stick to just the facts, or change their name to politi-implication. \n\nBy talking about what they thought Trump meant, they lose their objectivity and therefore credibility as a fact checker.",
"Shit, he's using the Chewbacca defense!",
"Critical Thinking is a great life skill!",
"Fact check by using snopes... um, no. \n\nSnopes is horrifically biased, unfortunately.",
"Of course.",
">snopes\n>politifact\n\nYes make sure to check dnc proxy sites",
"It's nowhere close to center. Just because they are criticized by \"both\" doesn't mean shit. Breitbart and foxnews is criticized by both sides too. Both are pile of propaganda garbage like the nytimes, npr and wapo. \n\n\nPolitico is left leaning without a doubt. Hell it was created by washingtonpost employees. ",
"Maybe originally, but the factory workers are robots now and soldiers have boot camps which can teach them to be drones. I think they recognize that we're a service and innovation economy now and need thinkers, but there's no framework for making thinkers. ",
"Because it goes against BOTH sides",
"I'm looking at you, Netflix.",
"Any school library that has a professional librarian on staff teaches this.",
"It's not \"a very specific claim,\" whatever the fuck that means.\n\nIt's a claim like any other, and on it's face - some of it is true and some of it isn't. I mean.. you could actually break it down to two seperate claims: \"X was said,\" and \"Y said it.\" \n\nThe context of that occurrence is important to explain - not only the situation which brought the entire thing up but... but to also explain why Bannon was even attached to the fucking rumor to begin with - in other words.. to vindicate the fat asshole nazi.\n\nIt's the same as saying. \"Well, the memo is real, but it didn't originate on John Smith's office.\" Which is completely appropriate.",
"Okay, so you're a concern troll, not an extremist liberal. Well, news flash: your tactics are really, really obvious, and absolutely no actual liberals / moderates are going to fall for it. \n\nIf you want to convince people to switch to your point of view, please have an open, honest debate with them about what your views really are-- I would love to participate in one of those!",
"What? They both say 'Half True'? Do you even read what you post?",
"I thought it was. Sprinkled nicely in health classes, senior seminar, math classes and science .",
"That's because the library is the worst group of people ever assembled in history. They're mean, conniving, rude and extremely well read, which makes them very dangerous.",
"Why would I insult you to inform you? Why would you think this has disturbed me? You're literally letting an article tell you she did nothing wrong and running with it, how are you saying I'm letting an article tell me how to feel when I feel the opposite of the article? It's 9 at night.......",
"The year is 2017. Once, that was fact. Now, it is not. Facts *do* change. ",
"This is why you create subsidiaries dedicated to politics. Additionally, both already had politics branches.",
"Sorry the update happened after an article came out that called them [out on it](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/11701/11-worst-fact-checks-facebooks-new-fact-checkers-aaron-bandler%3Famp) check the dates.",
"Seinfield references are the best",
"Snopes is crap though.",
"One guy. One documented instance.\n\nAnd BI is known to be pretty sensationalist and clickbaity at times, I wouldn't prize their reporting *that* much.",
"Simple rule of thumb: if something is necessary or useful, Microsoft will either hide it or delete it in the next version of Windows and Office. ",
"the AutoMute plugin for chrome has finally solved this for me. run it in blacklist mode and select \"blacklist this domain\" on any sites that autoplay. it's immensely satisfying.",
"This guy gets it. So many of the trump haters in this thread are completely missing the point. It’s not that you should trust conservative sites either.\n\nBias isn’t just slanting things.\n\nIt’s framing them.\n\nIt’s omission.\n\nIt’s presentation.\n\nEven if say they get the fact check right, if it’s framed in a certain way — that pushes a narrative ",
"Do an experiment, scooter : \n\nGo to a mirror, and try to keep a straight face when saying : Trump tweeted \"the media didn't report that the debt went down $12 billion during my first month vs Obama's $200 billion increase\" not to brag, or to accuse them of ignoring his \"achievements\", but just to inform the people about a random fact of life that is completely unrelated to him and his presidency.",
"So were you subscribed to The_Obama or any other Obama related Sub?\n\nNo. You weren't. Your Subreddit bans anyone with altering views than you, brigades other subs, and bans anyone without views that match yours.\n\nThere is a word for that. Cult.\n\nThere are millions of people that I disagree with politically that I get along with and respect. You cultists are not in that group.",
"We have a unit on this in language arts",
"It is one of the founding principles of Common Core teaching.\nhttp://www.corestandards.org/what-parents-should-know/\n\n\n",
">You post on t_d\n\nWoe is me, you won that one! Everything I believe or say is now void. \nThis is why people don't take you or most of this site seriously.",
"I was being disingenuous. I think politifact is hot garbage for the most part. They heavily favor liberals when it comes to small issues, but pounce on anything minutely wrong a conservative says.",
"r/nottheonion",
"Does no one realize the underhand jab that’s goin on here? They are talking about fake news coming from strange names sites. The picture to accompany this? The letters ABC. \nSo basically, ABC news = fake news\n\nIt’s subtle, but it’s there ",
"Oh, the Guardian. My one-stop shop for honest nonpartisan reporting!",
"I just can't stand people who seem to sustain themselves on lies. \n\n\nAlso, racism.\n\n\nAny \"hate\" you guys get is very, very well-deserved when you have Donald Trump as your leader and groups with swastikas and White Power signs flourishing in your midst. \"Unite the Right\", remember?\n\n\nHating nazis is one of the most american things you can be.",
"Good. Maybe people will stop getting all their news from CNN and Fox ",
"Exactly. Fuck these The_Donald idiots trying to turn away credible information. ",
"Thanks for pointing out a good example of objective journalism. ",
"What's wrong isn't just that sources are biased. All sources are biased in some ways. The point is to identify whether the things that are being said are TRUE. And more often than not on reliable left-leaning sources (WaPo, Politifact, etc), THEY ARE.\n\nI have a hard time finding right-leaning sources that don't just plain out spew pseudo-scientific bullshit on the regular. If they do that, how can I trust them? \n\nHell, I thought WSJ was right-leaning, and thus a decent source for conservative news, but recently found out it was center! I swear it was right last I checked (I use Allsides to check bias).",
"I gladly welcome differing opinions as long as those opinions are based in reality and supported by facts. I’m not so open minded that I’ll believe regurgitated talking points, though. That’s the distinction, in case you were wondering. ",
"He's actually short and on the first floor, but looking down at a well made model of an unrelated library.",
"Sorry the article was edited a year and a half after it was released three days after an article [called it out](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/11701/11-worst-fact-checks-facebooks-new-fact-checkers-aaron-bandler%3Famp) ",
"I see the dates. I see that it was changed back in 2016. And like I said, that kind of ruins your point.",
"\"Does the headline sound unrealistic...\"\n\nYes, yes it does. ",
"yeah thats why we trumplings had /r/AskTrumpSupporters \n\nfire away\n\n/s",
"You are kidding me the all problem of the fake news isn't fake news websites. It's the best news producers in the world whom claimed to publish fake news. ",
">I never said the claims were identical\n\nNo, you just offered them up as an example of Snopes being wrong/lying so they would have to be identical articles to support that claim.\n\nGTFO",
"It's a pretty good paper TBH",
"\"That's ad hominem! You lost the argument!\"\n\n\"Well no, I listed every reason you are wrong. Insulting you was just a bonus.\"\n",
"You're very close. In a \"ransom\" situation, either party can control the \"ransom.\" Ransom can refer to both the payment, or the demand for a payment. If Iran said, \"give us 400m for prisoners,\" that would be a random **demand**. If the US says, \"we will give you this 400m after you release them,\" that is a ransom **payment**.\n\n>Definition of ransom (Merriam Webster)\n1 : a **consideration paid** *or* **demanded for** the release of someone or something from captivity\n\nWhether or not the \"ransom\" was offered by the Obama administration, or the \"ransom\" was demanded, it makes no difference to be able to call the transfer a ransom payment. The definition can apply no matter where the onus, demand, or control lies.\n\n",
"Are you kidding me? [Politifact is terrible](https://youtu.be/Y2MNCKj70WQ)",
"CAN WE STOP CALLING IT \"FAKE NEWS\" AND RETURN TO CALLING IT PROPOGANDA?!",
"You are:\n\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OY_KUNqQ4",
"The best news. 👈Believe me. 🤞",
"Ironically enough, you can follow every single one of these and still have it be fake news. ",
"Lol you’re the one making it partisan ",
"Keep beating that dead horse.\n\nOnly idiot Trump supporters still pretend not to understand that",
"I did read the articles. Sad that’s the best response you could come up with. \n\nBernie added a clear qualifier that Trump didn’t. Words matter. Your argument is essentially “they should have assumed Trump meant something that he didn’t actually say”",
"Doesn't it do that by default? You're basically applauding a fish for being able to live in water.",
"\"Skip anonymous reports.\" There you go. Most of the metoo movement isn't credible",
"Breitbart might have a chance now that Banon is gone for good. They were great when Breitbart was still alive.",
"Who is sitting in a web development / news office and thinks this is a good idea and puts this bullshit on a known news websiste? They should be fired. News is fake and bullshit and there is very little credible news out there, and the desk jockey computer web programmers are to blame. ",
"... are u kidding?",
"You're very close. In a \"ransom\" situation, either party can control the \"ransom.\" Ransom can refer to both the payment, or the demand for a payment. If Iran said, \"give us 400m for prisoners,\" that would be a random demand. If the US says, \"we will give you this 400m after you release them,\" that is a ransom payment.\n\nDefinition of ransom (Merriam Webster) 1 : a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity\n\nWhether or not the \"ransom\" was offered by the Obama administration, or the \"ransom\" was demanded, it makes no difference to be able to call the transfer a ransom payment. The definition can apply no matter where the onus, demand, or control lies.",
"Lol \"check Snopes,\" go fuck yourself.",
"And this is how Fox News thrives. They know exactly who their audience is and what they like.",
"You guys? What?? We literally went from talking about misleading news sources to you bringing up Nazis!?! I didn’t even vote for Trump... you sound like an insane person!!!",
"Wait, people make axes? I just enjoy punching trees!",
"Thankfully, the upcoming Chrome 66 is not going to allow autoplayed videos that are unmuted.",
"Snopes, Politico and Politifact are all left-leaning. You should be sure that there's a mix of biases in your fact-checkers. TheKnifeMedia is a good counter-weight to them (though they're not particularly right-leaning).",
"Hey you know I want to apologize for being rude. Have a good night. :-) ",
"Fallacy of the middle ground",
"I think a large part of that is that the Sanders campaign was forthcoming with their source material which allowed them to make more accurate conclusions. I think it's likely that if the Trump campaign was more responsive then the claims would be easier to parse out. They are similar claims, but the devil is in the details (as is politics) and if you look past the graphics of how the claims are rated then the context of their assessment speaks for itself. \n\nJust like reddit, if you only read the headline you're not getting the context you need to make an informed decision. \n\nI see your point and appreciate your perspective and skepticism but I don't feel the two articles are strong evidence of a partisan bias as there is enough information within the articles themselves to adequately inform the reader of the greater context that determines the headline rating. ",
"You mean how avoid cnn?",
"opposing truth... do you mean alternative facts?",
"You're right. But their is a world of difference between being wrong, and pushing agendas. \n\n",
"So, not every liberal believes what I said, but some do. Did I mis characterize your un-presented argument? Why do I hear incessantly about some pay gap that just compares the average woman's pay vs the average man's pay when it is easily explained by the inherent differences in interests between men and women?",
"This is why you idiots will lose the 2020 election. Just because we hate you trash doesn't mean we like trump. \n\nI despise trump. But I hate democrats rats like you even more. \n\nYou have to be braindead to think that snopes, politico and politifact is objective and unbiased. \n\nBut let me guess, you are the type of trash who thinks only \"educated\" people vote liberal right?\n\nKeep it up. You are driving more people towards trump and the right. God damn when did reddit get this batshit insane. ",
"Not the Washington Post. The NY Times started to do that which is one reason I switched.",
"I watched someone give an actual response to you and you immediately handwaved it based on your own liberal bias before instantly falling back on calling them stupid. That’s plenty to show that your idea of “objective measurement” would be “measurement by a liberal site,” so the point is unwinnable. I’m not going to waste the time.",
"yeah im surprised this OP has 62k upvotes when both normal reddit and trump reddit are like echo chambers where anything the majority doesnt agree with is instantly downvoted \n\nof any forum ive ever been a part of, reddit has to be the worst for any kind of diversity of opinion or discussions ",
"don’t mean to start a war here, but your saying there’s no fake news?",
"I didn't think you were rude\n\nHave a good night ",
">I hate when they prove me wrong, they must be fake, REEEEEE",
"Snopes, Politico or Politifact. Fuck me, they're having a laugh. ",
"That's because his staff would prefer not to lose their jobs, leaks or not. ",
"Auto-playing videos that are not muted will no longer render in the upcoming Chrome 66, which is nice. This setting can be turned on currently too.",
"And the original was released August 2015, the fact that an “unbiased” source can treat the same statement from two politicians as different levels of truth for nearly a year and a half and only changing it after their bias was called out doesn’t disprove the point that they have a bias.\n",
"Fucking modernists.",
"Did you even look at those?\n\nI can do actual fact checking on DuckDuckGo on those and all the top results prove that the sites that \"fact check\" are wrong even if only slightly or a half truth. \n\nBut half truth or slightly wrong is not what a \"fact checker\" should be.",
"I don't think the people that go to a public library are really going to benefit from this. Odds are probably pretty good that they're already smarter people that don't like being spoonfed bullshit news from Facebook/twitter/the huge array of disgusting \"news\" websites.",
"yes, we all saw the ad",
"Found the shill",
">Do realize that both sides make this argument, and everyone sees the opposite side as brainwashed by the media they watch.\n\nThis is the thing tho, I don't align myself with any \"side\". When you do, you essentially block yourself from *wanting* to know the truth.\n\n>So, should I be item minded about birthers claiming Obama want a US citizen?\n\nPeople think that Bush was in on 9/11. What you have to do is realize that some things are crazy...but also realize that crazier things have been found out to be true.\n\n>That sounds as crazy as the possibility of a US President being a Russian asset set out to destroy the US Government from within...\n\nThat does sound crazy, I know...but as I said, crazier things have been true.\n\nHistory has shown that crazy things have happened, things that sound too crazy to be true but they were. The main issue, I think, is that to find out the truth you have to be willing to not lock yourself down to one belief and be will to do research. There are some things people just don't people to know. Those are just facts.",
"All those are good except for fact checking with Snopes... ",
"Thanks. I absolutely agree that is bias. Both sound equally moronic. The U-6 rate is certainly used more often than the one Trump used but it is still generally used to sensationalized a point. ",
"1. Yeah Al gore said it decades ago. The model was inaccurate but the trend is undeniable. What's your point? An inaccurate prediction isn't a lie. Denying reality is\n\n2. Being anti GMO is stupid. Being irresponsible with GMO is also stupid.\n\n3. I haven't said anything in defense of that lie. The ACA had some flaws, but that doesn't mean it should be eliminated. It's like a busted car. If you need a car to get by, but your car has problems, you don't just trash it. You either fix it up or replace it with a better one. Same with the ACA. I work with hospital billing for a living. It's an incredibly fucked up system. There are many solutions that would put me out of a job, and they'd be miles ahead of what we have now. There are consumer protections in the ACA that save tens of thousands of lives every year. Remember when people would get dropped by their insurance as soon as they got sick? I do. Those days are over and your party is trying to bring them back.\n\nSo yeah. The lie you mention was indeed a lie. I'm not denying it. Does it look like I'm moving goalposts? I'm acknowledging a fault in my party's statements. Will you find fault in your party's talk about death panels? The birthers? The wall? ",
"Bias =\\= fake you worthless lying Trump troll",
">check Snopes\n\nAnd into the trash it goes.",
"And if you don’t support medical marijuana then everyone hates you and ignores your points",
"Na , just know that your are out of touch with reality.",
"Here you go. The reason is because the leftist brigade keeps downvoting everyone who provides sources. \n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du3trzf/\n\n",
"I agree with you, which is why it's up to the consumer to choose which coverage they like. There's clearly a market for well written, and well cited news. When news outlets drift away from citations and experts, they tend to lose credibility and readership. This means all they can then rely on is the partisan bubble they now serve: Other wise called the Buzzfeed or Fox News Problem.\n\nThe only answer then left is making sure to use your wallet to tell an organization that you like what it's doing. This is a major reason why smaller news outlets are doing so well. They can be better kept to task.",
"Fact finding website is a long stretch to describe them. \"Bias reinforcement website for lowest common denominator people who genuinely can't think for themselves\" is more accurate.",
"I feel like snopes is fine but Politico and Politifact are literally owned by the Democratic Party",
"But first intern for your local, state, and federal politicians so you can fully understand and decipher what is and isn't bullshit political terminology. Then listen to the raw audio. And finally follow up on each politician to see which corporate pockets they currently reside.\n\nAfter doing all those steps you'll be able to accurately decide what is or isn't fake news.",
"Well that's very cool, don'cha know.",
"SO YOU ADMIT THERE IS BIAS. TOO BAD THERES NO OTHER FACT CHECKING SOURCES RECOMMENDES BESIDES ONES THAT SUPPORT MAH BIAS.. TOO BAD!",
"Got it. Please show me just one example of that process favoring conservatives. ",
"So they changed with the Republican party?",
"You think an Oxford study is somehow partisan?\n\nOr... you didn't bother reading anything because you knew it would conflict with your entrenched ideological views?",
"> the point that the majority of consumers DONT READ THE ARTICLES\n\nBut that is one of the key points in the op - read the damn article.\n\nPolitifact is not an unreliable or unreputable source because other people don't read past headlines.",
"When they try to gray out the screen with a nag popup telling you to turn it off like weather.com does, I use ublock to block the elements blocking off the website",
"Don't go to inforwars if you're not retarded. FTFY.",
"How do I get a copy of this exact bookmark in all it’s gloriousness? I think the 5 wholly owned Trump towers could benefit from this. I’d like to buy them by the semi-load. ",
"Grab any of those quotes. All of those \"facts\" are on the website...\n\nIf you disagree you should check and prove OP wrong with some sweet screen shots of your own.",
"No? So why did you bring it up?",
"Post this, title unchanged, to The_Dipshit and I bet it gets downvoted to oblivion and you get banned.",
"Maybe they remember [that one time](https://i.redd.it/0s5uj7ks73tx.jpg) Politifact gave a Republican Congressman and a Democratic Senator different scores for the same claim?",
"If only Star Wars memes were the only references made, reddit has a lot more annoying off topic derails and you know it.",
"> Both sides have biases, nobody is claiming otherwise. \n\nReally? You might want to look at the comments. Lots of people are claiming that. \n\n> Is how they use or avoid them though, and one side definitely outright lies a fuckton more than the other.\n\nYes. The left ( at least on reddit ) - politics, enoughtrumps, etc... \n\nFor every T_D garbage on reddit, there are 100 leftist garbage. ",
"In a bleak future in which the government has abdicated responsibility to protect democracy the only thing standing between the American people and mind-warping propaganda are **LIBRARIANS**\n\nComing to theaters this summer.",
"**Anywhere** can be an echo chamber. It is what it is. It's unfortunate but it is what it is.",
"It's hard for me to understand what you are saying, but I don't think any of it responds to anything I said. If the candidate's public statement is objectively untrue, as it was in Trump's case, and the campaign declines to provide any explanation or evidence when this is pointed out, as they didn't in this case, then I think the correct thing for a fact checker to do is to inform their readers of the inaccuracy. When there is an explanation or additional information provided, as the Sanders campaign did, they can and should include that in their report. \n\nIn my reading, there's no need to provide a \"hey no one's perfect\" defense because they did the right thing. Trump's statement appears, in the absence of further evidence, to have been untruthful in a way that Sanders' wasn't.",
"They are fucking *everywhere* in this thread ",
"But what does Snopes say?",
"Oh?",
"Everytime I remember libraries exist I almost cry.",
"I like this bookmark. At the Denver Public Library, they turned the IFLA handout based off of Factcheck.org's 8 steps to spot fake news into a poster for a display and also made it into a handout. The IFLA handout is translated into lots of different languages since they are an international library association. The nice thing about the IFLA handout is that it's free to download. [Link to the IFLA fake news handout and its translations](https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/11174). ",
"The answer to your argument is to read and decide for yourself, not be spoonfed snippets. If you cant be bothered to do that do everyone a favor and don't involve yourself in decision making.",
"Mate, I do support it and am sick of the articles. I can't imagine what those who don't must go through (and I can see a lot of reasons not to support it at this point) They prove well that everyone is susceptible to throwing out science if it helps support their strong beliefs. ",
"Wait, you think that \"right-leaning people don't have valid opinions that are worthy of discussion\" is a normal assumption? That's Ludicrous",
"they might be more welcoming only if you're straight and white",
"So do you have an example? Because I've seen three examples of snopes being terrible get shredded so far. ",
"Yea just look at anything hillary clinton has said on snopes, and look at anything any non democrat has said.",
"I don't use snopes but that grading scale looks real dumb. I can see why its neat to look at but I'll decide how reliable the info is.",
"My thoughts exactly!!!",
"Statements can be supported with additional context to prove their legitimacy. Trump's campaign did not attempt this.",
"JFC, you worthless liars just never stop. \n\nA bias doesn't mean it's not factually true, it doesn't make it fake news, it doesn't make them wrong",
"> alt-leftist\n\nGive it up, dude, it's not happening",
"Are you sure it's other people who aren't they clever? Maybe you should look in a mirror.",
"Fox News caters to Republicans and people know this. When it comes to politics, people can't be open minded anyways...so it is what it is unfortunately.",
"CNN also seems to never provides a source. Seems like they always say \"Someone familiar with the matter\". ",
">I watched someone give an actual response to you and you immediately handwaved it based on your own liberal bias before instantly falling back on calling them stupid. That’s plenty to show that your idea of “objective measurement” would be “measurement by a liberal site,” so the point is unwinnable. I’m not going to waste the time.\n\nHey buddy, you forgot to switch to your alt account. YOU are the one who just gave that \"Actual response\".\n",
"That isn’t what I said they do. I said they treat the same variance from the truth differently depending on the party that put the statement forward. The Federalist (conservative site) did a very detailed and data-oriented breakdown packed with examples of the ways they choose to operate. http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/\n\nFrankly, if you immediately dismiss that all as untrue because the Federalist has an opposing bias, you have no grounds to say I should trust Snopes or Politifact despite their own bias. Obviously factchecking sites that agree with each other aren’t going to fact check each other.",
"So what you're saying is...",
"it seems that way for most of the left leaning members of the reddit hivemind. and no, I'm not making this shit up!",
"[Seems pretty bad](http://www.sott.net/image/s17/346842/full/20160925_Bernie_vs_Trump.jpg)",
"Any word on Firefox?",
"Nobody is answering this so I'm assuming that's a no. ",
"The Knife Media is a pretty good fact-checker/de-spinner that critiques media stories. I haven't noticed any left bias.",
"The irony that your whole post history is on the_donald. The safespace for little snowflakes.\n\nHaha , im thankfully not American and not directly affected by it. Just amazing to see how Americans elected one of the biggest idiots. ",
"*It shouldn't be, but it is.* In a better world, cooler heads could meet in the middle, and we could count on, more or less, disinterested third parties to serve as referees (make no mistake, self-appointed fact-checkers like Snopes are \"referees\"). \n\nThe fourth estate, unfortunately, is a mess. Journalism has devolved into infotainment. \"News\" stories are horribly editorialized. News outlets are agenda-setting with a vengeance. And relying on \"fact-checkers\" to make up for our lack of journalism isn't really an option. If the proposed refs obviously favor a particular team, that is a problem. If our refs have no special qualifications, that is a problem. \n\nWe have to be our own refs, even with, indeed especially with, the facts.\n\n",
"That's weird, usually it's the right that always complains about getting fucked by the world's globalists. ",
"Unfortunately. With Republicans, that's just the type of people they are now. Read it and see yourself. \n\nHalf(if not all) of Trump tweets sound absolutely insane if I just randomly posted them. Most people wouldn't think he would say something like that, but nope. It's real. ",
"Back during the election I heard that Trump quote about how he loves to have jews counting his money or something like that. It was attributed to him in a book and when asked about it he said that it was probably true. I researched it for days. It took me forever to find the original source of both those claims. It involved several Washington Post articles which linked to a Rolling Stone article which linked to a Huffington Post article which didn't link to anything. Eventually I found the original interview. It was tough because so many articles lied about the information. Washington Post claimed the Trump said it in a Rolling Stone interview. When I went to the Rolling Stone source they claimed that it came from a Huffington Post piece. When I found the HP source, it claimed it came from a Playboy interview, but the issue they cited didn't have a Trump interview. So I had to go searching for the correct issue. Which became an even bigger issue since he has done an interview twice for the magazine. Eventually, I found the original interview. \n\nThe problem was that in the book, the author claims Trump is a hard boss. When asked about this claim, Trump says that he didn't read the whole thing, but what he wrote was probably true. He also talks about how pathetic he thought the author was and how horrible of an employee he was. Not once did they ask him about the jews counting money thing. They asked about if he was a hard boss and he said that was probably true. \n\nSo this quote is obviously fake. Anyone who reads the original interview can easily see this.\n\nI gathered everything I found with complete sources and an explanation of everything. I sent it to Snopes to look at.\n\nNow I realize that they probably get hundreds of submissions daily and most things won't be published. However, this was very well researched and focused on something that a lot of people think is real. I still see people use that quote today when disparaging Trump. \n\nI never even received a response from them. Yes, technically it was pro Trump. But it also refutes something that a lot of people believe to be true. And whether you are pro or anti Trump, you should always want the truth to be known. The fact that I didn't even get a response is proof of how incredibly left leaning they are. What possible reason would one have to ignore something like this?",
"Of course it can be. As soon as Obama made the payment conditional upon the release of prisoners, it became ransom. That is literally the definition of ransom. In this instance, it's not the money that is the consideration paid for release, but the delivery of that money. Another way to put it was that the fulfillment of the contract was the ransom payment.\n\nIf you kidnap your boss's family until he pays you your last paycheck that he owes you, you're still demanding a ransom. Even if you somehow say it's \"your money,\" the delivery of the money is the ransom that you're demanding.",
"Does Alex Jones know you’re on Reddit instead of watching his broadcast?",
"That's a ridiculous standard.\n\nI show you an example of them calling a Trump claim mostly false, even though they acknowledge the \"employment rate\" was 41.5%, meaning the inverse would be 58.5. But they give Sanders a mostly true even though he used incorrect terminology because his broader point was true and African Americans have higher unemployment than other groups.\n\nThey were both making that exact same broader point. If you can't see the clear bias there, you are beyond help.",
"That picture is helpful",
"Wasn't this on some sitcom? A guy has a choice to have his kid take all the vaccines at once and he does it cos he is too lazy to space them out. The kid feels drugged for the next 24 hours and he thinks its autism.",
"Can’t read all 4.4k comments but my go tos are checking competing sources and following up on citations. I do this with everything, probably thanks to Wikipedia.",
"wasn't that the right's basis for electing trump?",
"Its only \"in the dumpster\" with the right wing. The right doesn't like being called on bullshit. ",
"What truth am I disregarding? All I see is a bunch of autists screeching about how evil snopes is, despite the only evidence anyone can give to \"prove\" that point is something debunked over a year ago.\n",
"I wasn't commenting on the amount of bullshit regarding one side or the other, and I'm not even saying I'm right. Just saying in my opinion that's where the majority of bullshit comes from in respect to the sides. For the record, I consider myself more Liberal than anything, but tbh I hate to really classify myself as any thing. I don't think we're enemies, and I don't think one side is %100 completely right. I think that the solution lies somewhere in the middle, and definitely involves both sides working together. \n\nThough I suppose that's unlikely, unfortunately. I have grow d's on both sides, and I respect anyone who makes an opinion based on thought, regardless of what I believe. We should be working together, not pointing fingers.\n\nSorry for the rant. This rift is unsettling to me, and it just keeps getting bigger.",
"Geocities lives.",
"Safari is the new Internet Explorer.",
"We need this more and more nowadays ",
"Lol! You nailed it!",
"My English teacher has something similar in her classroom",
"They didn't rate one \"pants on fire\" and one \"totally true\", they were one notch apart and they fixed it when brought to their attention. Do you think they have a single writer with a photographic memory, pumping out thousands of articles a year with a set algorithm to grant ratings?\n\nOr is it more likely that such a statement falls in the range of half true to mostly true, and when made aware of the discrepancy, politifact realized that wasn't right and fixed it? ",
"Too bad the trumpsters will look at that and think, too much to read; garbage.",
"Yeah, because that's what everyone does... It's not about the individual, it's about all the people that get lied to.",
"Thank you Trump for giving light to the fake news.",
"No. You can get started at Reddit, but ideally you are looking at a variety of publications on the same topic. NY Times, WSJ, Christian Science Monitor, The Atlantic, and The Economist are all good sources. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.",
"Well that's just a lie",
"Hey buddy, I know shilling is hard, but I literally just debunked that talking point in my post.\n\nTo top it off, you are also practically a parody of the second half of my post too. Instead of actually looking into the situation, you literally just linked me a random fucking infographic that you think proves one of the worlds most reputable fact checking organizations is evil and wrong.\n\n",
"Maybe we can talk about it some other time! I don't know a lot about the Clinton case and it's mostly because I did not care. You seem aware of a lot of facets of it, would be interesting to hear about. \n\nI'm not saying I would ever see your side of things, but it would be interesting. ",
"Reddit thinks fake news is entirely one direction. It's hilarious how much fake news they consume and believe. ",
"Lol it was good until they said politico and snopes like wtf",
"> Many, many, people have already answered your questions\n\nDidn't see any, could you link them?\n\n>I hate people like you, who purposely misconstrue arguments and make false equivalences to muddy the debate. You are obviously trying lessen Americans trust of journalism.\n\nTrying to make people realize they should research things is not nefarious, and the only one's who should be against it are those purposefully pushing falsehoods.\n\n>I know that Trump cult members and Russians dont like this, but reputation and facts matter. \n\nAre you assuming I like Trump or am a Russian troll? LOL. Your world-view is seriously messed up.\n\n>Anonymous sources should be protected at all costs.\n\nLiterally no one said otherwise, again.\n\n>Only fools and tools would trust political leaders (who are consistenly proven to be liars) over the hundreds of journalists and newspapers with a verified history of reporting the truth.\n\nNo one suggested that at all. Also, you may want to start researching more, journalists print misleading and false things all the times, it happens, they're only people. Only fools and tools believe everything they read without verification.\n\nEDIT: Also, a lot of the time those anonymous sources are politicians. Does that make your head explode?\n\nEDIT2: You seem to be making a lot of assumptions and arguing against things I never said and you seem very angry. Maybe you should take a short nap or something to calm you down before replying? It'd be better for your health.",
"Cooperate and obey lawful orders. Since people have trouble with that, I do agree that YES it should be taught in schools, much with a basic intro to law.",
"Right.",
"Elon Musk is actually making a difference in the world, while you’re over here hiding behind internet anonymity so you can become a troll.",
"> Fake news and lies are not exclusively a right-wing thing, but at the moment they mostly are. \n\nAccording to left-leaning biased fact checkers.",
"Trump didn't need a qualifier. They acknowledge in Trump's article that the employment rate was 41.5% so the converse would be 58.5 - so close to 59 that it shouldn't matter, yet give him mostly false.\n\nFor Bernie, even though he was technically wrong (words matter lolol), they gave him mostly true because his broader point (the same point Trump was making) was True. How bout that?",
"[Watching Fox news will leave you worse off than not watching news at all](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5)\n\nYep",
"One can verify this just by looking at this shitshow of a thread. ",
"My facebook feed is bombarded by just as many utopian socialist lies as it is ignorant right wing nonsense.",
"Any site that actually fact checks ends up appearing liberal biased. I wonder why...",
"Show me a specific example. ",
"Político, snopes\n\n\nAh yes the beacon of truth. ",
"If by “mis-characterize your un-presented argument” you mean ‘put words in someone else’s mouth’ then yeah, you really did. You are the only one here talking about any of these particular issues. There are other sub-redddits where people would love to take you up on your clear desire to argue about these issues, I’m sure. Go play over there, please.",
"Active in r/Politics and r/The_Mueller. Oh the irony.",
"thought snopes was the porno dude in his basement in his pjs...",
"they are likely on the second floor there is a set steps on the left. side note what is a subsituation is it akin to the B-plot in a sitcom?",
"I feel like regular library users aren’t the audience in need of this information.",
"\"Soon.\" - Betsy DeVos",
"I don't understand how your pretend to have an integrity when you're holding a bucket of crap and telling me it smells great",
"Should distribute to news outlets",
"Dang, these commenters are BASED AF! Thank y'all for being awesome.",
"It was meant for literal made up bullshit on LIBERTRYFREEDOMCHRIST.COM or sites named similarly that were designed to grab ad revenue from stupid people. Guess which political party was targeted?",
"> Be open-minded. Ask questions *to snopes, politico, politifact*\n\nFTFY.\n\n",
"That's one square thumbnail",
"Right, the other party would've just been a bunch of racists.",
"I’ve commented in pretty much all the main political subreddits, and frequently against whatever they’re saying in said subreddit. The only one I’ve ever been banned from is a liberal subreddit for questioning someone without being offensive. Then I messaged the mods about it, giving them shit, and they replied with “everything you just said is wrong” despite none of it being wrong, then I was muted so I couldn’t even message the mods anymore. Take that for what you will ",
">Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact\n\nlol",
"Does it say something negative about the incumbent? #nocollusion ",
"Snopes used to be a great site regarding all kinds of hoaxes and myths. Before the elections, this page was \"true\"\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/\n\nDid Obama deported more people than any other president? Did he deport over 2 million people? Snopes used to say yes. During the elections and while trump was becoming the main favourite and was promising millions of deportations, snopes changed it to mixture.\n\nWhy? Their argument was \"yes, obama deported 2 million people, more than any other president but now we count deportation differently, so that number is not comparable with previous president numbers\". And all the excuses they gave, could barely account for that much difference with previous presidents.\n\nBut you cant paint trump as evil, when obama had deported over 2 million people. So they needed to change the narrative. And change they did. Suddenly deportations are evil, something that only republicans and racists like trump wanted.\n\nWhere were all those thousands of people protesting for deportations, when obama was president? Has trump even deported 2 million so far? I highly doubt it.\n\nPS While i believe that in a perfect world borders should not exist, immigration should limited in order to provide a balanced and proper way of both integrating the new people and building infrastructure to support extra people.",
"I know what you're saying, but in regards to politics there's an *extreme* amount of astroturfing going on on reddit.\n\n*Like rehabilitating the image of WMD Bush. Attacking anyone that says half a negative word about Hillary when she can't even draw a crowd big enough to fill a room and reddit absolutely despised her guts not so long ago. Instead Sanders has become the taboo topic despite being far and away the most popular politician in America. And if anyone dares criticize increased militarism or deviates from acceptable opinion, a horde screams accusations of 'Russian troll!' to beat you into submission.",
"Actually Edge is the new IE, that's literally what Edge is.",
"> an opposing truth\n\nJesus Christ.",
"If classic literature has taught me anything, it is that OP is really named Gulliver and this is actually a banner-length poster he just peeled from the wall of a Lilliputian library.",
"I did look at them, and it's obvious to anyone who isn't a partisan hack that those statements are rated correctly.\n\n>I can do actual fact checking on DuckDuckGo on those and all the top results prove that the sites that \"fact check\" are wrong even if only slightly or a half truth.\n\nNo you can't, because that's just the same right wing bullshit that always gets peddled but never backed up. Politifact backs up their articles with sources and context, and don't try to push propaganda with some grainy screenshot like OP is doing. ",
"There's a lot of debate in this thread, but I think we can all agree on this.\n\nAuto-playing videos **WITH SOUND** are the worst.\n\n",
"I would trade all my teeth to never have to deal with auto play again. 33 years of use 0 cavities. Wisdom teeth included.",
"Alright, so two things: One, this is a single reporter that did this. That is hardly emblematic of an entire organization. Two, it is standard to reach out to the people you're writing a story about, for a comment, before you publish the story. You're saying this as if there is insider collusion between a news organization, and the DNC. You have not provided even close to enough evidence to solidify that claim.",
"Maybe not, but it's a damn good place to start if you want to be taken seriously as a political fact checker. It'll give you the tools, connections, and credibility you need to get started. Then after that, all you have to do is maintain your reputation by producing well sourced and cited articles that can reasonably produce a true-false verdict. I don't know what the issue is.",
"Democrats admit they're in a civil war, just like they admit Globalism, when that was \"just a silly conspiracy theory\" a couple years ago\n\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMyt-4N-Zvk",
"Is this your idea of 'lol xd liberals are trolling too now'?",
"People who believe fake news can read? Huh.",
"How do you break filter bubbles tough? ",
"Honestly, this is not general advice. This is just perceiving-for-idiots. The thinking population have always reviewed and scrutinised what they digest.\nYou see, this tip works both ways. The moron still doubts the moon landing just because of this. The guy who wrote this bookmark was hoping it'll make more people see through Trump's bullshit.",
"From someone who works in the news:\n\nIf the AP or Reuters is reporting it or confirming a story, it’s real. Those two are and have been the gold standard for journalism.",
"The problem is people use a single source to solidify decision. All sites have bias. Use a bunch of different sites to make your decisions, especially the ones that compete with yours. Find a conservative source that offers a different perspective.\n\nSimply saying Fox or CNN is trash is not sufficient.",
"It's a university, what do you expect. They are basically saying \"Conservatism is BS, don't believe a word they say\" when giving three very liberal-leaning websites. If they were actually trying to prevent bias, they would say \"Read sources from all political spectrums to attempt to find an answer, that usually lands somewhere in the middle.\" ",
"More fake news. ",
"Because they actively promote fake news and their readers could use any of those suggestions to improve themselves? ",
"I don't eschew the Guardian because it's liberal; I eschew it because it's trash on the same level as Breitbart. The study itself is also not great (though maybe more lazy than partisan); its qualifications for \"junk news\" were unquantified gut-checks and it did not control for even basic factors like age of user.",
"People well versed in health policy at the time were extremely skeptical of Obama’s claim and all thought it was very unlikely to end up being true. If they did their due diligence they never should have rated it as true. They either were completely incompetent or, if you’re a cynic, intentionally aided Obama’s re-election campaign by essentially acting as a PR outlet for the ACA. ",
"I'm banned on that sub, lmao",
"You made a response about r/politics so I would say I was expanding. But I have to take anything with an anonymous source with a grain of salt ",
"https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/5/53/snopes.png",
"This is wonderful except for the part about Snopes, Politico and Politifact ",
"First, thanks for the reasoned response and not attacking/being ridiculous.\n\n>I think a large part of that is that the Sanders campaign was forthcoming with their source material which allowed them to make more accurate conclusions.\n\nThat could be true, but they do mention in the article that they were able to arrive at 58.5% by taking the inverse of the employment rate (41.5%). So not only did they know his broader point (which they gave Sanders a mostly true for, even if he was technically inaccurate because of his wording), they had numbers to back it up.\n\nAnd yeah, I would hope that everyone reads the reasoning and doesn't just stop at the \"Truth-o-meter\", etc. But the cynic in me thinks that is a very small portion of the audience.",
"We have social studies for a reason. It is taught in schools. Seriously in school the force is to critically think it’s just that many people chose not to. They get their answers from a friend or not doing it at all. In my social class everyone has many different views and we like to debate and talk about them. For example we have source analysis. In English we are forced to critically think about what the author is trying to portray and what ideas, and how the characters show this. \n",
"...except, you know, in reality, where Politifact writes about all the politicians as they say or make claims to something. So, if, say, one politician says a bunch of lies in a short window of time, that politician might get a lot of entries because of the volume of their, shall we call them...alternative facts?",
"Hadn't heard of access journalism before. I knew it happens, but didn't know there was a term for getting access to someone and then writing about them in a more favorable light. Richer people are harder to access, so if the author or organization wants continued access they basically have to kiss ass.",
"> since when are websites like Snopes untrustworthy for fact checking\n\nOver the last two decades republicans have become more and more divorced from fact and reality. This accelerated greatly under Obama, with the tea party coming into power. Their detachment from facts means they need to demonize and attack anything that clings to objective truth. So it's obvious that fact checking organizations will be attacked like this.\n\nThis is the kind of thing that you start to see when a large part of the country responds to compromise by going even further to the right. Remember the ACA? That was literally a republican solution to health care from a few decades back. The current republican party now consider that to be some form of communism. That is how far to the right they have gone. Even Reagan would consider the current republican party to be extremists, because they are.\n\n ",
"I’m sorry that you’re so narrow-minded ",
"That's because there are different ways of measuring unemployment, the most common being listed as U-1 - U-6. On one end of the scale, you have \"literally just everyone who isn't employed\", which includes students, people too young to work, retirees, people with medical issues, etc. On the other end, you have \"people actively looking for work who haven't found it yet\", which is a much smaller group.\n\nSanders was using the latter because it's a more useful number. Trump was using the former because it's a bigger number that looks worse out of context.",
"You can't fact check using a single source. You have to read the fox news version and then the cnn version. You can't just blindly trust. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT\n\nand wasn't hard to find a 'credible souce' that show examples of bias in politico for example. Use google and type in \"bias with ___\"\n\nhttp://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/",
"And that's why they are autoplaying their videos. Look away. Look away. ",
"Reagan was for full on amnesty when the population of illegal aliens was maybe 3 million at absolute most. ~1.3% of the population at the highest estimates.\n\nToday we're talking north of 12 million people. As high as 4% of the population. It's an entirely different situation.",
"I've got one of those. I use it specifically for books I know are biased or suspect.",
"Maybe because they made those claims without sources?",
"The other day every major news station was airing the story about how the President’s aid didn’t have security clearance and was also an abuser of women, or they were covering the potential government shutdown. What was FOX news covering? Some bogus (fake news) story about Bill and Hillary Clinton having ties to Russia! The story has already been investigated and proven fake, yet they were talking about it like it was - A . Current and B. Factual. Wake up, just because they sprinkle in truisms here and there doesn’t make them legit! They have their heads so far up DT’s ass they can’t see daylight much less report real/true news! ",
"So true\n\nhttp://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/",
"Aaaaaannnddd we're doomed",
"Sir, you literally brought up my \"hatred for republicans and right wingers\" and I explained why. Stop trying to roll over and play victim. \n\n\n\nNo one is attacking you personally. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't then it shouldn't bother you so much. \n\nI explained why your source was trash. Do you actually have a rebuttal or are you going to keep yanking me?",
"That's why OP posted it on the internet?",
"When you're dealing with real world issues, it's important to think for yourself, but in my eyes, I would feel comfortable staying in a bubble for anything that isn't as important. Doesn't mean that I'm completely closed-minded if I don't think for myself about one or two unimportant subjects. I'm a trash human being, I know.",
"How about how it’s all bullshit and the obama administration created the whole scheme to coverup their blatant abuse of power to target trump illegally?\n\nFunny how the FBI confirmed EXACTLY this a week ago and theirs hardly any coverage. Yet the first 6 months of trumps term was filled with innuendo and rumors and fake stories about Russia.\n\nNow it’s turning out it was one giant scam to over throw the president. Most of the Russian crap has been corroborated at this point, it’s just that trump actually didn’t do anything wrong and the prior top brass at the fbi and doj DID.",
"I agree with everything except the way specific American websites are recommended. Even if some of those sites are good (and I believe they are), that critical attitude should extend to them too.",
"Oh no, you worthless right wing hacks are pushing this whole bias=fake news thing.\n\nIt's not true, and we'll fight you all along the way.\n\nYou may be able to find an occasional but of bias from Snopes, but you'll never ever find anything fake or false",
"Can someone explain why \"fake news\" is written in that Olde English style font?",
"What I linked was an Oxford study....",
"[psh, you're exaggerating ](https://i.imgur.com/NwAVWPJ.jpg)",
"Totally agree, can you give me an example of a good non-partisan/center, or even a right leaning source with the intention of fact checking?",
"I don't think what I'm saying is that hard to follow, I'm not trying to talk circles around you. If how a fact is judged is dependent on interacting with the judge, the fact's truth cannot be self-evident. If a fact's truth is not able to be determined simply from what was said, then the statement has to be interpreted and is subject to bias intentional or not. I think that's pretty simple and logical. You are saying that a statement can be objectively untrue but still need clarification, that doesn't make sense",
"\"This is too much work. Imma just believe what I read\" says the normal random citizen.",
"If by \"having wrong info\" you mean having obsessively fact based and unbiased reporting funded by the non-profit and highly regarded non-profit Poynter Institute for Media Studies, then yes.",
"If liberals just want people to be 'equal', why did liberals invent a healthcare plan that covered a shitton of female issues and then 'shared the costs' with men, but then rejected a fuckton of male issues from being covered at all?\n\nIf liberals just want people to be 'equal', why did liberals invent a method of employment and college admission that rack-and-stacks people based on 'diversity points', and thus institutes blatant sexual and racial disenfranchisement on white men for the crime of being born?\n\nIf liberals just want people to be 'equal', why do they so clearly withhold judgement, criticism, and outrage when *they themselves* are doing things like freaking out about \"It's okay to be white\" posters, engaging in discrimination like the Berkely protest where they stopped white people from going to class, and going on massive racist Twitter rants ala Manveer Heir?\n\nIf liberals just want people to be 'equal', why do they say that special licensing fees, special taxes, special waiting periods, and closing down / forcing businesses out of town is completely okay when it applies to *guns*, but when those things are applied to *voting* or *abortions*, suddenly it magically becomes racist?",
"r/nottheonion",
"I am sure he is looking down the second floor.",
"Thank you.\n\nI hate these guys so much, pretending to hide behind integrity",
">Fact checking sites are a terrible idea. They exist to convince you they're telling you the truth by claiming to be an authority on truth.\n\nUhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.\n\nNo.\n\nGo to politifact and choose a random ruling.\n\nThere is a full explanation (about the size of a typical news article from a respectable outlet), with (sourced) facts, explanation of nuance and context, and then the final ruling (with a scale that actually makes sense).\n\nIt is up to the reader to, ahem, *read* through that if they feel politifact is ~biased~. Then they'll be forced to explain \"how\".\n\nWhat you are actually saying here is \"Headlines are a terrible idea\".\n\nI'm not sure I agree with that.\n\n",
"Here's one: http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/jul/27/rush-holt/rush-holt-claims-more-80-americans-are-killed-gunf/\n\nOn a simple statement of facts about the rate of gun deaths Politifact ruled it only half true because apparently suicides with guns shouldn't be counted under \"gunfire\", in order to artificially lower the statistic. I was actually looking for another of their ratings of one of his statements, but I can't seem to find it now, maybe it was removed for being too ridiculous, but they basically said that just because a respected international organization said climate change would be that bad didn't mean it wasn't lying for a politician to repeat it.",
"I read it. Did you? I can't imagine anyone seriously looking at that study and coming to any conclusion outside it being subjective and bias. The methodology and selection process for determining a website to be 'fake' is borderline silly. Did you read the supplemental material provided that lists the fake websites? Do you not notice any glaring omissions from that list?\nJust because it's from Oxford doesn't immediately make it a quality study.",
"Using completely different studies was part my point. They chose which numbers based on the conclusion they wanted.\n\nAnd even though they got Trump's number within a half a percent, they rated it mostly false. And they rated Bernie's true because of his 'overall point' even though he used 'incorrect terminology'. That's clear bias. Sorry you don't see it.\n\nAnd why would telling you to go work for PolitiFact be a character attack? Aren't they the bastion of integrity and honesty? Shouldn't you take that as a complement?",
"Conservative media are portraying it as areas where the police do not enforce the laws consistently or are unable to do so.\n\nThat is the claim, and snopes latching on to the phrase \"no go zones\" and interpreting it literally (even though it was in apostrophes which would indicate to most people that it should not take on a literal interpretation) instead of how the phase is contextualised BY THE REST OF THE QUOTE THEY ARE REFERENCING is them shifting the goal posts. \n\nYour final quote is about the story shifting to criticisms of immigration, that is not relevant to the claims being refuted in the snopes article. Including it is irrelevant to the discussion we are having, which is about snopes misrepresenting a claim to make it easier to refute as a form of propoganda to reinforce bias for particular narratives and against particular sources of news/information.\n\nYour claim of shifting the goal posts is hilarious considering that's what snopes did in the first place, and I'm just pointing out that they did it. ",
"But Snopes, Politico, and Politifact are liberal cuck machines rigged against Trump to support Hillary's gay agenda. /s",
"But they aren't news so why would these help",
"Unsure why all of you liberals are up voting this when you clearly buy into fake news daily. If you followed half of these suggestions you would be making a large improvement. ",
"Thanks!",
"> Snopes, Politico and Politifact are all left-leaning.\n\nThis isn't entirely untrue, but it certainly isn't entirely true either. They have what looks to be something along the lines of a slight bias in terms of what they choose to fact check and what they choose to not fact check. But even that slight bias can potentially be explained away by republicans simply being bigger liars. The data just doesn't support concrete claims about them being biased.\n\n",
"Perhaps because that is a font common to newspapers??? Fake \"News\".",
"How do we know this isn’t fake news🤔",
"> I clearly do not even consider yours.\n\nYou've made it abundantly clear that you prefer to be ignorant",
"Which president said that?",
"I don't like fox news or Trump but still, they aren't entirely fake news",
"Rekt\n\nhttp://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/",
"I think that your points here are some of the largest reasons we seem to have so much divisiveness right now. You have the left which had plenty of people with the mindset of ‘You voted for Trump, so that means you’re a racist and sexist pig’ and not even entertaining a conversation because of this. You also have the right, full of hypocrites who want to push their beliefs on others just as the left loves to label the right.\n\nCompromise has essentially disappeared because both parties have gone to the extremes, and any middle ground is considered betrayal of the party.\n\nWhy can’t both parties agree in the middle on things? It worked for 200 years, what changed?",
"Snopes is BS !",
"Someone that knows someone familiar with his thinking suggests...",
"Not an unreasonable comparison",
"Are they not?",
"Too bad asking questions to find the truth is considered rude or treason to the fucktards in office ",
"Or the answer is usually just inconclusive. Otherwise it would be the headline. ",
"Oooooh a report? The anonymous sources put it on paper! ",
"Hahaha look I regurgitated the Colbert thing again",
"Have you ever done an investigation? It takes time, a lot of time, to collect data, methodically go through it, and provide meaningful output. \n\nAlso I'm not saying one way or the other what the outcome will be in this context.",
"Rekt\n\nhttp://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/",
"It's actually about both. ",
"\"Christian Science Monitor\"? What the fuck?",
"Upvoting so everyone can see your insane gibberish",
"I was merely pointing out the irony of \"don't trust everything you read online\" having a fake source, not trying to discredit Snopes in general.",
"> I think it's pretty clear from what they typed that they don't trust \"fact checking\" sites because they aren't consistent and will use the exact same set of facts to come to two very different conclusions.\n\nBut you only think that because you didn't read anything in the actual article.\n\nThe difference in rating is literally due to being presented with different sets of information.",
" They're fucking *everywhere*",
"It’s not news it’s propaganda opinion. r/Politics is laughably awful and run by David Brock",
"Same",
"I've reached a point where I do not 100% trust most news especially mainstream media whether it's right wing or left wing they only tell half truths",
"I hope you aren’t implying that snopes is a legitimate source whatsoever, because it isn’t.",
"And get rid of your subscription to NPR, Washingtonpost, WSJ, NYTimes, etc... \n\n",
"How does the military get its budget without taxes?",
"He's ripping peoples arms off?!",
"Nope, it's great, they hate it because they fact check all of Trump's BS",
"Acknowledging that not all sources are created equally is a problem? Sorry, but something like Reuters is objectively a better source than something like Infowars.",
"Politifact is part of the problem",
"> If you downvote, explain how exactly Trump is correct when he can't supply his sources\n\nIt's insane to believe that a campaign would interface with a knowingly biased outlet.\n\nBernie knew that Politifact was ultimately on his side, and so provided proof to clear up a misunderstanding.\n\nTrump believes Politifact was a biased propaganda outlet and treated them as such.",
"Firefox has a similar setting too if you go to \"about:config\" (via Firefox address bar) and search for autoplay, but as far as I know, they haven't announced that this setting would be the default in upcoming releases.",
"If there is any doubt as to the accuracy of any claim or information , the reader is responsible for verifying same against any available alternative source.",
"Immediately makes me think of a local online rag, the Maine Examiner. Every article is written by admin. No names anywhere. Pure right wing garbage.",
"which party refused to clap?",
"I've had an HTML5 video autoplay disabler for months, and I'd guess that 1/10 sites still loads a video w/ audio and plays it. It's a cat and mouse game and the end user always loses.",
"https://www.snopes.com/obama-texas-during-hurricane-harvey/\n\n\"\"\"Miscaptioned\"\"\"\n\nNo, he literally was not there. False.",
"The issue here is that the US payment was a *debt*. You're ignoring that the US *owed* money and had an obligation to pay. They had to pay it regardless of whether or not there were prisoners to be exchanged. Thus, the US *held the debt money in ransom* on the contingency that the prisoners were released. In this sense, it was the US demanding ransom for their debt, rather than paying for the release of the prisoners. Once the prisoners were released, the US made good on their obligations. ",
"I don't know, is he the one paying you to post on reddit with multiple accounts?",
"The Hillary Cult here to confirm their own biases by convincing themselves all Trump supports are crazy for pointing out partisan bias in the suggested fact-checking sites. \n\nYou see the circle this can go in? lol ",
"So uh. Does anyone have examples of fake news and an explanation how? I feel like some examples would help a person understand what they're looking for. ",
"All these advices are smart and enlightened. Only that they buy into the hysteria around « fake news » is a shame!",
"It's 100% accurate, your full of it",
"> hilighting\n\nBro that aint even a word LMAO",
"My guess is he's on a second floor that overlooks the main entrance area",
"Bro your tl;dr is slightly misleading and i didn't bother to read the rest of your post so you're fake news ",
"Don't forget to become legally adopted by your politician. Pay attention to their at home speeches about core American issues. Know their locker room talk. And above all take notice the kind of drugs they do with their prostitutes provided by their favorite lobbyists.\n\nThen, and only then, can you can make an unbiased opinion about kneeling during the national anthem. ",
"Kinda like all the illegal votes she organized in CA... \nUm really, she managed to put together millions of illegal voters and then proceeded to send them to one of the states she had no fucking chance of losing?!",
"When you put it that way, it does sound biased. But again you cleverly left out that Politifact had to guess where Trump got the figure and could only conclude that the figure comes from 16-24 year olds which would not be an accurate statement for defining unemployment among ALL blacks. So yes Trump's statement is mostly false. \n\nNow Sanders used wrong wording and his camp was able to clarify which allowed Politifact to focus on meaning. Again, like I said before, clear differences in what was being argued. Now if you want to focus on Politifact focusing on meaning and not the statistic, that's fine. But that's not what you intended by throwing in the Trump comparison which you also mislabled by claiming something about 50%. Your intent was clear. I pointed it out. ",
"This technique is known as \"projection.\"",
"Sources? Citations?\n\nThis is fake news",
"Yeah, that's the sad reality today. Bias and lies aren't distributed equally. \n\nWhole societies have shifted. It's really weird to me. I haven't significantly changed my views, but now, all of a sudden I'm clearly on the left (by European standards, from my perspective the democrats are right wing). ",
"Is it not a half truth, when he specifically used it in context with Colorado? Edit: thank you, though, I can see how this one could be seen as a bias in some way. ",
"Snopes is run by 2 people isn’t it ",
"In fact a great number of librarians already hold this view.",
"Anonymous authors, which this is warning about, is not the same as sources whose name are not made public, AKA \"Anonymous sources\". Those are two fundamentally different things. \n\nAnonymous sources are traditionally trust worthy, because the journalist conveying their testimony and claims verifies the persons identity, fact checks their claims as much as possible, and usually waits for multiple independent sources to confirm the same claims before publishing. Said journalist then puts their own credibility on the line by making said reports.\n\nAnonymous news reports are completely worthless, because there is no credibility on the line. There is no reason to expect any fact checking, or multiple sources confirming things. There is no reason to believe the entire article isn't some wild fantasy made up by uncle bill in his basement.\n\nYou are exactly the type of person who needs to actually look at that bookmark and learn something from it. Because as it stands you look incredibly stupid.\n",
"Examine first-hand accounts, if available. Read source material for yourself instead of reading summaries. \n\nYou know, real research that most are too lazy to do anymore.",
"They aren’t entirely fake news is a great endorsement for a NEWS NETWORK! “Watch Fox News, because we are not entirely fake!” ",
"There’s fake news detection tips in my school library too. I’m glad they’re promoting things like this. Makes the world a better place.",
"No, the problem is both sides of the political spectrum are under the delusion they're imune to their own biases when consuming any media.",
"🤦♂️🤦♂️",
"Decades of psychological research suggests that it doesn't help. In fact, the opposite effect can happen: Deep, conspiratorial thinking correlates with intellegence. Intellegent people are really good at justifying their beliefs.",
"People usually aren’t in libraries period",
"Picture is fake news... or it's taken from second floor with an open area",
"Me too. What disappoints me is the thread of \"facts lean left\" and \"stupid conservatives\". People upvote recognizing bias, then fall right into it. This is why there's bubbles, people feed into their own confirmation bias. They refuse to even entertain the notion that there might be another argument. Both sides are guilty of this. ",
"What do you consider reliable?",
"That defeats the purpose for many of those who are outspoken against fact checking I think. I get the sense that the thrill is less about being right and more about you being a cuck.",
"Seems like common sense.",
"Too bad Snopes, Politico, and Politifact are little more than propaganda sites. Metabunk, too.\n\nDig deeper.",
"This is why I believe Philosophy should be a mandatory course for any duration of time rather than not at all.\n\nIt wasn't even offered as a course at my Canadian high school, and we had over 30 extra courses.",
"Trump lies so much that it's fairly easy to think it was him when the lies come from someone else in his regime lies. ",
"Lol, they don't? You guys never fail to project, and I love the consistency.",
"Does the childrens version of Merriam Webster provide free healthcare?",
"Check Snopes lol. Lost me there!",
"Maybe that's because the right wing lies a lot more than the left?",
"Maybe that's because one side tends to agree with facts more often?\n\nIf you don't think so, feel free to show a snopes article that lies in favor of the democrats.",
"I'll check them out. ",
">You realize that there's fake news on both sides. \n\nNo, not really. Statistically there wasn't any significant amount of left leaning fake news\n",
"i know i know **I KNOW** I'm sorry for the sarcasm-- I am **not** a flat-earther lmfaooooo",
"Journalists just love risking their career to push a personal political agenda.\n\nIn fact, everyone does.\n\nJust the other day I snuck a poop onto the table of the break room with a post-it note saying \"Trump!\" and an arrow pointing to it. So good!",
"It's fake news. ",
"They actually do have a left bias. There is a website called media bias fact check that can help you identify how biased a source is, and which way it is biased. It lists Fox as right and CNN as left. ",
"Share it. Facebook. Twitter. Where ever perhaps we can make a small dent at least in that ",
"Use snopes and politico to make sure your \"real news\" is verified by democrats.",
"CNN is garbage and they dox redditors. Why didn’t spez ban them from all of reddit when they doxxed that guy and threatened to release his name if he ever hurt their feelings again?",
"I enjoyed that read very much; chuckling throughout the read! Thank you for that! :)",
"Uhh, yeah it does",
"\"The only way you can disagree with me is if you're a racist.\"\n\nYeah, us too buddy. See you in 2018. Keep doing what you're doing.",
"How convenient for you to leave out the second paragraph!\n\n> The best protection from fake news is to seek multiple sources you trust and verify any news story for yourself. Learn critical thinking. Be wary of any news that avoids details, does not answer obvious questions a reader would have, or where the past reporting has shown an obvious bias for or against the person or topic you are reading about.\n\n\"Shit Republican cultists actually believe, folks!\"",
"Snopes.com ",
"Yes. Relatively, they are. Politico's only bias is towards laziness, nd people decrying politifact as unbiased are just upset that it's a fact of current reality that the right wing spews more lies on a daily basis than the left does in a month. ",
"I think this is implying most fake news comes from one side of the spectrum. ",
"EVeRyoNe wHo DIsagReES wiTH Me iS a PAiD sHilL",
"I disagree that *ad hominem* attacks ever function as proper arguments. You can refute someone's point and then insult them, or vice versa, but that's not the same as *ad hominem*; *ad hominem* is the fallacy of claiming to refute someone **by** insulting them -- no evidence or logic included. \n\nIt's basically the difference between \"You're a complete idiot, so of course you're wrong (*ad hominem*)\" and \"You are wrong because *x*. Oh, and btw, you're a complete idiot for thinking that.\"\n",
"I'm sorry, are you insinuating that Bigfoot isn't real? ",
"Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact...oh and don't forget to ask the DNC what to believe too!",
"[No bias here folks!](https://i.imgur.com/TtLRFof.jpg)",
">They have what looks to be something along the lines of a slight bias in terms of what they choose to fact check and what they choose to not fact check.\n\nYep. Left-leaning bias.",
"Fact checkers fact checkers fact checks fact checkers, fact checked by fact checker fact checker fact checkers.",
"Video version -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_6Vfj2cNM",
"r/pics is seemingly heavily conservative/ignorant lately...I'm smellin some russian bot vote manipulation",
"SHUTUP LIAR! Fake NEWS! 75% though? You should start gambling, that is lucky :)",
">Trump believes Politifact was a biased propaganda outlet and treated them as such\n\nSweet, then I suppose Trump provided his source elsewhere, would you be so kind to look it up? Oh? Trump didn't provide his sources? Huh... Almost like he didn't have any to begin with. ",
"Very true, for everyone but me. ",
"Why?",
"Not even that. Just look for facts, and go deeper.\n\nRecently, like that thing about the Indian girl who claimed to write some cool bitcoin app. But turns out she DIDNT write it. Left wing media is trying to make it like she did write it, and FUCKING WHITE MALES are just harassing her because she is too good at coding.",
"Hahaha, what? \"The left\" supports north Korea now?\n\nLol, that's rich.",
"Except USA Today and SI. They're legit and yet have annoying auto-play videos.",
"What news sources would you suggest? And don't just answer with \"all sorts do your own research\". I want names of actual news outlets.",
"Snopes isn’t even a real source lol. They don’t even fact check. They are a tool to corroborate fake news and dispel the truth. ",
"\"Check the author's credentials\"\n\n\"Be open-minded. Ask questions\"\n\n\"Dig Deeper\" \n\nNow, use those points and examine Snopes and see what you find. I recommend using DuckDuckGo (as some results don't show up on Google). ",
">Anonymous sources are traditionally trust worthy, because the journalist conveying their testimony and claims verifies the persons identity\n\nWhy should I trust that journalist?",
"Well reality tells us men can't be women and vice versa, yet liberals somehow believe it. ",
"That would be fine if it wasn’t the point of politifact, it’s to fact check statements. In that situation they should check what they’ve already stated on similar statements then.\n\nI’m not claiming I’m unbiased, but from the way politifact and snopes act in general there is a bias that can be seen.\n\nThis here website exists to make a meme of their [bias](http://www.politifactbias.com/2018/02/how-we-made-our-meme-mocking-politifact.html?m=1)\n\nhttps://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/amp/",
"Good job ignoring the actual content of my entire post.\n\nThe only slight \"Bias\" you can claim they have is entirely explainable by means that involve no bias. Because all they do is seemingly fact check republicans more than democrats, which can just as easily be explained by republicans being bigger liars as it can be explained by the fact checkers being biased.\n\nYou cannot truthfully make the claim that they are biased, there is not enough information available to make that concrete claim. Not stop being a disingenuous twat.\n",
"The silence after you posted that is deafening.",
">Trump didn't need a qualifier. \n\nHe did. That’s literally the whole point. \n\nI get you want to defend him at all costs but this is easy for anyone to see. These are very different metrics and Bernie made that distinction better than Trump.\n\nNeither was rated full true, thus the difference was in who was more clear about the exact information they referenced. They can’t make wild assumptions about things otherwise it wouldn’t be a fact check. \n\n>They acknowledge in Trump's article that the employment rate was 41.5%\n\nWrong. In the article itself it clearly says “The latest figures from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics pegged the unemployment rate for blacks, ages 16 to 19, at 27.1 percent in May.”\n\nWhy are you lying about something that clearly stated?",
"You ignored one of the steps. \"Being open minded.\" You must really hate yourself and the people around you.\n\n",
"Looks like libraries are still saving the world.",
">I thought it was trying to avoid biased fake news\n\nNo. Did you even read the headline of the bookmark?\n\nYou are trying to avoid \"FAKE NEWS\".\n\nBias is a reality in news. Even if you find the least-biased organization possible (probably npr or bbc), at the end of the day it is going to come down to a few individuals and what was going through their head when they typed something up. \n\nEliminating bias entirely is like trapping an electron in a point-sized box. It isn't going to happen.",
"Facts do become pretty partisan when one party routinely rejects them, yes.",
"So, my point was that \"higher moral ground\" only applies to moral ground, but if you want to go to abortion, it's pretty easy to see that abortion is an issue of rights of the woman vs rights of the unborn, and there is no empiric, moral correct. I personally fall on the side of the rights of the women, but can totally understand why someone would go the other way. My mind isn't going to be changed and neither is yours (especially when you call it \"killing a baby\") but this is not one of those times that you can change someone's mind when it's already been made up. It's ambiguous.\n\nThere are other things, however, that aren't ambiguous, facts are not created equal, and those are the areas where the previous guy used moral high ground incorrectly, which again, was my point. Go proselytize about abortion to someone else.",
"Basically what's happening in this thread",
"[Even Snopes disagrees with the appeal to authority](https://www.snopes.com/lost/mistered.asp) in the sixth item...",
"Wish that had been taught when I was in high school. (Let’s see...4ish years ago? So clickbait wasn’t quite as prevalent [in my experience] , but propaganda techniques have been around for ages.)",
"You literally forgot to switch to your alt account when defending your own post. If you aren't a shill, I don't know what is.\n",
"They aren't latching onto a phrase. The webpage is ABOUT the phrase. Next you'll tell me Trump supports the NFL kneeling thing because he has spoken about specifically. ",
"Politico, Politifact and Snopes are all leftist/propaganda sites.\n\nIf anonymous authors are considered fake news, then why aren't articles citing anonymous sources also fake news?",
"That's the best tip?\n\nThe people I've met who believe in the most insane shit posit themselves as the most open-minded of all -- because they are willing to listen to and believe in the most insane shit (often from people who posits themselves as scientists and professionals and, in fact, sometimes really are). They also asks questions all the damn time and are eager to do so.\n\nThis leaflet doesn't help much because it's too vague and doesn't necessarily help. 'Does the headline sound unrealistic'? That's entirely subjective. 'Consult and compare competing sources'? Alright, let me check the websites 'NewsWar' and 'DEEPDARKJORNALISM', they compete with each other.\n\nThe only tips I found useful is to fact check using Snopes/Politifacts/Politico and to follow up on cited sources. Both Snopes and following sources (including reading long PDFs) have helped in numerous times in discovering the truth when most people just read the headlines.",
"Foreign relations have nose dived - 'fake news.' I travel internationally, though mostly to China, for work and the team there loves Trump, and from what I can tell many people in China regard him positively. In the business world I can tell you at practically every level we generally regard him as the necessary evil, if not overdue swing against the pervasive, destructive liberalism that has infected many countries. The business world is the 'silent majority' people disgard. Something you can take to the bank? Despite volatility, every bit you invest in U.S. domestic stocks will grow for the entirety of his presidency. There's not a single investment firm, foundation, or NFP I've seen that commits otherwise - my team audits many of their investment allocations and returns!\n\nI'm personally ecstatic many Europeans don't care for him - Europeans need to direct their efforts at salvaging the dilapidated EU and the unbelievably destructive financial and social policies plaguing it. Their over-the-top ideals like welcoming millions of able-bodied male economic refugees who are bankrupting their governments coffers (with NO integration solution in sight - nay, actively denied by the refugees, who are now chain migrating), actively suppressing negative news to drive government policies, or keeping economically unsustainable countries like Greece afloat at the expense of other countries...these are simply not compatible with American ideals. From what I see, Europeans will ride that free trade dick all day long but swing on capitalism's balls at night. Trump says 'miss me with that bullshit' - yeah I'm with him on that. Europe has enormous problems and is in no place to lecture the U.S.\n\nNah, staffing doesn't worry me, he knows what he's doing. Same with the FBI, which has experienced concerning corruption as evidenced with the latest texts, maltreatment of FISA warrants issued for political spying, and handling of various matters - Trump's right to complain and demand improvement at the agency. \n\nNot sure I can do anything for the rest of your whining except that you should invest in your education and believe in yourself.\n\nThe fact you used 'bean counter' has likely revealed your lack of sophistication, and probably your ability to understand the nuances of the profession I belong to, which are WIDE RANGING. Independence, integrity beyond reproach, and opining on faithful representation go a long way. Who'd waste that on a career in 'political analysis?'",
"I was shown clear bias in another post. I don't think I would turn to The Federalist to point out another site's bias. ",
"I'm well aware- all news sources are biased. There are actual leftist news sources out there. CNN is not part of that list.",
"I miss the old days before the internet when I just watched to the local news anchor.",
"Doesn't seem that way to me. Gun deaths are gun deaths. If he'd said homicides, or killed by others, or anything like that, that would be a different matter. But the statement he made was accurate.\n\nEdit: He has also specifically pointed to the potential for suicides to be reduced via gun control. The specific argument at the time was that because so many suicides that are delayed 24 hours are prevented entirely enforcing a waiting period could delay many gun suicides, and therefore prevent them. I think that may have been in a live speech, so I'm not sure I could find it, but he certainly did recognize that was a portion of the problem.",
"Trump didn't say all blacks.. He said black youth. I'd say 16-24 is a fair range for that and if only 41.5% of that group are employed, I'd also say it's fair to round up and say 59% are unemployed. So I don't see how that is mostly false. Especially given that they gave Bernie mostly true for the 'overall point' that black youth have a higher unemployment rate than other groups - which I can only assume was Trump's point as well since he was mentioning the same group.\n\n Not sure what you mean about my intent with the Trump comparison. The comparison is the whole point. Without comparing the two articles and the way they reached their different conclusions we don't really have a discussion.\n\n",
"> I doubt in a year unemployment for black youths went from 51% to 16-17(or whatever)%\n\nSnopes did not claim that it did. ",
"You link a far left leaning biased article on why fox news is bad in an argument that reality is left leaning? How do you even bring up news organisations in an argument about reality? That should be the first thing you should leave out!? Of course, Fox News is biased and right leaning. The same way CNN is left leaning, whats your point? I've tried to get my head around the left and right in the past few years. I'm only 22 so i guess I still have a lot to learn but from a point of view as unbiased as I can. I think there are some arguments on both sides of the political spectrum that get things right and are/should be used reality. To say that reality is left-leaning is naive and I'm not even really sure how to fully interpret that. If you could elaborate on it, I'm all ears. Then to link some daft article on god knows what shows you're falling victim to a little bit of confirmation bias. We all do it. We need different perspectives from different outlets in order to use critical thinking. It's so important rather than to ignore or shut down something you disagree with. ",
"Why is that?",
"Snopes and politico don’t fact check, they check if the claim matches the communist/globalist/racist agenda.",
"I think you misunderstand. See, when Trump tweeted that, he was just joking. /s",
"WaPo and NYT also have great fact checkers. ",
"Newsflash: it's harder to enforce the law in high crime areas! You are watering down the definition of \"no-go zone\" to the point where you are basically disavowing it. Which I guess is a good thing.\n\nMy first comment up the chain that you replied to was in response to someone who stated:\n\n>Reality: \"there are only areas in sweden **where the police no longer comes**, these are not called no-go zones\"",
"> There STILL is no evidence of Russia collusion\n\nThis is conjecture. No one knows what the special counsel has found until they complete their investigation.\n\nAs to your original comment: people object to it because it is misleading. You said \"*Obama* wiretapped *Trump*\" when in reality it was \"*FBI* wiretapped *Carter Page*\". You might think it was unfair but for whatever reason the FBI suspected him of being an agent for a foreign state. Once again, that investigation is not public (although some of that evidence has leaked to the public) but evidently the FBI thought there was something to investigate. You can't really argue this was some plot against Trump when it all started long before the 2016 election campaigns.",
"I did miss that. I still think the other’s points still stand. I know that Fox News is biased but I still watch and read to get their perspective (or opinion) and compare it to more reputable outlets (and visa versa) ",
"“But Snopes and PolitiFact are no better than the FAILING New York Times or the CLINTON NEWS NETWORK”\n\n-r/The_Donald",
"They taught us this in high school ",
"I like your lack of citations and alarmist tone - that's how I know you're being honest!",
"It’s not 1998 anymore. Snopes is a joke.",
"> Why should I trust that journalist?\n\nBecause their credibility is on the line, and the credibility of the organization they work for is on the line. Historically, anonymous sources have been shown to be very reliable for those two reasons. Organizations that rely on credibility to stay afloat are greatly hurt when journalists fail to uphold journalistic integrity when dealing with anonymous sources, which means any journalist failing to deal with them properly is liable to be expelled from the industry as a whole if they fuck up. This leads to high quality work that is almost always accurate and trustworthy.\n\nThis is also why organizations like Breitbart and Infowars are so heavily mocked. People do not get fired from these places for making shit up, for lying, or for getting shit seriously wrong. Meanwhile on CNN the \"Liberal hellscape owned by Killary Clinton\", a journalist can make a somewhat reasonable assumption that is later proven to be wrong and he and every one of his aides will be fired. That is the difference between an organization with credibility on the line, and an organization whose userbase will accept anything they are told as truth no matter how idiotic, wrong, or unproven it is.\n\nTo restate, this is an idea proven by history. Anonymous sources are historically trustworthy. This isn't some idea ripped out of someones ass in the last two decades, it's something you can observe to be true by looking through past documents and articles.\n",
"I sense astroturfing. ",
"When did they say that?",
"Can I just get an app that does all that work for me?",
"Please tell me more about how there is no such thing as liberal propaganda, or pro-establishment astroturf on Reddit.",
"\"People are saying Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Richards!\" is a true statement. But if Trump tweeted that, and Politifact rated that as false, you'd say Politifact is wrong?\n\nIt's not okay to hide behind this kind of rhetorical nonsense. If Trump doesn't like people inferring what he means, he should learn to speak clearly.",
"Not only this, but any \"verification\" authority.\n\nI'd rather trust anonymous article on some obscure site with listed verifiable data sources, than any popular journalist/youtuber. Appeal to authority is a classical fallacy",
"> People well versed in health policy at the time were extremely skeptical of Obama’s claim and all thought it was very unlikely to end up being true.\n\nPeople well versed also though it would be true, and if the original bill had went through unchanged that likely would have been proven true. \n\n> If they did their due diligence they never should have rated it as true. \n\nThis is flatly just your own unsupported opinion. \n\nWe get it, you want facts you like and to ignore ones you don’t.",
"Lmfao... Snopes, Politifact, and Politico... thats the funniest one on the list! Also dont blindly believe what those sites say either! Do your own fact checking with primary sources!\nEdit: Typo",
"I believe you, Tricky Dicky",
"That’s the funny thing about commenting on reddit. You can just make up any shit you want with no source. When pressed for one just do some hand waving and make more shit up because nobody is going to make it this deep into a thread anyway.",
"That whole \"you were trained to pick one of these insanely stupid options\" thing. Yeah, a lot of people play politics as tribal sports, that's both stupid, and dangerous. I don't understand what you're trying to get at.",
"That's insane. If liberals are completely discrediting conservatism in every way, then, by following the pamphlet instructions, the right thing to do is to be completely skeptical of left-leaning information and \"think for yourself\" They are literally converting their party into one that shouts \"Liberalism is the obviously correct party and if you don't agree you are an idiotic bigot\" They are converting their ideology into one of forced propaganda which, rightfully, deserves to be criticized. The irony here is overwhelming. ",
"Nobody said that. They're a reliable source to check claims, but they aren't \"true\" in the same sense that no one philosopher's perspective on human nature is \"true\". Some things are just too complex to easily sum up in a three page article. Additionally, the adage \"reality has a leftist bias\" doesn't exist for no reason. Liberal minded people tend to value citations and expert opinions more than Conservitives, who tend to prefer editorials and conjecture. Thus, a site based on fact checking is going to appear leftist. ",
"Good god. You can’t even read usernames and you’re trying to call other people in this thread stupid.\n\nMy name, oh paragon of intellect, is not N-Your-Endo. Do you literally have eyes",
"I just hate how this is a term now in days.\n",
"The truth always is liberal biased and it's always been that way. ",
"So she didn't delete those emails with bleach bit? Or was it because there were more than 33k emails that it's not factually not true",
"I was shown a good example regarding similar statements made by Trump and Sanders. I would say Sanders is slightly more true (due to how figure being more useful) but I certainly would not rate it mostly true while rating Trump's as mostly wrong. Both statements were misleading and more wrong than correct. ",
"Obama ordered them to do it but keep being ignorant",
"True. It just boggles my mind when regular folks, family members reject fact checking sites and end the conversation. I understand someone in power with a motivation to change public opinion in their favor. But I’m talking about a guy who is otherwise just a good family man with a regular job, and wasn’t able to consider my viewpoint when I pointed out that there is a counter to his adopted belief that Clintons are murderers. Granted, it was on FB so public, bowed I approached very delicately and was empathetic the whole time. Just mind blowing that people become so entrenched and can only talk to like-minds.",
"The only problem is all three “fact checkers” they list are left-leaning. ",
"Fun fact: reddit itself is a giant filter bubble. From every individual subreddit to /r/all even. Thanks to censorship and algorithms. ",
"It's gotten much worse the last couple years, I feel like it used to be better before. ",
"But what about isms?",
"#GIANT MASSIVE INFLAMMATORY EDITORIALIZED HEADLINE \n\n*tiny quiet buried retraction 6 days after the desired damage is done*\n\n—\nYeah real honorable ",
"Retort with the fallacy fallacy. Simply listing a logical fallacy the other person used doesn't invalidate their entire argument.",
"Ugly fingers. Sad. ",
"Argumentum ad verecundiam is actually a logical fallacy. You shouldn't teach it. Besides that list is fine.",
"It's a fine line that we put trust in those kinds of sources because if exposed then they will cease being a source. With that being said, this is pure astroturfing. Only the naive will fail to see it. ",
"Not anonymous sources, anonymous authors.\n\nAs in, be skeptical of articles written by \"Jon Doe\" on websites like \"thehonestestamericareport.co.pl\"",
"Do you seriously have blinders on? CNN, reuters, ABC, all glorifying them. Even the fucking olympics are about Kim's sister who is the leader of propaganda in dprk. Get your head out of your ass",
"Trump is a narcissist that wants everyone to know how \"great\" he is and attempts to take credit for things he has nothing to do with. This is obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense and anyone who has paid attention to his pattern of behavior, that this is what he was doing and is what he does.",
"Right? Whenever I present information I add\" take that with some salt, look into it yourself\" and yet, whenever a friend offers me info, I say\" oh I've never heard that ill look into it\" they get all offended. No I don't believe everything I hear and neither should you. I've been proven wrong and then change my info. For instance, I use to present as fact that the mgm lion mauled its owners until I was shown that was false. Now I don't spread that. Research people. *the more you know*",
"Libraries and education is just a lefty conspiracy!\n\n\n\n\n/usual response from the rightwing",
">Wrong. In the article itself it clearly says “The latest figures from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics pegged the unemployment rate for blacks, ages 16 to 19, at 27.1 percent in May.”\n\n>Why are you lying about something that clearly stated?\n\nI'll just leave this here so you can eat your words. Feel free to admit I was right though.\n\n>In May, the bureau said the employment-population ratio for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 41.5 percent. Flipped over, that would mean that the unemployment ratio - although such a statistic is not published by the bureau - would be 58.5 percent. That’s pretty close to the 59 percent figure Trump cited, Sinclair noted.\n\n",
"People want to be right so bad because their party affiliation is worth more than democracy. Fuckin ridiculous",
"Argumentum ad Bullshitum is not a valid argument?",
"Snopes, Politico and Politifact? Haha. You have to be an exceptional dumb ass to buy into this leaflet. Those are some of the most biased unapologetic left leaning sites that exist.",
"There's a difference between voting for Trump and continuing to support him.\n\nThe latter can screw right off, they're irredeemable, they're the ones who would've still voted for him if he shot someone in the street",
"Snopes? Really?",
"Example?",
"This is nothing new for left-leaning media, but if you criticize their credibility, you're a Trump supporting racist bigot with an I.Q of 20 ",
"I'm not ignoring that is was a debt. That is a complete non-factor. If you want to be completely technical, you could say that the payment action was the ransom, and not the money itself. Either way, the payment of the money is still a ransom, and the debt factor doesn't change anything.",
"Ah, so unless it's explicitly right wing, it's left wing.\n\nThat must be how people convince themselves of 'both sides'",
"[basically this](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKCUFnIW4AEzMWY.jpg)",
"Fact check with politifact, Snopes --\n\nAHAHAHAHHAA",
"\"Debunked\" it was also \"debunked\" that wikileaks was \"fake\" but Hilldog still wanted to drone strike the embassy.\n\nFuckin hell. Get a grip. Not everyone you disagree with is \"muh dunuld\"",
"Lol I kno Trump is best. Immigrants? Thumbs down!",
"Literally the only three people in this specific comment chain is Shinkletwit, you, and me. Good job though.",
"But how will I fight against Chobani yogurt?",
"Reddit seriously has a hard time with most of these\n",
"Here’s two better questions: \n\n1) who decided that snopes or politifact should be “THE SOURCE” for fact check. \n\nNow I’ve personally worked in the “deep state” including at the DOJ, been involved with politics, and also media as well. \n\nNow because I just said that, I am expecting you to just automatically believe everything I’m about to say.\n\nNow imagine if I add “fact check” to a website and then just tell everybody it’s the most reliable source, even though everybody doesn’t agree with that supposition. That’s fallacy. \n\nThat’s what’s happening here. As a follower of politics, I watch this stuff closely. I remember one day in the last year or two, mostly liberals or “establishment biased” journalists all just saying, this is the site EVERYBODY SHOULD TRUST. \n\nWell..... according to who? Who is saying that? Who started saying that? Liberals. Conservative never agreed that they had a good track record, yet now if we call them out for bias — because all journalists (99 percent leftwing) insist this is somehow truth — we are supposed to just automatically believe everything they say? \n\nAccording to who is snopes and politifact worthy objective site? And more importantly when did these people decide this? After all 15 years ago, everybody said don’t believe anything on the internet. \n\n2) your probably going to say! “But just because it has bias that doesn’t mean it’s not fact”\n\nWell that’s a huge problem still. Because humans are humans and we don’t see the whole world on any issue. The map is not the territory. We see things in “frames”.\n\nSo what does that mean? \n\nAre brain literally has the ability to delete and filter information based on “OUR FRAME”\n\nSo if your frame is “Trump sucks,” your going to delete or ignore the obvious bias in the “fact check” or the weakness of the claim if it’s weak. So is the writer of that “fact check” EVEN if the claim is incredibly weak, your “frame” is going to search for that one small bit of truth to confirm the entire thing as true. \n\nA conservative reading a left slanted snopes “fact check” that might have that “one grain of truth” but since their “frame” is different they are going to see the obvious holes in it.\n\nThat’s why you can’t trust any source. Read them all. Don’t just say, don’t go to breitbart only go to snopes. Read them both.\n\nLot of liberals on her are saying that “oh, hurr durr, liberalism is just fact.” No, that’s your “frame” quite literally deleting information that your taking in because it doesn’t fit your frame.\n\n",
"The thing is. sweden didnt have these. it used to be one of the safest countries around.\n\nbut go ahead, declare yourself a winner on semantics. \n\nhttps://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11861/sweden-feminism\n\n",
"Yeah! I like it. ",
">(ironically the people that run snopes are conservatives) \n\nThat is patently false. \n\nhttp://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/\n\n",
"It's astroturfing. On Reddit. Again...",
"\n> Most people also don't know the difference between formal and informal fallacies as well, or the differences between formal logic and real-world debates.\n\n>Take ad hominem arguments, which are a fallacy in formal logic\n\nAre you including yourself in that statement about \"most people\"? Ad hominem is an informal fallacy. \n\n> but make sense in actual arguments as the source may not be reliable or might have a particular agenda in what data they're presenting.\n\nNo. If the data is not reliable or biased, the counterargument is to demonstrate the unreliability or bias, not to reject it on the assumption that it is likely to be unreliable or biased based on the source. \n",
"Weak rebuttal. Why did Time go through such an overblown apology?\n\nhttp://time.com/4645541/donald-trump-white-house-oval-office/\n\nIt was fake news that travelled extensively - the tweet was retweeted hundreds of thousands of times, and even CNN picked up the story; do you deny that?",
"If by leftist you mean democratic establishment then yes. \n\nWhich is still VERY centrist and pro capitalist. \n\nBut if by leftist you meant like, union mouthpiece or promoting class consciousness then no, you’re incorrect. ",
"I think the education system is drastically and possibly hopelessly behind the times on that - it still tries to produce drones. And everyone involved is too invested in the status quo to change it.",
"Or, liberals lean more towards facts in the first place. ",
"https://imgur.com/uiw1DNw\n\nI support Trump because of the improvements to the va \n\nMy taxes right now are wonderful \n\nI hate Clinton because of events that took place in the middle east because of her. I want her dead, she has committed high treason and her lesser crimes have put away countless people for doing the same. Manning being one, but the same. She is a tyrant\n\nI'm always open for discussion",
"Teaching critical thinking was something my high school was actually great at -- mostly in the history curriculum. Instead of reading textbooks, we did \"problem solving\" exercises. When we learned about anything (Vietnam, WWII, the creation of the FDA, etc), we were presented with a problem, and we were supposed to evaluate our sources and their biases, ask the teacher questions to get more information, decide what we thought the best course of action should be, and then think about what unintended consequences of our choice could be. Only then would we talk about what actually happened. It could be really annoying when we wanted to skip to the end, but it was an excellent way of learning to think.",
"Your definition of active is pretty loose. I occasionally respond to TD trolls and maybe upvote a post. Never posted anything myself, hardly the definition of active. ",
"Because he has a nose.",
"I was linked to the actual articles in another response and agree that it shows bias in that example. A screenshot of a portion of each article is shit evidence for future reference. The rest of the article shows Sanders' numbers to be slightly more true as he is referencing a more useful number but without qualifying it, it was intended to be misleading and to sensationalize. I would not rate either of those as true. ",
"lol fact check with highly biased left-wing sources like snopes, politico, and politifact. This is why there is a disconnect in the public discourse. ",
"Presenting accurate facts *in the right context* is also a very important factor in what readers/listeners/viewers perceive as truth in reporting, and goes a long way towards the generation of \"fake news\". I recently caught the CBC - Canada's respected, fairly liberal, publicly funded national broadcaster - headlining an article about the destructive, medically dangerous phenomenon of video game addiction with a photo of last year's local Extra Life marathon. Extra Life is part of the Children's Miracle Network and runs annual, 24-hour board, tabletop, and video game marathons across the world to raise money for CMN hospitals. \n\n\nEverything in the article was true, to the best of my knowledge. My Extra Life chapter was accurately identified in the captions. But the *context* of presenting that photo with that article could not have been more off-base. It was such a small, subtle thing, and the average reader will not have noticed it. By pure coincidence, I just happened to be in a position (as a long-time EL fundraiser) that allowed me to notice that the facts of what was happening in the photo were incongruent with the facts presented in the article. That's a bit scary, and makes me wonder what sort of things I *won't* notice about bigger, more hot-button topics the CBC reports on, that I don't have a strong personal knowledge of that would allow me to identify bias and bad context.\n\n\nTL;DR Context is just as important as facts.",
"There's bullshit on both sides. Stop digging for dirt on the dumbest of the opposition, discuss with the brightest. ",
"Could you point me to where it’s been proven?",
"Isn’t it funny how you cut out the part before which clearly states that is a different metric than “unemployment”. The word that Trump used. \n\nSo, again, what’s the difference? That Bernie was more clear in his language. As I’ve already clearly explained to you. \n\nI can’t believe you’ve spent this many posts trying to defend this. You’d be better off spending your time simply deleting these posts and pretending you didn’t make such a poor choice in example. ",
"I can't stand the term \"fake news\". Anyone who uses it is automatically written off in my book. ",
"I'm referring to the rising new left that has a bullet point checklist that says \"You're either with us or against us\".\n\nIf you don'ts subscribe to this part of leftist ideology, good for you, it's increasingly rare to find people willing to think and come to their own conclusions and not get rolled up thinking most of this country outside their political circle is bigoted.\n\nI wasn't highlighting 2 possible sides of politics, I was trying to describe the position those on the left drinking the \"cool aide\" find themselves in daily as the number of egg shells on the floor increases, and as everyone searches for new issues and bizarre aspects of society to out virtue signal over.\n\nSpecifically I was talking about the sort of facists that put pussie hats on their heads, or punch people in the face for exercising their constitutional rights while denouncing them as their racist enemy. Hypocrites.",
"CNN/MSNBC are the MSM? You do know that Fox News has the most viewers, Sean Hannity is the nation's most popular 'news' show, and Rush Limbaugh is the nation's most listened-to radio program, right?",
"They're in a bunch of major subs and especially in the political subs. I think not only are comments bought but also votes. ",
"Yeah i think thats probably the single most important one.",
"I hear this all the time and it really bothers me. The whole \"every news source has a bias\" thing is a shitty argument when you use it to defend media bias. I would expect High Times to be biased towards marijuana legalization. However, I would be upset if they started reporting that Stoned Inc totally has the best weed, man. Here's a commercial from our sponsors Stoned Inc. Or if they decided not to report that scientists have figured out weed actually makes your dick fall off. There are several types and combinations of biases and a lot of them are dishonest. Unfortunately it's extremely common in the current media shitstorm we find ourselves in. You dont need to make up facts to create fake news, the real facts will do just fine. I'm not trying to disagree with your comment btw, I don't have an opinion on politico or politifact.",
"Many good pieces of advice. My favorite is \"Skip anonymous news reports.\" \n\nI'm looking at YOU, CNN!",
"Haha I kno right don't worry I am on to their game typical Soros working his jew tricks am I rite lol ",
"THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. ",
"Too bad rednecks & swamp crackas cant read thats why they get fox fake news & a black & white tv already installed for free with every trailer & inside every trailer park",
"Finally something we can all agree on",
"You're right. He said youth. My apologies. The real issue is Politifact states that Trump was using a ratio to define the rate which is mostly false. I think we can agree that the statement is mostly false. \n\nThe issue at hand is whether or not Bernie should have gotten a mostly true rating despite also using the wrong figure and wording. Politifact seems to imply that because Bernie's camp explained the position, they could focus on meaning. \n\nI agree it's going to ruffle some people's feathers especially if you're trying to determine if one candidate received unfavorable treatment by a source.\n\nI maintain that the explanation is what Politifact was rating as mostly true. I wish Trump's camp had at least explained because I will assume they intended the same.",
"Yup",
"They absolutely are. ",
"I'd love to see the alt-right & far-left versions of this. \n\n- Did Trump claim it to be true? It's true.\n- Is it on CNN? It's false, unless Trump tells us it's true.\n- The world is black and white, with nothing in between. Therefore any negative news about conservatives, Trump or the alt-right is fake news, and any negative news about Obama, Hillary, or libtards is also fake news because it isn't negative enough (they are covering up just how negative it is, 9 times out of 9)\n\nFar-left ver:\n\n- Check the author's credentials. Are they \"professional\" mainstream shills or brave, devoted citizen journos?\n- Western media is all lies. Russian and Chinese state outlets are reliable.\n- Does it attack Democrats by holding them to an unrealistically high standard just to make cynical far-leftists feel good about their purity? Good. It's a trusted leftist source.\n- The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Allies of the far right, like Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, are blessed saints.",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_wOzRw76Qs\n\nThe study is junk. Questions asked about it's methodology and seed list shows that it showed bias higher in the right because they seeded their investigation with almost exclusively right leaning news outlets.",
"So a site that directly references source material, like say Snopes or others, would seem pretty useful.\n\nCan you provide an example of, say, a Snopes page that is inaccurate? I want to not be a sheeple anymore!\n",
"Only by utter twats.",
">There's bullshit on both sides.\n\nAye, but one is consistently more bullshit than the other. Again, look at the Commander in Chief. Lies, more lies and damned lies. \n\n>on the dumbest of the opposition\n\nTrump may be dumb but he holds tremendous power and the vast majority of Republicans voted for him. It isn't like he is some fringe candidate. Hell, Roy Moore almost won. It's a problem, and it's very one sided. Republicans consistently believe fake news and can't critically think. ",
"...Oh. Ok. Feel free to link my “actual response” to you that you believe I forgot to switch to my alt to defend",
"No. 3 is so damn important, and it's the reality check people HERE ON REDDIT really need. \n\nI can't count the number of times I've seen some dumbass talk about how you can't trust the mainstream media or professional journalists, but then completely trust--without ANY sources, ANY justification, and even ANY idea of the person's identity--the anonymous rantings of fellow redditors. \n\n\"Oh that (insert journalist's name here) is so biased and unqualified. He doesn't know shit. Oh, what's that u/xXlegalize420analXx, you think ISIS is all an American conspiracy? Wow, I never saw it that way, that's brilliant! You really know your stuff, man!\" \n\nIt's utterly absurd. We live in an age when people distrust experts to a pathological degree, but unironically trust random strangers on the internet without a hint of critical thought. ",
">If one side of the political aisle is wrong about something, and a web site reports on that, it doesn't make the web site biased. It makes that political party incorrect.\n\nAre you seriously this dense or do you just have zero self awareness? \n\nThe entire point I was making is that the political party isn't \"incorrect\", it's the leftist narrative that was the go-to defense to spin the memo, and that website is regurgitating that narrative. That news article is nothing more than an opinion piece but you are acting like it's a well known fact the memo \"fell short\" and that article is nothing more then reporting on \"facts\".\n\nLittle news flash for you, on Reddit it probably is a \"fact\" that the memo fell short, but in the real world, it didn't fall short.\n\nThe author of the news article isn't anyone to say the other political party is wrong and neither are you because I can easily say democrats are wrong and not you or anyone else can tell I'm incorrect.\n\nAt that point, you have to review the facts which are:\n\n1.) Information was left out of a FISA applicant which was detrimental to credibility of the information.\n\n2.) The FISA warrant was issued based on an uncorroborated document. \n\n\nThat is the opposite of \"falling flat\", but it's again, the typical recycled leftist narrative which is trying to downplay the memo.\n\n\n>Just because a political party has been screwing up royally lately doesn't mean that media is biased if they report on it. Why not concentrate on the political party that's been screwing up royally, and asking why they can't get back on track?\n\n\nI'm sure /r/politics will make you think the democrats are Greek Goddesses while Republicans are Satan straight from hell. Democrats have been screwing up too, like shutting down the government because of a failed compromise that was reasonable. But of course you and Reddit probably blamed that on Republicans too like most things.",
"You don't have to be a Republican in order to believe in \"fake news\". You just have to be biased and lazy; I feel like this transcends political parties, though I will say that it affects Republicans more often. ",
"Your source defended Roy Moore. Kindly fuck off lol",
"Yeah Bernie’s was mostly true because he was off by under 10% and his point was still valid just the numbers he pulled weren’t completely accurate.\n\nTrump’s claim was way off, like his rates were the complete opposite of the truth. He doubled the actual rates.",
"Fact check sites are pretty biased in general but other than that this is great.",
"I don’t think you can put out something like this that is uploaded to be very neutral and general and then say to fact check with specific sites. ",
"Snopes is fake news though",
"Standing on the 2nd floor overlooking the first floor, like where the escalators are at Barnes and Noble.\n",
"Sure they are. \n\nSauce: I work in one. If \"Thou Shalt Not Gossip About Patrons\" were not an almost-literal quote from the employee handbook, hoo *boy* I could tell some stories.",
"Are there people who disagree with the other suggestions? I'd love hear their \"reasons\".",
"What does that have to do with this?",
"[Here you go.](https://www.snopes.com/tag/breitbart/)",
">I can’t believe you’ve spent this many posts trying to defend this. You’d be better off spending your time simply deleting these posts and pretending you didn’t make such a poor choice in example\n\nWhy would I delete me proving you wrong? That would be silly.\n\nAnd let me get this straight. Fill in the blank below:\n\nA population has an employment rate of 41%. The other 59% are __________",
"Fake news.",
"Agreed! ",
"> all have a Liberal bias.\n\nA Democratic establishment bias-- FTFY\n\nDon't conflate ideology with a corrupt party that preys on the illusion of giving a shit about policy.\n\nI agree though, those sites all fudge the truth so hard to fit their agenda.",
"They're clever about it. Not gonna lie. ",
"a.k.a. the [fallacy fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy).",
" v b",
"Wikileaks? There goes all credibility since they've showed full well they are Pro Trump and even more Pro Putin. Happy to spread any lies or things taken out of context to further their agenda...\n\n\n\n\n\nYou do know Wikileaks have been exposed as yet another PR tool right? They were honest at first to build credibility then used it to push Trump/anti Bernie and anti Hillary articles. ",
"This is what happens when you let ideoligies consume you...",
"Take rid of the advert for sites with their own biases (conscious or otherwise) and this is a good pamphlet.",
"So should I wait until I see an article saying \"The Sky is Blue\"? I'm pretty sure that's the truth and I don't need someone to declare it as such.",
">What takes the most words is when they need to explain their reasoning about why you might think something is true (or false), but you are wrong and it is, as a matter of fact, false (or true). We found this pretty consistently. If you look at the shortest 10 percent of all fact-checks, two thirds of them are rated as “True” or “Mostly True.” Conversely, of the longest 10 percent of fact checks two-thirds are rated “Half True” or “Mostly False,” ratings we typically found to be fairly subjective\n\nthis article can be summarized as: it takes more words to explain why something is wrong than why its correct\n\nlmao",
"That will never happen",
"This is 100% correct. ",
"Na, I think I will pass. Thanks for the idea though.",
"Using a ratio to define the rate?\n\nIf 41% are employed wouldnt the other 59% be unemployed?\n\nAnd let's not forget that the Sanders article literally ends by saying that the actual rate is likely **much higher** than 50%. So how in the world could that be true yet Trump's 59% so off base as to result in a mostly false?",
"They lost their credibility as soon as they put Snopes on the list.",
"Can you republicans please stop mixing up centrist neoliberals and leftists. Just because you're so fucking right wing that you're about to fall off the fucking edge doesn't mean people who watch CNN are somehow leftist.\n\nSincerely, an actual fucking leftist.",
"Exactly.\nFact check with Snopes, or Politico?!\nPlease.",
"Ha, projection much?\n\nEdit: do us both a favor and calm down, we both know a worthwhile conversation isn't happening here. But feel free to threaten me more from behind your keyboard.",
"What complete moron put the Mirror over in the deep left? Hahahahaha\n\nAnd the Guardian less left than CNN? You Americans are having a laugh aren't you? Should stop judging British publications because it's clearly being misjudged.\n\nThe Guardian is partisan left, strictly leftist, hyper partisan.\n\nCNN is left, but not hyper partisan. Only nutsos on the far right could think that.\n\nThe Mirror is a fucking rag that belongs alongside the Daily Mail on the far right, which is bizarrely absent from the list despite having far larger online number than the Guardian does.",
"> is demonstrably just as susceptible to populist, identity politics\n\n\"Believing in an opinion I disagree with is equivalent to believing in demonstrably made up facts\"\n\n",
"This is generally good, but nowadays Snopes isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It’s not the 100% myth-busting urban legend revealer it was in the early-mid 00’s",
"People at CNN have admitted to shilling for Hillary though. Even if they hadn't admitted it, it's still clear they were biased in favor or her, and they weren't the only big news network that was.",
"Sir David Attenborough:\n\n>Upon discovering that his opposite in the argument possesses basic scientific training, the Reddit liberal falls silent. His teachers did not prepare him for this.\n\n>After a moment, a downvote is his sole reply.",
"Trying to refute an academic paper with a youtube video from a right-wing media personality. \n\nSorry, for being a snob, but this is nothing I'd ever consider wasting my time watching. ",
"I want to hand these out like candy ",
"But the story he sent was actually a negative piece about Clinton/DNC.\n\nhttps://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670\n\nAlso, the business insider story confuses sharing the story with a \"source\" and with the subject of the story. Journalists DO share drafts of story with the subject at their discretion, as in theory their job is to tell the truth. The subject can submit comments or suggest alterations, and the journalist can then check if the alterations are warranted or ignore them if they're BS.",
"Just to add. I'm not trying to brush it aside. I'm not a fan of the loose interpretation of one side over the other either. ",
"Really using the site for fact checking is fine as long as you know it has a bias, best way to do it is to read the article on the fact checking site, if it’s a topic where you believe the website might have a bias the easiest way to check is if they gave a lower score to someone who was on the right.\n\n\nLike in this example (this is from a website that called politifact out)[http://www.politifactbias.com/2018/02/does-lowest-mean-something-different-in.html?m=1] they are assigning different levels of truth to statements that have the same level of authenticity. (In both cases the score was tied for lowest)\n\n\nEveryone should read on both sides of the aisle to keep out of an echo chamber, have your bias but don’t assume that it’s the one true fact. \n\n",
"Well I will say this, lately I have been asking Trump supporting redditors, in a very civil manner, why they support him because I am curious. You would be amazed at the hate filled stuff I get back from these people for simply asking them why they support Trump. I have had maybe one person be decent and give reasons, and I thanked him for his reply. I personally think he and his enablers are a complete joke that are enriching themselves while simultaneously destroying our credibility on the world stage, and there is a serious problem of party over country going on right now in the US. These people I refer to as MAGAts are the ones who are completely ok with whatever stupid (illegal?) shit Trump wants to do as long as they get those sweet librul tears. ",
"I've noticed the only people who say that are liberals with a biased view of reality. ",
"It's a recently coined buzzword used to describe a phenomenon that has pretty much always existed but has become exacerbated by the prolific growth of digital ICTs in the past few decades. Information literacy and critically evaluating information sources have always been important aspects of LIS, long before the term \"fake news\" entered the popular lexicon. \n\n[The CRAAP Test has been around for almost a decade.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAWhE0mj69I)",
"But hopefully, our children are learning--much like my generation was warned against \"yellow journalism\", of which this \"fake news\" is just a special, technically sophisticated case.",
"Nobody downvoted you",
">sorts by controversial \n\n>”snopes and politifact have been proven to have left leaning bias” with dozens of upvotes\n\n>”snopes and politifact are highly biased and can’t hardly be trusted” with negative karma\n\nGod dammit Reddit ",
"Sure because the left are more rational than some of the idiots on the right, the left buys the bullshit without finding out the entire story a lot. \n\nThe same people who bitchs about fox accepts msnbc as an unbiased news source and neither are unbiased. Fox is pretty close when reporting the news, the problem is most of their shows are opinion based shows which are extremely biased. \n\nCNN sometimes ignores facts to fit a narrative as well. ",
"Noticed that I may have misread the comment chain. Just take it as an unscheduled \"Trump lies to the highest of Liar-stivity\" interjection.",
"Well aren't you just a perfect microcosm. ",
"I think your reading comprehension needs a little work. CNN does not have anonymous news reports. Anonymous sources are not anonymous news",
"Why do mostly women become nurses? Why do men gravitate being a mechanic. Why do some people gravitate toward some careers vs others?\n\nDo you understand conservatives at all? Have you ever thought about what motivates them?\n\nWhy are most college professors mostly leftwing? (Other than the blatant bias white conservative men in academia)\n\nYour statement is very ignorant of how conservatives think. \n\nHere’s a thought: What if many conservatives have the mindset of shaping their world on their own volition. Starting a business, being a pioneer, being a businessman, whatever. What if a lot of conservatives were turned off at the prospect at reporting on what other people were DOING. \n\nIt’s not because everything the left says is true, and I’m not saying the right is always true either. There’s a reason for the blatant bias and that’s because the schools attract leftists (and discriminate against conservatives) as well as journalists. \n\nAs journalists, the point is to inform. Not being an advocate unless you quite literally are an advocate like say hannity or Rachel Maddow (they aren’t journalists).\n\nThe same for a teacher. It’s not to indoctrinate. It’s to inform, to enlighten to open the mind. To get people to question everything. But journalists are now acting like hannity or Rachel Maddow now and most teachers are acting like propagandist pushing an agenda instead of helping students think and ask questions",
"When she is the SOLE POLITICAL FACT CHECKER on Snopes.com??\n\nYou see no problem in that? \n\nI bet if the tables were reversed and the sole political fact-checker was a MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter you'd be up in arms.\n\nI know I would, because that *defiantly* shows a political bias towards one party on a site that supposedly has no bias.",
"I was trying to figure out earlier what the OAR was in the olympics and wound an artical about \"who is the OAR in the olympics\". Auto play video about how olympians make money starts",
"> \"Debunked\" it was also \n\nIt was debunked because it was.\n\nBernie made a claim about \"Real Unemployment\", \"Real unemployment\" historically refers to a definition of unemployment that includes **underemployed** people. With that taken into context, Bernie provided government-sourced information that proves that \"real unemployment\" is indeed at that level for black people.\n\nTrump on the other hand mentioned simple unemployment, something that does not historically include underemployment. And when asked to clarify, he refused to comment or provide sources. If he would have actually clarified his statement, he may have not gotten a pants on fire rating (Instead he could have been rated as mostly false), as he could have used the excuse that he simply wasn't clear enough. But regardless, his statement was factually incorrect. \n\n>\"debunked\" that wikileaks was \"fake\"\n\nWikileaks isn't \"Fake\". It is an organization that may or may not have been founded for the purpose of legitimate whistle-blowing, but either from it's inception or later on it became an arm of the Russian government. At present it gleefully spreads idiotic propaganda against opponents of russia, for example things like:\n\n>Hilldog still wanted to drone strike the embassy.\n\nWhich is an entirely unproven claim. The closest anyone has gotten to actual evidence for this is her mentioning \"non-legal\" methods of dealing with assange, which traditionally refers to using political pressure. Admittedly, it could have meant she wanted to drone a person in an embassy right in the middle of a major city within a country that is one of our closest allies, but for some reason (Maybe because I'm sane) I doubt that.\n\n",
"I'm a teacher and we give our kids handouts like this when researching! We call it the CRAAP test. It helps a ton. ",
"That's all I was asking for. In a thread literally made to discern whether sources are reliable or not, you would think that you would understand that a link to the front page to fox and a random guy on Reddit telling me they are liars wouldn't be very reputable.",
"> *Fact checking. Ain't nobody got time fo dat.*\n\n\n\n\n-people who believe in fake news",
"To the right, so is the Post. It’s important to see both sides of the spin. ",
">That would be fine if it wasn’t the point of politifact, it’s to fact check statements.\n\nAnd that's exactly what they did. They game the claim, they gave the pertinent information, and the only possible editorializing is done in their ratings, which are generally very consistent, and usually adjusted if they're not.\n\n>I’m not claiming I’m unbiased, but from the way politifact and snopes act in general there is a bias that can be seen.\n\nIn the same way that reality has a liberal bias, then sure.\n\n>This here website exists to make a meme of their bias\n\nThat website is unadulterated garbage that continually proves itself wrong. It's embarrassing. ",
"Why would that be?",
"Depends on the teacher more than the class.",
"I feel like all of these could be applied to evrrything you hear or see in life, dont believe everything at face value do your reasearch and come to your own conclusions in life.",
"So basically my journalism degree in a nutshell.",
"Snopes politico and politifact are very biased sources. Thats the only thing I disagree with here",
"I had to google that term to understand what it meant. If somebody thought you were disingenuous then it would make no sense to argue with you, yet they still do. \n\nPersonally, I tend to lean pretty far left economically, however socially, I'm apparently mixed in many respects. This gets people mad when I don't join their polarized circlejerk on things like homosexuals, transexuals, feminists, free speech and similar issues where people intentionally disrupt and put a lot of effort into being \"shocking\" or \"disgusting\" with a \"look at me\" attitude and victim complex. Then they get irate and call me a bigot when I suggest they should stop acting like a needy-petulant child and be more civil.",
"how would you know? did you get it from snopes? because i only trust them /s",
"lol maybe. Even just in this thread though, I've gotten more thought out and sourced comments than rants, which has been cool.",
"...I would also accept that, but I feel that falls more under the Chewbacca offense instead.",
">\tCNN is fake news because of this one incident.\n\n>\tI can’t find the fake news but believe me, I seen it. It was because of that Times reporter.\n\n>\tOh here’s a link to the Times apology as proof that CNN did it and is fake news. \n\nGreat job bro 👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻\n",
"And why should Snopes, Politico, and Politifact be trusted? They are all human-staffed with biases. ***Who watches the watchmen?***",
"You're doing *exactly* what I accused you guys of doing, which is reading headlines and getting triggered.\n\nAll you've posted here is a list of false/mostly false claims made by Republicans, and true/mostly true claims made by Democrats. Somehow, in your addled partisan brain, this amounts to evidence.\n\nTake a deep breath, relax, and understand that if you tell lies, you deserve to be called out for it. Attacking objective fact because it makes you look bad just makes you look even worse.",
"Prove it. ",
"I'd say these 3 statements rule out some of the points of that leaflet",
"This should be given out with any internet ready device at this point in time. ",
"would you take an article from infowars seriously or dismiss it outright? \n\npeople that arent hilariously biased feel the same way about snopes",
"> Why would I delete me proving you wrong?\n\nThat would make sense, if you’d actually done that. \n\nThe metric you’re referencing isn’t “unemployment”. \n\nDo you understand this point? Because it’s literally the entire argument. \n\nBernie added a clear qualifier that showed he wasn’t talking about “unemployment” alone, though he wasn’t perfectly clear so he got less than True. \n\nTrump added no qualifier so he gets an even bigger drop in truth. \n\nWords matter, ask any lawyer about that if you’re curious. ",
"Depends on the context, but saying someone is biased is usually an assertion that a claim presupposes the truth of some interpretive framework. For example, every reasonable person should have a pro-science bias, *I.e.*, they should assume that, all things being equal, a explanation that is consistent with scientific convention is more plausible than an explanation that contradicts scientific convention. People should also be biased toward sources of information that are reliable, and biased toward the opinion of relevant experts on whatever topic. ",
"And you've pointed out the big problem. Fake news as its come.to be called is endemic. Everyone from cnn to fox to the bbc is fucking at it. \n\nI've found the only way to 'escape' fake news is to just assume that everyone is fucking lying to you and work from there. ",
"Pretty sure those were Trump supporters. Didn't see the mainstream media criticising Obama much.",
"no i'm saying one can present objective facts in deliberately misleading ways ",
"I wouldn't say that now, but these comments sure are fucking stupid.",
"Lol -10 downvote currently. Whoever thought the site that Ron Paul used to be the man at—to question the system—would quite literally be ok with trusting one source but not the other. All the grownups must be in The Donald or maybe voting libertarian",
"uhm, checking for suffixes in the URL isn't something i'd expect the average user to know. URL's are super duper funky these days. I wouldn't clutter the already complicated issue with this also.",
"Saw a video a while back on how fake news is really made. It was a parody, but it was actually really well researched.",
"It's as they say, the best defense is a nuclear deterrent.",
"American to update me on the situation in Sweden via his Russian/rightwing sources?\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOh God, take 5 minutes and ask a swede or even better, ask out news or politicians since our politicians don't outright lie. If they do, or mix with the truth, then get denounced by their party and loose their position (on the left at least, on the right they get a \"time out\" for assault. Leftists get kicked our for a speeding ticket). On \"No go zones\" *that's a lie*, I would know since my best friend lives in one such area.\n\n\n\n\n\nThe problem isn't so much that police don't come there, it's that there's no police nearby ever. The criminal gangs exist in a vacuum and let me tell you, it's white guys with Harleys that run the guns and drugs, then pass it to the kids who are desperate for an income. Polices do come here but get met with gang violence (see Greta Nordic biker war in Wikipedia for references). At worst ambulances await police escort to go to ceetainadresses *That are known to host organized crime*. It's not refugees, it's not Muslims or Arabs or something. It's *Prime white MC asshats and biker gangs that have been allowed to roam freely because the (at the time) rightwing government didn't think poor people needed police protection*",
"Facts hurt. ",
"Are you really so obtuse that you are pretending you don't know CNN uses anonymous sources ALL THE TIME???",
"Republicans don’t like knowledge or facts",
"That's cool and all, but why did you have to take the picture looking OVER THE RAILING at the floor below?! These heights are making me anxious!",
"This is wonderful. Ask questions is the most important thing ever ",
"I read the last point and this really can't be stressed enough...the lack of critical thinkers who basically obey msm is insane ",
"Low energy.",
"Don't rely on \"fact\" checkers like Snopes, Politico, or Politifact. Do your own research. Don't let someone with an agenda try and convince you what is true and what's not. ",
"Yeah, just the other day I read of a guy shooting a sports car into outer space.",
"So you are admitting you just wanted to say \"Trump is a liar\" for absolutely no reason just to spite him? Thank you for being such a good demonstration of the exact behavior that I have been against this whole time. I will save your comments for future reference.",
"Yes, their liberal relatives have tried to teach them about fake stories for easily a decade. It goes nowhere.",
">politifact\n\nOof. So much for replying on unbiased sources. ",
"Fox News and President Trump perpetuate the term “fake news,” so I beg to differ - it is absolutely relevant to this conversation, sir or madam. ",
"This is what r/politicalhumor should be. ",
"Thread MVP",
">When she is the SOLE POLITICAL FACT CHECKER on Snopes.com??\n\nDo you have a source for that?\n\n[They appear to have a number](https://www.snopes.com/snopes-staff/)\n\n>I bet if the tables were reversed and the sole political fact-checker was a MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter you'd be up in arms.\n\nThat's a hell of a long way the other way from being \"Left-leaning\".\n\n>Members of the Snopes.com editorial staff are precluded from donating to, or participating in, political campaigns, political parties, or political advocacy organizations.",
"Cool may crop and print a few of these! \nLong live your thumb lol",
"The context given to the phrase in the quote they are responding to is different to the statement they are refuting. The webpage is about their misrepresentation of what was said, and in no way refutes what the original statement was, it only attempts to refute their misrepresentation of it.\n\nI'm not arguing about whether there are actually no go zones in Sweden, I don't give a shit. I'm pointing out how snopes articles misrepresent to reinforce bias as a form of propoganda. The snopes article is intellectually dishonest, this is my point.",
"Thats just like... Your Fake News man.",
"Being open minded doesn’t mean electing a dipshit. ",
"These are the two original comments:\n\nTrump:\n\n>For young people who have graduated high school or dropped out of high school, who are between the ages of 17 and 20, if they happen to be white, the unemployment rate is 33 percent. If they are Hispanic, the unemployment rate is 36 percent. If they are African-American, the real unemployment rate for young people is 51 percent.\"\n\nBernie:\n\n>If you look at what’s going on in this country, African-American youth is an example: 59 percent unemployment rate; 59 percent\n\nOh wait I got those attributed backwards. Or did I?",
"Would have been perfect if they didn't go ahead and endorse a couple of sites. ",
"I'd rather have well sourced facts not used to push a narrative.",
"I call bullshit:\n\nhttps://imgur.com/a/pzWiP",
"Lol, this post is a trap. If I express any opinion on it I'm gonna be labeled as the \"enemy\".\n\nTop quality shitposting. ",
"What do you propose people use to fact check?",
"> in terms of fatness \n\ncollege kids are like the one demographic that isn't obese lol",
"Snopes lol",
"Wow, this Trump thing sounds unbelievable! Reads more...oh, it is.",
"Oh gosh, yeah, those that don’t want to hear the answers...the dating subreddits are the worst for that, people literally don’t want to hear certain advice sometimes...like, why bother asking?",
"LOL Left.",
"LOL\n\nT_D troll complains that an Oxford study is \"subjective and bias.\"\n\nAnd this is where we are as a society. For a disturbing number of people, the battle against \"fake news\" was lost a long time ago. They've already surrendered their critical thinking and emotional independence to a rightwing con-job fantasy, which they will defend with the blind loyalty and selective reality of a legit cult member. As long as they can plug into the virtual bubble of pseudo-conservative bullshit and \"alternative facts\", they will deny the truths, norms, and values of the entire rest of the world.\n\nI wish you luck, rando. I want to believe that this is some kind of temporary psychosis, and eventually some big life change or experience will shake you out of the digital rightwing daze that's fogging your brain.",
">Sanders didn’t really describe it the correct way. He twice used the term \"unemployment rate\" \n\nHmm. It's almost like they both said unemployment rate and one got mostly true and one got mostly false.\n\nI should have been making the point that they were treated differently the entire time. Oh wait. I was.",
"Who would even think this? Even an expert can reasonably hold that at least some of their opinions about things within their areas of expertise are wrong. \n\nHowever, a biased source that consistently checks out over time can typically be taken at it's word. It is possible to become irrationally skeptical. ",
"Someone post one to me!",
"im sorry ill set up a fact checking website to satisfy your need for baby level pandering",
"Thanks for ironically being a poster child for OPs post. \n\n...jesuschrist",
"Ok, I see what you mean. But I think it makes more sense if you simply state it in the abstract, as you have, than when you apply it to this case. The claims that black youth unemployment is 51% or 59% are both objectively false, but fact checkers acknowledge that not all false claims are equally false. I mean, the most obvious way to understand this is simply to notice that 59% is further from the correct number than 51% is. But more than that, the Sanders campaign was able to demonstrate that an alternate, but credible source states that black underemployment is 51% and that's what he was talking about. The Trump campaign may have had a similar argument to make, but they didn't make it, so it is impossible to know and thus in their case we are only left with the objective inaccuracy and no mitigating factors. I don't see how it could be fair to arrive at any conclusion other than what politifact did.\n\nAs far as your more abstract point about interpretation, all fact checkers I'm aware of have a scale ranging from bald-faced lie, through partially true, to technically true but misleading, and so on. In a world where people make complex, multifact claims, and where different reputable information sources often have differing data around the same questions, I just don't see any way around having gradations that acknowledge some level of nuance. I also don't think simply saying untrue things and refusing to explain them is a valid response.",
"I'm not responding to someone else's comment. I responded to yours where you presented the snopes article and I was addressing it's extremely low.quality and intellectual dishonesty.\n\nThe context given to the phrase in the quote they are responding to is different to the statement they are refuting. The article is about their misrepresentation of what was said, and in no way refutes what the original statement was, it only attempts to refute their misrepresentation of it.\n\nI'm not arguing about whether there are actually no go zones in Sweden (of either kind), I don't give a shit. I'm pointing out how snopes articles misrepresent to reinforce bias as a form of propoganda. The snopes article is intellectually dishonest, this is my point.",
"everybody knows opera is superior to all other browsers",
"Kindly fuck yourself in the arse. Lol\n\nhttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/\n",
"What fact check sites do the Russians use? ",
"Except...it specifically names exclusively 3 left-leaning sources...",
"Can you cite an example of which things labeled fake news you consider to be biased picks? Why is three months too short of a time period for you?",
"It’s definitely biased. There isn’t one single media source that I’ve found that doesn’t lean one way or the other. I judge a media source based on it’s willingness to have the top headline be a negative to the side they supposedly support. Every single day for many years I’ve checked the headline on Huffington Post, CNN, Breitbart, Drudge and Reuters. 2 left 2 right and 1 kinda center. Usually twice a day. I usually only read the headline not the story. My conclusion is this. The conservative sites (while clearly bias) will make a negative story to the republicans it’s top headline. Not often but they will do it a couple times a week. Breitbart not as much but Drudge certainly will. Drudge is basically a collection of links to other news sources and a lot of time the sources are from the left. Huffington Post is the most bias of the 5 sites. I can’t remember a single time I’ve seen a headline that truly paints the Democrats in negative light. To their credit they are open and honest about their bias. Combine Breitbart and Huffington and you actually do get a clear picture of what is going on. Since both are fiercely trying to take down the other side you actually do get decent reporting. That brings us to CNN. Believe it or not when I started this experiment 10 years ago CNN was my “sorta center” site. They have literally become the Huffington Post. The difference is Huff Post fully admits its bias. CNN still pretends to be some sort of non-partisan news source when they are clearly far left. Reuters is only one of the bunch that seems to actually report news outside of politics. They lean a bit left but not even close to the bias of the other 4. The other 4 basically only report on politics. It’s actually a bit unsettling when any of them take a break from attacking the opposition to report on factual non-partisan news such as a natural disaster. All that said I take everything I read with a grain of salt and I find it hard to trust anything I can’t see with my own 2 eyes. ",
">To be fair, right wingers on reddit don't do themselves favors\n\nAs far as I'm concerned, nobody on Reddit does themself any favors. Do you think selection bias or Dunning-Kruger has an effect? The people you encounter that are espousing stupid ideas probably aren't the best representation of the group they identify with(unless they identify as an extremist, then maybe they do). A lot of intelligent, sane people don't like confrontation, so even if they have conviction in there beliefs with strong supporting evidence, you will never hear them, especially with politics.\n\nI would not be surprised if I leave reddit soon, because I find little value in it. What I see is a lot of conviction, without much expertise. I see people who have bias, and spend a few hours doing trivial research to find support for their preconceived ideas and think they are experts. I see people take extremely subjective issues where I think no rational person would dare to make a definitive claim, yet, lo and behold, people not only come to a conclusion, but you are insane, to not come to a similar conclusion. If one lacks the wherewithal to come to a definitive conclusion, one should either not speculate, or declare it to be speculation, and the speculation should include a spectrum of possibilities. e.g. \"Trump called African countries shitholes, he's racist.\" Well, that lies on the spectrum of possibility but at the far end, what is much more likely is he is extremely crass and a horrible diplomat.\n\nSince I'm most likely going to leave reddit, I wonder if other conservatives have done the same, or weren't on reddit in the first place. My SO, who is extremely educated and in a respectable profession, makes fun of me for being on reddit; she said she didn't realize people with real jobs actually get into stupid arguments on the internet. It seems likely that reddit is the type of medium that attracts more of certain types of people.\n\n>and there's absolutely a degree of anti-intellectualism and anti-discussion and analysis present in the right wing.\n\nI am not saying I disagree, but I will say the left conflates formal education with anti-intellectualism. For example, my cousin has his PhD, was top of his class, and one of the smartest people I know. He absolutely believes college is a waste of time and money, and he has shared this view this his kids who are barely in high school and make 98+ on everything; they share his view, but will still likely go to college. If I answer \"higher education is detrimental to society\" does that make me anti-intellectual? Fuck no it doesn't. I see people going to college to get shit degrees and pile on mountains of debt, meanwhile my rural friends that didn't go to college are killing it. Yes, college kids make more money and experience more social mobility but there is a huge selection bias. It's not illogical to come to the conclusion that technical skills should not be sacrificed for liberal arts degrees, and in our current climate, I'm not sure that isn't far off from \"is higher education detrimental?\" It's honestly a stupidly simplistic question. Steven levitt, the co-auther of Freakonomics, says he discourages people from getting PhDs unless they have an extreme knack for research or they are so socially incompetent they would barely function in society. Does that make him anti-intellectual?\n\n>There are open-minded people on both sides and closed-minded people on both sides, but it's clearly not an even split.\n\nI generally don't really care who thinks what, or what ideologies are prevalent in what groups. It's a slippery slope and breeds mentalities that are similar to racism. \"a subset of group x thinks this, group x is so dumb.\" To me it's all irrelevant. I can be the only guy in the room that holds a certain view, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.\n",
"Seriously? LOL",
"Horseshit. For a start, here's a quote from. David Mikkelsen about his political affiliation. “My sole involvement in politics is on Election Day to go out and vote. I’ve never joined a party, worked for a campaign or donated money to a candidate.”\n\n“You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people,”\n\n\nAlso, his wife Barbera is a Canadian citizen so not a member of any political party, but she was a member of the conservayparty while she was there. ",
"Disagree with no 3 - The Economist doesn't have author credentials, but I get that it's a rule of thumb.",
"https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/",
"> What is a \"left winger\" and a \"right winger\" anyway?\n> \n> It's hard enough to define those terms let alone quantify their views.\n> \n> \n> \n> If you take the most extreme views then both sides are equally insane. \n\nim pretty sure thats his point. the op made a generalized statement they couldnt possibly know because it correlates with their own biases.",
"420 bong hits for Jesus ",
"I would add to be cautious of opinion pieces.\n\n\nWhen you read a one sided story that leaves you thinking \"Why would the opposition even think the way they do?\" Then it's probably a crappy article. Instead, you should understand why each side feels the way they do even if you don't agree with it.\n\n\nI guess that falls sort of in line with the \"filter bubble\" part. ",
"Show me one thing on Snopes that is wrong.",
"Those guys say we should kill all the Jews, these guys say we shouldn't kill any Jews, clearly the truth is we should kill half the Jews.\n\nThat's how critical thought works!",
"if by \"they\" you mean liberals, then yes",
"Interesting. I agree with the idea that the denial of expert and scientific opinion is problematic. But the knee jerk hostility for anonymous government sources is misplaced in my view. Many of the stories sourced in that way have proven true over the last year, and it stands to reason well placed sources won’t be willing to allow their names to be published. Not everyone is deep throat, but if the news vehicle in question has rigorous editing guidelines regarding the use of anonymous sources and a story indicates that it is sourced from a variety of angles, not just one anonymous source, then it is reasonable to accept the claims as potentially accurate with the understanding that the picture may yet develop. I often wonder if those who rail against anonymous gov sources are familiar with the history of consequential investigative journalism in this country or have themselves actually read the editorial policies of outlets like The NY Times or Wash Post to see the significant restrictions placed on the use of anonymous sources in credible news sources that adhere to journalistic ethics (and contrary to the lack of rules at the garbage publications that cater to their respective echo chambers all over the web). ",
"Yeah if you’re gonna listen to one thing in that bookmark let it be this.",
"Actually, no. Again, as stated I misread the comment chain. \n\nThat being said, the truth of my misplaced statement still stands. Hey, if a duck can walk in shoes that fit.. Or, something like that.",
"Yeah, I get most of my news from shareblue and the rest from motherjones.",
"But Leia's emails!",
"dammit no, that's not what i'm saying! ",
"They link a lot of opinion articles from major media sites but a majority of it is still news and not opinion. It definitely has a bias but I wouldn't call it awful. You could call the comments section awful but that's the case with almost every subreddit. ",
"Yeah definitely don't use politifact. So biased ",
"Lol",
"News I don't like is fake!",
"LOL what? Of course it does. Moderate news reporters are not motivated to create a narrative.",
"> Hmm. It's almost like they both said unemployment rate and one got mostly true and one got mostly false.\n\nBernie said “real unemployment rate”, which is clearly different than the standard “unemployment rate”. \n\nAgain, do you understand this point? One is a standard metric. The other isn’t. Both weren’t deemed “true”, but as one persons verbiage was closer to correct they got a higher truth rating. \n\nIt turns out they were treated equally and Trump, as usual, was less careful with his words. \n\nIf only I’d explained this simple point to you several times in clear basic English. Oh wait, I have.\n\nWords matter. You’ll learn that if you ever work in a management or compliance based job. ",
"Protect yourself from Fox* News",
"Sorry, what's your basis in saying that? Beyond \"muh feels\" and \"my biased sense of common sense\"",
"Check with Politico, FactCheck, and Politifact? Lol. Gimme a break. Don't get me wrong, I check with these sites all the time, but even if they are \"trusted\" sources right now, that will surely change with time. \n\nIn time, all trusted sources die.\n\n",
"That's ... not how this works. The president cannot order a wire tap. If it's a person of significance, they would have to approve it (such as a large corporation, embassy, etc) but they cannot order a wiretap. It's not in the executive purview, and falls specifically under judicial jurisdiction. The court has to approve a FISA exception, which they apparently did for Carter Page. We do not yet know who triggered this, just that the FBI sought and were given a limited FISA exception to monitor Page. ",
"None of those are posted on Reddit. They link to other sites.",
"> Members of the Snopes.com editorial staff are precluded from donating to, or participating in, political campaigns, political parties, or political advocacy organizations.\n\nAnd *that* is supposed to show that they have no political leanings? When, her previous articles at least, show a obvious political slant.\n\nLook, believe what you want, but if you run to Snopes for your political fact-checking you are going to be led down a certain road.\n\n\nEnjoy!\n\n\nEDIT: Looking up some of the people staffed there.\n\nFist, lets look at Dan Evon\n\nhttps://snacksafely.com/2016/05/the-dope-on-snopes-a-big-nope/\n\n\"Though we enjoy paging through Snopes, a site that purports to address rumors, we’ve discovered first-hand their journalistic standards leave much to be desired. You may have seen their article entitled “Allergeez” which addresses a story we published and later retracted regarding Kellogg’s addition of peanut flour to a variety of Nutri-Grain bar that turned out to be discontinued.\n\nIn “debunking” the article, Snopes author Dan Evon played fast and loose with the facts, adding a few myths of his own by attributing assertions to us that we never made. Despite our letter to the site asking them to correct their article, Snopes never issued a correction nor added our comments to the article, compelling us to set the record straight by “noping” Snopes.\"",
"How is this an indictment of either one?",
"I've been asking that question for years, and no one ever gives a reasonable answer.",
"Some good pointers here for r/politics. Still, lmao at \"Snopes, Politico, and Politifact\".",
"This is cognitively expensive, can't we poll our resources together and hire people to do that for us? Like at least we can share the results instead of everyone having to do the same work over and over.",
"It's a trap! (loses arms)",
"This entire card has a Librarian bias",
"Please, for the love of god, stop calling center-right democrats leftists.",
"Well, there's the source Bernie used for one.",
"Problem is ...People who believe fake news don’t even read enough content to finish this flyer. I’d bet many never make it past the headline or opening paragraph. \n\nEven here on reddit you see people making bold claims or opinions and you have to go halfway down the thread to find the guy that points out how the title was misleading ",
"Lmao sorry your attention span couldn't handle that article. Check this one out then (should be easy enough for you to comprehend\n\nhttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/\n\n'Least biased' is still biased;)\n\nE: \n>Politifact has been called left biased by right leaning and questionable sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases.",
"Lol, people don't agree with my worldview, must be them damn rooskies at it again! And before you start directing your paranoia at me, I'm not a fan of Putin or Trump, not Russian or American, just some guy in a bedroom that thinks your delusions are kinda funny. ",
"tends to happen when a state votes for increases taxes to give teachers better pay and people freak out saying \"you cant make ME pay for that\"\n\n\nmight be projecting my own states mistakes, but its certainly possible its happening more than just here.",
"I do most of the things on this list, and I have one more rule that I use myself: if I am inclined to believe it because it supports my personal point-of-view, I immediately fact-check it. It sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but the reason I do this is that, if it IS fake, the authors are relying upon confirmation bias to fool me. They know what my \"information bubble\" is, so they're trying to slip disinformation in on the basis that it \"sounds right\" to me.",
"I am a liberal, and CNN is now fox news-tier. It wasnt always, but it definitely is now. ",
"And almost always the answer to the question is “No.”",
"Who what where when and why. ",
"What a world we live in where shit like this is a really good thing.",
"I'm referring to the difference between the employment population ratio and the unemployment rate. One was 59%. The latter was 19%.\n\n59% is incorrect for unemployment rate. That's the reason for the mostly false. Even if the rate is likely much higher than 50%, Politifact doesn't know if it is for sure and did not receive any data from the Trump camp to prove it definitely is. \n\nMostly false is harsh. Maybe an inconclusive. ",
"Reality. ",
"You've already seen it on Facebook - where they'll remove stories from \"non-approved\" also known as \"fake news\" sources. ",
"Damn those pesky opinions. Intolerable! ",
"I don't know, but I do know the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church of God and the Creator is the Truth. Abide in the Lord and all else will diminish in comparison to the blazes of His love and His assurance. Patriarch Kirill is good friends with Putin, so he can't be that bad. Rejoice every day that you live with countless blessings and that Christ has conquered Death! Bless you!",
"Anonymous news reports and anonymous sources are two different things.",
"You wouldn't be a Liberal if you did that ",
"NOT ignoring the leaflet, is the OP testing us to question HIS credibility? Is he actually in a library at all? Or is that just what he WANTS us to think?",
"I feel like snopes changed over the past few years. I just tried to read the “Lincoln Kennedy coincidences” article and it was full of editorialized r/iamverysmart material. \n\nThe one that really got me was the [bill nye meme](https://www.snopes.com/bill-nye-vs-dolph-lundgren/)\n\n> The meme appears to insinuate that Nye is not qualified to host a television show since his educational background does not match or exceed Dolph Lundgren’s.\n\nThe meme said nothing about tv shows. ",
"\"If this was wrong, what would that look like?\"\n\nI feel like not enough people get caught up in being right that they forget that the *real* virtue is to be the least wrong.",
"No, that's not at all clear. Don't confuse the way things seem to you with things that are obviously true. \n\nIn any case, even if CNN *were* suggesting that most police are racist, they would have been making a claim that's backed up by credible evidence:\n\nhttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/12/black-and-white-officers-see-many-key-aspects-of-policing-differently/\n\nSo, again, being biased doesn't necessarily entail being untruthful or misleading. ",
"WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!",
"If the author is not anonymous then I can determine if I trust their reporting based on history, even if they're using anonymous sources. If the author is anonymous then I have no way to track their credibility.",
"I’m curious about your comment that the left and right lie equally. Do you think they are completely equal? \n\nI only ask because you said trumped lied his teeth off and that Hillary was stretching the truth. I understand they don’t represent the whole, but those two examples aren’t equal in my mind.",
"its probably not a strong argument to link a site calling politifact one of the \"LEAST BIASED\" news sources\n\ny'know, when you're trying to convince people they're biased\n\nlol",
"Well come back when you have something of substance to say.",
"So what sites so you use to objectively evaluate news articles?",
"meaningless bullshit like \"dont trust admitted propaganda organisations who claim to have all the answers and look things up for yourselves from a variety of sources\"?\n\nhaha holy shit you guys are so far gone",
"Probably something that has to be left to the individual, unfortunately.\n\nUltimately, every site has a damn bias. This is why it's important to do your own research instead of relying on external sources to find it for you.",
"The president can't order the FBI to do that. Maybe you need the leaflet.",
"How is that irony? Do you understand what that word means? It doesn't change my question to you, which is how do you interact in real life without the search function? Why aren't you capable of an adult conversation without bringing Trump, who apparently isn't even your president, up? At first I thought you just had Trump Derangement Syndrome, but knowing he isn't even your president, and that's all you do on reddit is bash him, that makes you certifiably insane. That's like Jodie Foster shoot a president type obsession shit. You need help. ",
"That actually isn't even the first study or investigation to come to this conclusion. It was just the first google result, probably because it's the most recent.\n\n[Here's another.](https://www.pcworld.com/article/3142412/windows/just-how-partisan-is-facebooks-fake-news-we-tested-it.html)\n\n[And an investigative piece](http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/americas/2018/02/troll-factories-bots-fake-news-wild-west-social-media-180207061815575.html)\n\n[And another one](https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.nw1RXeD17#.gvAMrJ50j)",
"Okay lets look at first few because well, im only prepared to use/lose some braincells on a Sunday.\n\n1. Trump CAN BE IMPLYING (he is here imo) that he's DIRECTLY \nresponsible for this or how this debt was \"paid off\" (that is the \"actual point\" he's referring to here) .. 50% of the claim is gone already. THEN you look at if or how the debt has been handled in context of THE CONSTITUTION, which you Trumpturds REALLY LOVE right? The Constitution says that US government CANNOT go into default and/or go over the limit. The needle is where it should be maybe couple points to the right because that's what most uneducated right wing voters like to see. even though it's a non issue in relation to everything. I also like the Snopes write up better which is what google shows https://www.snopes.com/national-debt-trump/. \n\n\n2. \"Moreover, the basic logic of it didn’t make any sense. Iran was going to get that money back no matter what through the arbitration process — probably more, if the Obama administration was right. Why would [Iran] release potentially valuable hostages in exchange for money it would have gotten otherwise? Iran would have to be the world’s dumbest hostage taker.\" https://www.snopes.com/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-release-u-s-prisoners/ \nTrumpturds like \"Law and Order\" right? do you even have some morals anymore? Do you want ANYONE to trust you for stealing billions of dollars for decades/centuries with no settlement? no you have to be the best deal makers in world history /s!. Between this and how much air time click the Uranium One Fake News got that Fox News themselves had to debunk, Trumpetters shouldn't be believed on ANYTHING EVER coming from them from top down. \n\n\n3. Both are at 50% now since they've revised it. Both should be mostly false since they're pretty much EXPLICITLY saying that the \"tax code was simpler therefore it should be simpler now\" it's a dumb statement by both of these trying to talk up their mostly uneducated voters. Mostly because \"simple\" is subjective in text to the history AND need. The write up is actually pretty good on this. You should read (hah!). Okay i'll give you half of that. \n\n3. China-US trade is right on where it's at. In addition, it should say \"Trump has no fucking clue on how global trade works\".\n\n5. Clinton's 17 agencies - I would give it a half because even ASSOCIATED PRESS or NYT were probably inferring from a statment from the office of National Intelligence. This is a communication problem. But we know the agencies that actually count here agree with this and the recent news makes the claim as strong as ever. I would not call it explicit bias. \n\n\n\nSo you have maybe half assed issue out of total of 5 that I see and that's mostly a non issue as far as bias goes. So you're about 99% BTFO'd go back to your circlejerk town. \n",
"Pretty much all of my courses at university this year have had us do a project where we take an article off of a news networks website (or Facebook or wherever we find it) and critically compare it to the actual scientific source article. It's been a pretty great exercise in learning to think critically and not take things at face value ",
"I think they're normal height but have a tiny replica library.",
"Just as people on both ends fall for fake news. I don't think his comment was meant to be partisan. ",
"Give us the name of some alternative fact check sites then. ",
"muh side is better than your side",
"*no fact checker sites are trustworthy*, how is that hard to understand\n\nlook things up for yourself like someone who isnt an idiot\n\nthe entire idea of a \"fact checker\" is propaganda to stop you looking things up yourself, that should give you pause to actually look at who creates them",
"And the problem is we are desensitized to what could possibly happen, so when we see insane headlines we just shrug it off. I was at a comedy club and a guy came up to start his set and goes:\n\n>Hey guys, first off I just wanted to say in light of everything that happened today, it's great that all of you are still coming out and we're able to still get together and laugh, considering the asinine things that were said on Twitter today by our president.\n\nThen got kind of solemn and was just watching us\n\n>Fucking knew it. Not a single one of you just checked your phone or even gave me a confused look. How fucked up are we today that I can get up on stage and say that and not a single one of you even questioned it?",
"More of a false paradox than anything imo ",
"Reality has a liberal bias.",
"MSMBC And CNN hate this. ",
"It's not!",
"If you can prove them wrong you can correct them, right?",
"No shit smh",
"Everyone has a political leaning. That doesn't make their opinion invalid. \n\nYou asked if I thought it would be different if somebody was actively campaigning for Trump, and yes it would. No source you've provided has shown that she does anymore than vote democrat, it wasn't a similar comparison. Somebody actively campaigning on either side would make me feel less compelled by their journalism.",
"I'm not disagreeing with you that news isn't pushing opinion or that it is a problem. However your link puts one news report between two clearly labeled opinion pieces. And I'm pretty sure the opinion section is for pushing opinions not journalism hence the name. I do think that cnn is a biased shitty news organization who probably chose the second opinion piece to attack trump. But it would also make sense to get two different opinions from experts on the possible effects of a policy that the President had included in his campaign platform long before either opinion piece had been written. Sorry about the rant it just really grinds my gears when people try and use god Damn opinion pieces to show how opinionated the news is.",
"> Whether you agree with his findings as a scientist and trust his credentials as an award winning climatologist is up to you as an individual.\n\nThis right here is the problem. The only reason you would think John Coleman was an award winning climatologist is if you were being deceived by actual fake news. Try challenging that assumption right now and you will easily find that he only had a bachelors degree in journalism from the University of Illinois. He was not a scientist.",
"Part of being open minded means you actually try to understand other people's points of views instead of throwing everyone you don't like into the \"idiots who have no grasp on reality\" category. You may not like those people, but their ideas will continue to gain ground as long as you ignore any of the things that motivate people to believe in those ideas.",
"haha wow zing dude you got me\n\nexcept im not pretending to host a dependable resource of fact am i, im just shitposting at dumb americans",
"Here’s the problem though: The reading comprehension level for the majority of those who promulgate fake news is so low that I doubt they could even understand what most of the words on this card mean.",
"r/nottheonion",
"Protect yourself from fake news T_D style.\n\n1. Defend the god emperor \n\n2.when confronted with unsavory information about dear leader Trump, screech uncontrollably about Hillary.\n\n3. If the libtard does not immediately vacat your territory back to its safe place, puff your plumage up and yell till you spit about the deep state.\n\n4. Doxx/threaten bodily harm\n\n5.???\n\n6. Get tendies from mummy dearest and celebrate in once again holding them Like and defending divine king Trump \n\n",
"Takes a really blinded person to have such a hatefilled view of centrists, who believe it or not are the great majority of people you live with. Maybe it's an american thing? Because I've never seen this kind of sentiment in western-europe except from extremists.",
" Different statistics and different claims genius",
"Oh my bad. Misunderstood! It was a gutsy call for buzzfeed and mother jones and paid off I'm sure.",
"IL, public schools all my life. Now they're in rich areas, so local property taxes fund the schools pretty well, so idk how much like other schools it was really like. ",
"Asks the moron who posts in T_D.",
"And speaking of reading comprehension, if you had any fucking brains at all, you would have understood the point that I was making. Everyone who has any brains at all did. ",
"nothing to lul about my dude anyone who reads snopes is going to be sorely disappointed ",
"Fact check using websites like Politico and snopes... HA HA HA",
"Does it come from cnn? Huge fake news site.",
"They had me until they by-name endorsed Snopes, Politico, and Politifact. Seriously?",
"# Does the headline have a question mark? \n\nNo\n\nhmmm",
"I love Snopes so much! ",
"K",
"Fake news isn't partisan lmao... ",
"What sucks is you can't even trust the fact checking sites.",
"So don't read what you wrote, but try to interpret what you really meant? Who do you think you are, Trump?",
"Read the documents yourself. Watch the full press conferences, speeches, conversations, interviews, etc. yourself. Don't let someone else explain to you what you should think (Snopes, Politifact, Politico). Anyone that quotes these sources in an argument you know their a special kind of dumb ass and can't think for themselves.",
"Slow day in Vladivostok, eh comrade?",
"I'm not home and on my phone, so this will have to be more compact than I'd want it be. I never said they'd spread factual misinformation, but I do claim they're biased. The pattern is usually to take right-of-center statements out of context, to rate a factually true statement as false due to allegedly implied context (which they just invent) and subsequently rate it as false, or to rely on biased/one-sided sources for their fact checking. On the contrary leftwing statements receive favorable treatment (factually wrong statements are rated true due to allegedly implied actual statement, etc.). They don't just neutrally assess information (not that that's possible anyway), they editorialize. Some examples.\n\n[This was posted in this thread by someone.](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/25/donald-trump/why-donald-trumps-tweet-about-decline-national-deb/)\n\nWhat he said was absolutely factually true, yet it's rated as, \"mostly false,\" cause he shouldn't take credit for it. Also, their main source is Cato, who hate Trump (as do I, and I'm a libertarian who tends to agree with them).\n\n [This one is particularly egregious.](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/11/paul-ryan/ryan-obama-promised-unemployment-would-not-exceed-/) Ryan points out Obama and Romer went to Congress, pleading for their stimulus because otherwise the unemployment rate would exceed 8%. They passed the stimulus and it did exceed 8% anyway. They have the gall to rate this as \"false,\" going on about how a prediction wasn't a promise, as Ryan allegedly put it:\n\n> Ryan said the Obama administration promised \"unemployment would never get to 8 percent.\"\n\nRyan never talked about a promise. They have his (true) statement quoted earlier:\n\n> \"They passed the stimulus. The idea that we could borrow $831 billion, spend it on all of these special interest groups, and that it would work out just fine, that unemployment would never get to 8 percent -- it went up above 8 percent for 43 months. They said that, right now, if we just passed this stimulus, the economy would grow at 4 percent. It's growing at 1.3.\n\n[Here are some other examples of unequal, biased treatment of comperable statements from the left and the right, in the top quora answer.]( https://www.quora.com/Is-PolitiFact-liberally-biased)\n\n[There's also this blog dedicated to instances of politifact bias, and from cursory reading through some entries, they appear to have a point, at least at times.]( http://www.politifactbias.com/?m=1)\n\nThat’s all I can be bothered to sift through. I know of some cases where Rand Paul was given a ridiculous rating, of the top of my head. And I seem to remember cases where Sanders said something about black unemployment rates tgat was more extreme than what Trump said, yet tge former was excused and given a true-ish rating, while the latter was lambasted. Anyway, it's 4a.m. now, here (pants on fire! actually 3.55!). Good night.",
"Right. Bernie provided a source to back up his claim. \n\nTrump didn't have a source to back up his. \n\nThat is the point of this whole thing. Make sure when you make claims or see a claim you check out the evidence. \n\nAlso, Bernie claimed 51% unemployment and Trump claimed 59%. Now you may be thinking that's a small difference, but again the difference here is that Bernie actually has sources. Trump just pulled that number out his ass, or more reasonably saw it on TV(probably Fox and Friends) and repeated it. ",
"I could not agree with you more. ",
"> But the knee jerk hostility for anonymous government sources is misplaced in my view. Many of the stories sourced in that way have proven true over the last year, and it stands to reason well placed sources won’t be willing to allow their names to be published. \n\nCertainly, I agree with this. Maybe my comment could've been clearer. I didn't mean to criticize anonymous government sources. or the sources of professional journalists, I meant anonymous people online--right here on Reddit (and similar social media sites). These people aren't trusted anonymous sources--they are just online nobodies; one of the billions of social media users with a lot of opinions but little to no experience or qualifications relevant to the discussion. \n\nThere are large segments of the online population that will uncritically trust any nonsense they see online, if (a) it gets a lot of upvotes, and (b) it serves their confirmation bias. ",
">Just mind blowing that people become so entrenched and can only talk to like-minds.\n\n\n\nAre you describing yourself? Just joking but your conservative family members probably think the same thing about you.",
"Ironic ",
"Here's a fact: your lazy wife will die from her MS and your $65k IT job won't be enough for your kids and they'll starve.",
"It's called \" listening to speak\" ",
"I'm sure those fact checkers are totally not just biased media sources that advertise as fact checkers. ",
"Has it occured to you that it's possible that left-leaning ideas are accurate?",
"I've never been on Facebook so I haven't seen it.",
"Fact check stories with \"Snopes, Politico and Politifact.\"\n\n... Doesn't this only work if they're not also put into the \"Deep state bias bin\" with regular occurrence?",
"You're missing the point. Democrat politicians are given leeway when they say things like this and would be given \"mostly true\" because there's still truth in the statement. \n\nThey also give republicans \"false\" and \"liar\" ratings when they're being 100% factually correct. \n\nTrump said that 81% of white homicide victims are killed by black people, politifact gave it a \"liar\" rating... \"because he never mentioned that poverty is why it happens\"\n\nTrump said that according to polls, 25% of american muslims find jihad justified. Politifact gave it a \"false\" rating because \"25% isn't representative of american muslims\"\n\nForamerica.org said that American families on average work to bring in 4,250 a month while Obama spends 18,972 a month on each illegal immigrant child. Politifact gave it \"mostly false\" and said \"it's true, but we don't like the comparison\"\n\n\n\n",
"> If they are African-American, the **real unemployment** rate for young people is 51 percent.\"\n\nReal unemployment (U-6) is not the same as employment (U-3). These are two different things with different names for a reason. The real unemployment for black people is indeed around 51%. And the other two numbers he listed for white and hispanic unemployment is also accurate only if looking at real unemployment rates.\n\nYou could claim he is wrong when he says\n\n>the unemployment rate is 33 percent. If they are Hispanic, the unemployment rate is 36 percent.\n\nBecause he is not mentioning real unemployment, but that is generally forgiven by fact checkers if in the same sentence you say something that clarifys your previously technically inaccurate statements, like Bernie did here. That is because it would be hard to claim he was being disengenous or lying when he uses all the right numbers, and uses the proper term at the end of the statement, only because he neglected to use the word \"real\" in other parts of the same statement.\n\nTrump on the other hand is just objectively wrong, he never uses the phrase real unemployment, and he didn't even ATTEMPT to clarify this when confronted with the fact that he was wrong.\n",
"I remember Snopes hired a die hard Leftist to do the Political Fact Checking this last election period. \n\nI was amused. Still check their site though.",
"> Snopes\n\nWhich has been known to be wrong\n\n> politifact\n\nWhich has been known to be heavily left leaning.",
"/r/aboringdystopia ",
"FACTS^TM\n\n>So you can't actual point to any sources that ou use or any lies portrayed as fact from fact checking sites?\n\ni can come up with plenty but im not going to bother because you wont read it and i dont care about convincing you\n\nhope this helps",
"Nah, the fact that anyone providing evidence contrary to the 'both sides' handwaving gets downvoted is peak reddit.",
"Damn... it was almost a good list until we decided to bury Politifact, Politico, and Snopes at #6, which begs the question... what the fuck do we do about fake news when the bookmarks about fake news are fake news?",
"Nah. I think I'll stick around. But, I'll make you a deal. When Trump stops lying and the need for these sorts of threads goes away, I will too.",
"Consult and compare competing sources is where many folks go wrong.\n\nThe echo chamber is real, on both sides and staying in it does you no good at all. Read your article, go to the other side and find the competing or relative articles and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.",
"None of this detracts from the fact that a source exists, yet Politicfact rated it as \"Mostly False\" despite rating a nearly similar statement by Sanders as \"Mostly True.\"\n\nThe entire reason of Politifact's existence is to verify claims made by government officials, not to wait for the campaign to feed them a source. They failed this job in this case.",
"Agree with everything but the politico, politifact bit . Those are definitively biased sources in their own right and are highly editorialised . ",
"Trump, trump ,russians, russia...that sub is a joke and the biggest circlejerk on this website",
"So you didn't read it then. Have a nice night.",
"It’s not terribly difficult to understand a cult of personality being made in the midst of nationalist fervor and fear of outsiders. I grew up in a conservative family in the early 2000’s, I’m familiar with the dumbass ideology that spawned the dumbass president. I live in fucking Oklahoma and I’m damn vocal about my opinions. You don’t think I’ve encountered arguments from political opponents? I was there protesting his rallies as early as 2015. \n\nThe fact is, you gotta be either a dipshit or very wealthy and evil to support the guy. Period. ",
"Jesus Christ I walked away. \nSomeone's a shitlicker, and found a posse. \nIs it a self-referential bubble - whoah - 'meme'. \nShitcoin.",
"Wait, isn't the WSJ biased towards the left?",
"19%? I saw where they said the unemployment rate for 16-19 year olds was 27% but not 19.\n\nThe issue is that for 16-24, they don't do an 'unemployment rate', just an 'employment rate', which was 41.5% - so taking the inverse would be 59%.\n\nAnd yeah that's not exactly the \"unemployment rate\" for that group since they don't publish one for that group, but in the Sanders article, they say \"Sanders didn’t really describe it the correct way. He twice used the term \"unemployment rate\"\".\n\nSo it seemed pretty clear to me that they were giving Sanders an extra benefit of the doubt that they did not give to Trump. It is really glaring when you boil it down to the overall point they were both making (which they do for Bernie).\n\nNow if Trump had said something like \"those lazy blacks are 59% unemployed\", then sure, mostly false away. But both Trump and Bernie claimed that black youth had a higher rate of unemployment than other groups and that something should be done to address it. That's why I was blown away by the mostly false for Trump.\n\nAnd again, this is just one example of how 'fact checkers' can distort things to reach a certain conclusion without flat out lying.",
"[Source for them promoting the neo-nazi rally known as 'Unite the Right'.](https://archive.is/CqlfH) Also, 10 days after promoting it they claimed that \"[\"Unite the Right\" is a Soros-funded honeypot psyop](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6t9wfg/unite_the_right_is_a_sorosfunded_honeypot_psyop/?st=jdjmo8n0&sh=db03beb6)\".",
"Especially since it's r/pics, the irony lmao. This is coming from the sub that got a picture of the word \"shithole\" projected on trump tower over 100k upvotes. ",
"Its true, snopes in particular is a steaming pile of partisan garbage, those sites are good for debunking internet hoaxes like back in the day, but this dabbling into what they interpret from politician is always sugarcoated for the left but abruptly denied for the right.",
"Oh please. Nobody knew the rally would turn out the way it did. If they did they wouldnt have promoted it. ",
"there is a staircase in the photo ",
"Yesssssss",
"none of these mention any sort of actual critical analysis \n\nhell it even tells you that its ok to plead to authority ",
"... except publishing fake news is perpetrated by both the left and the right. The firing of Dan Rathers is a clear example of this.\n\nI'm uncomfortable with the term fake news getting weaponized into a method of gaslighting by both parties.",
"I have seen the same statement made by people of different political parties with different levels of truthfulness listed. ",
"I'd like you to point to one. Just one snopes fact check that you think is wrong.",
"Do NOT use snopes. It has gotten far too subjective.",
"I was referring to your Esteemed Leader.\n\nYou think Trump should be popping champagne? The implied message in his tweet was that he had something to do with your national debt dropping within his first two months of office. I'd call bullshit, too. \n\nBtw, I'm not American and have no agenda. Quite frankly I'm boggled by the whole left vs. right thing y'all have going on down south. Good guys vs. bad guys, whatever...it's all just a bunch of guys. Have fun slapping each other silly.",
"Yet you see all over these comments people claiming that facts essentially can't be nuanced, either they are true or false and that's why fact checkers are important. That the top fact checkers cannot really accomplish their objective without having to ask people to explain themselves, or more that their grade relies on someone deciding that the asserted deserves a chance to further explain themselves, contradicts this concept that there is only one way to go about fact checking. \n\n\nIf Trump and Sanders were judged off of their statements, the grade should have been the same, but we are pretending as though something that is clearly filtered through multiple lenses has only one way of being looked at. The decision to reach out for further explanation in my opinion essentially confounds the entire point of fact checking, and becomes an exercise of whether we can make something sound reasonable enough to be true to a judge and their point of view-- which goes back to the contradiction of claiming fact checking is objective ",
"I tried to hug my librarian. She threatened to call the cops if I didn't let go.",
"I trust the Open Source analysis efforts of [RationalWiki](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fox_News) personally. They have some very legitimate criticisms (if you can make it through their pessimistic sarcasm). The graphs they pulled from various points show some hilarious manipulation to slant things in their favor (don't always add up to 100%, arbitrary markings, etc.)\n\nEDIT: Normal Wikipedia also has an extensive article on Fox News Controversies. Again, all this is open source, and you can click to see the discussions/arguments between editors as they attempt to make the page overall unbiased.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies",
"Bernie twice said \"unemployment rate\" though without the real.\n\nAnd do you seriously think the addition of \"real\" turns a mostly false statement into a mostly true - despite the fact that there is no official statistic called the \"real unemployment rate\" and the fact that according to the actual employment rate of 41%, 59% are unemployed, makes one true and one false? Give me a break.",
"Scientist: a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.\n\nDo you imagine that scientists get a degree in Scientology? No? Well, is he an expert in meteorology, the branch of science concerned with the processes and phenomena of the atmosphere, especially as a means of forecasting the weather? \n\nhttps://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/john-coleman\n\n> Coleman earned a B.A. degree in Journalism in 1957 from the University of Illinois, and after a decade of self-study and correspondence classwork obtained the American Meteorological Society’s full Professional Meteorologist membership. \n\nHe was honored by the AMS as Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year, so apparently the AMS thought he was not only proficient, but the best in the country.\n\nHe has 60 years experience in the field, founded the Weather Channel, and wrote and produced two hour long documentaries debunking global warming scare, just to name a few things. \n\nHe does frequent national TV and radio appearances, attends the International Climate Change Conferences where he is frequently asked to speak, and writes and posts documents on the topic on the internet. Coleman was a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute and featured speaker at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, which took place in Las Vegas in 2014. \n\nI'm sure in your echo chambers no one actually ever challenges the nonsense you spout, but is it safe to assume you aren't going to apologize? ",
"Moderates absolutely have a narrative, whether that narrative is “both sides are the same” or “we should try to make everyone a little happy” or simply “the truth is somewhere in the middle”. You might like that narrative, but that doesn’t make it less of one. \n\nAnd you seem to suggest that making an argument or taking a position necessarily involves some kind of “fabrication” (creating something) or omission. That’s not necessarily the case. You could have a right wing or left wing article that is replete with data, sources, counterclaims, and logic. If the facts are there, then it doesn’t take much critical thinking to separate them from the inferences that authors draw from them. Having a strong opinion is not automatically a bad thing and does not automatically make people sloppy/manipulative in argumentation. Sometimes the facts just support one side better. \n\nEdit: typo\n",
"Lol @ Snopes and Politifact being passed off as unbiased sources of news confirmation. ",
"If you look up at the sky and it is already blue why would you need to read the article?\n\n",
"Changing the algorithms so we aren't put in our own bubbles would really help. Not only would you be exposed to different sources, but the current sources might change their race to the fridge to comport with the algorithms.",
">The fact is, you gotta be either a dipshit or very wealthy and evil to support the guy. Period.\n\n\n\nSo half of America, including your own family, are all just stupid dipshits (or wealthy and evil). You don't see any nuance here?",
"I don't think it's a \"bubble\" when your beliefs are objective truths. Yknow, something Reddit seems to have forgotten exists because they're le rational centrists ",
"Then you're one of the lucky people out of a filter bubble. \n\nAs I've said, it's not like left wing nonsense didn't exist. At the moment it's just less. \n\nI really hope this changes and not by the left upping their fake-news game, which unfortunately seems to be happening, too. ",
"Buzzfeed and other modern low cost operations steal the very expensive investigative story and give almost none to no credit and take a huge chunk of the revenue. So those investigations become very costly while sensationalist opinianted pieces tend to be both cheaper and sadly more popular. The most popular show on fox news isn't even considered news(by them) and is a conspiracy nut who spews unsubstantiated bullshit while making them bank. Journalism is just reacting to the market.",
"I guess we all need the reminder",
">I've been using the site for a while, and they're always very well sourced, and usually don't make their own conclusions.\n\nMany of these fact checkers have an agenda. Politifact is not perfect, and should not be used as the arbiter of truth. [Example](https://i.redditmedia.com/TBfvSl4yMgbpJOTsMjOu9k9fqY2o8HlkqEri47TtP4o.png?w=1002&s=468fb2e625bbee4e1d0bc9362b14ddff)",
"Come check us out bro. We are enjoying tax breaks and lower unemployment. And WINNING!",
"Or gay",
"In the article for Trump it says unemployment for blacks 16-24 was 18.7% in May. We are using different figures, I think. \n\nBut I get your overall point now. ",
"99.999 percent of retard on reddit couldn't even get 5 peer reviewed sources. \n\nYes, welcome to my fucking world, and others who are suffering through colleges and academia. Hats off to you suffering imbeciles. Fuck, someone please shoot me and take this miserable existence away.",
"Yeah, I'm not in a position to defend arguments other people have made.",
"> Just went on snopes.\n\nlol i bet you did\n\n>Gee sure are pushing a narrative there thanking the president!\n\nyes, they figured out that an obviously fake /r/politcalhumor level twitter edit was fake, like everyone else with eyes\n\nthis obviously means theyre qualfied and deal in *fact* amirite\n\n>dark history of the phrase.\n\nlol imagine being affected by media so much that you adopt all your turns of phrase from it\n\n>So please explain to me how that is propaganda?\n\nyoure cherrypicking and doing a bad job of it, because america first being nazis or kkk or whatever is a hilarious stretch\n\n>So please explain to me how that is propaganda?\n\nits designed to elicit the specific emotions you have now and trick you into thinking trump is racist or whatever dumb shit\n\nfor political reasons\n\n>Hahha oh sweet lost child. You don’t like fact checking because you don’t want to look in the mirror.\n\nno i just dont like american level propaganda or the people that buy into it wholesale because its blindingly dumb\n\ni bet you think russia \"hacked the election\" too dont you lol",
"Well I can guarantee you that the place where people who lean right will disagree with this little leaflet is where it says to check stories with sites like Politico, Snopes and Politifact. If you are somebody who believes in Pizzagate (for example) you aren't going to have your mind changed by \"libtard propaganda websites\" like Snopes. ",
"Send this to CNN",
"Or they say those fact checking site have a liberal bias ",
"My family doesn’t support him. They became less conservative as the 9/11 fear died down a bit. \n\nIf they did, then yeah, they would be dipshits. And yeah, the majority of American voters are also dipshits. Welcome to the US. ",
"Do they mean fact check stories using snopes or fact checking stories from snopes?",
"well obviously i go onto a website funded by think tanks and let them tell me outright whats true and what isnt without a thought of my own, silly!",
"Seriously underrated comment. People don't realize how much the American Library Association and individual librarians fight to protect the rights of users. ",
"How the hell does that even relate to my comment?\n\nA person claimed that r/politics articles have no authors. Every post currently on there has an author.\n\nAnd now you're trying to divert to something else instead of arguing about the actual topic. Feel free to continue with your obsession though.",
"Don't subreddits on here like the political and news ones offer filters for certain topics.....?",
"It's amazing how smug conservatives can be despite never putting in the effort.",
"While you are right that the exact phrase \"unaccounted for\" used by the Quora responder was not used in the Snopes article, and he should have not put the phrase in quotation marks, I feel like this is a nit-pick argument and I believe the Quora responder is right in spirit. I, myself, am having difficulty understanding how Snopes can say:\n> The April 3 news article “State Department’s IG issues rare alert” reported on the management alert issued recently by my office. In the alert, we identified State Department contracts with a total value of more than $6 billion in which contract files were incomplete or could not be located. The Post stated, “The State Department’s inspector general has warned the department that $6 billion in contracting money over the past six years cannot be properly accounted for . . . . ”\n\nand say the '$6 billion went missing' IS Mostly False. There's waaaaaay more to the story than just a simple True or False.\n\nSnopes could have just easily changed the claim from:\n\"$6 billion went missing from the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was in charge.\"\nto:\n\"Inspector general's criticized Hillary Clinton's State Department for improper record keeping on $6 billion in government contracts and claims department 'creates conditions conducive to fraud'\" and rated it Mostly True, but I haven't often seen them do this kind of framing.\n\nSure Snopes does counter hyperbolic facebook posts with blatantly untrue claims (which I like), but in this case, the headline, big red X and quick summary of the Snopes article makes the story appear more one sided than it truly is. I feel like these websites are often just as guilty of reductionism as the claims they are rating are.",
"Kinda wish they didn’t include the Snopes and Politifact bit. Regardless of whether you agree with them, they’re not free of bias.",
"Can you give one instance of Obama actually saying that? ",
"there is no irony and youre in the bubble\n\nnotice how you dont have a fucking clue what i think yet you jumped to attacking me and assumed a bunch of stuff?\n\nits because youre in the bubble LOL",
"Many of the people who need to see this have already been conditioned to immediately dismiss it as \"fake news\" because they are taught that \"sites like Snopes\" are themselves fake news.",
"Does the article align with your political leanings? If not fake news. ",
"That doesn't mean the product itself is biased, not everyone who owns a website is Rupert Murdoch.",
"Don't have to - read the stories about how FB is addressing fake news and it's a version of censorship but it's not called that. Just do some googling.",
"It's not a side thing. It's facts. Facts don't have a side, and when every fact checker in existence is \"liberal\" and the conservative fact checker is basically Alex Jones, that tells you something. ",
"40 percent? Way too generous.",
"I've actually never used Politifact for research. But you bring up a good reason to make sure everyone is using several sources to do research. ",
"Lost me at Snopes",
"Honestly, I have no idea what I you're talking about, or why you think this is something the left would exclusively do. I've yet to encounter this kind of thing.\n\n> punch people in the face\n\nAs far as this goes, if you're talking about Richard Spencer, then he is ABSOLUTELY a racist. If you aren't aware of that then I think you need to critically examine your information sources. Getting punched is the best that guy could hope for.\n\nNazis should be afraid to show their faces. There's nothing noble about expressing your right to be a hateful piece of shit. A good chunk of the right is full of racists now. Not saying it's all, or even most, but it is entirely more than is acceptable. \n\nAside from that, I don't know what event you could be referencing.",
"Even if the owner leans left, does that really affect their results? Can you show me one false Snopes/Politico/Politifact article?",
"Snopes. lol ",
"The US owed Iran 1.7 billion dollars due to accepting payment for weapons it never delivered. This repayment has been thirty five years in the making. \n\nIran had three Americans imprisoned. \n\nThe U.S. says \"I will make good on my promise once they are released\"\n\n\nLet's take a look at two alternate examples:\n\nExample 1: You are a website designer and are hired by a company to design and host their website. After completing the website, the company does not pay you, so you take down the website until such time as they pay. You are holding the website as ransom until you receive your payment. \n\nExample 2: Same situation, but this time the company tells you that you did not do a good enough job, and they are withholding payment until you add additional features. They are holding the payment ransom until you comply with their wishes. \n\nOur real life situation is more of example 2 than example 1. The U.S. did not pay Iran for the prisoners - rather, it did not follow through with its own obligations until it got something it wanted out of Iran. You're getting stuck on the fact that money was paid to Iran after prisoners were released, and completely ignoring the three decades (and massive amounts of interest) the U.S. owed and was required to pay (and they would have lost a court case in the Hague over). In essence, it was expedient for the U.S. to delay the first payment until prisoners were returned to put pressure on the Iranian government, but even if the Iranians had refused, the U.S. would still be paying the money to Iran, because if they didn't they'd be liable for even more money once they lost the court case. \n",
"In /r/politics I always complain about this issue, get downvoted and am told I don’t understand how journalism works. ",
"Politifact is known to be heavily bias, so much so there are endless memes of comparing right vs left candidates' quotes and their attempt to either strawman or apologize for a candidate's mistakes. \n\nI won't tell you which way it leans go find for yourself. ",
"That's one conclusion, another possibility is that those right leaning people read original sources instead of fact checkers because they're well enough versed in reality they don't need sites like Snopes.\n\nOr, maybe conservatives get their fact checking from newspapers.\n\nSimply throwing out a snarky answer like that shows your ignorance, and your bias.\n\nDo I think conservatives need fact checkers? Definitely. Would I be likely to trust them? No more than politico, but getting access to the source material to make my own conclusions about topics important to conservatives all in one place would be nice, as there are many topics left leaning sites neglect.\n\nFacts don't have a liberal bias. They don't have a conservative bias. Biased researchers have a bias to debunk topics opposed to their view.",
"Even though no one has ever been able to show that something on Snopes was biased or even wrong.",
"It's not a worldview to say that Snopes is an excellent fact checker, nor politifact. \n\nThis sub seemingly to believe at least in a small chunk that both sides are \"liberal\" is either straight up ignorance or it's some sort of vote botting, which we know already happens. Could just be ignorance. \n\nEdit: Jesus christ autocorrect fucked this whole thing up all around. ",
"r/nottheonion",
"> Sure. And in a society where I have an unlimited amount of time to read and evaluate multiple sources of this fucking scandal-ridden presidency and disfunctional democracy, that would be ideal. \n\nif you dont have time to read then dont assume youre qualified to be part of the conversation\n\nbtw there arent any real scandals, but thats what happens when you \"dont have time to read\" whats happening and rely on partisan hacks to relay the message\n\n>But that’s not reality for most people.\n\nyeah i noticed ive read political discourse from americans on reddit lol\n\n>If so, I’m likely to trust it until it gives me reason not to.\n\nand thats why you prob believe a bunch of untrue dumb shit and youll be confused when trump never faces any punishment and the dnc loses again in 2018 and 2020",
"Good argument. ",
"They give Sanders a mostly true despite him using inaccurate terminology and they gave Trump a mostly false even though they acknowledge that there is a 41% employment rate among black youth.\n\nIf 41% are employed, what are the other 59%, genius?\n\nI never said the claims were the same, only similar. The point is in the details of how they reached their conclusions. Which I guess was lost on your super big genius brain.",
"Then I'm glad we both agree that Snopes isn't a bastion of facts.",
"Do you have a source for all this you're saying?",
"Wasn't politifact found out to be not as reputable as previously thought?",
"Lets be real here, Obama has received as much hate in eight years that Trump has faced in one year. I hate taking sides, but there's some shady shit happening on both sides and certain media outlets are over abundantly covering for one side. Yes there's bias from either side's medias, but one side is dominant in controlling the public opinion more so than the other. It's just a fact. And this post is pure astroturfing for their cause. ",
"Not sure why you’re getting downvotes. Snopes is horseshit ",
"Here is th thing. It is easy to point out when Trump lies. He does it often, of course and we should point out when he lies. But when you cry lie and you are wrong, and refuse to accept it and just say \"Well he lies a lot already so,\" it only helps him.\n\nI give an example of Trump stating a fact accompanied by someone saying it is a lie purely to spite him. You then go along with it and say \"Yeah Trump is a meanie who lies\", but here he didn't lie. This is in itself fake news that you accept because it goes with your narrative.",
"After a certain point, you can't really blame Russia...",
"They're on reddit reading /r/politics ",
"First off, that’s not what my comment was about. I was referring to the disingenuousness of conflating a news outlet CNN and a fact checking website like Snopes.\n\nSecond, they also have talking heads that are heavily biased in favor of Trump. They intentionally bring on partisan hacks to create conflict, to try to attract people to their shows. \n\nNow, I’m no fan of CNN and it pains me that I’m now forced to defend them, but by no means are they wholly “fake news”. They’re just sensationalist and sometimes they’re corporate hacks, but that’s not why Trump criticizes him because so is he also a sensationalist and a corporate hack.\n\nNo, he attacks them because they point out actual horrible things that he’s said and done. They jump the gun sometimes. Hell, sometimes they lie. I don’t agree with them when they do that, but they mostly correct themselves and when they don’t, places like Snopes and PolitiFact fact check them, which brings us back to my original point. \n\nAll news sources are biased in some way. Look at all different kinds of news, find what appears to be the most accurate, and for God’s sake, fact check your sources. \n\nLong story short, if it comes out that your guy lies, don’t immediately scream “fake news!” Think rationally and maybe, ^just ^maybe, you’ll find out that your preferred politician is just a liar. ",
"This is the best thing I think I’ve ever read. You should have added something about my religion as well. Solid 9/10!",
"Politifact is incredibly biased. Snopes even moreso. Both have had drama wrapped around their company or CEOs.\n\n[Here's an often cited article](https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans) that goes over an actual study:\n\n>The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, \"A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements,\" probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that \"a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements\" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.\n\n[Another that has links](http://www.insidesources.com/politifact-bias/) to examples on politifact.\n\n[Articles from right wing publication Daily Caller ](http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/?utm_campaign=thedcmainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social)regarding the CEO of Snopes.\n\n**We both know you're not going to click those links though.**\n\n**We both also know you won't look into the voracity of my claims from a critical, unbiased standpoint.**\n\n**I'm pretty sure we both you'd prefer grainy imgur pictures over articles and links to prove your claims wrong...**\n\n**You should let OP post his pictures. They give you something to shake your fist at and sure make it easier for you to feel smart.**",
"They probably don’t, because I actually try to have conversations with them, and I think what’s important is to always seek to find things emphatic we do agree on, and consider if there are compromises that can be made regarding things we have very different views of. Maybe that’s surprising in this day and age, but I try to have constructive conversations rather than drawing lines in the sand and telling my family that they’re with me or against me. ",
"> Bernie twice said \"unemployment rate\" though without the real.\n\nAnd then he didn’t. Which meant he added more of a qualifier than Trump did. \n\nNeither was rated True. The entire difference is based on Bernie adding that qualifier. \n\n> And do you seriously think the addition of \"real\" turns a mostly false statement into a mostly true\n\nYes. Because as I’ve explained to you, words matter. \n\nAgain, your entire argument is they should make an assumption rather than judge on the facts.\n\nPick a better example next time.\n\nSince you’re no doubt going to attempt to repeat the same thing I’ve debunked several times now I’m done with you. Enjoy having the last word, I know your ego needs it right now. 👌",
"I have to agree with you on that. There is room to argue that there us bias when it comes to the \"grey areas\". ",
"Snopes as a fact check source? Are you serious?",
"One of the first steps for academic reading, even before you begin the actual reading, is to research the author to understand their biases. \n\n\n\"You guys wanna go to McDonalds or Bojangles for lunch today?\" \n\"Man, I fucking hate Donald Trump!\" - You, probably.\n",
"I try to base my opinions on logic and scientific process, and lean more right than left. ",
"As if the people consuming fake news would go to a library. They are the same people that call it a 'libary'.",
"I've never even heard of that dude.\n\nI'm referring to the \"entirely too many htan is acceptable\" stat that you and everyone on the left parrots. I've never met a nazi in my life.\n\nThe VAST majority of people not on the left (often referred to as nazis) simply want their constitutional rights upheld, voting rights secured for americans, and sane fiscal policy.\n\nIt's the left that has made this an identity politics shit show, one of those identities being nazis. You want to see the party of degenerates, sixists and hypacrites look at hollywood.",
"Oh my god they summarized the case, what LIBS.",
"I don't think the majority of Americans are dipshits, but okay. I think there is more to politics than you think but it'd force you to have to think more deeply about ideas you are reflexively repulsed by so you don't.",
"All of that is super important when shuffling out legit reporting from dogshit. \n\nGood on that library. Wish mine handed out the same thing.",
"Whew, watch out you don't pull a muscle doing all those mental gymnastics.",
"Huh? The right is for sure both fatter and less successful than the right. You’re aware of this, no?\n\nReally? You're comparing the right to the right. Only centrists would not think this typo statement isn't insulting them.",
"> No, it came into popular use when factually inaccurate stories started circulating on social media.\n\n\"factually inaccurate\" lol nope they just didnt like the coverage as i said\n\n> An example that jumps to mind: Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring out of a pizzeria. That's obviously not a thing that happened. \n\ndid you know the guy that owns the nyt is the same guy that covered up jimmy saville molesting dying cancer kids in their deathbeds, and that hes friends with a lot of powerful people in the american media\n\ndont worry they have no motive to make it sound as ridiculous as possible and dismiss it as fake though",
"My esteemed leader? Please elaborate on that one for me.\n\nIf Trump implied it was his doing, then call him out on it. Don't say an objective fact is a lie just because you don't like how a fact is being used.",
"By reputable I mean that they are respected and understood as being accurate with the information they share. To know if something is truly true, would require someone to have either been somewhere (in which case these sites use said people's testimonies or records of) or to know the exact outcome of every action taken by every person in a space at any given time (which isn't possible, which is why expert opinion and historical records are used). If someone says, \"my inauguration was the biggest of all time\" you can actually say in truth it wasn't. If someone says \"cutting taxes is going to be good for the national debt\" you can use history and expert opinion to say that it likely isn't going to be the case, but can't say it isn't true either, because it hasn't happened yet.\n\nAnd preytell why that's the case. Could it be that academic circles in the modern world have already tackled these issues? Could it be that academics don't want to waste time discussing what has already been explored? ",
"Add: And don't rely on Google to give you the most pertinent information.\n",
"Seems to me you just are dismissing media as a whole as unreliable. The media plays a critically important role in a successful democracy as no person has the time to check source material on all issues that may affect them. Being able to trust that media are in general accurately reporting factual events (e.g. verbatim statements, audio/video recordings, etc.) is part of the foundation of our governance. All news is going to be slightly skewed in favour of the opinions of those reporting the news, but that doesn't make information non-factual. The reality is that we need other people to be trustworthy enough to report events and general information as they happen to the best of their knowledge. Having multi-layered news dissemination where other parties dissect what is reported then offer information assessing the accuracy of what was reported based on source material is a very reasonable way to both deliver reasonably consumable amounts of information as well as factual information. It's up to the industry as a whole to keep eachother accountable when lies are being spread as truth. Obviously this will happen occasionally as people stand to gain from lying sometimes, but dismissing the idea of fact-checking websites is foolish in my opinion. News is only news if people are able to consume it so making everyone go to the source (if they even can) to get their information simply isn't reasonable.\n\nFor a terrible example: Fox news may report that black man ran a red light, crashed into the back of a car, and injured two people. MSNBC may also report on the same event stating that a heroic police officer used his car to end a high-speed pursuit by rear-ending the criminals vehicle. So long as all these events really did happen, both news sources are reporting factual news. Obviously the context of these facts matter which is where bias (should) be creeping in. The job of the fact-checking websites is to ensure that all statements of fact (the man was black, he was a police officer, the light was red, etc.) are what they check. I think both of these entities, the news and fact checkers, are playing an important role in delivering the news.",
"Wish people would stop assuming mainstream media doesn't spread fake news too. It's like people completely forget about WMD and how much every media outlet was spouting it as factual without any skepticism or real research.",
"I noticed you didn't answer this question:\n\n>Are there any articles that Snopes claims something is false (or true), when the truth is demonstrably and unequivocally the opposite?\n\nDo any such examples exist?",
"Wow what a load of garbage and liberal brainwashing! Lol fake news, you mean news that pops your bubble you little snowflakes! /s",
"Pretty sure you get the point though... Why is it that so many people on this website are so literal... ",
"The Russian bots sure are casting shadow on the fact check sites mentioned in the post. Of course they won't provide facts, sources or examples in their disparaging comments though. Ironic, ain't it? ",
">None of this detracts from the fact that a source exists\n\nWhich only Bernie cited.\n\n>yet Politicfact rated it as \"Mostly False\"\n\nBecause Trump did NOT back up his claim at all. \n\n> despite rating a nearly similar statement by Sanders as \"Mostly True.\"\n\nBecause Sanders backed up his claim. And it was mostly True because you need the extra context to be able to understand what Bernie was trying to say. \n\n>The entire reason of Politifact's existence is to verify claims made by government officials\n\nWhich they tried to do by asking for Trump to provide a source on where he got that information from. Trump refused to do this, or more likely couldn't.\n\n>They failed this job in this case.\n\nNo you just need to understand that in Bernie's case he has a source and it needed to be there to provide the extra context for what he is saying. Trump on the otherhand didn't have a source to back up his claims so it came off as mostly false. \n\nYour question is better asked this way:\n\n>Why didn't politifact use Bernie's source as the backing for Trumps claim?\n\nBecause Trump was claiming something and that source didn't provide the extra context needed for his claims. Whereas Bernie issued more information as it related to his claims and a source. Which is why you have the two different ratings. ",
"im australian you goof, do you realise how much of a cringey joke the russia stuff is now",
"Yup. Independent reporting means another point of view. The paper isn't as religious as the name would imply.\n\nTake a look at their about section and decide.\n\nhttps://www.csmonitor.com/About",
"Huh. That was an impressively long diatribe considering its absence of facts or evidence.\n\nBut it's good to see that you guys have so much irrational rage towards them. They must still be doing good work. ",
"Trump wiretap fact check. Majorly wrong. ",
"The Clinton's have done some shady shit, I don't know about Seth Rich in particular but I can understand why your family members would be suspicious.",
"ITT: T_D upvoting themselves",
"imagine interjecting like you did only to give up that quickly LOL\n\nnot very confident",
"Protect yourself from Trump’s Tweets. ",
"How do we get this to everybody everywhere? I mean it. Literally how do you do that? ",
"I doubt you're as stupid as me, because I'm not stupid. \n\nHere's a bedtime story for you. \n\nhttps://youtu.be/eQRbkon7R6Y",
"Again, who decided snopes or politifact were THE SOURCES for fact checks? ",
"Definitions are not mental gymnastics.\n",
"This should be on the front page of reddit at all times. This should be presented to you when you create an account.",
"If you're an adult and you haven't figured out what an editorial is, you should be in assisted living.\n\nCalling editorials \"fake news\" because it puts forward an opinion is something only trumptards do.",
"Snopes and politicafact are just as fake as the cable news a lot of the time. Sorry to break it to ya. Look up their proven bias. Don't be naive people.",
"Anonymous source: check\n\noutlandish claims: check\n\nIt just needs the weird and excessively long url with an unrelated picture on top!",
"Slow day in Vladivostok, eh cunt?",
"Oh god",
"I doubt they'd know where the library is. ",
"That's a compelling argument. What journal did you read that in?",
"oh man, this disqualifies, like, 90% of what gets posted to /r/politics. Though I do like \"fact check with these three left-leaning websites\" there was almost too much common sense here",
"I would love that bookmark ",
"What’s a library?",
"I didn't say that, nor do believe that. I suggested doing it to get a contrast in viewpoint, that's all. I think it's valuable to get news from a variety of sources.",
"Oh wow. Yeah that's a third figure. They say it was 27% between 16 and 19. Then they say between 16 and 24 had a 41% employment rate and also an 18.7 unemployment rate. \n\nJust more confusion.\n\nBut yeah the overall point is just how easy it is to mislead using different analysis of the same facts. And like you said in your other reply, using multiple sources is the best way to combat that. I would add actually reading the details. Like the methodology of a study or the actual questions asked in a poll.. You'd be surprised how many times the question asked doesn't match the headline grabbing conclusion. (Well maybe **you** wouldn't, since you seem to appreciate details, but a lot of people would)\n\nAt any rate, thanks for the discussion.",
"nah",
"Yeah, again I'm not getting stuck on that fact. I know the complete story. I'm saying that \"not following through with obligations\" until they \"got something they wanted out of Iran\" is not saying anything different than they \"didn't pay the ransom\" until they \"got Iran to release the prisoners.\" Your words work just fine. The US made a choice that was favorable to Iran, in exchange for something that the US wanted involving the release of prisoners. Also known as: a ransom.\n\nAlso, do you have a source on the conjecture? That if Iran held the prisoners, the US would've still paid?",
"I like how you're being upvoted even though the leaflet never claimed that those sites are unbiased. Because most every news outlet has a bias, and as long as the reports are correct and accurate it shouldn't matter which way they lean politically. Snopes may lean left, but they still cite their sources so you can do the reading yourself to see how they come to the verdicts they reach. If a source having a bias is more important than the actual facts of the story then you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself and not following the last bullet on the leaflet (being open minded).",
"Rule six is bad.",
"Oh, shit, he done called up Tucker Carlson's blog. Objective truth incoming. Patent falsehoods prepare to be exposed!",
"The pamphlet is fake news. Snopes and politafact are not accurate much of the time. If you check snopes for verification of facts, you're naive and ignant AF",
"I mean, you people say sources in the government are usually reliable, therefore, them claiming she said it must have some basis of truth right? Waffles, the lot of you",
"12 million is a large chunk of the population that pays into the system via income tax, yet never gets anything back like social security or welfare. Illegal and legal immigrants alike also have much lower crime rates than native born Americans. They also keep your restaurant bill lower by doing the hard work, be it keeping produce cheaper or cooking the food for less. If you take out the nativist rhetoric, I’ve never heard an anti-immigration/anti-amnesty argument that could hold water.",
"I'm just letting you know that it is hypocritical of you to preach others about circlejerks when you're engaged in the biggest one there is",
"The [ole' Cavuto mark](http://www.cc.com/video-clips/8ov5kh/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-question-mark), as in, \"journalist?\" Neil Cavuto. Keep in mind that clip is from the Bush years lol.",
"Helps with adding overall ambient noise, which your brain can tune out easier. Imagine sitting in a perfectly quiet room where you can hear someone flipping a page.\n\nSource: Am flipping through pages in a perfectly quiet, small library.",
"> 'agrees with me and **doesn't say anything too outlandish'**\n\nThese 'history is something that only happened in the past' people will be the death of the country.",
"Holy shit.",
">even though they acknowledge that there is a 41% employment rate among black youth.\n\n\nThey mostly definitely don't. I suggest you read an article fully instead of cutting off when you think it asserts what you want it to.\n\n> \nBut there are differences between the ratio and the widely used unemployment rate, which Trump used in citing the percentage.\n\nThis isn't the only time Trump did this either, at other points he kept using stuff like the labor participation rate as figure for \"real\" unemployment. Ironically enough, the official unemployment rates are perfect now that he's in office.\n\nBernie was also a lot more precise on what he was talking about\n\n\n>\nFor young people who have graduated high school or dropped out of high school, who are **between the ages of 17 and 20**\n\nWhich leads to a number that is at least related to unemployment, the \"underemployment\" that is sourced to something. Trump just spouted a random labor force participation rate and pretended it showed anything about unemployment (college students among others also go in to that statistic).",
"I was with this until it said to consult snopes.",
"“Elon Musk launches a car into space” sounds unrealistic. F a k e n e w s",
"What he said. If you're going to use those \"fact-checkers\", may as well add NoKo govt to that checklist, they always filter out fake... I mean real news for their people. Also don't trust reports with anonymous sources? So like, 98% of CNN and WaPo articles.",
"Snopes? Really? Lol",
"It’s biased towards producing informed readers. ",
"I can't tell you how many times i've been insulted for being a \"dirty lazy centrist\". Sorry, i'm not siding with one side because i have views of both",
"Christine Todd Whitman said fuck them. \nGo Shopping. \nBe safe. \nMore people have died because of her than Bin Cheney took out on that dark day. \nI'm guessing she's quiet now.",
"By the people lying.",
"The fact checking one cracked me up. Snopes is not exactly accurate and have dropped the ball on a lot of things over the years. They're have bias just like the rest of us. ",
"So how is the truth subjective then? ",
"they forgot to add in urls starting with msnbc (fake news) or cnn (even faker, because it used to be real new when msnbc never was).\n\n:D",
"If he okayed it, he saw it as fine. It wasnt over \"threats\" it was because they wanted dirt so that their candidate would win",
"Reality has a well known liberal bias. ",
"I'd love to hear your theory on how an apple can be an orange. ",
"That book marked would eliminate 94.56% of today's news articles...",
"Can you be more specific? Are you referring to [this article](https://www.snopes.com/2017/03/04/trump-accuses-obama-of-tapping-phones/)?\n\nIf so, can you point me specifically to the claims made in the article that are false?\n\nFrom the article:\n\n>...the President’s tweets offered no documentation or evidence for the charges he was leveling at his predecessor in the White House.\n\nAnd then the article goes on to cite sources on where this speculation may have came from, as well as a few other news sources on the subject.\n\nI don't see any false claims being made here. Where are they?",
"I wouldn’t mind Philosophy being required too. It’s a really interesting subject and can help broaden a lot of people’s perspectives :)",
"I'm not complaining, I'm telling you you're lazy. Your original statement doesn't pass the sniff test, so I'm not going to dig further on my own.",
"Cool thanks for the last word.\n\nI'm gonna go with.. \"misleading\"",
"Snopes^^TM officially endorses this comment. ",
"Can you send me like, ten of these to give to my grandparents? They need them. ",
"I think there aren’t as many antivaxxers as the news would make you think.i would guess a majority of Trump’s voters are most likely pro-vaccine.",
"I'm not a liberal. That quote is hilarious to me, because it's fairly true in my experience. And it's funny to see Republicans get their panties in a twist when they hear it. ",
"thank fuck you said that. logical fallacies appear here every august/sepember when some kid finishes his class and thinks he knows everything. it is very, very annoying.",
"Most educational institutions, libraries included tend to be liberal as well as the media being mostly liberal controlled. How could I trust something like that? I am not a blind sheep. ",
"If you don’t listen to that first one you’ll get a parking violation and a maggot on your sleeve",
"While I agree with the sentiment that one shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket, the article looks sound. The picture you linked glossed over the fact that the 400 million was owed to Iran already, and that this kind of stuff used to happen frequently with them. It was all a part of standard negotiation. The word \"leverage\" does need to be used here, because the money was paying a debt, not saving hostages. However, the hostages were a bonus.",
"Ah there you are. I know one of you would pop up.",
"So, you don't think bias can effect their reporting? I think the card might be for you. ",
"I kept looking for this! The ALA has some great bookmarks. ",
"> You can be a right-leaning person who uses logic and scientific process.\n\nOnly selectively.",
"Oh, got you — and completely agree with you there. But the pamphlet in OP’s post seems rather categorical, and any time an inside scoop is bad news for a particular sector it seems the anonymous sources thing gets trotted out, so I guess I’ve been building up that rant!",
"One of my favourite things I remember reading is \"If the headline is a yes or no question, the answer is no.\"\n\nEspecially in today's clickbait news sites. If the answer is yes, their headline is generally the fact.",
"there are inaccuracies in that statement. Bush said go shopping. CJD killed more people than Ching Laden - whats the count on asbestos and heavy metal poisoning ... go look",
"Well you see, there's this thing called the internet. Not sure if you've heard of it but in case you haven't I'm drunk and I slept with an elephant last night. 10/10 would do it again. ",
"\"isn't a bastion of facts.\"\n\nIs anything, besides an encyclopedia?",
"Apparently [the American Library Association is selling these.](https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark)",
"Why do you say this? ",
"Wait, trust snopes and politifact? So close...yet so far...",
"I am a conservative. Want to debate on me on discord ? Your topic of choice. \n\nI got the feeling that you will feel a lot less confident about your objectivity when challenged. \n\nhttps://discord.gg/c5ZTEf8 That's a political discord channel. ",
"8/10 ragequit. ",
"Please do go on with some specifics then.\n\nSpoiler: you won't",
"!redditsilver",
"Long list for seeing what the weather is tomorrow ",
"That question seems to imply that there are better alternatives. Can you list them?",
"Let me ask you this.. They say for Sanders that\n\n>his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-American youth have significantly worse prospects in the job market than either Hispanics or whites do. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.\n\nCould the same not be said for Trump's statement?",
":/ those are not unbiased sources...",
"> there are inaccuracies in that statement.\n\nBut they were good ones. \nI'm happy.",
"I've done that to show someone something before. On work computer cbf prtscrn+copy to paint + save + log in to facebook + send when I can just open messenger, click the camera item, take the photo and have it go to the person. They see the same info either way.\n",
"Tbf anonymously written articles aren't necessarily bad. Sometimes reputable organisations don't give the author's name for whatever reason, but as long as it was from a reputable organisation it's alright (obviously other factors involved but you get the gist).",
"And the tragically underrated David Koechner!",
"You’re mistaking my diagnosis of American political stupidity with a lack of empathy. They’re dipshits for sure, but that’s the logical conclusion of a broken education system. I’m extremely familiar with this. The school I went to as a kid is only in session 4 days a week now due to budget cuts. Those budget cuts are the result of a near non-existent tax rate for fossil fuel companies, who fund politicians. These politicians are then voted for by the very same dipshits that were designed by a crumbling education system. \n\nIt’s gotten so bad that teachers are willing to adopt straight up propaganda into their curriculums in order to receive financial assistance. [Read this article.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/15/big-oil-classrooms-pipeline-oklahoma-education) \n\nIt sounds terrible for me to call so many people dipshits, because it *is* terrible that so many people are. ",
"I'm not affiliated to a party, but keep believing whatever helps you sleep at night.",
"Don’t forget that No. 5 being important means that No. 6 should be subject to No. 9",
"Depends on the subject matter and who is telling the truth.",
"Nice cuticle(s)",
"My laptop is so old it can't load those pages without giving me the ol black-screen-of-death-instant-restart maneuver. \n\nFirst world problems.",
"Probably more personal considering Barron is likely autistic. It's not the crazy right-wingers who are anti-vaccination. It's the crazy lefties. You silly dum-dum.",
"Conclusion: if it's on facebook, it's fake.",
"Snopes said he was made up.",
"Well, [read this comment chain](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/5oxxq6/is_snopes_a_generally_unbiased_source/dcoiwlf/) on politifacts, as finding direct links to the [politifact ones](http://i.imgur.com/fpHJeym.png) is difficult because of how their site functions. Obvious bias is mostly Politifact's thing.\n\nAs for Snopes, what is considered most dubious, without digging into deeply conservative \"news stories\", is that [Snopes' owner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com), Proper Media, [is also the owner](https://proper.io/publishers.php) of multiple heavily left leaning news sites(Snopes handily left out). So the question becomes, why would a heavily political news organization set out to make money through influencing politics invest in Snopes if it offered 0 political influence?\n\nI'm sure there are some autists out there willing to give some more comprehensive answers, as this is just of the top of my head. But I'm assuming that Snopes' bias would mostly show in what it chooses to fact check as opposed to the fact checks themselves. Not sure about RabbitBranch's comment tho.",
"> I mean, you people say sources in the government are usually reliable, therefore, them claiming she said it must have some basis of truth right?\n\nFirst off, the sources Bernie cited are statistics released by a government body, not some random person in the government.\n\nSecondly, the anonymous source that makes the claims about Hillary Clinton using a drone to bomb an embassy in a major city within one of our closest allied countries was only ever contacted by True Pundit. His claims were never verified, were never repeated by other sources, and he had no hard proof to offer. [Given the complete lack of credibility True Pundit has](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-pundit/), and given that the article doesn't even have a fucking listen author, it's reasonable to question if this person even exists.\n",
"Christ, imagine if somebody tried to start up libraries today. We'd be hearing about how it's a UN conspiracy to indoctrinate our children or just some hovel for parasites who don't buy their own books to go.",
"> Foreign relations have nose dived - 'fake news.' I travel internationally, though mostly to China, for work and the team there loves Trump\n\nGo to Europe. The first thing I'm asked by nearly every fucking cab driver is \"do you like Trump\" and then they tell me why they think he's an idiot - though the Italians most regard him as too much of a blowhard to actually do anything with real consequences.\n\n> In the business world I can tell you at practically every level we generally regard him as the necessary evil, if not overdue swing against the pervasive, destructive liberalism that has infected many countries.\n\nYes. By god we shouldn't allow workers a living wage. It's their fault they didn't fall into opportunity, get lucky, or didn't know the right people at the right time.\n\nAnd shit son, niggers and kikes, and fucking waps, and fucking women outside of the kitchen - am I right? Those greasy wetbacks and those fucking chinks. PC culture am I rite brah? I oughta be able to stick my fingers up some girl's ass or at least kiss them because I'm a celebrity. Fuck that PC culture shit brah.\n\n> Europe has enormous problems and is in no place to lecture the U.S.\n\nYeah. Their population doesn't have to worry about paying for healthcare. Poverty and homelessness are just products of success. I mean fuck - capitalism says if I win someone else loses. Fuck compassion. Only greed!\n\n> Nah, staffing doesn't worry me, he knows what he's doing.\n\nI do too. It's called political sabotage. Ensure the government doesn't have the resources it needs to do its job, claim the government sucks, and privatize to private corporations who truly CAN'T do the job or if they do it's EXPENSIVE. I've worked with major companies. I've yet to see any of them be efficient. They all are foolish, greedy, and generally passively evil.\n\n> Same with the FBI, which has experienced concerning corruption as evidenced with the latest texts, maltreatment of FISA warrants issued for political spying, and handling of various matters - Trump's right to complain and demand improvement at the agency.\n\nPerhaps he should start with his own house before demanding other houses fix their shit. Leak leak leak.\n\n> The fact you used 'bean counter' has likely revealed your lack of sophistication, and probably your ability to understand the nuances of the profession I belong to, which are WIDE RANGING.\n\nNah. You're essentially nothing more than a simple fact checker of SAP, ERPs, HRMs, CRMs, and whatnot. Your job was one of the top most likely careers to be automated by 2020. The Journal of Accountancy even cautioned that there's a lot of change coming your way.\n\nPeople like me - we're driving that change. We're replacing people and the failure of capitalism is that it didn't account for software and robotics. It didn't account for the digital age and material sciences. Its equations aren't designed to withstand a workforce 40-70% unemployed and 70-90% highly educated. It doesn't account for when there's no work left to be done.\n\n> Independence, integrity beyond reproach, and opining on faithful representation go a long way. \n\nIntegrity beyond reproach - but you support a President whose integrity leaves a lot to be desired.\n\n[But it's okay - I got you fam. I know you need to feed.](http://t.wallpaperweb.org/wallpaper/development/1440x900/Coffee_Tea_36_1440x900.jpg)",
"So shave your face with some mace in the dark ",
"As in, they'll trust Brietbart but not the WSJ? Yeah... I'll believe that. I find it interesting, though, that a 128 year old newspaper with ~40 Pulitzer Prizes, 2.2 Million subscribers, and a long history of fact based reporting loses out to an 11 year old website where the senior editor-at-large has claimed that the Brietbart motto is war on the mainstream media and the Democratic party.\n\nSeriously, which one sounds more trustworthy?\n\nSource (quote at 22 second mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXjnNQCqsWI",
"This is applicable to fake news consumers of both sides. Good on the library for doing their job educating the public",
"How do I know you really saw it there? :\\",
"Politifact does this all the time. Takes understandable comments, suggests they lack context when they very obviously do not, calls a claim false.",
"I understand your point. The problem is that the example you gave shows a pretty fair analysis of a literally false statement by Trump (and that is unlikely just an error, but probably intentional embellishment) being labeled only \"mostly false\" because he was making a decent point.\n\nNow you are making vague references to other ones.\n\nI did a google search for \"\"it's true, but we don't like the comparison\"\" and (unsurpringsly) came up with nothing, so it is clear that that quote is actually not a quote at all. It seems you are misleading about that one, so what other ones might you be misleading about? Can I get some links?",
"~~Associated Press (AP), maybe? They seem to solely report, and are arguably the most often cited by other publications.~~",
"another problem: snopes got caught being partisan with some of their current events analyses, which erodes their trustworthiness. ",
"Gulag? ",
"Damn asking the real questions",
"unless they disagree with the prevailing reddit opinion, then people can hide your opinion with just a click of a button! no discussion needed",
"The strawman to end all strawmen. Show a real example of that happening on Snopes. ",
"Do you think conservatives tend to read better sources? If so, please give some examples.\n\nAlso, I don't see why newspapers would be more trustworthy than news sites, nor why it matters that left leaning sites tend not to cover some topics of interest to you. It's natural to wish for a single source of information that you can trust, but that's simply not something you can ever have.",
"I guess I need to restate my question. How do we get people to actually read it/listen?",
"You tell me\n\n> \nIf you look at what’s going on in this country, African-American youth is an example: 59 percent unemployment rate; 59 percent\n\nvs\n\n>\n\"For young people who have graduated high school or dropped out of high school, who are between the ages of 17 and 20, if they happen to be white, the unemployment rate is 33 percent,\" he said. \"If they are Hispanic, the unemployment rate is 36 percent. If they are African-American, the real unemployment rate for young people is 51 percent.\"\n\nDoes this look like the same to you?\n\nRegardless even if they were the same, this would be an instance among hundreds of times they correctly pointed out trump's , frequently abhorrent, lies. Outliers don't define the norm. This isn't the first time i've seen people point this thing out, and it's consistently the only one (apart from fabricated images) that surfaces.",
"Oh, they're at the library. They're the ones checking out books such as the ones written by Trump or Ann Coulter. The audiobook versions, that is.",
"Even better, chrome has a feature where you can mute the tabs just by clicking on the sound icon on the tab. The instructions are below on how to enable it. \n\nhttps://lifehacker.com/enable-chromes-mute-this-tab-shortcut-in-the-dev-chan-1640772471\n\n",
"US didn't actually owe the government or iran money or weapons because they were no longer the same government US entered a contract with and took payment from.\n\n It would be like if your website designer took money to build a website for a domain and doesn't deliver. Then after the domain is sold to someone else they give the new owner the money and calls it a refund; coincidentally the new owner also took the designers family hostage. ",
"That infographic is *awesome*...",
"One of the few big papers that's owned by a non profit and not a corporation (unless that's changed recently!) ",
"That was a refreshingly straightforward about section. Thanks for the link. ",
"You can't group a whole crowd only on the bad apples you see. That's overgeneralization.",
"Same here. And I apologize if I appeared argumentive in the beginning. I much prefer to discuss and I thought I saw a fallacy and wanted to point it out. But I enjoyed discussing this and getting clarity on your point. ",
"Wise words from someone with seemingly zero capacity for self reflection.",
"Not sure if serious, but all that advice is pretty universal regardless of political perspective. Nothing on that bookmark leads me to believe any agenda is being pushed. In any case it’s good practice to cross reference your sources of information. Especially if you suspect bias.",
"Anonymous reports =/= anonymous sources. **All** news relies on anonymous sources, as naming sources kills the source. What \"anonymous news reports\" refers to are articles with no names (or fake names) in the byline. CNN, WP, NYT are not in that category at all.",
"Fox's summary was even shorter ;)",
"\"Here are some handy-dandy left-wing websites to tell you if you're hearing stuff from outside the echo chamber.\"",
"It's an important distinction.",
"thank you for an actual reply.",
"> There's a lot of debate in this thread\n\nWhy the fuck is there a debate?\n\nAnyone who disagrees with the above points is a fucking russian troll, think things through ffs.",
">a large number of sources, some of them with very good reputations (NYT and WaPost among these) \n \nhere is your NYT: \nhttps://i.redd.it/8m825797snf01.jpg \n \nhow about WaPo? Who put this article out titled: \n>#Kim Yo Jong capitvates PyeongChang Olympics, but be skeptical\n \nbut when you click the link, it changes to: \nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/theres-peace-in-the-air-at-pyeongchang-olympics-but-something-doesnt-smell-right/2018/02/10/2ef3ac16-0e19-11e8-8890-372e2047c935_story.html \n \nso did they originally lead with \"Kim Yo Jong capitvates PyeongChang Olympics....\" and had to change it after? \n \nI see your reputable resources praising North Korea. You have any idea what its like for anyone who lived there? Escaped? \n \nTrump brings out a survivor from NK during the SOTU and all of a sudden NK is the belle of the ball at the Olympics?\n \nId say the more likely thing is 80-90% of our media is coming from heavily agenda'd companies working together to tell the american people exactly what they should want, along with punishing us for not listening to them. \n \nLets put it in perspective - if the Russia thing is all created by the dems, previous administration, CIA - and 80-90% of the media was onboard to help them accomplish their goals - it would sound a lot like it does now. \n \nLast point - if Trump had done this, would it have ever, ever, ever been let go of or moved past? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAWaT9AwMjQ \n \nOnce again, the video I linked - if that had happened to Donald Trump, would we have ever heard the end of it? Would it have been on every late night show? On SNL? Talked about on the Today Show, Good Morning America, The View, Daily Show, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC? Can you imagine them ever letting it go? \n \nHow many networks ran with the fish food thing? that was absolutely nothing, and easily - i mean easily verifiable - but it doesnt matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8WBcPX257o \n \nThe clsoing argument you used - we've seen that argument - thats what you all have been using lately. We've identified it and moving past it. Its way too easy to disprove. \n \nAre we back to his taxes next week - no wait, we're doing dem-memo I forgot. How is 2/26 looking for taxes?",
"Google ranking algorithm considers these same factors ",
"This is where you can purchase it:\n\nhttps://www.alastore.ala.org/content/fact-or-fiction-bookmark",
">Politifact is incredibly biased. Snopes even moreso. Both have had drama wrapped around their company or CEOs.\n\nDrama like messy divorces and affairs. Nothing real about their content. \n\n>Here's an often cited article that goes over an actual study:\n\nThat doesn't address the veracity of their fact-checking in any way.\n\n>Another that has links to examples on politifact\n\nAnother lame smear job by a partisan hack, who doesn't show politifact actually being wrong in what they write, but is rather salty they add context in order to call out politicians who are attempting to deceive people.\n\n>Articles from right wing publication Daily Caller regarding the CEO of Snopes.\n\nAgain, nothing about the veracity of their articles, just more personal attacks. \n\n>We both know you're not going to click those links though.\n\nBet you feel silly now. \n\n>We both also know you won't look into the voracity of my claims from a critical, unbiased standpoint.\n\nI have, and they're been found wanting. Rather than throw a couple propaganda pieces at me that are full of ad hominems because they completely lack substance, how about a list of times where politifact has been wrong?\n\n>I'm pretty sure we both you'd prefer grainy imgur pictures over articles and links to prove your claims wrong...\n\nYour side is the one with grainy pictures and zero real argument. You are aware of that, right?\n\n>You should let OP post his pictures. They give you something to shake your fist at and sure make it easier for you to feel smart.\n\nOh boy you got me. Still waiting for you to try and prove your point though. \n\n",
"Why does everyone have to keep saying \"right-wingers do x\" or \"left-wingers do x\" instead of just listening to the individual to see if they're right or wrong. Can't we go on a per individual basis?",
"Snopes^^TM thanks you. ",
"I don't see how Trump being bad makes it okay for others.",
"Because measurable truths don't change when the president goes from being a D to an R, but republican opinions about them do.",
"yes, the rights of the mother are more important than the fetus. it's shitty but that's the way it goes.",
"Lol, they literally said in the description on T_D that there would be Nazis there.",
"It's not a false dichotomy if it's true, but, that's not an either/or fallacy. If it were fallacious, it would be a hasty generalization. ",
"WSJ is to conservative for my tastes. But it is right leaning biased. However when they first reported on the Stormy Daniels affair with Trump, Trump supporters were first to call it \"fake news\"...even though the WSJ is owned by the same guy who owns Fox News. \n\nTrump supporters are just irrational. They cry fake news or they deflect. ",
"Fake news - news that trump supporting inbreds don’t like. ",
"It counts people (even high schoolers) who don't work because they are in school. It counts people who aren't able to work because of illness or disability. It's not an accurate way to measure unemployment or underemployment. Sanders used numbers that were based on research of underemployment for the community from people who factor in the difference between people who stop looking for work due to discouragement and people who really do not want to look for work. The only fault of the Sanders' camp was that they took some license by calling the underemployment figure \"real unemployment\", which can be confusing given that official unemployment figures are a completely separate thing.",
"It's a fact-checking site that claims to be unbiased, so actually, they are functionally identical in this case.",
"\"Skip anonymous news reports\" \n\nLeftism would instantly die.",
"hahah, all the fake news victims didn't like hearing your facts.",
"The source the article claims to be citing. Why divest your critical thinking skills to another entity when they are just as fallible as you are? I'm not saying there's no benefit for them having a large amount of resources and time to dedicate to examining facts, but often these sites are making a judgement on something subjective, where their respective views on a subject will be obtained through their own lens.",
"There's stairs to a second level in the photo.... ",
"Could you explain what's illogical about that statement?",
"Look at that particular image. Notice how the color and design is visually relaxing and appealing for that specific answer? Astroturfing. \n\nEdit - I've noticed the downvotes coming in very late after I was in the positive. From the east coast. Meaning west coasters are catching wind. A clear divide in America is quite transparent. I'm a swing voter in a very key republican state. Your downvotes can or can not matter to me. Choose your words carefullly. ",
"No... Not really... All I had to say was \"shared onto Reddit,\" and it'd basically mean the same thing... ",
"Librarians are gangster AF",
"That's true for democrats as well, to some extent. We are talking about whether or not they are exclusive, not about generalisations that are difficult to argue. ",
"I wouldn't necessarily suggest that the things labelled as fake news by them are wrong. I'm sure an argument can be made, particularly with the very subjective methodology, for all of them. But with that same methodology, why aren't Buzzfeed or The Daily Beast up there? Clickbait websites that are partisan bias, passed off as news, and widely circulated are omitted. While I know it's anecdotal, on the rare occasions I use my Facebook, I see Buzzfeed the most for some reason.\n\nThree months is too short, in my opinion, because yellow journalism is nothing new. I'd like to see data results over a much longer period of time, stretching throughout President Obama's tenure compared to President Trump's first year. That would be much more interesting and appropriate although I know \"Trump Supporters\" is a new demographic in the large scheme of things.",
"No, all I'm saying is don't sound like a hypocritical retard. It's not THAT difficult to understand.",
"The kind of people who buy into fake news (Trump supporters) likely don't even know where their local library is.",
"If you consider Politifact \"left wing\", then it may just be that your sources are inherently ridiculous.",
"I don't believe that at all.",
"Jesus Christ they were doing SO WELL. Every single one of these recommendations is fantastic. And then they have\n\n>use snopes/politico/politifact to check sources.\n\nSuch a shame.",
"No as in Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump cite the same statistic only one is labelled true. ",
"I kinda wish the order was backwards ",
"I don't think your definition of 'summary' is accurate.",
"But only to yourself. \nAsking questions on Reddit leads to downvotes if you ask the wrong ones",
"At this point I feel like extensions primary purpose is to remove annoying shit websites try to pull. ",
"Ewoks die, Organa lies! \n\\#InvestigateEndorghazi",
"No idea on the psychological factors involved in such things. But I definitely know that politifact is a partisan organization.",
"\"Libraries are liberally biased\"\n\n-Right Wing America",
"\"Check competing sources\"",
"Yep.",
"That seems likely given that it's less controversial than making it about biased news, but it's almost entirely applicable to biased news as well. The url tip is clearly for sketchy sites impersonating news sources, as is making sure the pictures match the content, but the rest is just doing some basic investigation into the content you're consuming. ",
"Nope.",
"Damn op needs some nail clippers",
"I doubt those folks really care about the news",
"Well yes, it’s not difficult ",
"Something tells me the people hanging out at the local library arent the ones who need this information. ",
"I swear I was really looking for a maid...",
"Snopes haha burn that leaflet ",
"None of which even pretend to a properly controlled study. I mean, you're linking Buzzfeed to me for crying (laughing?) out loud. The methodologies are laughable - maybe that PC World article would get a B+ at a fifth grade science fair.\n\nWhat happened to \"It's Oxford and it shall not be impugned\"?",
"> Use Snopes, Politico and Politifact\n\n> Beware online \"filter bubbles\"\n\npanickedguywithredbutton.jpg",
"Fact check using snopes. Yeah ok. ",
">Moderates absolutely have a narrative, whether that narrative is “both sides are the same” or “we should try to make everyone a little happy” or simply “the truth is somewhere in the middle”.\n\nYeah I think we have a difference of usage here. You're using this word as if it is a group of people and I'm using it as a character trait.\n\n> And you seem to suggest that making an argument or taking a position necessarily involves some kind of “fabrication” (creating something) or omission\n\nI made no such suggestion, so I'm not sure where you got that from. In fact, I specifically used the word \"misleading\" in order to create that distinction. It is not hard to report facts and still create a narrative.\n\n>Having a strong opinion is not automatically a bad thing and does not automatically make people sloppy/manipulative is argumentation\n\nThis sentence makes no sense.",
"You mean if Facebook is the *source* - I hope...?\n\nObviously, links to legitimate news sources and content originating from those sources are posted in many ways - including all social media platforms and even handbills stapled to bulletin boards.\n\nIt's the reader's responsibility to determine the legitimacy of information and its sources - even if the platform mucks about with \"trending\" functionality and the like.\n\n(I wish this didn't need to be clarified, but threads like this are awash with emotionally-charged words and actions)",
"But is alastore.ala.org a trustworthy source..?",
"You don't want to argue generalizations because that's where statistics live.\n \nThe polling: \n \n * [In just five years, white evangelicals have become much more likely to say a person who commits an “immoral” act can behave ethically in a public role. In 2011, just 30 percent of these evangelicals said this, but that number has more than doubled to 72 percent in a recent [2016, ed.] survey, a 42 point swing. (In 2011 44% of all Americans felt this way, by 2016 that number was up to 61%, a movement of 17 points.)](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/19/the-trump-effect-evangelicals-have-become-much-more-accepting-of-politicians-immoral-acts/?utm_term=.e06360fcd641) \n \n * [75% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats said that *Wikileaks release of classified diplomatic communications* harms the public interest in 2010](http://www.people-press.org/2010/12/08/most-say-wikileaks-release-harms-public-interest/), [12% of Republicans and 48% of Democrats say that *Wikileaks release of John Podesta's emails* harms the public interest in 2016.](https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/10/25/turnaround-public-opinion-latest-wikileaks/) (Not exactly the same question, but comprable, also a 63 point swing for Republicans and a 5 point change for Democrats.)\n\n * [22% of Republicans and 37% of Democrats supported President Obama issuing missile strikes against Syria in 2013, 86% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats supported President Trump striking Syria in 2017, a 64 point swing for Republicans, a 1 point change for Democrats.](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html) \n \n * [12% of Republicans and 15% of Democrats had a favorable view of Vladimir Putin in 2015, 32% of Republicans \n and 10% of Democrats have a favorable view of him in 2017, a 20 point swing for Republicans, a 5 point change for Democrats.](http://www.gallup.com/poll/204191/putin-image-rises-mostly-among-republicans.aspx) \n \n * [17% of Republicans and 18% of Democrats said Russia was an ally of the US in July 2016, 31% of Republicans and 16% of Democrats saw them as an ally six months later in December 2016, a 14 point swing for Republicans and a 2 point change for Democrats.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/all-of-a-sudden-russia-has-become-a-partisan-issue/amp/) \n \n * [39% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats thought their income tax rate was fair in 2016, 56% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats thought that their income tax rate was fair in 2017, a 17 point swing for Republicans and a 4 point change for Democrats. (The income tax rate did not change between 2016 and 2017, ed.)](http://www.gallup.com/poll/208511/americans-positive-taxes-year.aspx) \n \n * [When Republican voters in Wisconsin were asked in October 2016 whether the economy had gotten better or worse “over the past year,” they said “worse’’ — by a margin of 28 points. But when they were asked the very same question [in March 2017], they said “better” — by a margin of 54 points. That’s a net swing of 82 percentage points between late October 2016 and mid-March 2017.](http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2017/04/15/donald-trumps-election-flips-both-parties-views-economy/100502848/) \n \n * [\"Forty-two percent of Trump voters think he should be allowed to have a private email server to just 39 percent who think he shouldn't be allowed to,\"](http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/01/americans-think-trump-will-be-worst-president-since-nixon.html) \n \nThe politicians have swung all over the place, too: \n \n[88 members of the Bush administration used private email servers.](http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html) \n \n[There were 13 attacks on American embassies, resulting in 60 deaths during the Bush administration.](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/) \n \n[Here's a very important message about climate change, brought to you by Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154) (And [here's Newt Gingrich explaining why feelings are more important than facts. Yes, seriously.](https://youtu.be/zNdkrtfZP8I?t=6m13s))\n\n[George H.W. Bush was a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood.](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/planned-parenthood-jeb-bush-wants-roll-back-his-fathers-legacy) \n(*Because it helped drive down the abortion rate!* Hint, hint, Republicans.) \n\n[Ronald Reagan gave illegal immigrants amnesty.](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672) \n \n[Ronald Reagan came out in favor of a ban on assault weapons.](http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/feb/05/barack-obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/) (After he was shot.) \n \n[Governor Ronald Reagan outlawed open carry of firearms in California.](http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/) (After the Black Panthers began open carrying their firearms; the NRA helped write the ban.) \n \n[The conservative Heritage Foundation think tank actually came up with the individual health insurance mandate.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/#1e04419e6187) (Obamacare.) \n \n[Republicans used to advocate for Cap and Trade carbon taxes as a way to combat climate change.](http://www.npr.org/2014/06/03/318414868/gop-demonizes-once-favored-cap-and-trade-policy) \n \n[Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency.](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/gallery-why-nixon-created-the-epa/67351/) (In part because Lake Michigan caught on fire.) \n \n[Richard Nixon also had a plan for universal health care coverage.](https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2015/11/the-nixon-comprehensive-health-insurance-plan/) \n \n[Ike Eisenhower had a top marginal tax rate of 90%](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/) and [invested billions of dollars in government spending on infrastructure projects.](http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-lewis26-2008dec26-story.html) \n \nI don't know how else to say it except that \"Republicans fall in line\" is the perfect motto for the party. \n \n--- \n \nEdit: [No, CNN is not propaganda.](https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/760jtn/ooof_trump/doan9q6/)\n",
"How about just have some fucking sense. The only people who seen to get fooled by fake news are old people, people who can’t work computers and idiots.",
"Most people only read headlines, too, and to top it off, they tend to just believe anything a headline says. \nI'm going to get rich and make my own news site where the headlines are boring as shit but never sensationalized or exaggerated. No one will visit it but goddamn it if it's not the only bastion for fucking actual news I don't know what will be. ",
"All I hear is you telling me about how you didn't read the article. But please, continue talking about my ignorance. Or fears. Or whatever else you definitely know about.",
"Yes, that would be the important distinction I was referring to.",
"The fact that you genuinely believe that the left-wing puts out as much fake news as the right-wing is part of the problem here.",
"As I like to put it: \"If someone accuses their opponent of using a fallacy, the probability of they themselves using a fallacy as the argument goes on eventually approaches one.\"",
"Guy below me mentioned some good ones but I'm partial to r/libertarian. Yeah it's mostly got a lot of libertarians in it but since they don't ban anyone a lot of the time there's discussion (well most of the time frankly) with non libertarians. It's not perfect but it's better than r/Conservative or t_D",
"For damn good reason too.",
"Even if the narrative is the truth? ",
"The fact that you got downvoted for saying that proves how much of a shit-hole we're in. The right wing has been scientifically shown time and time again to put out far more fake news than the left-wing. Yet you can't even say that without everyone on reddit going \"See! It's the bias at work!\"",
"Hey, Reynolds Wrap is 30% off on Cartwheel. I think you can only get three at a time, though.",
"All Facebook users should be shown this before staring any article. ",
"You just said \"Fake news might be coming far more from 1 side, but pointing that out makes you biased\"",
"Politifact 100% has a leftwing bias.",
"Completely ignoring the argument, which is about the ability for a conservative (one who leans right) to think scientifically. ",
"Did they *literally* say that? Everyone says the donald did this and that but no one has it archived or anything. How do I know you read that and didn't hear that from someone else who may or may not have read it? ",
"their arguments are the prevailing opinion however, and to them yours is supporting theirs. You don't have to defend them, but you should probably realize your initial comment has most of its support because on the surface it appears to mesh with that argument.",
"That's an odd example to choose, given they were more critical of her over it because they thought she was the favorite to win the presidency.",
"What determines fake news? Whether it’s true or who pushes it out?",
"Fact check with Snopes, Politico, and Politifact... huh? ",
"Fucking Snopes would say the earth is flat of Donald said it was round",
"It's cool. She doesn't think that Austria is a developed country, so her argument is airtight.",
"Sure thing, 57 genders.",
"Why the fuck does this have 85K updates... Snopes, Politico???\n\n Please. ",
"You asked me why. I provided an answer. You disagreed with the premise of my reasoning. I provided overwhelming evidence to support it.\n\nNow don't you go pretending that I'm avoiding the discussion just because you got caught off guard by the link dump.\n\nIf you're going to argue in bad faith, you can fuck right off. You're just another example now.",
"I see it touted as a highly upvoted top comment to rebut an article and far too many people seemingly taking it seriously.",
"Sort by controversial.",
"Real unemployment is different than unemployment. I'd need to read the articles to know, but honestly I've spent enough time fact checking in this thread.\n\nThanks, sorry, typing on a phone, happens sometimes. Considering I'm working on a Master's in Economics, I actually have quite a bit of experience in the field of Sociology. Thanks for the assumptions though. The real reason the questions you're asking haven't been explicitly researched is because the questions themselves are biased. Something like the physiology of women versus men is explored often, and actually gets a lot of funding. As does low graduation rates for black and brown americans. However, the Thesis for these studies is never pointed. They're more focused on how, or why, not who. Anyone can make correlations and claims about groups off of shallow understanding, but only researchers try to find the real reasons for behaviours and trends.\n\nBlack crime has been tied to a lack of birth control options and poor education, and Islamic aggression has been tied to cultural pressure and feelings of marginalization. Ironically, the same reasons were given for white male aggression while researching mass shootings. Funny enough, I find that most people who say this stuff hasn't been researched, just don't look. My recommendation is to take a couple sociology and psychology classes at your local community college. It'll do you good. People think you need all the little details to know what you're talking about, but if someone shows you the idea, more often than not you can teach yourself afterwards. ",
"I mean, most of us do just that when we get articles (especially the political ones) on reddit. we just hope someone else reads it instead of us.",
"In an age where the Right is led by the world’s biggest liar, how the fuck can any fact-check organization be politically neutral?",
"\"Skip anonymous news reports\"\n\nSo don't read NYTimes or CNN. Agreed.\n\n\"Use fact check blogs like Politifact\"\n\nSo mindlessly believe fake news as long as they call it \"fact checking\" on the top of the page.\n\n\nDear God there is no hope for millennials. This is what passes for critical thinking nowadays huh? ",
"Facts are facts, but the way they present these facts can have a bias and these websites have a left leaning ones.\n\nhttp://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpolitics/2011/02/10/selection-bias-politifact-rate/\nhttp://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp\nhttps://www.quora.com/Who-owns-Politifact-Is-it-a-left-leaning-publication\nhttps://www.quora.com/Is-Snopes-biased-Why-do-some-people-believe-Snopes-is-biased”\n\n\nThis guy has an email response from them https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4unci4/comment/d5r8wo6?st=JDJMY6V4&sh=e7db1295\n\n\nThis example literally shows them saying that the numbers were true but gave it a low rating https://i.redd.it/b7dke6mo18iy.jpg\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/25/donald-trump/why-donald-trumps-tweet-about-decline-national-deb/\n\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/\n\n\n[Here is a whole thread discussing it](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/politicalfactchecking/comments/5rszjx/do_factchecking_websites_have_political_bias/)\n\nThey have a bias, it’s practically impossible not to. I’m not saying to stop reading politifact I’m saying be aware of the bias, check a website with an opposing view look at the facts that they both present and you will see more of the picture. \n",
"> I've never even heard of that dude.\n\nThen what are you talking about when you reference punching someone in the face? That was the only time I've ever heard of that happening. You should also look him up.\n\n> I've never met a nazi in my life.\n\nSo what? That is completely irrelevant. I've never met a person from Siberia, but I know they exist. If you've not seen evidence of Nazis running around, then you're either being misled, or you're not paying attention. [For fucks sake, there was a literal Nazi in Trump's cabinet!](https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-trump-aide-wears-medal-of-hungarian-nazi-collaborators/)\n\n> The VAST majority of people not on the left (often referred to as nazis)\n\nOne, they're not a vast majority, not by any stretch. Trump lost the popular vote, Bush lost the popular vote. The right isn't nearly as popular as you think. They hold congressional office due more to gerrymandered districts than to any kind of broad referendum on their policies.\n\nTwo, while I'll agree with you that the \"Nazi\" word does get bandied about a bit too much be some people (a vocal minority, don't pretend like this is a widespread issue), there are instances where it IS actually applicable. Richard Spencer, Sebastian Gorka, damn near everyone in that Charlottesville march.\n\n> simply want their constitutional rights upheld\n\nRed herring. The people the left is mobilized against want rights removed from other people. They don't give a fuck about the Constitution, Trump doesn't either. They only care about it as long as it gets them what they want.\n\n> voting rights secured for americans, and sane fiscal policy\n\nThey shouldn't be voting for Republicans if they want those things. No one on the left is at risk of taking away anyone's voting rights, and Republicans don't have a great track record when it comes to fiscal policy. Look no further than the great experiment with Kansas, it's a literal microcosm of Republican fiscal policy, and an utter, unequivocal failure.\n\n> identity politics shit show\n\nThis is stupid. Stop saying dumb shit like that.\n\n> look at hollywood\n\nOh shut the fuck up. Hollywood doesn't speak for me, or goddamn anyone I've ever met, or talked to at any time in my life. People who give a fuck about this shit, and take it seriously, don't fucking care what anyone in Hollywood has to say. The only people who think that IS people on the right. \n\nAll you guys have is strawmans, red herrings, and apparently turning your eyes to the very real racists/white supremacists/ACTUAL FUCKING NAZI'S that are trying to co-opt your party. Do yourself a favor, retain your dignity by paying attention before these people destroy you from the inside.",
"Yeah about that if you include Republicans who tap toes at airports and stuff, I guess. ",
"I'm not arguing in bad faith. Nor are you paying attention to the argument. Your argument (republicans tend to change their mind) is not at debate. Mine (that being conservative is not exclusive to following scientific reasoning) is. ",
"The irony of this being posted to Reddit ",
"Your \"sources\" are 100 percent bullshit until you can back them up. Until you do that I cannot take your argument seriously. You are not Trump. Facts matter here. \n\n> The left ridicules anyone who doesn't think exactly like them. They are trying to make it a crime to criticize others.\n\nBtw, here's an article about Donald Trump saying he wanted to change the libel laws so that people can be thrown in court for having an opinion. [here.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellefabio/2018/01/11/why-president-trumps-strong-look-at-libel-laws-deserves-legal-side-eye/#69a431843afd)\n\nSee how it's done? I backed up my claim with a reputable source. That's how you know I'm not talking out of my ass.\n\nNow it's your turn. \n",
"I don't have the background to try to argue this, but... *maybe the truth leans closer to the left?*",
"This leaflet is great. It teaches critical thinking, which is many facetted and doesn't consist of a single silver bullet, such as an \"online fact checker\" or \"verified news source\".",
"Time is a big enough organization that no other organization would have needed to pick it up to have it spread. \n\nThey gave a highly visible retraction. Get over it. ",
">\"If you look at what’s going on in this country, African-American youth is an example: 59 percent unemployment rate; 59 percent,\" Trump said.\n\n>\"If you look at what’s going on with Latinos, Hispanics - tremendous unemployment rates. You look at what’s going on with so many groups. We’re going to make it great for everyone. We’re going to bring jobs back to our country.\"\n\nYes. It does look like they are making the exact same point. The point that, for Bernie, they said\n\n>his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-American youth have significantly worse prospects in the job market than either Hispanics or whites do\n\nMaybe this instance does come up a lot - I don't know. But that's probably because it's such a clear cut example of them giving the benefit of the doubt to one and not the other. You're not going to get many chances to see similar statements being broken down so differently.\n\nAnd this is just one tactic they use. Snopes will frequently re-state the claim as something entirely different in order to debunk it.\n\nI will say that PolitiFact is WAY better than Snopes. But you still have to be careful with any \"fact check\" because it is so easy to reach one conclusion or another - whether it's by twisting words, giving more of a benefit of the doubt to one person, or even just the fact that \"mostly true\" isn't a hard metric and can be pretty subjective, as in the Bernie example where they say flat out that he was technically wrong but his overall point was true.",
"Same - I know WSJ is not “my people” but I still consider them credible and reputable. Which is not to say perfect, but I don’t dismiss them either.",
"Kinda. It can be very easy to get yourself in an echo chamber. For example, if you spend a lot of time in /r/politics, spend some time in /r/the_donald, and vice versa. Both are propaganda, but if you listen to one, you might as well get both sides of it.",
"Just read an article about Fox New’s Pirro blaming Obama for the for the whole Porter thing. C’mon! How can anyone defend that network!? ",
"Right. Fuck off then.",
"I've come to my political leanings through years of introspection and what I feel is rational thought and discussion. I've made concerted attempts to be informed and to investigate beyond what was initially presented to me. I don't agree with everything put in front of me from \"my side\" but I try to take everything with a grain of salt and remember that there's generally another layer underneath. \n\nAlways a pleasure to have a mature discussion with someone such as yourself.",
">clearly labeled opinion pieces have opinions :((((((",
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2016/12/16/facebook-under-fire-for-picking-liberal-outlets-to-fact-check/amp/",
"\"Hmmmm... these well cited facts don't confirm my beliefs... This must be bullshit!\"",
"People need it spoon fed to them though. As we are looking at a pop. that's on average at a 10th grade level. Complex means hard, hard means way to much thinking and why wasn't it figured out 10 mins ago? Your asking people to read and listen to things and then digest them into an actual chain of events? Even if those sources misconstrue the facts with half truths, yet if you read enough you can see the truth? Whoa there Trigger.",
"The issue is that these groups(politico/politifact at least, im just not familiar with snopes) claim to be unbaised arbiters who only call statements based on the facts. But they clearly arent. They clearly are pretty far left.\n\nThis is why MSNBC is respectable and CNN is not. CNN reporters will harp on and on about unbiased journalism, just trying to get to the facts, etc etc. Which is such utter nonsense its comical. MSNBC is actually forthright about its biased.",
"And here we have the evidence that left leaning is sadly not exclusive of poor reasoning. ",
"Yeah they aren't in 1990s ",
"Snopes politico and politi\"fact\" are Democrat propaganda",
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2016/12/16/facebook-under-fire-for-picking-liberal-outlets-to-fact-check/amp/",
"Sadly the people who really need this probably don't go to the library. ",
"Snopes, PolitiFact and Politico? Give me a fucking break",
"> skip anonymous news reports.\n\n\nLol the politics sub would have nothing to post. ",
"If you're pushing a narrative then you're manipulating facts, in which case you do the other steps on this guide. Look at other sources. Find the data behind them. Think about who this is aimed at, who the author is, who the publication is aimed at, who owns the publication, etc. Critical thinking is key.",
"> Snopes, Politico, or Politifact \n\nWell, this **was** going really well.",
"But the good old Russian whataboutism, that I remember from my youth, was always \"but in America they hang negroes\". It was never implied that, whatever the original topic was, wasn't bad or wrong, just that something else was worse, and we should focus on that instead.",
"This isn't \"asking for a comment\"... he gave them the entire story as part of an \"agreement\", which is where the break from standard journalistic practices occurred. ",
"Isn’t fallacious giving head? ",
"Fact check with these three random websites and treat them as authority. Oh what could go wrong here?",
"But really when \"the right\" is trump and co, is anything sensible not left leaning anymore?",
"Sure. You can say whatever you want to about that.\n\nHowever, people upvoting false information purely because they don't like the sub is still a propaganda fueled circlejerk.",
"This is how sane liberals/Democrats feel about Red State, The Hill, The Economist, and WSJ. \n\nThis is how sane conservatives/Republicans feel about NY Times, WaPo, and CNN/ABC/BBC/NPR.",
"ain't nobody got time for that!",
"Totally on board with this post until I read \"Fact check with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact.\" So, they want you to fact check with democrat-funded websites proven to be politically biased? Example: \n\nhttp://www.allbigly.com/_pics/politifact-is-indeed-fake-news.jpg \n\nhttp://www.allbigly.com/_pics/politifact-is-also-fake-news.jpg\n\nhttp://i.imgur.com/nDhTkfhh.jpg",
"pshh just because *you* don't know the source doesn't mean there isn't one. WHAT??? you think someone would LIE about that??? This is politics, that's unheard of ",
">I'm not ignoring it, I'm just treating it as a non-factor\n\n...",
"Okay well I guess we have very different ideas of what a scientist is. I work with people that I would call climatologists and research meteorologists. They all have PhD's in atmospheric science or related fields and actually do scientific research for a living. I don't feel like someone running a news organization, even one that only covers weather is in that same category. I have a degree in meteorology and assist in research, but I wouldn't consider myself a scientist. \n\nAnd all of that aside, calling John Coleman a climatologist is just even more ridiculous to me. At the most, he could be a broadcast weatherman. My colleagues with PhDs in meteorology wouldn't even call themselves climatologists if they haven't contributed to that field.",
"I'm not sure I follow. One guy from Politico gave Chelsea Clinton interview questions in advance, so its now Politico is not a reputable news source?",
"Commenting just to check back because everyone in my family calls all 3 of those sites fake news. ",
"Everything you just said is such a riddeled mess I don't even know where to begin.\n\nLets ignore hollywood, lets ignore the \"nazis\" on the right. Btw the fact you think everyone in charlottesville was a nazi speaks volumes.\n\nIf you'd care to lets get into something of actual substance and not accusations based on nothings. What do you stand for politically? What do you value most? Who do you look up to in politics? What policy guidelines do you follow? Where did they originate from? How long have you had these convictions?",
"Just wish they had left the point about Snopes, politico and politifact out. The rest is all sound advice. Fact check on your own using several different sources would have been much better advice.",
"If you watch CNN you’re just retarded and like to be entertained ",
">Ugh, we were tested on stuff they never even told us the answer to. Such BS!",
"There is one it’s called the Bible. \n\n\\/eyeroll",
"I think they were asking for a link to a Snopes page where this happened.",
"You’re fake news ",
"> 5th time I've seen this reply.\n\nThe bots are out today.",
"Bias aside, it's bizarre that they're mentioned here alongside Snopes and Politifact, which are primarily fact-checking sites. Politico is just . . . a political news site. An odd choice.",
"Wait, you don't want them to ever cover context? A whole lot of political statements are made using facts to spin a lie.\n\nLike the statement \"Trump is the best president for black people because back employment is at its lowest ever\" The former half of the statement can't really be fact checked, it's opinion, but it's clearly using the (correct) fact about black unemployment to spin a narrative that Trump is somehow solely responsible for the lowest unemployment. If a fact checked site is not willing to put that into a greater context of economic trends, and how they stated under Obama, they are petty useless at informing the reader.",
"Thing is some sources are heavily biased, to the point of changing reporting massively based on opinions and attitudes of the writer. When we say that all sources are biased, it means that all people have at least subtle unconscious biases, it doesn't mean that blatantly one sided reporting is ok.",
"I don't disagree with you that the education system in America has problems that need to be fixed. That doesn't mean half of Americans are \"dipshits\" because they voted for someone you don't like. That's a very conceited thing to think.",
"Good things one can't use facts to paint a false narrative, especially by abusing statistics a little.",
"Here we have the self fellating republican anti-intellectual who believes arguments are won by strawmanning and ignoring the other person's argument until they give up speaking to them.\n\nI'd tell you to go fuck yourself, but you already are.",
"I believe you have the same complaint as:\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du3n51u/\n\nThis was addressed in a follow up comment by another redditor:\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du3q30w/\n\ntl;dr\nBoth were wrong, when Politifact reached out to both Bernie and Trump, Bernie amended his statement to be more truthful. This is reflected in the explanation of the truthfulness rating.",
"Nah, not centrists in general. The subreddit is just mocking the \"enlightened\" ones like the user I was replying to.",
"What fact checking site is noko? Or are you bashing snopes/politifact? If you are can you provide sources proving those sites wrong? ",
"And see, this is where it gets real embarrassing for you. Wanna check out my comment history? I lean slightly right of the communist party lol",
"Fact check with snopes??? Uhhh yea I’m gonna fact check anything snopes says with my own research thanks though.",
">Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact.\n\n[Ah yes, well known sources of unbiased... anything](https://media1.tenor.com/images/bf7bd1d0e471061f71b3c73979daaf43/tenor.gif?itemid=9467057)",
"Snopes, Politico and Politifact LOL",
"I'm always told that but no one can provide examples of it. I mean I'd love to see examplss/sources because so many people say that but no one ever does. ",
"One thing I've noticed that really helps me spot assholes that would just be a waste of time is to listen carefully to the tone of the question.\n\nGenuinely curious people will *ask* questions, while deliberately ignorant people will *say* questions.\n\nNext time you hear someone say something like, \"If we all evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys!\" listen to the tone. Do you hear the condescension? They don't want an answer, they don't want to be enlightened, they don't want to become less wrong about the world, they want to simply dismiss the claim and score a cheap win.",
"You're also free to believe the earth is flat. Why the hell should we care? Why bother telling us about it? ",
"I don't want to be one of those \"everything's getting worse\" people because I'm really not that, but I think we've just turned pretty far away from that sort of community-building. It couldn't be done in the private sector and I feel like lawsuits from publishers or general distrust for government services or Rightist tabloid controversy about tax dollars being used to buy sex books or radical essays would make it an uphill fight to say the least. A few cities might get one but I don't think we'd have the momentum for most towns of a significant size to have an institution like that.",
"Ghostery is an excellent browser extension. It stops auto playing vids and site trackers. Really good privacy protection.",
"What did you think of the Nunes memo? Lot of facts in there. Unfortunately most of them weren't substantiated. ",
"CNN meets all the criteria ",
"Wait who hates fact checking? Is that really what you're implying? ",
"....most western countries have public librarys im sure and i agree that librarys are super duper awezome and important but the way you worded that made me think for a monute you were calling the library a american institution, like they came up with books in buildings or something. Just sounds weird",
"It feels like such a hopeless struggle. Just look at some Facebook news comments if you really want to feel like we’re doomed. As a side note too, I feel like NPR is *a lot* less culpable of this then CNN and even more so in the greater picture, but I make monthly donations to my affiliate, so maybe I’m bias haha. ",
"> I want to be perfectly clear with you guys that many of the people who will be there are National Socialist and Ethnostate sort of groups. I don’t endorse them. In this case, the pursuit of preserving without shame white culture, our goals happen to align. I’ll be there regardless of the questionable company because saving history is more important than our differences. This is probably why they named the event “Unite the Right.”\n\n> Speaking for myself only, I won't be punching right. We need to save civilization first, we can argue about the exact details later.\n\nBest part is how apeshit they went afterwards - it's all Anitfa's fault, the police planned this, the guy that ran over them is an agent provocateur/liberal/had a medical issue/was scared for his life/totally not a Donald supporter, etc. They tried to delete the evidence (I guess forgetting that they're on the internet) and then blamed everyone but themselves. Not surprising considering that's exactly what a 12 year old would do.\n\nEdit: Oops, almost forgot, you said you wanted an archived version - [here ya go](https://web.archive.org/web/20170806023638/https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6rsng3/unite_the_right_in_charlottesville_next_week/)!",
"I’m not sure what you’re asking. Find another example of two authors disagreeing with each other that makes it look like they’re biased towards conservatives that aren’t?\n\nI wouldn’t know the answer to that. I don’t go seeking out anecdotal evidence to discredit certain media outlets. The best I can give you is to look up politicians by name and there’s an archive of what they’ve said. Some times the democrats have said things that were false.",
">fact check stories with poltifact\n\nGive me a break..\n\nPolitifact \"Fake News\" compilation\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/the_asshole/comments/7wwue6/politifact_fake_news_compilation/",
"That example actually isn’t apples to apples. They each used different studies and stats to get to their numbers. Further, Bernie was comparing black youth unemployment to unemployment for other ethnic groups. He exaggerates the numbers, but his point still stood strong. Trump just seems to be pulling numbers out of his ass, and politifact had to do some serious research to find a study that might possibly match up with his statement. ",
"Someone has probably said this already, but libraries are safe havens for crazy people and lovable kooks. I love and support my library as much as I can, but they are a weirdo magnet, and weirdos love fake news. ",
"This means to skip news reports from anonymous authors, which isn't the same as anonymous sources.",
"https://youtu.be/eQRbkon7R6Y",
"By saying,\n\n> Skip anonymous news reports.\n\nare they referring to anonymous sources? If so, I don’t agree on that one. Sources are so often anonymous and for good reason. No political/sports/whatever figure is going to ruin their career by going on the record for information the public “isn’t supposed to know.”\n\nThat’s literally how investigative journalism is supposed to work. ",
"Wow. That almost has fuck all to do with my criticisms of this argument. Guess I was only right about the 'anti-intellectual' part.\n\nGot me.\n\nAm I supposed to let you strawman my argument because we're on the same 'team'?",
"ITT: Stupid cunts who doubt sites like Politico, Snopes and Politifact because they don't give their retarded world view a reach around.",
"Bernie’s number was wrong but his point was valid. Trump’s number was more wrong and it was not attached to any further argument. ",
"Anonymous sources =! Anonymous reporter",
"All excellent points. I would add:\n\n1. PBS news and NPR news are both excellent, highly-regarded resources.\n2. Is someone calling it \"fake news\" simply because they find it distasteful? Objectionable to you and fake aren't the same thing.\n\n3. Is someone attempting to call it \"fake news\" to distract from their own allegedly illegal misdoings? It's not fake news just because you're implicated.\n\n4. Is the person doing the last 2 things named Trump? Definitely not \"fake news\" then.",
"You’re not checking if the source is biased, you’re checking if the source is fake, i.e. fake news",
"why?",
"It's well-known to lean right. Are you maybe confusing it with the Washington Post or something?",
"Politifact ? Seriously?",
"totally not advertising those websites",
"It has a lot to do with your inability to even use ad hominem correctly. ",
"What the fuck.",
"You do actually.\n\nThat's what Fox News/the heritage foundation/Breitbart/most conservative bloggers are.\n\nConsidering the fact that you've decided to read some bullshit screaming all fact-checkers are liars.\n\nWhich means, in your absolutist bullshit worldview for retards, what you read was also false, because those were fact-checkers saying all fact-checkers are false.\n\nTherefore... go back to your hole.",
"I didnt know this... it might be the single most dangerous thing he has tweeted. Enough people stopped vacinating, the long term consequences will be insane..",
" Very good paper. Still owned by the Poynter Center for Media Studies. ",
"I'm sure you can understand why I'm confused by the fact that someone [who advocates the death penalty for illegal immigration](http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7r19ar/i_wish_i_killed_more_illegal_immigrant_charged/dtlm38v) is shocked that people would consider his politics to be racially motivated ",
"There really isn't one that I'm aware of. Always be skeptical of a site that tells you what to think. Snopes will call things false hours into a story when it is literally impossible to determine an objective truth. Unfortunately we are in a time when the only source you can truly count on is your own perception. Try to read both sides of the important stories. Identifying shills is always helpful as well. In my experience, the angrier a comment is, the more likely it is to be false or misleading. It's weird to live in a time where it's really hard to figure out the news with basically an equal and opposite article being published on every story. Whatever you do, don't trust the politics sub on this site. ",
"No it wasn't. \"Trickle down economics\" is literally a slanderous, and largely inaccurate, way to refer to the actual macroeconomic theory of \"supply-side economics.\"\n\nReferring to it as \"trickle down\" is generally a pretty good way to see that someone is either low-information or disingenuous when they're discussing economic policy or theory. ",
"Actually it’s true. I worked in the NYSUT that union is 100% Democratic run. The money taken out my paychecks for Union Dues went directly to fund the Democratic Party. Most unions are Democratic run. The best thing I ever did was resign from my position. I now work for a company that truly embraces my work and growth ideas for the company and gives me lots of headway and I’ve doubled my salary within 6 months. Working in a union I had no upward maneuverability, no recognition, and I got a 5% raise each year that practically amounted to nothing because my health insurance went up 3% each year. After all my dues were taken out I was making $4 an hour but it was legal because the union doesn’t count for all the money they take from you. ",
"Is a Trump support site necessarily a good cross reference point? Accusations of bias are pretty serious and should be followed up with rigorous research. To my mind, piling more bias on top clouds the issue.",
"Don’t get stuck in an echo chamber ",
"You don't really know what Econ is like huh? Socio-economic research has blown up these past few years, and statistics has always been a major player. But please, tell me more about my degree. You're displaying more aggression over your text than I've experienced from any black person or Muslem in real life. And as someone living in a city with a white minority, that's saying something. \n\nI don't know what school you go to, but I've never met anyone in an advanced degree program that would ever act like this, which is why I'm going to assume you're lying. I was hoping this conversation would end with you being a little more skeptical of the assumptions you make, and a little more open to reading real academic journals, but hey, if you want to be an asshole on the internet, feel free. \n",
"Link to where you found this? I tried googling it and I couldnt find it. Sounds more like a response to the thread and not a stickied post. ",
"There is no such thing as conservative fact checking.",
"I just want to say that this is a great response. I don't think there will be any effort by the poster to take a couple of sociology and psychology classes though, especially if they do not care about the \"how\" or \"why\", and would rather focus on the \"who\" or \"what\". I find it funny that statistics are used by the right to immediately assume that answers are simple when in fact they are complex.",
"Yeah same here. I'm at the point now where I'm pretty disgusted with \"both sides\" for various reasons. But dishonesty - especially intellectual dishonesty from people who I assume know better - has been a pet peeve lately.\n\nI think the choice we had in 2016 between the two major nominees summed up my disgust pretty well. I know the old South Park think was Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich, but damn. 2016 made any other election while I've been a voter look like a dream.\n\nI just worry that it won't get any better. That the current state of echo chambers on both sides and using weasel wording to be \"technically right\" or wrong while missing the overall point is just going to drive people further apart and lead to worse candidates. I mean, regardless of who you think was more genuine or would do a better job of fixing it, it seems to me that Trump and Bernie both were pointing to the same basic inequality in the statements PolitiFact reviewed here. I guess that's why it stuck with me for so long - that it's just pointless squabbling over \"right\" and \"wrong\" while nothing is getting done about the real issue they were talking about.\n\nAt any rate, yeah good discussion. Take care!",
"Glad I'm not the only one. Tired of being bullied with their litter, *every year.* this is the 28th one in a row I've had to clean it out of my yard-_-",
"They are extremely biased",
"This is genuinely quite good.",
"Really? What party am i a part of big boy?",
"It’s an XKCD joke :)",
"Lmao...snopes. 2 unqualified liberals sitting on their couches with one of them having a prostitute fetish. Also, CNN should be listed as \"if you see CNN anywhere chances are it is fake news\"",
"No, they actually aren't.",
"The current memo situation is Trump blocked the de-classification of the democrat counter memo.\n\nSeems like Trump's a lying turd and can't accept facts getting in the way of his bullshit narrative.\n\nOtherwise why would he block it?",
"downvoted for not ignoring the answer",
"Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Justin. ",
"Think for yourself and question",
"Judging her history of saying shit like that, i'm not dismissing it",
"Which makes it a good thing they post facts so opinions don't matter.",
"Maybe it's because I've received a degree within the arts that it allows me to spot it easily, but the picture used to nail their point is the most visually appealing image on the card. It's structured in a way that it's not so [central](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_third) but slightly off kilter making feel less dominant. The check icon is an easy sign of approval. Green being the second most appealing color to most within a specific [context](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/digital-leaders/201106/what-does-the-color-you-choose-say-about-you). \n\nPolitifact is known as biased for [either side](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact)",
"Except it is.",
"You’re responding to a comment that was, word for word, the transcription of an XKCD joke. That person does not agree with you. ",
"None are propoganda.",
"As I was growing up, I read a lot of history of science books. One of the most important lessons I learned was that scientists make mistakes. Sometimes, they make deliberate mistakes. If a scientists dealing with hard facts can make mistakes then anyone, especially reporters and journalists can make mistakes. I think that should be taught in school. Scientists, historians, politicians, etc., can and do make mistakes. Teach children also how to find mistakes and outright lies by experts. ",
"I love the spirit, but does \"check the url. Does it have any odd suffixes or substitutions\" really deserve the second spot?",
"I can attest to what he's claiming. There are thousands of examples, but they are so nuanced that only someone digging 3 steps deeper than the point being argued would be able to see the errors. There is certainly an art to political fact-checking.\n",
"That flyer is fake news",
"That is utter nonsense.",
"You are missing the point. \n\nDo you see how the left insists WE MUST accept them as totally legit and valid and not to be questioned because they have “fact check” slapped onto it. The issue is, nobody ever agreed to that. Liberals just pushed it, and then acted like everybody agreed. \n\nThe truth is, you can’t trust anything. Read everything. What both sides agree on is probably the closet to the truth. ",
"downvoted for not understanding the South Park reference",
"I got to go fact-check if Snopes, Politico, and Politifact are reliable fact-check websites.",
"To all the clowns suggesting that Snopes and Politifact are completely biased and untrustworthy: How about using their sources, which are always present in the article? It's not like they pull things out of thin air. When they write their fact checking articles, they provide citations for which you can follow the link and verify it yourself. \n\nCan't say the same for Breitbart, Daily Caller, and the like. \n\nAnother tip is how to search Google for reliable information. Your search can be filtered for top level domain names such as gov or edu by using site:*.gov or site:*.edu in your search string. This avoids any junk from potentially biased sources using your keywords. ",
"He this is library",
"Mary, Mary! Mary it’s me George!\n\n*screams*\n*faints*",
"Consider the people/groups telling you the opposite of this.",
"See http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/snopes-caught-lying-about-lack-of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/",
"Holy shit \"haha you lost the argument because you guessed my team wrong\" stretches into its third comment reply.\n\nMeanwhile I'm still sitting here wondering why you think it's okay to strawman my argument 'because I'm on this team not that one'\n\nOr how one uses 'ad hominem' incorrectly or what the fuck you think that term means.",
"Whew, shook 'im. He's calling names and shit. Shook. ",
"Yeah and the fact that fucking politico isn't a good fact check. The fuck?",
"Trump mis-used the term in an attempt to discredit any news he disagreed with.\n\nIt was very disingenuous and laughably transparent.\n\nThe dumbening is progressing nicely.",
"I think you're right, and that scares me a lot.",
"I think what they meant was \"Trump said a lot of things that were obviously false, but Hillary almost always said a lot of things that meant nothing but pretended that they supported the argument\" which is basically what politicians make a living off of.\n\nFor example, Hillary-style-- \"Do I think women are disadvantaged in the workplace? Well we see so much that women aren't given opportunities they deserve and when I'm president I'm going to fight for women. Domestic violence, workplace discrimination, sexual violence are all issues I will fight for because they are holding our country back, when women aren't given workplace equality we can't progress as a nation\" All of that can be reasonably agreed with, but there's no actual assertion that facts show women are discriminated against in the workplace, which means there's nothing anyone can point to and say \"no that's not true\".",
"ragequit 2.0 now even ragier",
"From your link: \"Politifact admits they were wrong...\" That proves they're not fake news. They made a mistake and issued a retraction. I don't think you know what \"fake news\" means.",
"It’s not because it’s “someone I don’t like.” How can you read what I just wrote and think that’s all there is to it? Yeah, I don’t like him as a person, but since he is the *leader of the fucking country*, it’s about a little bit more than a personal distaste. This is going to negatively impact us for *years*, and by “us” I am including his supporters. Voting for him was a dipshit thing for them to do, but supporting him, especially to this day, does make someone a dipshit. \n\nIt needs to be said. It’s not something to be polite about. It’s the fate of the goddamn world. ",
"yeah they should go back to fox news!",
"Scrolled up to see if someone made a spelling error and they didn’t and now I’m really just super confused at your comment....",
"Redditors would fit that bill. ",
"Not the same thing /facepalm",
"Snopes, Politifact and Politico spread FakeNews too.\n\nSeems counter productive to rely on them.",
"I can believe it, I'd just like to see it for myself.",
"No, they're referring to articles written by anonymous authors.",
"People in general consistently believe fake news and can't critically think (yourself included, given the link you posted...). You aren't being any less delusional or obnoxious than a 'typical' trump supporter.",
"Good for them.\n\nNo one is more at fault for Russia's successful meddling in the election than the American people and politicians who have gutted education spending and curriculum for the last 30 years or so. \n\npropaganda only works when people are too ignorant to be able to independently evaluate the validity of information, a skill that every school is suppose to teach students. \n\n",
"No there is unbiased fact checking.\n\nThe fact of the matter is, when reality is based around a certain set of facts and context, and one side relies on that to make policy, and the other side does not, the other side will never ever believe or want their base to believe them. The entire policy of the GOP relies on lies. Lies about climate change, lies about racism, lies about inequality, lies about how the economy works, lies about how society works, lies about who or what people believe in, lies about the danger of drugs,(certain types of drugs), and more and more and more lies. \n\nI have a co-worker who I engage with who has bought into the numerous lies. Every time I engage with him in a calm manner and try to ask him as many questions as he asks of me(because at this point every time I try to point out fault in his logic or thinking he just circles back to something else, so might as well try to get him to try and think as often as possible on as many different subjects as possible) I can literally see the conflict going on in his head, he's either getting enraged or upset as his eyes get redder and watery. These people have inferiority complexes and a shit ton of their ideology and well-being buried within their identity complexes.\n\nThere's a shit ton more to go on about but you'll probably ignore it anyways.\n\n\n\nIt's fucking tribalism, and the more Fox news lies to the idiots who don't get an education because they vote for people who destroy their education systems to brainwash them more easily the worse this is gonna get.\n\nThe whole \"state's rights\" bullshit was egregious as hell and exceedingly successful in rewiring their base to completely forget what the civil war was fought about(and or make it seem like it was fought for a more noble reason(specifically during the Obama administration as a tactic to scream against federal intervention into shit tier states destroying their populations))\n\nMany of our institutions aren't biased.\n\nBias claims by any on the right are just their way of slapping ad hominem attacks on things they don't/want to understand and would rather immediately discredit so they don't have to deal with the awful feelings of having their worldview challenged.\n\nIgnorance is fucking bliss.",
"And because they often report lies ",
"You’re the type I’m talking about. Dealing in absolutes and essentially shutting down any potential conversation based on one thing that doesn’t fit your world view.",
"It's a shame. Especially because the poster said he was in the process of graduating with a \"PhD in Statistics\". You'd think that someone with enough favor to even lie about getting a degree in something, would show it at least a little respect. Correlation is not causation is something they teach first-year students for Christ's sake. ",
"NEVER TRUST ANONYMOUS SOURCES, NEVER",
"Giving a different meaning to events is not summarizing the case. Denying the sentence given by the court and pushing an agenda contrary to it is also not summarizing the case.\n\nIt's extremely ironic that Fox News of all places provided the better summary. It's short, it's 100% factual [the event described is simply a court decision to not indict someone in a case], it has no loaded words and provides no opinion from whoever wrote it. Meanwhile CNN's is clearly intended to make you feel sorry for the \"unarmed black teen\" [despite what the court verdict says] and revolted against the court that gave a sentence in favor of the cop. The difference is pretty damn obvious, especially when the other guy was claiming that CNN would never ever swear on my pinky finger do such a thing as portraying people and events in the light that's most convenient for them.",
"No you're projecting!",
"But people are gonna just read the headline, assume the answer is yes, and share it on Facebook anyways.",
"No, it was initially used to call out blatantly fake stories circulated on Facebook and Twitter, with made up headlines and misleading pictures.\n\nI remember one that made it to the top of /r/the_d which showed loads of refugees and stated 'This is the Italian border today'.\n\nIt was actually a photo of refugees fleeing Syria into Turkey (where about 90% settle), taken several years prior.\n\nTrump then decided to use the word for any news he didn't like, and his drone-like followers ate it up because it suited their narrative.",
"> It's extremely ironic that Fox News of all places provided the better summary.\n\nThey didn't provide a summary, they reported the outcome without context of what the case was about.",
"Liberal liberals liberals.\n\nMUH LIBERALS",
"The problem is that headlines are the only news most people read. News sources can heavily influence public opinion by reporting the whole truth and having an entirely true headline that isn’t really even misleading.\n\nLet’s use cars as an example because cars are pretty apolitical. A magazine does research on a car brand’s product line. The facts are that brand X produces very safe cars, in fact all of their cars get 5 star safety ratings. Despite this, owing to differences between the inherent safety of various vehicle classes, some of the cars are slightly safer than others in the company’s product line. You can honestly report all of this and write very different headlines. Those headlines are what people will take away.\n\nYou could literally write: “Brand X’s mid sized sedan is the least safe vehicle made in their factories.”\n\n“This pickup is the safest vehicle we’ve ever tested from Brand X.”\n\nOr “Every Brand X vehicle blows safety ratings out of the water!” \n\nThey’re all true but will serve to send different signals to the reader as to what cars you should buy.\n\nIn politics you see this with the debt issue. A deficit hawk will claim a bill adds billions to the national debt and someone in favor of high spending will point out that the bill cut projected spending on vital programs by billions. Both are true. You can fully cover the issue in the article but which version you use as the headline will color people’s perception of the issue. \n\nRace issues are very similar. You see all the time that blacks are mainly killed by other blacks vs blacks are disproportionately killed by cops vs more whites are shot by cops vs blacks are more likely to be charged with a drug crime despite similar levels of drug use... They’re all true and the bias is shown in which absolutely true story you want to get in front of the public at that moment. \n\nTLDR: it’s not just how honest you are in the things you say, it’s which things you decide to say.",
"Sorry added [the link](https://web.archive.org/web/20170806023638/https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6rsng3/unite_the_right_in_charlottesville_next_week/) in an edit but that might have been after you read it. Also, I found that link from https://redd.it/6tbb2y which in turn I found by googling \"the donald charlottesville reddit\". Enjoy!",
"Fact check with snopes lol",
">Snopes\n\n>Politico\n\n>PolitiFact\n\nStopped reading there\n\n",
"exactly. Fuck the netflix interface on PS4",
"In other words don't trust any media outlet they are all full of shit",
"Jesus christ disgusting",
"I don't think you know what fake news is.",
"I can say the exact same thing about CNN, though.\n\nPretty much all news outlets lie and spread blatant propaganda. That's why you check multiple sources from all sides to figure out the truth.",
"Nether Sean Hannity nor Rush are news though. Sean says at least once an hour that he is a political commentator and that he is not unbiased, and don't even get me started on Rush. That man has an ego the size of the moon.",
"That seems, at best, an error, and at worst, a lie. Though I don't see why they would lie, maliciously, about something so entirely insignificant. You'd think if it was a coordinated lie they wouldn't swipe the image from a known left leaning think tank that marked the image as a picture from Day 1. Really just seems like error to me, and not a very significant one.",
"Use it to prime your first furnace! A symbolic gesture that stone is now king - until the first iron is found...",
"Ew.",
"SNOPES!? Are you kidding me?! That's THE #1 propoganda site!",
"I understood that ref, but you just had poor commitment to the original idea",
"Pretty much the first thing I thought. \n\nSo actually, this card is pretty much just for all the people out of the loop on current events that don't have any strong opions. ",
"Don't trust anonymous news reports...\n\nSo almost none of the claims about trump\n\n\nPS...check with politifact?...that's some funny shit",
"The media after the election made a big push on this because we saw through their bullshit. It was a term designed and pushed to discredit non establishment sources and then it got co opted.\n",
"\"This creates a deeply unsettling environment in which when one tries to fact check the fact checker, the answer is the equivalent of 'its secret'.”\n\nhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/\n\nSnopes politically is garbage and was started to determine which urban legends were true. My question is, having done no research on it, why are you such a vehement supporter? Why discredit those users who are asking questions? Why call names?",
"I'm trying to be cool but your first link doesnt work and the second shows the deleted thread which I already found on my own. \n\nedit: nevermind got the first one to work",
"Yes. That's why having real journalists and knowing their reputations is good. Someone who won a Pulitzer isn't going to publish a lie about anonymous source for a few page views and put their name on it.\n\nSadly, people don't want to spend their money to get news anymore, so here we are.",
"That’s what I thought, I just wasn’t sure if “an unnamed source says that...” would qualify as an “anonymous news report” by their leaflet.",
"That's some even more advanced paranoia.",
"Where can I get copies of this leaflet? Asking for a mother-in-law",
"No one outside of fox was critical over it. They were all very much in the bag for Hillary. If the MSM had done even a sliver of due diligence, she would have been forced to drop from the race. \n\nI mean seriously, Hillary was under investigation for criminal activity, and the MSM still protected her. I would like for you to name a time when that has ever happened before in the history of the US? ",
"Not what I said. I’m saying one side might be more susceptible to fake news. However, both sides claim that the other side is more susceptible so him accusing the “one side” doesn’t tell us what side he’s on...\n\n...Other than the fact that he’s on reddit so he’s probably liberal (just cause that’s typically what the site leans toward)",
"Exactly what I was thinking. If there's any kind of sharing involved, you can get people will start screaming socialism/communism. ",
"[Because bears need to consume large amounts of calories, and without their acute sense of smell they might have a hard time finding many kinds of food](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9alpq1D_xU).",
">Issued a retraction in secret months later.\n\nPlease, is this the best you can do?\n\nNEXT!",
">See, you still haven't worked out that you never argued against my original point - despite me repeatedly telling you so.\n\nYeah. You managed to convince yourself of that by using a strawman of what I actually said. Hence my \"Okay then, fuck off\" reply.\n\nI will say that I am in awe of your smugness, considering. I mean fuck, look at you go. \n\n> Even if I were to be\n\nYou're even bringing out the /r/iamverysmart verbal diarrhea \n\n>though, I admit, I only took it at a tertiary level\n\nlol",
"You're grasping at straws. Ferguson case was one of the most prominent police shooting cases in the past decade [in no small part due to CNN's efforts to push an agenda] so much so that you'd have to be living under a rock to not know about it. Not only that but the picture is of a Twitter post, the most bite-sized form of news. A summary usually needs prior context to be understood, all news posted by press agencies on Twitter mean jack shit for someone who has no idea about the issue discussed in them due to their brevity. If you are indeed out of the loop you google or click the link to the article [if available], you don't rely solely on a 140 character text.\n\nI repeat, a summary implies a truthful recollection which is not the case in CNN's post. It contradicts the court's decision, therefore it's not truthful and thus it's not a summary, it's clickbait to say the least.",
"Examples of those sites spreading \"*FakeNews*\"?",
"Again... let me reiterate. **I misread the comment chain.** This means, my comment was made under incorrect impressions of what was being said in the discussion.\n\nThough, my comment may have smacked of snark, I thought it was genuinely germane until I went back and reread the conversation. I've said this to you twice, now. So your reply/rebuttal to me hinges on being moot.\n\nHopefully, we can conclude that it was a misunderstanding on my part, and that my comment would have been relative had my interpretation of what was being debated been correct.",
"Yeah, I know how you \"it's just a hypothetical\" \"I'm just playing devil's advocate\" candy-ass racists hate examples.",
"Sorry r/politics, we've found you out. ",
">You are missing the point.\n\nSeems to me that you're evading my questions.\n\nFact checking is a service people want. There are several sites whose purpose is to provide fact checking. The most prominent of these sites are accused of having a left leaning bias.\n\nYou ask, \"Why should these sites be deemed THE SOURCE for fact checking?\"\n\nIf no better alternative fact-checking websites exist, how does that question even make sense? To choose a specific site as \"the source\" for fact checking implies that you're choosing between alternatives. If there's no alternative, then by default people are going to use what's available, provided these sites are serving their purpose (providing accurate analysis and demonstrating a reasonable level of journalistic rigor).\n\nEverything I've said in this post seems fairly uncontroversial, so I'll assume we agree on this so far (tell me where we disagree if not). Given that, your question seems to imply that better alternatives exist. What are they?\n\n>Read everything. \n\nYep, we agree on that point.",
"That’s textbook confirmation bias. So ... I post a case where they are wrong majorly and you double down?",
"I don’t trust this post. Looks like fake news.",
"Ah a class on how to read a newspaper or watch the news for 20 mins. Sounds like a lot of work",
"Really? Cause she lost the election, you guys really should get over her already.",
"Are you agreeing with me or saying I'm paranoid?",
"Can confirm, on reddit. \n\nThat said, it's because I much prefer the discussions in the comments which I'll eventually infer all of the relevant information and see different perspectives on the topic. ",
"Problem?\n\nBtw pretty much anything you see on tv these days is politicized and fascinated one way or the other, I would never trust TV assholes.",
"An important piece of info missing from that leaflet and most people who warn against “fake” news: credentialed news can and often do get things wrong, too. Many times false reporting happens as innocent error, and sometimes not so innocent.\n\nJust because the source has a well known name doesn’t mean everything they publish should be blindly swallowed as the end-all-be-all truth. Question everything.",
"Buy those nail beds!?!?",
"Austria's pretty fucking right wing then, if American Democrats could be leftists there.",
"No, it was initially used to call out blatantly fake stories circulated on Facebook and Twitter, with made up headlines and misleading pictures.\n\nhttps://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf\n\n> In our fake news database, we record 41 pro-Clinton (or anti-Trump) and 115\npro-Trump (or anti-Clinton) articles, which were shared on Facebook a total of\n7.6 million and 30.3 million times, respectively. Thus, there are about three times\nmore fake pro-Trump articles than pro-Clinton articles, and the average pro-Trump\narticle was shared more on Facebook than the average pro-Clinton article. To be\nclear, these statistics show that more of the fake news articles on these three factchecking\nsites are right-leaning.\n\nWorth reading that entire study (you won't).\n\nhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-42487425\n\n> In August a devastating hurricane hit the Americas - it was so powerful it broke records, becoming the first category-six storm ever.\n\n> \"Irma, strongest hurricane, recorded category six,\" warned Alex Jones of American website InfoWars, broadcast to more than 750,000 followers on Facebook.\n\n> Except it wasn't. Category six hurricanes don't exist. It was fake news.\n\n> Maybe you saw the story. It was shared more than two million times from numerous Facebook pages. Someone you know probably believed it - a friend, a colleague, maybe your grandmother.\n\nAnd this more awful example:\n\n> In the hours after six people were killed and 50 injured in a terror attack in London, UK, on 22 March, a photograph was widely circulated of a woman wearing a hijab and talking on the phone on Westminster Bridge, the site of the attack.\n\n> Thousands shared the picture claiming the woman, as a Muslim, was indifferent to the suffering of victims around her. #BanIslam was one hashtag circulating with the image.\n\nFucking stupid, hateful, gullible cunts.\n\nMore examples:\n\nhttps://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/dont-get-fooled-by-these-fake-news-sites/",
"Ad hominem is fake news. ",
"You guys are so easy to manipulate. ",
"> bias\n\nBiased. Bias is not an adjective.",
"Dude your EVADING MY QUESTION.\n\nA site like this has no credibility. Only with those on the left. Yet we are expected to believe they are credible. Well who decided that? If you can’t answer that, then yeah, I am right. Nobody agreed that they were EVER a reliable source for anything. Liberals did.\n\nThe issue isn’t alternatives, the issue is the overall point. Nobody ever agreed that this was a reliable source. Some people said it was, some people said it wasn’t. \n\nIf it’s a service everybody wants, then there has to be agreement and there has to be credibility. Nobody granted them credibility ... but liberals. ",
"Yeah I predicted that response. \n\nIn fact, Buzzfeed has a separate [investigative reporting](https://www.poynter.org/news/digital-digging-how-buzzfeed-built-investigative-team-inside-viral-hit-factory) department that houses some highly respected and seasoned reporters and has itself won several industry awards. People who follow news and journalism know this. People who don't still think Buzzfeed = listicles.\n\nSo... you just keep digging yourself in deeper. And this is a pretty sad character flaw, to double down on ignorance rather than acknowledge that there are things to learn from other people in the world. Laugh it up, man. You're only limiting yourself.",
"> Because their credibility is on the line, and the credibility of the organization they work for is on the line.\n\nNobody is ever going to figure out if they lie so again why should I trust them ",
"That article was published on August 8, 2016. I did my stuff before that. Here is a post from the_donald where I posted my findings on August 2, 2016. 6 days before the Snope article. In my defense, I didn't know what kind of sub it was.\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4vuism/so_i_got_into_an_argument_recently_about_trump/\n\nThis is the Washington Post article in question. It is interesting how your article talks about how the quote is disputed yet their other article about the quote makes no mention of that.\n\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/20/25-people-places-and-things-donald-trump-has-denounced/?utm_term=.44a9d598f74d\n\nIt does seem I was mistaken about the Interview. You're going to have to give me a break on that one. I was trying to recall information from 1.5 years ago. \n\nGo ahead and look at my post with the research to find the explanation of why it took so long. Yes, it was easier for you to do since you had the Snopes article that was written several days AFTER I researched everything. You're right. It is easier to research when someone has done it already. That wasn't the case here though. Maybe you shouldn't assume things.\n\nAs far as me simply reading the Snopes article and claiming it was my research is concerned. How do you explain my post that was posted 6 days before the Snopes one?\n\nI'm not going to bother quoting your post to make sure you don't change anything because that's a dumbass thing to do. But please answer my question for me. Do you think I am a time traveler?",
"Lmao username fucking relevant ",
"Yeah you can do all of those things just by checking it out on Snopes. ",
">I did a google search for \"\"it's true, but we don't like the comparison\"\" and (unsurpringsly) came up with nothing, so it is clear that that quote is actually not a quote at all. It seems you are misleading about that one, so what other ones might you be misleading about? Can I get some links?\n\n\nI was using hyperbole, that isn't literally what they said but it's the just of it.\n\nhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/17/america/meme-compares-spending-undocumented-immigrants-typ/\n\n\nThey say that they ruled it mostly false because we're not spending that money on every immigrant child, and \"the money isn't going into the pockets of immigrant families as American family earnings are\".\n\nSo basically, \"we don't like the comparison\". I can agree that it might be somewhat misleading because we're not spending the money on every immigrant, but I'd at least give it a \"somewhat true\" because the numbers are still accurate.",
"Alright, can I get a source?",
"That's really not how it works.",
"I think the first part of that bullet point is more important. A writer who has proven their credibility is probably more likely to have legitimate anonymous sources than an author who hasn’t proven their credibility. \n\n\n\nEven still, the politics sub would have nothing. ",
"Trump/GOP, the fuckers who are super homophobic but continue to get outted as gay later on, the fuckers who are family values but continue to get found out with mistresses and beating their wives.\n\nThe GOP who are \"pro-life\" but anti-life as they don't give a flying fuck about making sure the kids survive past childbirth.\n\nLook no further for people you can trust to give you the truth.\n\nNumbnuts.",
"Yeah, people forget that the standard for a public official is false and malicious. It’s hard to prove something is false and nearly impossible to prove it was published out of malice unless the publication are morons who send emails back and forth containing enemies lists or plots to lie about people.",
"\"Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact.\"\n\nlol.",
"They should make a browser plugin that filters news sites based on these rules...",
"I did go to school 25 years ago, things may have advanced a bit since then.",
">fact check with Snopes, Politico and Politifact\n\nbecause they are the guardians of truth?\n\n🤔\n\nThis leaflet is an ad to these sites. ",
"Yeah, sometimes the web archive takes a few moments - the hamster on the wheel that they use for power needs to be prodded awake from time to time. ;)",
"Fantastic.",
"Pure political theater. If Republicans gave a flying fuck about FISA they wouldn't have signed it again. ",
"That's literally most of the points on this thing",
"Didn't know the name for it, makes sense.",
"Nope. I knew it could sound like that. I just meant that it's one of the more egalitarian components of American society, and the spirit of sharing/community-building is not too common, especially these days. As another poster above mentioned, a proposal to start a library system like the one we've enjoyed would be met with scorn and ridicule. ",
"The people who should be reading this don’t get into libraries. ",
"Why should I ask questions?",
"Extensions, customizability, multi-platform support, no one has ever used the touchbar, lightweight.",
"Snopes politico politifact might as well have info wars on there ",
"You've seen this before? Is this a popular thing that tons of people know about? ",
"Words of wisdom",
"You are quoting me and then denying what I'm saying with no *tangible* proof. The problem with you making all these claims I'm wrong without any credible proof is that it makes your statements vs my arguement unsubstantial \n\n>Your side is the one with grainy pictures and zero real argument. You are aware of that, right?\n\nIt's funny. You say I have no real argument as if having an argument makes one of us more right. What makes someone right is if they are honest with others and also honest with themselves if proven wrong and if their information is undoubtedly correct.\n\nThe problem with \"your side\" is that your information comes from echo Chambers, your fact checkers are ran by people that live in echo Chambers and no matter how many studies I link or major publications I cite, you can't imagine you're possibly wrong.",
"You're proving the point of OP's picture by not reading the entire article and thinking critically about it.\n\nFrom the [article](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/24/donald-trump/donald-trump-calls-400-million-payment-iran-ransom/):\n\n>In reality, the United States owed Iran $400 million as part of a longstanding dispute, and negotiators used that pending settlement as leverage to release the detained Americans. Experts said this kind of exchange is standard issue in U.S.-Iran relations over the past few decades.\n\n",
"Critical thinking is about analyzing your own thoughts and beliefs in a way that leads to more accurate and reliable thoughts and beliefs.\n\nIf you are interested in learning how to do that, that's wonderful. I'm sure you already do, to some extent, as everyone no matter their intelligence does to some degree. But practice and guidance make all the difference in improving any skill and critical thinking is just that, a skill.\n\nI would suggest simply starting out with a curriculum dedicated to guiding you, like [this one](https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-critical-thinking/wiphi-fundamentals/e/introduction-to-critical-thinking) from Khan Academy. If that is too basic for you, there's a good list of [advanced strategies](http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-in-everyday-life-9-strategies/512) to try here. \n\nGood luck!",
"She did it because she cared about you",
" Yes, they are. It's been proven many times how biased they are. ",
"What are you talking about? They literally spent the their week before the election talking about it. The Comey letter and resulting media coverage from literally every network was probably the single biggest factor in the election.",
"Well now it's gone from sad to boring. You'd think people who are so dedicated to internet trolling would at least be creative.",
"> You're grasping at straws.\n\n...\n\n>Not only that but the picture is of a Twitter post, the most bite-sized form of news.\n\n\"Besides, the thing we're talking about doesn't even matter\"\n\nBut I'm the one grasping at straws...\n\n>I repeat, a summary implies a truthful recollection which is not the case in CNN's post. It contradicts the court's decision, therefore it's not truthful and thus it's not a summary, it's clickbait to say the least.\n\nThe court decided that he wasn't shot? Or that the officer didn't shoot him?\n\nMan. These straws sure are sturdy.",
"A good fact checking article will include a list of sources for the facts stated in the article. Anyone can verify that those sources do indeed back up the fact checking article. \n",
"Snopes ??? Is that a misprint? They are is bad as they come, talk about fake news",
"[It's not even Wikipedia contested](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal). \n\nBecause it was always a more corporate-oriented newspaper, it always skewed more to the right than WaPo or NY Times, but it started drawing lots of ire from the same people who criticize Fox New's conservative bias after Murdoch (the owner of Fox News) bought the paper, and... um, made WSJ indisputably even more right-leaning from the perspective of political observers I respect on both the right and the left. \n\n[Rather than link to a number of other articles that are just articles, you can also see this website's analysis](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/) (which is actually more dubious perhaps than countless other NYTimes, WaPo, Fox News stories, and more than say the same thing, but I'm just trying to give you the broad, uncontroversial strokes: WSJ is a right-leaning organization), this media analysis organization refers to WSJ as factually being rated as high, but right-leaning. Which, I agree with, but as a liberal myself, get annoyed when people don't point out insane fake news alt-right editorial pieces slip through so often. But editorial pieces for any paper shouldn't reflect entirely on the quality of their actual journalism. ",
"Tim Pool is a liberal investigative journalist. The video has response emails from the team that did the study itself.",
">This was posted in this thread by someone.\n\n>What he said was absolutely factually true, yet it's rated as, \"mostly false,\" cause he shouldn't take credit for it. Also, their main source is Cato, who hate Trump (as do I, and I'm a libertarian who tends to agree with them).\n\n\nYeah it's mostly false, he gets no credit as he did no work.\n\nIt is mostly false. He states the statistic as if he did it. That was the whole point of his statement.\n\nYou're also a libertarian who is the fuck you I got mine crowd.\n\nGovernment should only do what you want it to and make sure we don't shoot you for your shit.\n\nWell when you have all the shit, and we got nothing else, what do you expect us to do?\n",
"You mean, they'd have nothing other than articles based on Trump's own recorded words (videos, Twitter, audio), which already make up a large portion of their submissions.",
"It was good until Snopes and Politico.",
"Thanks for dropping the facade, troll.",
"Because they are reliable fact checkers, despite the right wing propaganda machine trying to discredit them as \"liberal\" (because they have a bias to truth and reality instead of conservatism). ",
"I can’t believe it’s come to this.",
"https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVx3YQOXkAUzGsg.jpg:large",
"Look for the date of the news story. \n\nHalf the click-bait articles I've seen (including many from Reddit) are from 2 or 3 years ago. It doesn't mean the story is wrong. It just means there's no point getting worked up about something that happened 2 years ago and is being presented as if it's \"news\". And it could be that much of the \"news\" has changed since it's publication.",
"What? It's a job they don't protect anything. Thank the security guard maybe? ",
"Do you have a *source* for that? ",
"*Ad hominem* is specifically an attack on the source of an argument rather than on the argument itself. While this can take the form of an insult, it is not necessarily the same thing.\n\nFor instance, if NAMBLA came out with a study that claimed that pedastry had major health benefits, people would be understandably skeptical that the study was in fact valid and hadn't just been made up. Suggesting that NAMBLA is not a reliable source of data on the benefits of pedastry is an *ad hominem* argument, but there are entirely reasonable reasons why you would be skeptical of NAMBLA producing such materials.\n\nLikewise, suggesting that an industry funded study on the safety of some product might be biased is an *ad hominem* argument.\n\n*Ad hominem* arguments are appropriate if there's a reason to believe that the person making the argument or presenting data might be doing so in a systematically dishonest or biased fashion due to who they are or what opinions they hold, or if the argument is in fact a proxy argument for something else (for instance, the USSR countering American complaints of human rights abuses in the USSR with [And You Are Lynching Negroes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes)). Likewise, if someone is exhibiting selective morality, *ad hominem* arguments might be appropriate - i.e. the person in question is doing the action they are criticizing, so they must not really think that poorly of it.",
"Yeah all three are pretty biased",
"I bought a pack to sprinkle around in various places. \n\nI've been instructing kids for years that although the media changed from dead trees to bits, the rules for bullshit detection remain constant. \n\nOnline makes it harder in some cases but adds some ways to BS check we didn't have with dead trees. :-)\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"Anonymous news reports means news reports where there is no author of the article. Not news stories with anonymous sources which have been a mainstay for generations.",
"I dont really understand enough to know what the differences are between your system and australias or uks. Why is your system of librarys so much better? Genuine question",
"The problem is, this set of rules for analyzing information means nothing if you already have a clear prejudice about issue. Every single rule on the card suggests that you should judge information based on opinion, and not fact. They just feed the partisan war where \"one side\" love to to call the \"other side\" ignorant and simple, and it goes in both directions. There is simply no need for blanket terms like \"fake news\". \n\nFake news is a buzzword, it's a propaganda term in itself. It's a way for media companies to say \"hey look out for fake news\" in an attempt to gain credibility with their audience as a guardian. 'Bullshit' is what I like to call bullshit. People have been slinging bullshit in all directions ever since a god created this planet. There's no need to lump it into some sort of hot, new epidemic and give Trump's cool new buzzword more power than it already has. ",
"^^^^^^porn",
"I worked within the NYSUT. (Libraries are also affiliated with this union.) That union as in most unions are run by liberals. My dues that were regularly taken out of my paychecks were given directly to the Democratic Party and each union meeting was about you better vote Democrat and then they would throw scare tactics to make you think that your job was at stake. After all of the dues, health insurance, and costs taken out of my paychecks I was making $4 an hour.\n\nThe best thing that I ever did was leave the union and work for an independent run company. I now receive recognition for my worth, headroom for growth, and an opportunity for real company raises. My salary has doubled within the first 6 months since I have started. I am in a better position than I ever was. A million times better than my 7 years spent working within the Teacher's Union. ",
"Nope.\n\nKeep lying though.\n\nThe only reason you tools stopped trusting politifact is because of the newest attack ads by conservative media giants to pain them in a bad light.\n\nALL CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS ARE BIASED TOO.\n\nThen what the hell do you trust for news then? if everything is biased? Oh wait only things biased for you.\n\nGotcha.\n\n",
"\"Truth and facts have a liberal bias!!!\"",
"The Russians, am I right?",
"I'm ready to read your recommended list",
"\"Snopes, politico, political.\" 🤔 lol",
"I'm sorry but this is not a great guide, I'll demonstrate:\n\n* Does the headline sound unrealistic?\n\nDoes it contradict your expectation? Stop reading immediately. Reinforce your bias.\n\n* Check the url.\n\nLook for discrepancies between what you expect and what you got\n\n* Check author's credentials\n\nDiscriminate by author, not all are fit for you to believe them. If the information was sent by someone behind confidentiality it must be false.\n\n* Make sure the headline matches the content\n\nI actually think this is the only fully fledged recommendation that is helpful and can not be twisted as easily. This is authentically good advice.\n\n* Consult and compare competing sources\n\nThis is very good advice, were it not for the next point\n\n* Fact check with Snopes, Politico, Politifact\n\nFind a group of select publications and check all other publications\nagainst those. This statement implies that there are sources that are impervious to manipulation or even human mistake and urges you to find them\n\n* Dig deeper\n\nThis is a good one too, but after the previous ones it can be interpreted as \"if it is doubtful, try to prove it wrong\"\n\n* Beware online filter bubbles\n\nThis would be great if the card hadn't recommended a filter bubble a couple of steps before.\n\n* Be open-minded. Ask questions.\n\nKind of contradictory in a card that poses an *algorithm* for being in the right, no?\n\n\n\nI think if I had to make this card, I would keep it simple ang go:\n\n* You have to doubt everything, and you must start by doubting yourself. Read what you would not normally read and read as much as you can, discuss with other people and try to understand their points of view instead of enforcing yours. Defend your convictions but be willing to change them if you find they were misguided. Be aware of your own environment and how that affects the way you understand situations, be wary of unfounded resistance to new information the same way you are wary of any piece of information.",
"T R I G G E R E D",
"Fact check with politico? Lmao that pamphlet is how to stay current with fake news. ",
"This is EXACTLY what I was thinking. Snopes? Are you kidding me? ",
"It's not even a secret that Obama is Muslim ",
"That has nothing to do with their fact checking. The editorial opinion of Politico does not mean that confirming a factual claim via a Politico fact check article is a bad idea provided their fact checks are reliable. \n\nWhich they are.\n\nAll you are doing here is smokescreening. Trump lies all the time. Fact checks call him out on it non-stop. Failing to point out his non-stop mistruths would be failing at their mission. ",
"It's one example to illustrate the point. I've investigated personally three such cases on Snopes. It takes a lot of effort to do so. \n\nThere's mixed evidence from bigger studies on their overall bias. Unfortunately, the best study showing they're neutral is prior to the 2016 election.",
"I'm not arguing for or against amnesty. I'm only contending that Reagan's position on the topic is not relevant to today's discussion because the situations are widely incongruent. ",
"Treat any news article like you're reading it on April 1st",
"Libraries have been the safe haven of sanity forever.",
"Your strawman is straw.",
"If you think that anonymous sources = 'fake news' then they're right.\n",
"They don't care about sources and facts. They just don't like anything that doesn't advance the right wing agenda. ",
"Sharing/community building is not a american thing. That was a pretty arogant thing to imply. Like do you think everyone is disadvantaged unless born in united states. America is not truly exeptional jn the big picture.",
"The Politifact meter is kind of garbage, the Politifact articles are mostly ok.",
"It’d be that and celebrity tweets about Trump. That sub is a joke.\n\n\nr/neutralpolitics is a lot better. ",
"Alternatively, there are people with very unrealistic ideas of reality",
"After a good conversation with someone who holds a competing view one of the best outcomes is understanding *why* you don't agree. Often there is a deeply buried fundamental disagreement. That is fine, I don't mind people disagreeing, but when they're argument fails simple logic it annoys me.",
"Show me a couple examples of them being wrong. ",
"Wrong. The best way to identify fake news is whether I personally want it to be true or not. /s",
"So true man, this site is a joke. Completely manipulated. This library card would have been great if it didn't specifically list left leaning, propaganda sites to \"verify facts\". Hilarious that lefties dont see the issue here.\n\n",
"Neither the time nor inclination to address your ridiculous, racist strawmen or \"late stage capitalism\" bullshit - free exchange of goods and services will reign until well after you're dead, and \"capitalism's equations\" - congrats, I think you're a ripest idiot I've encountered today.\n\nAssurance is neither bookkeeping nor crunching numbers, and will never be automated until computers are regarded as people and can be sued for their professional opinions, which is what I develop and issue as most of my work. The industry's constant change is just one part of why I will ALWAYS be in business. Every law and regulation (you know, the kind you probably think creates economic prosperity and equality) only creates more work for my industry. The other part of my work is fraud investigation, which will also never go away. Please, peddle your fuckwit level grasp of the world to someone you have a chance of impressing!",
">That's why I've stopped caring about politics and just play Subnautica instead.\n\nThe right choice.",
"“Consult and compare competing sources”\n\n“Dig deeper. Follow up cited sources and quotes”",
"You're a fucking moron.",
"Don't take all your news from Social Media.",
"It is already generally. People just only apply critical thinking towards sources which go against their biases. A conservative will be quick to find flaws in a study made by liberals and vice versa, few will find flaws in a study made by those who agree with them. ",
"> REALLY goes out of its way to provide citations and statistics, but they're out of context, don't present the picture properly, etc.\n\nhey man that's how I coasted through writing essays in college",
"Yet, you're upset enough to read that far back into my history, all because you were shown to be wrong. I'm satisfied with the optics on my side. :)",
"Holy shit. Vox as garbage left?? RT as sensible right?? THE HILL IS ON THE LEFT???",
"Guys make sure you fact check your fake news with fake news sites like politifact, politico and snopes.\n\nIf it matches their stories then it's fake news.",
"Oh wow....autoplay.",
"In other words, be a critical thinker. \nThat would solve half the country's problems right there.",
"But reeling off a string of name-calling without citation to the record is the Height of Intellectualism, apparently. ",
"\"Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact\" but be sure to be \"Be open-minded\". How exactly are you supposed to be open-minded if you've already had your thought process influenced by either Snopes, Politico, or Politifact?",
"While I agree, I'd like to think there is still hope. People need to treat their opinions and beliefs the same way they treat their physical health. \n\nEating junk food is easy, but preparing wholesome food is better for you despite it being harder. The same goes for getting spoon-fed an opinion rather than seeking truth yourself. Sadly much of politics has become the spoon-fed opinions which leads to polarization. We need to put this country on a more wholesome diet of information. ",
"Sounds good. I'm probably already a celebrity there. You *are* a rather fragile and easily rattled bunch.\n\nHalf of your comrades in that weird little cult-bubble are probably trolling *you*. You know that, right? It's just one big clusterfuck of sad, low-information ideologues braying at each other and spreading all variety of brainless ramblings and fantasies. It's literal digital idiocracy.",
"\"Sources close to X say\" \n\n\"Sources familial with X's thinking says\"\n\nSound familiar? ",
"YES!\n\nYour post.\n\nYou made a claim,.. did you just make it up?",
"How very liberal and open minded of you.",
"\"Fact check with Snopes\"\n\n...Right.",
"Dude, there wasn’t a concerted effort to push that term after the election. That is just fact. \n\nPeople using the term didn’t spike up until the media started lecturing us on how we didn’t vote the way they want and didn’t get our news from established media that was lying to us.\n\nThe fact that there is fake stuff out there before this concerted push make what I’m saying not true.\n\nSpeaking of, are you new to the internet? I’ve been using it for 35 years. There’s always been fake shit. That’s what critical thinking skills are for.\n\nBut the marketing effort for “fake news” started after the election, and then they stopped it when it was co-opted by the right when they started calling out the left wing media (Mainstream media’s) blatant fake news. \n\nYour missing the forest for the trees to “be right”\n\nThe whole term was pushed hard after the election because they were mad that Americans wanted America to come back from the cliff and cut out all the far left bullshit. First it was hating on whitey, than it was fake news, than it was Russia (fake), than it was a cartoon frog.\n\nNo, it was just shitty ideas and nobody wanting their county sold out to foreign aliens and we wanted our laws enforced. ",
"Anyone who disagrees with me is a far right troll. There is no way I can be wrong.",
"Fact check with Snopes, Politico, and Politifact? \n\nSo check these left leaning sites because fake news only exists on the right. Literally the only part of this I have an issue with. ",
"Saw this in another post today. Not impressed. ",
"I.e. use common sense",
"Republicans dont visit libraries, they don't believe in them.",
"Twas a wonderful Life.",
"Well done ",
"https://m.imgur.com/gallery/ezyRi",
"Uh huh. Mmm, yes okay. But like do you have a _source_ ? ",
"Brasky once punched a hole through a cow just to see who was coming up the road!\n\nHis family crest is a barracuda eating Neil Armstrong. \n\nBrasky once rode upon a steed perchance to spy a lady. ",
"Yeah they are busy in the library, posting on Reddit.",
"Would you rather be close-minded?",
"I know trump sounds like an idiot every time he says it, but fake news is not only there, it's horrifyingly abundant. ",
"Seriously, the last tip needs to be at the top. ",
"Check snopes.",
"Have fun~",
"Yeah I know Bill Brasky! He's only the father of an my children! ",
">Bernie's number was wrong but his point was valid.\n\nNo, his point wasn't wrong, it just needed more context.",
"Lmao...when right wingers fall into the trap of describing facts as \"left leaning\". ",
"Then the fucking Reaper Leviathan that skulks around the Aurora killed my Prawn. Stabbed him in the eye with a thermal knife for his trouble though. Then I came back with the Cyclops and hit him. Didn't kill him though.\n\nI just wanted him to know I *could've* killed him.",
" Words to live by before reposting things you read on line.",
"> A tankie is a member of a communist group or a \"fellow traveller\" (sympathiser) who believes fully in the political system of the Soviet Union and defends/defended the actions of the Soviet Union and other accredited states\n\nBasically you disagree with his tribe's talking point on the profession of fact checkers so you're a communist.",
"You bet!",
">A site like this has no credibility. Only with those on the left. Yet we are expected to believe they are credible. Well who decided that?\n\nThis is a good time for me to point out that my other question I posed remains unanswered. Here's a [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du406xm/). I bring this up because it's relevant to the topic of credibility - if these sites are providing accurate information, they meet that standard of credibility.\n\nI know it's frustrating to feel like your questions are being evaded though, so I'll give you a more direct answer:\n\n>Yet we are expected to believe they are credible. Well who decided that?\n\nI am deciding that for myself at the moment, because I've asked repeatedly (not just from you) for examples of a lack of credibility, and I haven't seen any that stand up to scrutiny. All I've gotten are one-line answers about articles that were \"majorly wrong\" but when I post that article and ask for specifics and clarification, I get silence. I get links to other articles (about things that Snopes got wrong) that the person I'm talking to clearly didn't read, and when I debunk those articles I get no rebuttal.\n\nI'm happy to be proven wrong. Snopes and the like aren't particularly important to me, all I care about is the truth. Demonstrate this lack of credibility with clear, unambiguous examples, and I'll stop deciding that these sites are viable sources for fact-checking.\n\nI realize you're not asking about me specifically, but rather the public as a whole. I can only speculate that other people are like me - they've looked into some of the criticism of Snopes and other fact-checking websites, and they've found it to be unconvincing. They've also found in their own research into the sources cited on these fact-checking websites that the information reported tends to be accurate and reliable. That is why they've decided these websites are credible.\n\nNow, ***are*** there any alternative fact checking sites that you believe are more credible than the ones we're discussing?",
"EVERY MORNING I CRAP THE BED. ",
"Doesn't fit in a tweet. Must be fake news.",
"r/outoftheloop",
"This but for Windows. You use it do download a better OS.",
"It would have been fine if the librarian didn't suggest websites with left wing bias as neutral sources ",
"The problem is, people are so lacking in self-awareness that they can read this, and ignore the pars of it that show they're reading fake news. \n\nFor example, rejecting anonymous sources. How many Trump stories are based on anonymous sources?",
"More likely he will just delete it.",
"But you should cite that your source is anonymous, not \"Someone familiar with this matter..\" It should be \"An anonymous source that claims to be familiar with this matter had this to say...\"\n\nWhat's really egregious is when articles say things like \"Experts say...\" or \"Some say...\" as these are weasel words. You should be explicit in which experts, or persons are making statements that back up your article. That's another way to judge the quality and veracity of a news article.\n\n",
"Too many people have said that to me, in real life, without a hint of sarcasm. And my country has compulsary voting. ",
"1. Deflection of what I actually wrote.\n2. Who said all MSM is fake? Not me.\n",
"There is too much emphasis on being part of team A or team B instead of going with what you truly believe. Instead of going with how people feel on everything, you get shoehorned into supporting other things by default because you feel one way about a bigger issue as well.",
"No, I'm not new to the internet.\n\nYou said:\n\n> Dude, there wasn’t a concerted effort to push that term after the election. That is just fact.\n\nThen you said:\n\n> The whole term was pushed hard after the election because they were mad that Americans wanted America to come back from the cliff and cut out all the far left bullshit.\n\nWhich is it?\n\nLater, after a load more nonsense, you typed this:\n\n> nobody wanting their county sold out to foreign aliens\n\nLike Russia?\n\nI provided you with examples and studies, you provided me with a confused, rambling, typo ridden wall of nonsense and weird conspiracy bullshit.\n\nTry again.",
"**I like turtles!**",
"My point wasn't that that was fake news lol. It's just the irony that this says \"be open\" when this sub (and reddit in general) is so incredibly biased against any conservative ideology.",
"The fact-checking authorities are editorialized to represent their biases.",
"All that fighting so that homeless dudes could have a place to jack off",
"I think it’s a sad reflection on our society when people are concerned about fact checking the news, that which should be factual.",
"> but then rejected a fuckton of male issues from being covered at all?\n\nconfusedtravolta.gif",
"Skip anonymous news sources. There goes CNN and The New York Times.",
"Like the poster above me you deflect and turn it into something it's not. Now that's the great irony of this little situation. ",
"TL;DR: Uso common sense.",
">Linking me a youtube video is not \"showing me wrong\". \n\nHow would you know this if you haven't watched it? Do you have psychic powers?\n\n",
"Lmfao your sentence still made sense so I didn’t question you...",
"Your library is awesome and you should let the people who work there know that they should feel awesome, too. ",
"The problem with saying someone's argument doesn't make logical sense is that you're implying they aren't logical, which is a few steps away from calling someone an idiot.\n\nSometimes what you think is logical isn't logical to another person based on their own fundamental beliefs. You have to realize that most people do use \"logic\" to get to their conclusions. Their \"logic\" might not be as \"logical\" as you would like, though.",
"Stay strong brother. Ignore the Reddit hivemind. And to all the downvoting people, regardless if you are on the left or right, just take a look at this \nand tell me if you honestly don't think politifact has a bias. I know you guys are mostly liberal but if you're really open minded (lol) check this out https://m.imgur.com/gallery/ezyRi",
"Safari had it too, last time I used it at least :) ",
"It's because you're allowed to get through classes by only remembering 75% of the material on the day of the test.",
"As a librarian I would suggest against using sites like Snopes, Politico and Politifact. These sites often curate their information to benefit their donations and political standings. Might not seem like it but they honestly do. Filter bubble is super important though, cannot be stated enough. Along with being open minded and asking questions. Another good thing to figure out is what news makes you tick and why? Follow it up with further research. If you dislike a certain political opinion, play devil's advocate with yourself just to understand it. I've met plenty of people with simplistic views on the universe yet get upset about certain things only to realise they never understood the things they hate.",
"All the people trashing Snopes / Politico / Politifact all just happen to be The_Donald users. Shocking right.",
"> much more welcoming and kind.\n\nSo are most cults. It doesn't mean they're right or that they actually DO have your best interest in mind. Counter-arguments like these are akin to \"The GOP couldn't be bad, look how many Christians it has!\"\n\nDon't get me wrong, the ad nauseum ad hominem by both sides is beyond stupid. Just doesn't see your point being relevant - or even comforting.\n\n\"The one with the biggest smile has the sharpest knife\" as they say.",
"Snopes, Politico, and Politifact...\n\nThe same organizations that covered Hillary's fat ass when she rigged the primary by denying it all? \n\nNo thank you, but that piece of \"advice\" was hilariously ironic.",
"The AP is a bunch of different papers. Confused me for a long time.\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press\n\n>The AP is owned by its contributing newspapers and radio and television stations in the United States, all of which contribute stories to the AP and use material written by its staff journalists.",
"It was fine until the \"fact\" sites.",
"My dad always said \"Asking questions doesn't make you stupid, *NOT* asking questions is what makes you pretty fucking stupid.\" ",
"That's because they are left leaning biased. It's been documented over and over ad nauseum.",
"I'm really glad to be seeing some sense on this website.",
"> Everything you just said is such a riddeled mess I don't even know where to begin.\n\nThe fact that you can't follow it doesn't make it a mess. \n\n> Btw the fact you think everyone in charlottesville was a nazi speaks volumes.\n\nDidn't say everyone, but even the ones who weren't were at least comfortable marching with them, which doesn't make them much better. I don't know what you call those who make Nazi salutes and chants, but most people would call them Nazi's.\n\nAnd what's the point of your last paragraph? None of that is on topic, and you don't seem all that interested in addressing the issue of Nazi's, white supremacists, and other run-of-the-mill racists coming out of the woodwork under this president, or anything else I said, so why change topics? The fact that you haven't even bothered to defend your own points is pretty telling. It's like there's not much there but empty rhetoric.",
"The bottom line is: \n\nWho decided they are the gold standard? I found it kind of funny how hard Hillary and Democrats and NBC was pushing “fact check” sites.\n\n“Go check the fact check sites”\n\nBecause the media and democrats decided that.\n\nFirst rule of persuasion building/credibility: people have to trust you.\n\nNobody has given any conservative or anybody who can actually be objective ANY REASON to trust these sites. Yet liberals act like we should.\n\nYou are completely missing the point. This isn’t a debate where we score points. The point is, if you want people to trust a “fact check site” it has to be trustworthy and has to BUILD TRUST. People aren’t going to trust it just because liberals insist “it’s the facts,” and especially after, they lie repeatedly or frame things in a very misleading light.\n\nFurther—the mainstream media—who also have become daily liars, who also push these sites — we don’t trust them either. Because they are certified liars. So not only have they done nothing to earn trust (quite the opposite), they have people who have lost trust selling us a site that is supposed to be “trustworthy”\n\nAnd then, liberals call us every name in the book, claim enforcing immigration law in racist (it’s not) lie about trump and lie about us, slander us.... but then they huff and puff when we don’t trust THEIR CONFIRMATION BIAS WEBSITE for left wing ideas and narratives?\n\nYeah snopes isn’t to be trusted.\nPolitifact isn’t to be trusted.\n\nYou cannot be an expert on something or credible until you show a person that you are an expert of where they are at. \n\nMany of democrats voted for trump because democrats flat out lied about shit. They lied about trump. They lied about his policies. They lied about immigration. And when people who voted for obama decided the left and the media were no longer trust worthy, instead of saying, ok we need to be more objective and treat things fairly and not just insult and lie—they double down. Yeah, I will continue to tell people that these sites are complete frauds until they give me an actual reason to trust them. Because they don’t deserve trust because they are frauds. That goes for the mainstream media as well",
"> \"An anonymous source that claims to be familiar with this matter had this to say...\"\n\nWait... do you think 'anonymous source' means that the reporter doesn't know who they are?\n\n",
"Now I'm picturing sweet ol Dorothy the librarian holding a gun side ways while pointing it at a student who didn't pay his dues in time.",
"It's insane how disillusioned people are. I'm a data scientist in a team choke full of PhDs with decades of industry experience. You would expect them to make rationale decision based upon data. But you would rather be surprised how often things are assumed when making million dollar decision based on hunch, while they could have easily verified with data in 10 minutes. There was a time when I had confidence issues, wondering if I was the disillusioned one. I started questioning even stuffs that are quite obvious. At the end of it I realized how dumb someone smart can become when they stop questioning. It was a scary experience.",
"wow, you are blowing my mind with such insightful comments. Using sources with different viewpoints? However did the world survive until you came along with such brilliance? ",
"Funny thing is, as dumb as his replies are if he were on your 'team' you would be completely silent.",
"I'm assuming you're talking about government representatives, however, the main focus of my post was Vote Smart.",
"Which is why it is your job to read and check everything here, that is the point of the article. Checking using politifact/snopes is definitely better than many other options in terms of fact checking (also FactCheck is good), and it is way better than not checking. Reading what the article says, as well as the fact checkers, and using multiple sources is what this whole thing is about, and what you should be doing.",
"Some of these are pretty good tips especially the last one.",
">Blacks kill 6 times more people than whites in the US. Maybe ban them?\n\n-/u/Prethor ",
"Snopes and politifact are heavily partisan and have been know to twist the truth. ",
"Well, now it’s on the internet...they’ll see it!",
"Completely",
"> Wait, you don't want them to ever cover context?\n\nIf they want to \"contextualize\" then they need to do so honestly. Not present information that clearly renders whatever they're fact-checking true (or false) then spending six paragraphs spinning that information into a 'false'/'half-true' (or 'true'/'half-true'). \"Context,\" as you describe it, is editorializing and offering opinion. It's opinion disguised as journalism, which is the largest problem I have with \"fact checkers.\"",
"I don't think he is going to get it. I've had more intelligent conversations while training on chickens in lumby.",
"It's hard to prove that it's been bought by the DNC, but it is undeniable that Snopes and Politifact has a liberal bias. Wait!! I see your cursor moving to downvote because you're thinking \"ugh another person who isn't on MY team, another bastard conservative\". Just hear me out for one sexond\n\nThis redditor isn't being overly paranoid (maybe a little) but it's not blatant paranoia to question a source, that is literally what the picture we are all commenting on right now is saying - to be open minded. Saying that Snopes and Politifact have liberal bias is not blind Trump support, it's literally being open minded - as in - you're open to receiving new information instead of repeating and echoing what everybody else says. \n\nPlease look at this before you downvote, if you honestly think politifact gives every politician a fair shake https://m.imgur.com/gallery/ezyRi",
"Your face is nonsense",
"I see radical wrongs on the left and slightly misleading on the right, not seeing any bias here. ",
"Like Russia—funny how that story fell apart?\n\nFunny how the media isn’t reporting on how the obama admin basically made the whole thing up. ",
"Typo",
"Again, not what that means. Be open is referring to understanding and considering arguements you don't necessarily agree with. The truth is not always in the center. Just because there are people who believe the earth is flat, and there are believe that the earth is a globe doesn't mean that the earth is a cylinder.",
"Neither are reliable.",
"Nope. They DO have a bias, but they still use facts at the end of the day, so nothing fake about it.",
"So, in order to have a valid debate, don't straw-man the other side. What they actually believe is that the likelihood of getting autism from a vaccine is higher than the likelihood of getting a child measles or chicken pox or polio without a vaccine.\n\nThey don't understand that the reason these diseases are so rare nowadays is BECAUSE we vaccinate 99.9% of kids. If no one got vaccines anymore.... hell, if 10% of people didn't get vaccines anymore, their kids would run a serious risk of getting polio or something.",
"This is a strawman.",
"Not sure what you're trying to say? Am I overstating the importance of the library in your eyes? It's a place to meet, to study, to access books/magazines/papers, cd's, movies, and even works of art. In the city where I live, teens use it as a safe space/place to hang out after school. People who lack adequate shelter use it for a warm place to go. Or to get out of the elements. People of all walks of life use it for internet access, which is, of course, necessary for things like banking/payment of bills, or applying for jobs. Reference librarians will help get answers for your questions. They will point the way to appropriate resources. The library is a great leveler in American society. On a personal level, I've gotten too many books and movies to mention from the library. I'm currently about halfway through the Criterion Collection's film library. To purchase these 450 or so films at SRP of about $40 apiece, it would have cost me $18,000. Maybe none of this matters to you. Maybe you don't use the library at all. I can assure you that they do matter a great deal to many others. I don't personally use state parks/trails and things of that sort very much, but I still recognize their value, and am glad to help fund those things so that others may enjoy them. ",
"Reddit users needs this taped to their face. ",
"Since only less than 5% of news is factual on Donald trump always be skeptical ",
"Forgive me for not wanting the government to be in charge of my child's thought training.",
"Librarians are the most malevolent creatures on earth! We must remember the darkness of 1993, as much as we'd all like to forget. Populations of unchecked librarians will always result in the fatalities of innocent and screaming book lovers. If it wasn't for the librarian repellent dispensers mandated by the City Council, death tolls would have been far higher. \nAll visitors are reminded that should they be approached by a librarian, they should remain still and try to make themselves bigger. **Do not attempt to escape by climbing a tree!** There are no trees in the library, and the precious moments it will take you to look around and realize this will allow the librarian to strike.\n",
"fact check with Snopes. \n\nlol I think we found the fake news.",
"What exactly are you saying? I'm trying to decipher your nonsense but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to convey.",
"Brasky took me out to breakfast once. He drank a glass of liquid LSD with his eggs. Then, he slept for 3 months. When he woke up, he blinked a few times and said, “All in all, I prefer gin.”",
"Formerly known as the St. Petersburg Times.",
"Yes yes be open minded! But only cross check the articles facts with these 3 liberal news organizations we told you to cross check against! Once again ask questions be open minded! ",
"Interesting theory. Too bad it's been belied by the many posts claiming Heather Heyer \"died of a heart attack\" and that the numbnuts who ran her over was \" fleeing for his life because he was scared of antifa.\" You know. the guy who's been charged with murder and several other felonies. He was a proud T_D poster.",
"> Are they advocating for seizing the means of production\n\nNo, no, politicians aren't the Soviet-style \"send 'em to the Gulags\" leftists, they're the American-style \"enrich themselves at the expense of the electorate\" leftists.",
"Ladies first. \"Snopes.com\" is the real news in 2018. What a time to be alive. ",
"Im aware of that fallacy. I'm not sure that applies in a world as polarized right now and media that is capitalizing on that polarization.\n\nI'm not saying to literally always believe in the middle ground. Just that in most cases I've seen, one side is generally blowing something out of proportion and even twisting facts so they can blow it out of proportion, while the other is side is downplaying it to the extreme. I've often found that most of the actual news is somewhere in the middle of one person screaming and the other plugging their ears.",
"I don't understand, could you point to a specific example?",
"This needs to be the permanent banner on Facebook.",
"Fact check with snopes and politifact\n\nLmao",
"I never said anything about the \"center\" lol. I'm just saying that people on reddit are generally incredibly biased against any right wing ideology, even the valid ones, which goes against being open. ",
"So, how do you fact check that statement without including context? You just say it's true and leave it at that? No matter how misleading the fact is *without* context?",
"Plus, isn’t the Federalist a fairly right leaning paper/website themselves? I get the feeling any group poorly portrayed likely wishes to discredit those who portray them.\n\nIt’s like a meta-bias. A bias against their bias.",
"> right-wing media personality\n\nThe guy has worked for Vice and is very openly left leaning. You're really making quite an ironic statement on this post of all posts, where you should be fact checking the points that he is making and not dismissing it based on what you believe the bias of the presenter to be.",
"\"Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong and an idiot\"",
"Because the study is about actual fake news, not just biased journalism. For some reason a lot of people get those confused lately, but they are very different things. They have similar sources from the right and the left listed, and they seem to be fairly balanced. Just because they don't have your specific examples doesn't mean they aren't legit. \n\nAlso, three months is an extremely long time in the world of internet news. I'm sure they have mountains of data to work off of. \n\nEdit: I seem to have been swarmed by users from a certain subreddit. I miss the way this site used to be.",
"Yeah, we can't have all these personal truths. People need to realize that there is only one truth and the facts don't change because of interpretation. ",
"Creepy thumb is creepy",
"The font in the fake news seems\nlike a telegraph font or is it me.",
"Wow. Whoever marked that up is a fucking moron.\n\n>HOW????\n\n[ignores content and screeches about how anonymous sources are fake news]",
"Because reality has a leftward bias.\n\nI know it's a cliche to say, but it's straight fucking true.",
"SNL skit ",
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; I experienced it and millions of others did that day as well, and you can't refute that. \n\nThe truth wins out (as evidenced) despite weak, antagonistic stupidity.",
"If NAMBLA came out with a study, \"Having sex with six year old boys improves health and wellness\", would you believe it, even if they had some nice pretty graphs and data?\n\nThe source does matter; if someone with a history of making wild claims makes another wild claim, people aren't going to put much weight on their new wild claim. Conversely, if a well-respected scientist does so who is an expert in the field, it will be given much more consideration - and rightly so.",
"You're mistaken. The truth is that, nowadays, reality just has a leftwing bias. One can see how the confusion could arise.",
"Fact checking and left leaning bias doesn’t seem be related. Not sure how those site are exactly leaning toward to a side, but I have seen many people consider “facts” as left leaning these days. ",
"No, I know that an anonymous source means someone who chooses to remain anonymous when providing information. But it should be noted that source chose to remain anonymous, or the source should be referred to as anonymous- as opposed to \"An expert said...\"",
">Snopes, politico, and politifact\n\nOmega lul\n\n",
"The man who murdered Heather Heyer is a coward and disgusting person. Most people, even from the T_d, will agree with that. But yes, there were alot of dumbasses saying those things and they were without a doubt all the_donald posters. How many of them actually make up the base of the_donald is hard to tell but it definetely was not the majority. ",
"We need to put these in every mail box around the globe in every language ",
"> I get assholes here on reddit asking questions every damn day, but they won't listen to answers. \n\nAlso know as: (Just Asking a Question) JAQ-ing off.",
"I'm always open to evidence to the contrary, but when I present an argument and the best you guys can come up with is insults and ALL CAPS assertions backed up by a tabloid trash article about the Snopes founders' divorce and sex life, well... you're not exactly helping your case. ",
"Snopes and Politifact tend to have a bias, it’s often better to verify on your own.",
"This was obviously put out by the fake news organizations.",
"Politifact is extremely biased in its \"Fact\" Checking. They use extremely carefully laid specifics in language to fit their personal opinions into the process.\n\nEven if your side benefits from it you should be disgusted by the precedent it sets. \n",
"Fact check with snopes.\nReject message based on messenger logical fallacy. \n\nThe delicious irony that this library is partaking in fake news",
"lmao i was so confused",
"I think you're making it partisan. It's pretty much accepted that there's tons of fake news on both sides.",
"Not believing in something does not inherently mean you are biased against it. Just because I don't believe in the Jewish faith doesn't mean I'm biased against Jews.",
"TRUTH!!!",
"Starting with you",
"Snopes, Politico, Politifact\n\nBecause those are completely unbiased. Other than that yeah, great leaflet.",
"lol snopes...",
">Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico and Politifact. \n \nAll 3 are left wing publications.\n \nCongratulations, you've created another bubble.",
"Besides point 6 listing only liberal-leaning outlets, this is a fantastic idea that should be printed on bookmarks in all schools and libraries across the country.",
"My point was that there are no reliable, fact-based right-wing fact-checkers, although I guess my comment was ambiguous. ",
"Trump was only a legitimate thing at the end of Obama's term. Obama's criticism came for years from the Right about Obamacare, but drones and immigration are a leftist issue. I cannot fathom why anybody who spoke out against the Obama administration deporting too many people would support a candidate who wanted to up deportation, and I cannot fathom why anyone who criticizes Obama for drones supports Trump, who has expanded US drone operations. If a Trump supporter criticizes the Obama Administration for either of those things, they are what you call hypocrits.",
"I'd say the left and the right have worked hard to destroy it. The left predominately has pressured people into taking a nihilist path and ignore established culture. The right was happy to let them push it because a nihilistic population thinks everything is meaningless other than dog eat dog. You can't really fight Price's model but those on the top need to help foster the community beneath them, yet most of them are just using their knowledge to manipulate entire swathes of the population.",
"\"Skip anonymous news reports\" haha haha bye bye 100% of us news",
"I think it’s over a balcony",
"I, um, just want to check that you know that it is \"He's\".\n\nA friend uses \"his\" all the time and doesn't seem to care that it is incorrect, haha.",
"So you're saying that guy from India who has not eaten anything in 1 year is FAKE NEWS?\n\nBut my colleagues at work told me they saw that in a docummentary, and the docummentary had scientists in it and they were following the 24/7.\n\nBut the way, they also told me the water we drink is shit and it's giving us cancer because of some PH shit.\n\nThey also told me to buy a 800 dollar magnetic matress that will give me quantium energy from the Earth. They said it's been proven by science. They all bought it. They showed me the news articles.\n\nAre saying those are all FAKE NEWS?\n\nI don't know what to believe anymore. :(",
"Oh ok. What do you read? Or are you someone who just claims \"everything is bullshit.\"",
"That stuff, I sort of get. For me it's the articles that tell you how bad some new law is, or budget, or executive order, but they never provide the text",
"To all triggered right wingers: Your shouting about the bias of Snopes and company is hollow until you cleanup your Fox, Brietbart, tinfoil hat fantasyland. You have zero credibility, as a group, when it comes to - well anything to do with facts really.",
"If recommendations to people for news from \"educational sources\" were sometimes left and sometimes right, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But that's simply not the case. These supposedly neutral educational sources are almost exclusively left leaning and more and more have included far left leaning recommendations. \n\nThis card wouldn't piss me off if it weren't part of an ongoing relentless bias throughout educational materials that is pretty much exclusively leftist.",
">These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. \n\nI'm confused what point are you trying to prove exactly",
"Oh my god a political subreddit is talking about the faction controlling political power.\n\nAnd christ take me! They're talking about the biggest political story of our lifetimes! \n\nI can't stand it!!!",
"I didn't predict that response, because I'm honestly a little flabbergasted that people would seriously defend Buzzfeed's veracity and reliability. I'm aware of their \"investigative reporting.\" It is also trash. I think their biggest story so far has been the \"Trump dossier,\" which they got because no one else would take it. They've deleted posts which criticized their advertisers. They've requested pitches from \"not white and not male\" people because, I am not shitting you, [\"ugh, men.\"](https://cdn.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Ashley%20Rae/Screen%20Shot%202016-02-19%20at%201.29.44%20PM.png) They're a completely unserious and disreputable company through and through.\n\nThe Al-Jazeera story you linked was pretty good though. Lead with that next time.",
"I've noticed you're not responding to my points or answering my questions. I gave you detailed reasoning on why I believe these sites are credible, and I gave you a very specific way to refute that.\n\n***Your reply is essentially just \"These sites aren't credible.\"*** This is a repetition of a point I've already responded to. Respond to my post, don't just repeat what you've already said. Provide examples. Answer the questions. Lets discuss facts, not opinions.\n\nHere are the questions:\n\n1. This [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du406xm/) addresses the credibility of these fact-checking sites. Still waiting for an answer to this. You've claimed that a specific article is \"totally wrong.\" Show me.\n\n2. What alternative fact checking websites do you recommend as being better than Snopes/Politico/Politifact? This is the third time I've asked this question. It's okay to say that none exist.\n\n",
"Yes, and that's evident in the parts of their article where they suggest that things showing conservatives in a bad light must be inherently exaggerated.\n\nIt doesn't discount their article as a whole or their data points, but it should be taken into consideration when reading what they concluded from that data.",
"The thread is overwhelmingly populated by people who took offense to the picture.",
">You can also just get a browser extension to turn off HTML5 video autoplay everywhere\n\nWhich one? I haven't found one that works. A script blocker is a blunt tool does work for this, but breaks almost every single site (that doesn't have autoplaying videos).",
"The investigation is still ongoing.\n\nBut of course, there's really no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, except for the:\n\n[Flynn Thing](http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-flynn-comey-russia-timeline-2017-htmlstory.html) \n[Manafort Thing](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/342509-new-book-devils-bargain-details-trump-lashing-out-at-manafort-days) \n[Tillerson Thing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/07/tillerson-says-trump-pressed-putin-on-russian-hacking-but-the-evidence-suggests-not-so-much/?utm_term=.e0ac214bd9bc) \n[Sessions Thing](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/did-trump-kushner-sessions-have-undisclosed-meeting-russian-n767096) \n[Kushner Thing](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/trump-russia-new-meeting-revealed-involving-donald-jr-kushner-and-manafort) \n[Wray Thing](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-wray-russia-20170712-story.html) \n[Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius \"Russian Law Firm of the Year\" Thing](http://nypost.com/2017/05/12/trump-used-russia-law-firm-of-the-year-to-draft-letter-about-his-finances/) \n[Carter Page Thing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-has-questioned-trump-campaign-adviser-carter-page-at-length-in-russia-probe/2017/06/26/1a271dcc-5aa5-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html?utm_term=.24d0b138db83) \n[Roger Stone Thing](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/14/roger-stone-house-testimony-postponed-240568) \n[Felix Sater Thing](http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-felix-sater-real-estate-632690) \n[Boris Epshteyn Thing](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-press-officer-boris-epshteyn-investigation-russia/story?id=47731166) \n[Rosneft Thing](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/08/trump-new-fbi-director-chris-wray-russian-ties-rosneft-gazprom-column/102603214/) \n[Gazprom Thing (see above)](http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/30/trumps-energy-adviser-is-personally-invested-in-gazprom/) \n[Sergey Gorkov banker Thing](http://www.newsweek.com/sergey-gorkov-grad-russian-banker-kushner-617422) \n[Azerbaijan Thing](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senators-ask-for-an-investigation-into-trump-dealings-in-azerbaijan) \n[\"I Love Putin\" Thing](http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/) \n[Lavrov Thing](http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/russia-us-trump-lavrov-intel/index.html) \n[Sergey Kislyak Thing](https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/27/15875434/sergey-kislyak-trump-russia-return-moscow) \n[Oval Office Thing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-oval-office-with-trump-and-the-russians-broad-smiles-and-loose-lips/2017/05/16/2e8b0d14-3a66-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html) \n[Gingrich Kislyak Phone Calls Thing](http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/newt-gingrich-trump-russia-meetings/3504/) \n[Russian Business Interest Thing](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/trump-lawyers-up-conflicts-of-interest/526185/) \n[Emoluments Clause Thing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dc-and-marylands-lawsuit-trump-flagrantly-violating-emoluments-clause/2017/06/12/8a9806a8-4f9b-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html) \n[Alex Schnaider Thing](http://theweek.com/speedreads/699538/russian-bank-directly-linked-putin-helped-finance-trump-hotel) \n[Hack of the DNC Thing](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/5/dnc-email-server-most-wanted-evidence-for-russia-i/) \n[Guccifer 2.0 Thing](https://theintercept.com/2017/07/14/just-six-days-after-trump-jr-s-meeting-guccifer-2-0-emailed-me-but-there-was-one-key-difference/) \n[Mike Pence \"I don't know anything\" Thing](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/18/mike-pence-insists-he-didnt-know-flynn-under-investigation-turkey-lobbying/101831354/) \n[Russians Mysteriously Dying Thing](http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/31/eight-prominent-russians-dead-since-us-elections-labott-dnt-erin.cnn) \n[Trump's public request to Russia to hack Hillary's email Thing](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html) \n[Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to the Russian fertilizer king Thing](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article135187364.html) \n[Russian fertilizer king's plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump rally campaign Thing](http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article137881768.html) \n[Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night Thing](http://www.businessinsider.com/nunes-white-house-grounds-trump-surveillance-2017-3) \n[Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery Thing](http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/devin-nunes-invested-california-wine-company-business-ties-russia-fact-check-01809651#ilwFvHKSgDxcmIOQ.97) \n[Cyprus bank Thing](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/23/wilbur-ross-russian-deal-bank-of-cyprus-donald-trump-commerce-secretary) \n[Trump not Releasing his Tax Returns Thing](http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/trump-taxes-tax-returns/index.html) \n[the Republican Party's rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes thing](http://thehill.com/policy/finance/326220-republicans-vote-to-block-resolutions-on-trumps-tax-returns) \n[Election Hacking Thing](http://time.com/4828306/russian-hacking-election-widespread-private-data/) \n[GOP platform change to the Ukraine Thing](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/jd-gordon-change-story-gop-platform-ukraine-amendment) \n[Steele Dossier Thing](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/16/donald-trump-jrs-meeting-with-russians-undermines-/) \n[Sally Yates Can't Testify Thing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-block-sally-yates-from-testifying-to-congress-on-russia/2017/03/28/82b73e18-13b4-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html) \n[Intelligence Community's Investigative Reports Thing](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/read-us-intelligence-report-russian-hacking-2016-campaign/) \n[Trump reassurance that the Russian connection is all \"fake news\" Thing](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/11/15953640/donald-trump-twitter-mocked-russia-collusion) \n[Chaffetz not willing to start an Investigation Thing](http://thehill.com/homenews/house/319410-gop-chairman-oversight-wont-investigate-flynn) \n[Chaffetz suddenly deciding to go back to private life in the middle of an investigation Thing](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/why-is-jason-chaffetz-resigning) \n[Appointment of Pam Bondi who was bribed by Trump in the Trump University scandal appointed to head the investigation Thing](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-florida-ethics-panel-clears-pam-bondi-over-trump-contribution/article/2620970) \n[ The White House going into cover-up mode, refusing to turn over the documents related to the hiring and firing of Flynn Thing](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/330410-white-house-rejects-oversight-request-for-flynn-documents) \n[Chaffetz and White House blaming the poor vetting of Flynn on Obama Thing](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/trump-flynn/525816/) \n[Poland and British intelligence gave information regarding the hacking back in 2015 to Paul Ryan and he didn't do anything Thing](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/intelligence/328718-uk-spies-first-saw-trump-russia-ties-report) \n[Agent M16 following the money thing](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/richard-dearlove-mi6-trump-russia-money-2008-financial-crisis-us-election-a7684341.html) \n[Trump team KNEW about Flynn's involvement but hired him anyway Thing](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/17/report-trump-team-knew-flynn-being-investigated/101816334/) \n[Let's Fire Comey Thing](http://www.npr.org/2017/05/10/527744909/suspicious-timing-and-convenient-reasoning-for-trumps-firing-of-comey) \n[Election night Russian trademark gifts Things](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/us/politics/russia-trump-trademarks.html) \n[Russian diplomatic compound electronic equipment destruction Thing](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russians-destroyed-and-removed-material-from-shuttered-compounds-officials-say/) \n[let's give back the diplomatic compounds back to the Russians Thing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-moves-to-return-russian-compounds-in-maryland-and-new-york/2017/05/31/3c4778d2-4616-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc_story.html?utm_term=.9f251823e6ad) \n[Let's Back Away From Cuba Thing](https://qz.com/1007416/donald-trumps-cuba-trade-and-travel-roll-back-is-another-gift-to-russia/) \n[Donny Jr met with Russians Thing](https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/07/18/trump-voters-dont-believe-don-jr-met-russian-lawyer/23036294/) \n[Donny Jr emails details \"Russian Government's support for Trump\" Thing](https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15953204/donald-trump-jr-emails-russia) \n[Trump's secret second meeting with his boss Putin Thing](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-putin-idUSKBN1A32H5) ",
"Eh, they may not necessarily out-right lie, but some of their actions seemed to allude to a definitive bias.\n\nRight leaning politician says that 48% of a budget is going to welfare...\n\n> Poltifact: PANTS ON FIRE, ONLY 38% of that budget is going to welfare!\n\nLeft Leaning Politician says that 50% of Americans go to bed hungry at night due to poverty.\n\n>Politifact: \"Half-true, while the number isn't as high as 50%, it's estimated about 40 million Americans are considered impoverished\"\n\nSure, they may not be \"lying to you\", but the way they present the material takes lies for people they like and turns them into \"half truths\" and takes lies from people they don't like and turns them into \"COMPLETE LIES.\"\n\n...\n\nSnopes had a pretty prolific one for Obama's 57 states gaff. They combined two claims in one article, \"Obama said their were 57 states, AND he was referring to the Islamic states.\" That way, when you look at the article, it says \"FALSE\" as if Obama had never said there were 57 states. If you actually read the article (which according to this thread, 78% don't), it just says that he was not referring to the Islamic states.\n\nInformation is important for a news source, but presentation has a huge effect in public perception of certain things. You can make two identical actions seem completely different if you just apply a different tone.",
"-Doesn't name one source like I asked. \n\n-Blames Obama\n\n-Seems to have entirely different understanding than everybody else. (Seriously wtf are you talking about with the FBI. The memo of nothing?)\n\nSounds like you gotta a case of the Hannities",
"\\#ImperialLivesMatter",
"The problem is that CNN is fake news. ",
">Source?\n\nhttp://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx\n\n90% Republican approval on the money. \n\n>Under the same logic whatever approval Obama had were democrats that loved the fuck out of bombing other countries?\n\nObama didn't spend all day, every day talking about bombing other countries. Trump does spend every day attacking the news media, and it's a key part of his rhetoric. Hell, he tried to have a ceremony for the \"fake news awards\". You can't pretend that's some minor detail that Trump supporters can ignore. ",
"Look at the maga run.",
"IE: use your damn common sense",
"There was a very large graphic floating around election time with Bernie and Trump quotes that were “FALSE” due to their interpretations of things like you said. ",
"Both of the websites I mentioned easily fall under at least 3 of the 5 methodologies for discerning study samples, Buzzfeed hits all 5 in my opinion. I also didn't say of their sources weren't legit but a study omitting some of the most obvious examples of what they claim to be evaluating puts the entire study into question, to say the least.\n\nJust out of curiosity, what is your definition of fake news as opposed to biased journalism? Would you say, by your definition, that Buzzfeed deserves to be left off but Breitbart belongs?\n\nI would agree that they likely have mountains of data to work with, it's a matter of it being relevant and credible with regards to their conclusions.",
"No you can't. Fox News is the worst of the bunch, by a country mile. There's a reason there have been studies that show people that watch it are more misinformed than anyone else. ",
"So if the chief of staff makes a statement on the condition of anonymity, you believe they should be introduced exactly as if it were a person picked randomly off the street.",
"Nothing is 100% dude, I totally agree. However just because something is susceptible to margins of distortion doesn’t mean it’s not within “accuracy”. Accuracy =/= precision, and as such the statements chosen are indeed subject to bias (as are all things within the sphere of humanity). \n\nBut the point is that they are so called fact checkers is because they ARE, they do the homework to see if it’s real to their end and every article you read from them is like checking their homework.\n\nI would LOVE it if (the hill, the fiscal times, the WSJ, or even The economist) had a reputable fact checking place in the mainstream. But...that’s just not how it is right now.. anecdotally some of my family gets their news from infowars, Breitbart news, and the blaze.. \n\nThats some hyper-partisan garbage. Conversely as is occupy democrats, natural news, and Addicting Info..\n\nSo do your homework, compare, and hopefully it’s in the ballpark of truth the first time. Otherwise, you’ll run into conflicting information and will have to keep trying. It’s that simple, just a lot of comparison, commonality, and motivation. Like reading a book with an unreliable narrator you need to keep your wits sharp :) ",
"Bias is a preconceived leniency",
"They go to the library to get free children's books for their kids or certification books. ",
">foodbabe\n\n\nJesus.",
"Just that small section of the card is trash. The rest is great.",
"I’m about to make Trump’s god damn day",
"God bless your soul glad Reddit isn't filled with only liberal lunatics. This article lost me there too. Be open minded just make sure to cross check against these 3 liberal sources we told you to cross check against! Ask questions ! ",
"What's hilarious in the sources they say to reference, like Snopes, Politico, etc. Lol what a bunch of nonsense. And talking about partisan, the only party we the people should be watching out for is the UNIPARTY. You know, the one that f***s us all in the goatass.",
">fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact. \n\nLOL, k",
"I'm not going to trust a website run by a husband/wife duo who can deem whatever they want to be true.",
"Every time i do this I am ridiculed and dismissed on moral grounds.\n\nI genuinely have come to believe there is no hope anymore.\n\nMoney wins.",
"I teach high school English (9th grade, so 14-15 year olds) and last week we had an entire unit about checking if a source is trustworthy and how to spot fake news. They were astounded at how real it can sound. I showed them dhmo.org and several news articles that were completely fake and they felt betrayed. I said \"that's exactly my point.\"",
"These are outlets that spend considerable resources on using sound journalistic methods to evaluate news pieces. I think you're giving liberals a little too much credit. Do a side-by-side comparing MSNBC and CNN with Polictico and Politifact and you'll see a clear difference. ",
"...because only ONE side ever propagandizes issues, and it sure as hell isn't MY side.\n\n-LITERALLY FUCKING EVERYONE.",
"so those 3 sites hold the truth and have all the facts? LMAO! You fucked it up.",
"These are outlets that spend considerable resources on using sound journalistic methods to evaluate news pieces. I think you're giving liberals a little too much credit. Do a side-by-side comparing MSNBC and CNN with Polictico and Politifact and you'll see a clear difference. ",
"These are outlets that spend considerable resources on using sound journalistic methods to evaluate news pieces. I think you're giving liberals a little too much credit. Do a side-by-side comparing MSNBC and CNN with Polictico and Politifact and you'll see a clear difference. ",
"> That's what Fox News/the heritage foundation/Breitbart/most conservative bloggers are.\n\ncool but im not american or conservative, nor do i use any of those sources \n\nthe funny thing is that you think the media you absorb is any less ridiculous\n\n>Considering the fact that you've decided to read some bullshit screaming all fact-checkers are liars.\n\nlol \"screaming\", i guess when someone says something you dont know how to dispute you just call them angry\n\n>Which means, in your absolutist bullshit worldview for retards\n\nfucking lol calling me an absolutist when you immediately assumed i was a trump supporter for disagreeing with you ",
"Here is politifacts actual quote about it, admitting Hillary destroyed emails:\n\n\"This tweet is partially accurate.\n\n\nIn their July 2016 report about the investigation into Clinton’s email practices, FBI agents said a Clinton aide told them he recalled \"two instances where he destroyed Clinton’s old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.\"\n\n\nSeparately, Clinton aides asked some IT workers if they would permanently delete emails from the private server Clinton used as secretary of state, using a program called BleachBit.\n\n\nAnd in late June 2016, Bill Clinton was spotted meeting secretly with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch. About a week later, Comey broke Justice Department protocol to go public about the decision not to prosecute Clinton.\n\n\nBut is it obstruction of justice? The FBI didn’t develop evidence to support that conclusion. \n\nComey has said the FBI doesn’t have any evidence Clinton intentionally deleted emails in order to conceal them or obstruct justice, though he was concerned at the time about the appearance that Lynch had a conflict of interest.\"\n\n",
"This is going to get buried but one that should be one there is: \"If the headline or article is telling you how to feel about a certain event, it is no longer news. It's propaganda\"\n\nProblem is, a lot of people can't even recognize when that happens. If the site is using opinionated emotionally based words a lot, then that site is trying to get you to feel a certain way, that's not cool.",
"Let the wookiee win.",
"You have spoken in nothing but vague opinions stated in fact with no backing or political viewpoint.\n\nYou have this vague middle of the road opinion that you're not beholden to the left but you hate the right because of a few nazis in the south.\n\nI don't even know wtf you're attacking here so i can defend it. What is your overall opinion that you're trying to say. As far as i can tell it's \"the right is kinda nazis, so i'm not on the right\" something something hollywood, something something charlottesville.\n\nThe reason i asked you to clarify is being nothing you have opinionated thus far has had any substance feel free to directly tell me what your issue is here.",
"Seriously? A picture of a bookmark gets upvoted to the front page? Shitpost enablers",
">You are quoting me and then denying what I'm saying with no tangible proof. The problem with you making all these claims I'm wrong without any credible proof is that it makes your statements vs my arguement unsubstantial\n\nYou're the one making claims and then not backing them up in the least. By making baseless claims, the burden of proof is on you.\n\n>It's funny. You say I have no real argument as if having an argument makes one of us more right. \n\nI'm saying if you're going to make a claim, you have to have an argument as to why it's right. If you claim alien life exists on Mars, you need to have an argument as to why that's true. You can't just make that claim, post some articles about steam vents on Jupiter, and then make believe like that backs you up in any way. \n\n>The problem with \"your side\" is that your information comes from echo Chambers, your fact checkers are ran by people that live in echo Chambers and no matter how many studies I link or major publications I cite, you can't imagine you're possibly wrong.\n\nYou haven't posted a **single thing** that challenges the veracity of politifact articles, no matter how many times you might try to change the subject. The problem with your side is your absolute aversion to the truth, and a desperate attempt to muddy the waters when called on your nonsense. I shouldn't expect any different from a T_D shitposter though. You people deal almost exclusively in lies and distortions. ",
"not really a real response but ok\n\neverything i said is factual regardless of whether your fact checkers agree, hope this helps",
"So just the people who commented? Are you saying there's a silent majority of T_D subscribers who aren't flaming racist xenophobes with violent fantasies of enabling a theocracy run by elderly white conservatives?",
"He isn't Ann Coulter, but calling him left leaning is just nonsense. \n\nIn recent times he's mostly drawn attention with some controversial stunt in Sweden - partially funded by a main contributor to infowars. If you look who's referencing him the most, you'll find a lot of sites like breitbard. \n\nSo yes, I do stand by my claim that he's a right-wing media personality. ",
"When?",
">politifact\n\ndemocrat shill detected",
"Being open is good. :)",
"Isn’t Reddit that kind of bubble? I mean, look at /r/politics and pretty much every political sub. The Donald is banned from the front page, while Late Stage Capitalism is on there all the time. ",
"Exactly.\n\nThis dismissive way of thinking that produces low-effort blanket statements like these is why kids should learn to think a bit more critically, and not just accept anything they are fed at face value.",
"Lol the “fact checking” websites",
"> Auto play video is the easiest way to optimise revenue.\n\nSafari's blocking it already and Chrome starts on the 15th. Autoplay is dead as a method to get clicks.\n\nSource: I help serve multiple billions of ads/day.",
"like CNN",
"Fuck the downvotes. This is (mostly) true and people hate hearing it",
"The parent comment... \"lost me at(fact checking service)\" why? Because they're a bunch of liberal blah blah blah.... If there was a demand for a fact checking service more favorable to right wing arguments there would be one. So either facts favor the left and right wing fact checking is impossible or the right doesn't actually care about the accuracy of their arguments.",
"Former lawyer. Former DOJ employee..... just from looking at what’s PUBLICLY been released:\n\nEntrapment (fusion gps)\nMoney being funneled through Perkins COI law firms from both Obama and Clinton to fusion Gps .... (Why?)\n\nWhy did the people meeting with Don JR meet with fusion GPS right after their nothingburger meeting?\n\n\nCarter Page (patsy, formerly worked for FBI)\n4th amendment violations\nIllegal spying/unmaking (unrelated to Russia at all..... who? Trump .... campaign members.... the trump family?)\n\nFake dossier used to obtain a warrant \n\nSomebody lied under oath as to the veracity of aforementioned warrant (huge deal), as you are supposed to verify evidence before \n\nNot even an investigation of an actual crime.\n\nConstitutional crisis full on. I’m guessing you just watch MSNBC \n\nThe obama admin weaponized the government state intelligence apparatus against a political opponent for political reasons. \n\nYeah.... it’s over and people you didn’t expect are in deep shit. \n\nThe question is, what did obama know and when did he know it? And who will fall on their sword for him? Does he have the plausible deniability? Probably ..... but the top brass at the FBI? Loretta Lynch?\n\nThe bombshell in both the Nunes and Grassley memos had confirmed that the entire thing was a scam. And no process crimes — which will likely get thrown out because of this — don’t count as a collusion (and that’s not a crime, in fact) ... look into entire Flynn bs—they entrapped him too. \n\nThe FBI has confirmed all of this to be fact and they aren’t exactly friendly to trump. \n\nIs the FBI lying? Funny how the media and politifact are doing fact checks on this.... which goes back to the original point I was making. They are giving anybody a reason to trust them \n\n",
"Nice try.\n\nYou were just caught trying to convince someone that they didn't actually see what they saw on a college campus, where the most extreme left views are generally held (by young and dumb, idealistic people).\n\nFully understand your point about it being a strawman, but that doesn't absolve you from the ridiculous bullshit you just spewed.\n\ntl;dr both of you are stupid",
">You're proving the point of OP's picture by not reading the entire article and thinking critically about it.\n\nYou're kidding, right?\n\n>Experts said this kind of exchange is standard issue in U.S.-Iran relations over the past few decades.\n\nI'd like to know who these \"experts\" are, since they seem to believe giving $400 million dollars to Iran (money which is contingent upon a prisoner's release, AKA a ransom) is standard. ",
"The allegation is not that Trump is a Russian asset. The allegation is that the Russians tricked Podesta into giving up his email password and those leaked DNC emails were embarrassing enough that the election turned against them at the last minute. And maybe Trump’s campaign was involved? That part is under investigation. But I don’t think anyone doubts the emails were real and highly damaging.\n\nButter\n\nEmails",
"Please link to Snopes articles that have been proven wrong. I'm actually quite interested.",
"I'm saying theres crazy people that belong to every group, movement, party, whatever. Just like you for example. ",
"This used to be confined to gossipy tabloid magazines, sad to see this practice gain more traction in more \"reputable\" outlets.",
"Would you automatically *not* believe them, even if you couldn't find any flaws with the research or data? That's not how science/critical thinking works.\n\nAlso, how much weight or consideration you give an article you're reading isn't the same as making arguments in a debate. You're free to form whatever biased opinions you want.",
"Lack of equal criticism of Trump and Obama does not mean bias. Bias does not mean equally negative and positive on both sides. Unbiased does not mean equal, nor should it. That is an absolute abdication of being unbiased. If one side is producing more negative stories, supports policies that are likely to be more detrimental (economically, socially, or otherwise), the news has the duty to report on them without balancing it with a positive piece for the sake of neutrality, and without bashing the other side for the sake of neutrality. \n\nUnbiased does not and can not mean neutral. An unbiased source *should* ultimately have more negative stories about one side than the other, because it is very hard to believe that both sides are exactly equally bad. The news should be true, stories should be factual. They should not, however, attempt to strike a neutral line between political parties. \n\nWhen you say Trump received as much hate in one year as Obama did in eight, that fundamentally does not prove bias. It could be that Trump has done more in one year to earn negativity than Obama did in eight. What proves bias would be Obama being praised for something Trump is criticized for, or not reporting something Obama did and reporting it when Trump did it.",
"If there were a demand for fact checking in the right there would be a fact checking service more favorable to right wing arguments. The implication was already there at the \"lost me at(fact checking services)\" comment.",
">Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact. \n\nHahahahahahahahaha",
"Great!",
"This lost all credibility after they included Snopes and Politifact as “fact checkers” whatever the fuck that means. Why not base your convictions on peer reviewed research and science? Nah let’s just use a blog and political journal from the Tampa Bay Times.",
"And there's the personal insult.",
"https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/19/16797522/google-chrome-ad-blocker-release-date-announced\n\nIt goes live on Thursday.",
"A few potentially misleading articles. Meanwhile, the sites have checked tens or hundreds of thousands of facts complete with sources. ",
"Bill Nyes new science show covers plenty of liberal delusions, like the idea that there are 500 trillion genders",
"They are better than MSNBC and CNN, no question about that, but that's a very low bar to beat. Those 3 listed are still left-leaning, and it would be nice to see at least one right-leaning outlet listed as well (since realistically it's hard to find one that is Truly unbiased these days)",
"Well what can I say. You sound like cathy newman trying to put words in peoples mouths. ",
"lol yeah i know your type, youll continue for like 20 posts with one word replies thinking ill stop giving you shit \n\ni know how frustrated youll get and its funny to me so please continue",
"Do you? I don't think so.",
"Speculative stories.\n\nGreat for confirmation bias. Short on actual facts or wrong doing.\n\nAnd let’s get some straight. Talking to Russians or doing business in Russia isn’t a crime. If that was the case we would also be arrresting guys like Carlos slim and George soros, etc.\n\nHave you ever wondered why a Mexican can post anti trump memes on Facebook before an election and nobody cares but some Russian company buying some ads or posting some memes is a big deal? Yeah it’s bs \n\nEven if some of these things were true, it doesn’t matter because in which this entire case was pursued.\n\nPeople’s rights were violated and they were investigated illegally.\n\nConstitutional crisis ? Uh, we already are in one thanks to the prior admins crimes ",
"Just like facts!",
"Why does every goddamn news site have an auto play video these days? That shit is so fucking obnoxious!",
"only literal idiots ever believed russia hacked or colluded or interfered in the elections LOL\n\ni cant imagine being fragile enough to refuse to believe my countrymen could disagree with me",
"There's no quicker way to have your debate opponent go defensive and ignore it all if you do though. Not withstanding striving for actual civil discourse...",
"Neat, why not?",
"Username checks ouuuut!!! ",
"> That's not how science/critical thinking works.\n\nActually, that's absolutely how science and critical thinking works. The reliability of data is a vital component of any argument. If someone has a history of fabricating data, you shouldn't accept it at face value. If someone has a history or reason to be biased, again, you should apply greater scrutiny.\n\n> Also, how much weight or consideration you give an article you're reading isn't the same as making arguments in a debate.\n\nYes it is. Different levels of evidence are weighted differently. A tiny study with ten people done by some random person is much less meaningful than a pre-registered study with a thousand subjects done by a respected researcher at Vanderbilt University.",
"Those are 100% liberal viewpoints. Just because you're ashamed of how anti science liberals are on things like biology, gmo's, nuclear energy etc doesn't mean it's some vast right wing conspiracy lol.",
"Facts don't have bias.",
"Can’t imagine that most people this is aimed at spend much time at the library. ",
"NBC, CNN, Fox, etc all went sensationalist and inflammatory for me to ever want to do that, but honestly I'd believe you.",
"Just a meme dude, chill.",
"Literally no argument at all. Just repeating your opinion in the face of a reasonable explanation that you disagree with. As if you're reassuring yourself.\n\nYou're just dug in like a tick.",
"It’s something that’s almost impossible to teach, only cultivate. The “critical thinking” course we did in high school and college were all laughable. ",
"Reddit the comment",
"Bro—the fbi confirmed the past admin basically broke the law and did some shady ass shit and invented this entire Russia nonsense to cover it up.\n\nBut ... you could say this was written last year ... ok. Well 3 months before this was written, the media reported that the fbi spied on trump. It was in the papers.\n\nThen one trump made the claim, they all acted like THEY NEVER REPORTED IT.\n\nThe media is fucking you friend ",
"I'm sure you read every one of those links.\n\nWhat crimes?",
">I’m as liberal as they come and I, nor anyone I know, would ever say obesity is healthy and women are as physically as strong as men in general.\n\nYou're shitting on him for an anecdote when that's what you yourself just used? Amazing. \n\nFat shaming and the idea of men and women being biologically the same are not conservative ideas you lunatic.",
"I'm a simple man\n\nI see fake news, I upvote without question \n\nOh a fake news bookmark\n\n*upvotes*",
"\"Dig deeper\" is a good one. I clicked on a link I found suspicious (called bullshit on) and followed it's linked sources. After a couple of times clicking on a sourced link, I found the original source was the author of the article I started with. Impressed that they tried to seem credible, but yes, bullshit.",
"Librarian here. Thanks for the kind words but please do not hug me 😊",
"Did it ever occur to you that Trump might not be center of the road when it comes to verifiable claims? Anti-Trump may just be pro-truth.",
"> Fact checking sites are a terrible idea.\n\nFact-checking sites were fine when they were limited to \"Is the earth flat?\" and suchlike with clear answers. They turned to shit when they got involved in political issues where there's both the room and the motivation for injecting bias.",
"This seemed nice until fact check with“snopes” haha yeah okay ",
"So /s?",
"Whens the last time you've been to the library?\n\nWE GOT A LIVE ONE HERE!!!\n\nHa-ha, just kidding. Seriously though, these are for kids in school, knowing a few teachers, middleschool kids are so subject to this crap it's unreal. Their parents and other influences can really mess a kid up sometimes, and no, it's not all the crazy conservatives reddit touts, they come in all shapes and political colors. ",
"Be open-minded. Ask questions. Unless you're questioning Snopes and Politifact, don't do that",
"I'm saying an anonymous source should be referred to as one, as their choosing to remain anonymous is pertinent to the story.",
"Never seen 'Feels > reals' defended so explicitly and unironically.",
"Did you not get the South Park Reference or was that why you enjoyed it?",
"It's a liberal movement because it's liberals who started it and who make up the bulk of it, genius.\n\nNext thing you'll be telling me the \"slut walk\" and other insane liberal events are apolitical looool. \n\nThis is the most pathetic attempt at distancing yourself from the craziness on your political spectrum I've ever seen. You're just pretending they aren't even liberal lmao.",
"SNOPES AND POLITIFACT ARENT CREDIBLE \nSNOPES AND POLITIFACT ARENT CREDIBLE \nSNOPES AND POLITIFACT ARENT CREDIBLE \nSNOPES AND POLITIFACT ARENT CREDIBLE \nSNOPES AND POLITIFACT ARENT CREDIBLE \nSNOPES AND POLITIFACT ARENT CREDIBLE \n\n\nWhy are they credible. Why are they trustworthy? I’m not here to answer your questions. I’m here to provide the truth. The truth is, NOBODY agreed that they were credible or trustworthy. And their bias certainly supports that supposition. Liberals just decided one day that they were — and then tried to shove that down everybody’s throats cuz “fact check”\n\nYou’ve gotta earn credibility. It does not automatically get conferred on you because you say so, ",
"Anonymous sources say junglebumkin2 believes theedia when they claim Trump called some Nazis and white nationalist \"fine people\"",
"I'd like you to answer me directly, please.",
"FAKE NEWS",
"I have to disable sound on my web browser or unplug my headphones if I want to look up tech tutorials\n\nTech sites have auto play videos spilling out their ears",
"So it's a capitalist conspiracy now? Lol! \n\nSo you're admitting it's dumb liberals being taken for a ride? You think no liberals genuinely believe in the causes? \n\nGet your shit straight, marxist wannabe.",
">It's okay when MY team does it!",
"You shouldn't tell people to believe something always as fact like Politifact, snopes and politico. Rather take every situation for itself. Those websites lie too ",
"Nope ",
"You're not citing any sources.\n\n1. Which fact checking article is wrong? Can you link to it?\n\n2. ***Specifically*** what claim from that article are you disputing? Requesting that you quote it, and then show a source proving the claim to be wrong.",
"Islamophilia and being against free speech is a liberal and leftist position. \n\n",
"Basically:\n\n\"Make news consumption a hobby that you have dedicated slots of time to ensure all of these steps are adequately followed.\"\n\nEnsuring accuracy for all the news you see would require quite a lot of time. Something cites a study? Better read it too to make sure it's cited reasonably. Don't have proper knowledge to determine if the statistics/data is skewed or if the methods of the study are proper or appropriate? Time to gain a whole new area of knowledge. etc. etc.",
"Is associated press a legit news source?",
"Agreed, but at least it's something. \n\nI believe this is one of those things that is better taught by example in a home environment. Good luck with THAT though, especially with our technologically inept elders who're probably having a hard time keeping up with the constant flood of information that's being fed to us nowadays.\n\nEducators that are actually good, and love what they do also does wonders in helping achieve this.",
"\"Leftist.\" Sounds sinister, but I've yet to have two people back-to-back define the word the same way after using it as a derogatory. ",
"Nah, the liberals are just ashamed of the idiots on their side and refuse to acknowledge them. They want to pretend these are fringe opinions.\n\nYou're not fooling anyone. ",
"Lol..... way too many. \n\nAgain, your making the mistake that this is a debate and your here to score points, not seek the truth. I’m making a rhetorical argument based on the facts. \n\nNobody has even agreed to bestow credibility on either of those sites and they certainly have done nothing to earn credibility. In fact, in many cases, they make their credibility even worse by their incorrect fact checks. \n\nIt is little more than a confirmation bias activator for liberals at this point ",
"Words =/= actions.\n\nIf anything approval rating would be closer tied to action than words...\n\nYou can't say that trump *saying* fake news is more important than Obama bombing countries then somehow make it like 90% of Republicans are the same. It's absolute horse shit. ",
"No one said every single liberal is the same. It's a generalization about most liberals. ",
"Naw, I couldn’t remember that from South Park. I just enjoyed reading it a bunch and it had me chuckling! Thank you for the info though! (I’ll probably forget the info in a few hours, but don’t take it personally!)",
"> But... you can be... American and Muslim\n\nNot to the people that eat this shit up. If they had it their way they'd kick all the Muslims out because this is a \"Christian\" nation.",
"> If you think the Economist is conservative you are a whack job.\n\n-- A wack job",
"You should watch it, it’s the episode “Chef Aid”.",
"There is literally no point whatsoever in trying to teach critical thinking skills to 3rd graders. At that stage, developmentally, their thinking is very black and white; shades of grey and subtlety just confuse the hell out of them. By all means, we should try to teach reasoning in school, but in a way, and at a stage, that is developmentally appropriate.",
"Sadly enough this is my only objection to legalizing pot.. It concerns me how much of an absolutely unreasonable frenzy it’s supporters go into when the discussion of legalization is brought up. Many of its supporters are so concerned with trying to openly get high that they refuse to even acknowledge that it isn’t necessarily as much of a \n\n‘cancer curing miracle drug with no side effects never ever forever no more research needed just gimme more’\n\nTo someone who doesn’t smoke it but has friends and family who does, I don’t like the overall effect that it’s heavy use has on people and it’s easy to see how it effects them behaviorally over a long period of time. Very similar to alcohol/alcoholism if it isn’t kept in check.",
"The fact remains that there is heavy liberal bias in news outlets, and my example is just one of many where big name 'journalists' leap to a conclusion to defend a narrative despite the lack of facts to support it, or even worse, to defend a narrative they previously reported was wrong or untrue. \n\nCNN picked this 'story' up because it painted Trump as a racist, and other outlets ran with it too even though the originator retracted it shortly after. Not all outlets put it out over the air, many merely retweeted and later retracted it (facilitated by the tweet being also deleted). But you're right, that is one small example. \n\nI have a 'little' compilation if you're so interested!",
"You try tackling 20 thousand topics at once all involved in the bullshit that is the conservative lies.\n\nAnd come out coherent.",
"You should hashtag the Donald subreddit ",
"I feel like you're equating not being a traditionalist on certain things with wanting to overturn all culture and leave an empty void in its place. Few centuries or even decades looked like the ones just before it, and the change often represented quite a bit of progress and not just some nihilistic turn away from any human organization or dignity whatsoever.",
"Plenty of dumb kids call themselves liberal while holding insane leftist views so go talk to them first.",
"The mainstream media (especially print media like the Washington Post and New York Times) are still overwhelmingly accurate journalism. It's just lazy and dangerous to unilaterally group everything up in that.",
"Ok except Minchin's quote is a comedic song. ",
"That's a legitimate concern. I have some concerns about moving from 'can't even trial' to 'just legalise completely with little rigorous science' but it's ameliorated by 'they're gonna do it anyway, tax and regulation is safer'. ",
"> > Having a strong opinion is not automatically a bad thing and does not automatically make people sloppy/manipulative is argumentation\n\n\n>This sentence makes no sense.\n\nin argumentation. \n\n> I made no such suggestion, so I'm not sure where you got that from. In fact, I specifically used the word \"misleading\" in order to create that distinction. It is not hard to report facts and still create a narrative.\n\nI looked back and I’m not seeing you use the word “misleading”. I do see you talking about “creating a narrative”. If I’m misunderstanding you, then what do you mean? To my ear, the phrase “create a narrative” means distorting the facts to suit an agenda or fabricating (creating) something that the facts don’t fully support. \n\nEdit: I see where you used it, up at the top before I jumped into the conversation. ",
"Alright, thanks a bunch.",
"Snipes is incredibly Left, stay away from your political fact check on that side. Cokelore, okay. ",
"All this from a guy who couldn't be bothered to read the study... lol!",
"Almost a convincing save. Points for effort.",
"The thing I don't get about this whole ransom nonsense is that it wasn't even the US' money to begin with. The money belonged to Iran and the US was holding it as ransom to get what *they* wanted. Iran paid the US $400 million for weapons 1979 and at the last minute the US decided not to sell the weapons and kept the money for 30 years! \n\nYou're not really 'paying a ransom' for anything if you are paying them *the money you legally owe them* back.",
"> So, how do you fact check that statement without including context?\n\nLet's take your previous example and use it:\n\n\"Trump is the best president for black people because black employment is at its lowest ever\"\n\nThere are some things in this statement which can be fact-checked and some things that can't. What cannot be fact-checked is the subjective portion: \"Trump is the best president for black people.\" There's a lot more to being \"the best president for black people\" than just employment numbers, and what one person or group of people may find to be \"best for black people\" may be completely at odds to another person or group of people. What can be fact-checked is whether or not black unemployment is at all-time low. Is it? If it is, you have to say that it's a true statement.\n\nNow, if the fact-checker wants to be more thorough and add a caveat that *critics of whoever is being fact-checked* object to the statement as misleading for whatever reason, that's still journalism, because they are still reporting on an event or something someone else is saying. That is where context can be added. What makes it opinion is when the \"fact checker\" makes the counter-argument themselves, or refines the arguments of the critics in question, which is generally what happens where *Snopes* or *Politifact* are concerned.",
"That's fake news pushed by nonestablished outlets. The stuff you're describing is basically nonexistent.",
"If the questions don't make sense, neither will the answers. \n\n- Kurt Vonnegut\n",
"Hey man, we all are from time to time. Unfortunately, the alt right's MO is arguing in bad faith and posting outright lies and I assumed you were doing just that. I apologize for going straight on the offensive, I'm used to them infesting this place (and they are right now). If you didn't mean it, as your deletion implies, then we're good.\n\nI edited my comment too. ",
"No no. I got it. ",
"When you're forced to behave this way to avoid a few simple questions, what does that say about your position?\n\nYou're not representing yourself very well right now, and I think (if you have any sense) you'd be embarrassed for anyone in your real life to see this discussion.",
"Um, I'm the one who *posted* it.\n\n\"lol!\"",
"It's a demonstrably untrue generalization from a nearly insignificant minority. Literally nobody believes that men are not in general physically stronger than women. They may be against *saying* it, but that's different.",
"I also notice a lot of them just don't even know wtf the fallacy is and use it so casually its just a tool regardless of application. Its just a bludgeon for dismissing elements of an argument you don't want to address, or more important cannot.",
"Odd suffixes",
"Why don't you go to some leftist and liberal subs, like the Trump resistance shit, LSC, etc and look at the insane ramblings there? \n\nI get that you're ashamed of dumb anti-science, islamophilic liberals but you need to own up to them not pretend they don't exist. \n\nIs someone like Bill Nye a leftist or a liberal? Clearly a liberal yet look at the shit he pushes on his show. \n\nIs Ben Affleck expressing a conservative or liberal view when he's ranting and raving against Sam Harris? \n\nBe honest with yourself.",
"According to who? The established media?\n\nLol give me a break. The established media has lost all credibility and are indeed enemy of the American people. In fact, I really do think they HATE US because they don’t tell the truth so often. Doesn’t mean Alex Jones is truth, but it the media is definitely not our friend. ",
"The election is nothing compared to control of the local cluster navigation pulsars. ",
"If you think Politico isn’t left leaning, you’ve never been to the site. I’m literally calling a spade a spade. Sorry facts hurt. Also I’m not right wing you troll.",
"This may be true in larger sense, but critical thinking in terms of being able to determine what fake news are might be beneficial in stopping the spread of misinformation and ignorance. \n\nFor some of us, we could already tell if the news are fake with only a glance, but for the topic to reach a discussion of this level means there's something fundamentally wrong with how a lot of people have been \"educated\".",
"That doesn't even make any sense.\n http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/\n\nHere's an article you will read for 30 seconds, decide isn't worth your time, and come away not learning anything with a sense of unearned intellectual and moral superiority. \n\nI know how this goes.",
"yep theyll admit theyre being misleading in the small print a lot of the time but most americans angry at trump dont read that far, its deliberately misleading",
"Everywhere on the internet is a bubble, if you want to be honest. There's not open mindedness when it comes to politics anyways. When it comes to politics, you have to choose a side, which has their own believes. So there's no need to ask a question or question something when the person believes in what you believe in. They will just tell you the correct thing every time, right?",
"Striking for civil discourse with many is impossible. I bounced through r/capitalism one day and naturally couldn't help myself but reply to someone who was casually dismissing global warming as having anything to do with our current economic activity (capitalism is just a mode of exchange, how can it _generate new energy in the system, that's the sun's job_). 3 replies later 90% of my argument are fallacies and he's stopped replying to anything but the self generated character attacks on me that are ostensibly supposed to just be him analyzing my use of ad hominem on him or something.\n\nThe quickest way in my experience to get certain people to go defensive is to cite facts and articulate them clearly and leave them no route for dismissing them.",
"What bias? Snopes has been independently reviewed and found to be free from bias. But what's the point in telling you that, because then you just say the people who reviewed them are also liberals with bias. There is no winning with you people. Anything that doesn't support your right wing agenda gets labelled \"fake news\". ",
"Bro. You replied to my comment. I’m here to make a point. Not play high school speech and debate. My original comment stands. They don’t have credibility. They hadn’t earned credibility. In fact, they’ve earned distrust by slanting things or just flat out lying. About every thing? No. But plenty.\n\nWe didn’t agree that they were the gold standard of “fact check”. Who did? \n\nThat’s the problem ",
"My deletion? I wasn’t the guy who posted lol. Just a random stranger passing by.",
"These sites are absolutely biased, the rest of the card should be mandatory in all schools, though. Kinda weird how it isn't like that already, it is in my country.",
"\"In 2012, FactCheck.org reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases.[24][25] In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a \"consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses\" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy.[26]\"",
"There’s so much of it to wade through ",
"You're correct the left [lost its soul years ago](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVx3YQOXkAUzGsg.jpg:large)",
"Wow that is such a weak fucking example. You guys are so desperate for Snopes to be \"fake news\" so you can dismiss all their debunking of Republican lies. PATHETIC. ",
"I know how this goes too. \"Here's some thing that in some way supports my statement and if you don't agree with it then you're wrong and I bet that's what you're going to do\". It's right up there with people who add \"You'll all downvote me because I told the truth\". Just because you're trying to call it out ahead of time doesn't mean you're right about it. It's just you giving yourself an excuse for why everyone is going to call bullshit on you.\n\nThe article's argument is basically 'They CAN'T be unbiased because they called Republicans liars a lot. It can't possibly that Republican positions rely on dishonest representation of the facts. They MUST be biased! And to back it up, we're going to count the number of words in their examinations because word count is directly related to truth!\"\n\nHey look, I can play your idiot game as well. \"Whatever, you didn't even read the article and I'm right because Republicans are good and honest people and your so-called 'Facts' are just Soros Paid Opinions!\"\n\nI know how this goes too.",
"ITT: Bunch of The_Donald morons trying to discredit Snopes because they hate that it disproves their lies. ",
"Hmm. That is probably more recent than what I've heard. I remember hearing a few years ago that he wanted to retire on Mars.",
">Lol..... way too many.\n\n1. Which fact checking article is wrong? Can you link to it?\n\n2. Specifically what claim from that article are you disputing? Requesting that you quote it, and then show a source proving the claim to be wrong.\n\n\"Too many\" is not a valid excuse when I'm asking for one specific example.\n\n>Again, your making the mistake that this is a debate and your here to score points, not seek the truth. \n\nCan you describe specifically what you mean by that, and what (again specifically, quoting my posts) lead you to this conclusion?",
"so glad they mention passing on anonymous sources. that's a big one that I see all the time on cnn. ",
"\"why do you care so much?\"\n\n\"You never believe anything\"\n\n\"The mainstream media is bullshit too\"\n\n\"I just like to keep an open mind\"\n\n- types of people who believe fake news",
"Yawn, I'm literally a huge liberal with liberal friends, nobody actually believes any of the \"anti-science\" things that guy cited as an example. Does that matter to you?",
"Nice cherrypicking",
"Reality exists independent of who is reporting on it. By a wide margin, especially against \"alternative sources\" that people go to, the mainstream media reports accurately. CNN has a habit of sensationalism, but they still report more accurately than Fox, and a thousand times more accurately than the reactionary alternative stuff that's popping up.\n\nQuestion cable media with a close eye, yeah, but this kind of sentiment\n\n>The established media has lost all credibility and are indeed enemy of the American people. In fact, I really do think they HATE US because they don’t tell the truth so often. \n\nis reactionary bullshit.\n\nedit: Oh, you're a /r/the_donald poster. The idea of an objective reality is lost on you.",
"Every human being needs one of those",
"\"In a 2007 opinion piece, progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a \"Republican tilt\".[56] In contrast, in 2011 politically conservative The Daily Caller declaimed Politico as having a pronounced liberal bias.[57]\n\nDespite these accusations, a 2012 study found that the percentage of Politico readers that identify as Democrats – 29% – is the same as the percentage that identifies as Republicans.[58] As of 2017, the largely crowd-sourced analysis engines AllSides rates Politico as \"Center\" in terms of bias.[59]\"\n\nIf you're not right wing you should probably reconsider lapping up their propaganda like a thirsty dog. ",
"the majority of our population feels that everyone on the other side believes fake news\n\ni'm not sure what you mean by \"they aren't in libraries\"",
"Something liberals need",
"Have you considered not approaching them like they're toddlers? ",
"That isn’t the issue. The real issue is, have you asked YOURSELF why so many people believe that snopes and politifact are leftwing hack sites, and each day, even more people wake up this fact ?\n\nAre all these people just getting fake news? Or is the answer that they not only aren’t providing value, but long time readers have caught them in lies and thus violated people’s trust?\n\n ",
"I think that was your post before mine and it appears to be [removed]. Somebody here (mod?) doesn't like you.\n\nEdit:\n\nFound the post:\n\nSaw this in my local library today[RES ignored duplicate link] by soldier4hire in pics\n>[–]BITCRUSHERRRR 4 points 3 hours ago \n>Concern troll? For separating from a shitty movement that is supporting north korea now? I have debates with people who don't plug their ears and go \"lalalalal\". You people claim you're the only right ones and everyone else is wrong. Fuck party affiliation. Fuck the right, and especially fuck the modern left. You all suck and all scapegoat innocent people and do nothing but whine.\n\nwtf is going on here? Mods censoring posts covertly?",
"The problem is that CNN is fake news. ",
"Uhh, we’re trying to get rid of false information in the current across the entire political spectrum. \n\nWe don’t want to pretend, in fact we want to find it just like you do. I’ve been digging dirt on my senator sure. He’s got dirt on him (illegal campaign contributions from his father but otherwise clean money) but he’s answered for that already, as for his committee jobs he’s doing swell., That is to say he has answered for his crimes and he has survived that process. \n\nDid you know you can download and view the papers for almost every bill that has gone through the house and senate? ( you can also see if it passed, died in committee or was denied)\n\nDid you know you can see the federal pay scale and also see their net worth? (Full name please)\n\nDid you know you can access the information about contribution percentage to each representative and senators campaign from each source? (This one is straightforward, investigate campaign contributor’s Modus Operandi by magnitude of contribution)\n\nDid you know federal sources were oft reliable until given the official gag order from the whitehouse to numerous federal departments and in response you have had tons of folks quitting and violating their NDA’s ? (If you look this one up make sure to note the time period of the article, recent ones are only full of “gag order on Steve Bannon”).\n\nThey’re human, so human, made of flesh, memos, banks accounts, secrets, and embarrassing memories. So we follow their leads, their parts, to trace the edge of a bigger picture. You find it, you log it.\n\nDamn I wish there was more third party options, getting sick of being a Democrat, Republican, or silent. \n\n",
"Global warming denyers are also questioning authority. Most of the time authority is correct.",
"Da comrade! ",
"Moron ",
"> So pursuing the truth instead of blindly trusting news sources is a bad thing?\n\nNope, not what I said.\n\n> And you say ALL Americans can't identify lies.\n\nNope, not what I said.",
"Well yeah, so does every other large media outlet, that's how you become a large media outlet. Thinking that CNN or MSNBC, don't do the same thing is just working in your own bubble. Part of the issue with modern politics is that most ways of finding out about them come through a filter of one of these sources.",
"It does fucking matter though, while objective truths certainly exists, you should always be open to new information which overturns them. 3 centuries ago it was objective truth that men could not fly. ",
"He took money from Infowars, but if you actually look into it he was already doing this event to investigate the claims of \"no go zones\". PJW found out about this and then contributed to the public funding campaign.\n\nAnd does it matter if those sites mention him? That doesn't make him \"right leaning\". His own political views are what make him left leaning. What of his views do you think exclude him from being considered \"left wing\"?\n\nWhy not actually watch the video? He is claiming that sites like Vox, Mic, Salon, etc. are not in the lists used by this study. How can you stand by that study when these types of sites are not included while others such as The Daily Caller are?",
"There are definitely people who believe one or more of those things, but this is no tenant of liberal politics. I mean seriously, biology? You need to talk to more people. ",
">I’m here to make a point. Not play high school speech and debate.\n\nI'm starting to see a pattern here. I've asked several people to elaborate on why they think fact-checking sites can't be trusted, and after a little questioning they invariably break down and refuse to discuss the topic further.\n\nIf even the most vocal anti fact-checking advocates are unwilling to defend that position, it seems pretty clear that their argument is entirely untenable.",
">pop-psychologist\n\nbahahahahahahahahaha thanks as usual typical retard redditor for proudly putting your stupidity on open display",
"Exactly, this is why we need to have all the facts, and what pissed me off so much about the Trump administration's obfuscation on the Russia probe. It will probably be nothing but don't hide shit from me for political gain.",
"Member critical thinking skills?",
"[Here](http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/) is a pretty decent breakdown of the stats behind politifact ratings. Interestingly enough, most of the false ratings given to Republicans require a *lot* more words on average to actually justify that claim, which means the analyst is jumping through more hoops to try and do so.\n\nA particularly egregious example is that during the 2012 election season, Mitt Romney received no fewer than 19 \"Pants on Fire\" ratings, which are typically reserved for lies with malicious intent. The entire Democrat party between 2007 and 2016 only received 25 such ratings. It's *extremely* unlikely that Romney somehow managed to rival the number of lies in a single year that the Democrats did over an entire decade. If you believe that, you're the one who is biased.\n\nBasically, Politifact is garbage if their analysis is longer than a sentence or two.",
"Oh, there it is, the \"both sides do it\"! That's bingo!",
"so? you can say the same for any directional political term. There's still common meaning that's broadly understandable to anyone not trying to quibble over details to avoid the point.",
"Having watched this exchange, the point fluctuation, and your activities, I think I get it now.\n\nSo first the general, informed, non-shit-posting public thinks your comments are ridiculous, and appropriately downvotes them.\n\nThen you post our exchange in your little clubhouse (thanks for at least blocking my name, but sad that you had to title it with a blatant lie that you pulled from your ass). You and your comrades enjoy a weird backslapping delusion of victory.\n\nThen the final step, they all come along and brigade the original thread and upvote your previously downvoted comments.\n\nThis has actually been very educational for those of us seeking to find ways of ending this behavior and take back the internet from trolls, bots, and shit-posters. So thanks!",
"Is it 79% of *people only read headlines* or 79% of news articles *only have their headline read*?\n\nPretty big difference between the two IMO",
"> You have spoken in nothing but vague opinions stated in fact with no backing or political viewpoint.\n\nYou think that you have? I guess the difference would be, then, that I know exactly where your loyalties lie.\n\nAnd I'm NOT beholden to the left, why should I be? Why should that matter? I hate the right because I can't think of a single stance they take in this day and age that isn't utter garbage. They favor party over country, cheat to win, obstruct, and they harbor racists, sexists, sexual predators, and liars. This is on top of having fiscal policy that flat out hasn't worked for at least as long as I've been alive (I'd say long before then too), and having no clue how to govern, or intention of doing so. Looking at every person in Trump's cabinet, and how the RNC just let them sweep in with nary a question, it's hard to have any kind of faith in the right. It's even worse when you look at conservative media.\n\nSo yeah, I'm more on the left than anything else. But again, what does that matter in the framework of the discussion thus far?\n\nANYWAY, none of that was being discussed. You said:\n\n> punch people in the face for exercising their constitutional rights while denouncing them as their racist enemy\n\nto which I responded by saying that the ONE guy who that happened to WAS a racist AND a Nazi, and you claimed not to know who he was. So I wondered what on earth you were talking about.\n\nI'd also like to know, do you think the number of racists on the right is the perfect amount, or would you prefer that there were more? Or do you just bury your head in the sand as to their existence altogether? \n\nI have never, and certainly didn't say to you that \"the right is Nazis.\" I said that they're crawling out of the woodwork, and are attempting to co-opt the Republican party, which they are. It's easy to see why when the president refuses to give them any real condemnation, and any that comes from congressional republicans is lukewarm at best.\n\n> something something hollywood\n\nWhat the fuck dude, seriously? YOU brought that up! And you did so as if it was some kind of bombshell indictment of the left, which is goddamn ridiculous.\n\n> The reason i asked you to clarify is being nothing you have opinionated thus far has had any substance feel free to directly tell me what your issue is here.\n\nYou said things, I responded to the things you said, then you apparently got confused because you couldn't handle questions about the insane shit you said and wanted my life story. \n\nAny problems with the discourse here are on your end, not mine.\n",
"I get the feeling you wouldn't actually like me to elaborate. But here goes:\n\nEsteem: another word for respect.\nLeader: well, he's your President. It's pretty clear he's your leader.\nHowever, my phrasing and capitalizations are intended to suggest a link to Communist phrasing. This should have a mixed taste, in that on the one hand, Trump's apparent ties to Russian oligarchs and potentially treasonous actions are brought to mind, and on the other hand, his schoolboy taunting of Kim Jong Whatever.\n\nI think I was calling him out on it, your narcissism made it seem that I was calling you out. It's not all about you. Are you the kind of guy who thinks that being loud and aggressive gets your point across better? \n\nI don't understand your last point. There's no point in my saying that I didn't claim any of that, I might have the same effect as if I said it to my cat.\n\nInstead, let's turn to more creative pursuits. What are you making these days? I built a bed over Christmas.",
"But what about the droid attack on the Wookiees?",
"> Nobody is ever going to figure out if they lie so again why should I trust them\n\nIsn't the claim of alt-right fucktards that the big evil media gets caught lying using anonymous sources every 20 seconds? Your claim here seems to disagree with the fundamental reason people disagree with the media.",
"So where’s the quotation marks from? Who are you quoting?",
">It's a liberal movement because it's liberals who started it and who make up the bulk of it, genius.\n\nI assume you're referring to the \"every body type is beautiful\" thing, so I'll address that. I was asking why the commenter believes that is a political movement. Have any liberal politicians enacted or even attempted to enact policies even marginally related to that? If so, I would certainly disagree with that. I'm a runner and care very much about personal health.\n\nI was mainly probing for any evidence that only or even mostly liberals began that movement. It seems far-fetched to me, which is why I'm very skeptical of the claim. \n\n\n\n>Next thing you'll be telling me the \"slut walk\" and other insane liberal events are apolitical looool. \n\nI have absolutely no clue what you're even talking about here. If you'd explain what you're referring to, I could respond to that. \n\n>This is the most pathetic attempt at distancing yourself from the craziness on your political spectrum I've ever seen. You're just pretending they aren't even liberal lmao.\n\nAlright, I'm going to try to respond to this even though I believe you're being facetious.\n\nFor one, the three examples given (denying women are, in general, less physically strong than men; obesity is healthy; every individual is equal at birth) are not things I have seen reflected in any kind of policy proposed or enacted by liberal (or any, for that matter) politicians. That's why I consider them apolitical issues. \n\nAs for your accusation that I'm \"distancing\" myself from my political spectrum, I don't really understand where you're going with that. I am capable of thinking for myself and agreeing or disagreeing with specific policies and opinions, regardless of my political leanings. \n\nFor example, I am well aware that communism is an extreme left political system; however, I definitely do *not* want the US to implement a communist form of government. That's much, *much* farther left than I'd be willing to go. I like capitalism a lot actually, to a degree, and with some sensible regulation (I don't think that anarchy or anarcho-capitalist policies are effective in practice for where we are at as a society/country).\n\nBecause I'm a normal, sane person capable of critical thinking and reasoning, it requires no cognitive dissonance on my part to reconcile the difference between my own political opinions and those of people farther left on the political spectrum than I am. I'm capable of agreeing with a person on one thing and disagreeing with them on another. ",
"You say it explicitly.",
"The problem is fake news comes from the left and right. ",
"And I’m noticing a pattern of “deletion” on your part. Did you know that we all view the world through “Frames”. You think by me citing sources that will eventually lead me to being exposed as some “fraud”. \n\nBut to the passive unbiased reader, they will get my point even more. And because your frame is also deleting things, your completely ignoring my rhetorical point. It’s not my intent to post every instance of bs from the sites. It’s my my intent to provide a point about credibility, argumentation from authority, artificially created authority. Im not here to argue about technicalities, but to talk about the 30,000 feet, above the ground view of the issue. And from that view, my point is even more clear. \n\nYour not stepping outside your frame, and in fact, your frame may even be filtering it and deleting it as you take my comment in. The issue isn’t one of evasion, it’s one of scope. I’m looking at the whole issue. Your looking at one aspect of the issue. ",
"Cue interstellar theme",
"I’ve left my bubble a few times. You always end up in another one. It might be bigger, it might get Truman Show big where you can’t even see the edges of it at all, but it’s still a bubble. It’s hard to know for sure that you’re in the right one. \n\nLooking for internal consistency is key. Every memeplex - shorthand for something like “set of ideas, artifacts, theories, philosophies, and traditions” - has a core with a few postulates at the bottom acting as axioms. Sometimes it’s hard to know even what they are, for yourself, and if you’ve spent any time on yourself at all they’ll typically be a pretty powerful set that is hard to deconstruct. Still, you need to get down in there and look at the bowels of the machine now and again to see if you’re powered by circular logic or not. ",
"I'm saying the fake news is targeted at everybody indiscriminately. Not that it comes from one side or another.",
"... are you ok? Yeah dude you were never a DOJ employee or a lawyer. Not that \"former lawyer\" sounds great on a resume either (which you would know if you've been to law school). I'm not even going to begin on the number of hilarious statements you just made. You can read this though... \n\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nunes-memo-is-a-giant-damaging-distraction/2018/02/02/380be4be-084f-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.e6ade9ee11dd",
"> Isn't the claim of alt-right fucktards that the big evil media gets caught lying using anonymous sources every 20 seconds?\n\nWhat does this have to do with what I said? \n\n>Your claim here seems to disagree with the fundamental reason people disagree with the media.\n\nWhat?",
"Opinion column — lol\nWashington Post — anti trump\n\nThe Grassley memo confirmed — and added — to the allegations.\n\nThe FBI has CONFIRMED everything in the memo. Why does this fact get lost on you? Is the FBI lying? \n\nI INVITE you to NOTICE how hard the media is going to prevent transparency on this issue. Why wouldn’t the media want all records to be released? \n\nBut again, the FBI confirmed this. Your saying the FBI is lying?\n\nAnd of course — me being a lawyer — has nothing to do with any of this.... but let’s see—so the FBI is lying, as they have now confirmed both the grassley memo and the Nunes memo. They are lying? Who do I believe? ",
"If every piece of “objective reporting” is actually an editorial with a clickbait headline it’s hard to see the difference. ",
"Pretty sure he would be described as \"an expert in the field who wishes to stay anonymous,\" which is still better than \"experts say...\" because the whoke experts say thing is very generic and basically sounds like you think someone somewhere might say it but you don't want to do the research to find out if an expert actually said it or not. It's tabloid text by professional standards. ",
"Which implies nothing about having read it, unlike this comment thread in which you demonstrate that you haven't. (This should embarrass you...)",
"\"everyone who disagrees or tells me how and why i am wrong is a troll\"",
"Ah, nevermind then. I'm out brewery hopping with friends and didn't really check. ",
"Yeah they are at home watching netflix, star wars and harry potter on an endless loop",
"It sounds like you want an Encyclopedia, not journalism.",
"Was that /u/ random or is it some sort of code?",
"You preach to me about reality yet you can’t even argue against me without using logical fallacy. CNN is fake news. Fox is actually more objective but it just goes to show that you don’t actually watch Fox new nor does every conservative. Many conservatives don’t think it’s right leaning enough but it’s certainly closer to the middle and more fair than CNN ever has been.\n\nYou need to dissociate fox’s commentators with their journalists. Their journalism is pretty down the middle and most Americans agree that to be the case. See the polls on it.\n\nCNN on the other hands reporters are blatantly pushing an agenda. Either way, don’t trust either. Trust none of them. Watch them all. Make up your own mind. \n\nAnd yes, the established media has lost all credibility. Hell they lost it in 2003 when they didn’t hold the bush admin to account. That was a great time. That’s when the left actually agreed with what I’m saying ... funny how they love THE ESTABLISHMENT now because the establishment has dropped all pretexts of objectivity to go to war against trump because he’s an outsider \n\nThen again, I’m wondering if you were even if age then as it seems most resistors back then were for Ron Paul, and these anti trump resistors have been raised in these Marxist identity politics driven schools ",
"Ok... \n\nhttps://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/03/trey-gowdy-nunes-memo-russia-probe-389083\n\nDude you first say the FBI is full of lies, then you trust them on their confirmation, so that's convenient. Then, you weirdly forget that the FBI and CIA strongly advised against releasing the memo as it was entirely misleading and missing half the necessary info. \n\nNext, Nunes never even read the FISA warrants. He had no clue wtf they said. He didn't care. \n\nMy god bud just think. The FBI did a real awesome job in trying to screw Trump over by saying they're reopening Hilary's nothing case a week before the election while not at all disclosing they had been looking at Trump's campaign for a year. How did Trump ever survive? \n\nAre you high?",
"the fact there isn't an actual connection to obama directly yet, only that the FBI was issued warrants. Granted as the man at the top of the food chain, we may end up confirming 100% it was him who ordered it, but the evidence thus far doesn't extend all that way.\n\nHalf true is the most honest, non partisan, ruling on the initial claim.",
"LOL please. you know and i know exactly what you mean when you frame people as \"pop-psychologists\". save me the bullshit. especially save me the bullshit about knowing whether he would enjoy my company, just sounds creepy from you matey.",
"Lol exactly.\n\nNone of them are even giving me a proper response. They're just diverting.",
"Haven't worked for decades? The economy is at an all time high, and I agree. The old school politicians no both sides are shit, for once we have an administration looking out for middle America.\n\nBut the media and the elite of hollywood pander HARD to the left.\n\nI don't think about nazis, like never. They're not even on my radar, I can't think of a single nazi crime that's happened in the past several years on American soil if I'm honest, yet the left OBSESSES over them. This is why i brought up nazis. HOWEVER, EVERY GOD DAMNED FUCKING DAY I HAVE IDENTITY POLITICS RAMMED DOWN MY FUCKIGN THROAT, ON REDDIT, IN HTE WORK PLACE, ON TV, IN THE MOVIES.\n\nYou people are living in a dream world, there is no organized right movement to take over the US and lobotomize all the \"gays\". Are there some hick mother fuckers in the south that would be pissed as hell if their sister dated a black dude? Sure. Just like there are parents injecting their 7 year old kids with hormones, or who think full grown men should be allowed to use the women's restroom, or think its cute when their daughter wears a hijab.\n\nThere is stupidity on both sides, my argument is that there is a much LARGER insane group on the left, that have demonized middle of the road average americans for their own sake.\n\nThey come on the internet, and declare everyonea fuckiong racist to build their own god damned self worth. They do nothing for society but bitch and moan about an enemy that doesn't even exist. They're a puppet for their do nothing politicians who haven't done a damned thing for the middle class in over 30 years.\n\nEnjoy your record job growth,\nEnjoy the peace and prosperity,\nEnjoy the coming improvements to infrastructure,\nEnjoy the rapid dismantlement of foreign enemies,\nEnjoy record low Hispanic and Black unemployment,\nEnjoy your reduction of regulation and tax so you can start your own business,\n \n\"But muh racism\"\n\nYour party platform is a fucking joke.",
"If you actually read sources like the OP says, you might learn something.\n\n[59]: \"February 1, 2018: After analyzing results from our most recent blind bias survey and editorial review, the Politico media bias rating has moved from Center to Lean Left.\"\n\nAlso the linked studies are mostly of the audience not the content. Just because 25% of the readership of Breitbart identifies as Democrat, doesn't mean it's not a full Republican operation.\n\nSo you wanna try again? Or are you going to accept that reality exists, leanings exist, and that you don't check your sources.",
"Dude—did you even read the memo? This is some nice spin.\n\nAgain, THE FBI CONFIRMED BOTH THE GRASSLEY MEMO AND THR NUNES MEMO.\n\nYou know who has read the fisa warrants?\n\nChuck Grassley. You aren’t paying attention, \n\nAre they lying? Well—given how you are citing sources that many people even in this thread are complaining about .... yeah. Forgive me if I take chuck grassleys words and the fbi more seriously than some politico or Washington post news story when they have been caught lying again and again. \n\nAnd remember what Nunes said — at the very start of this— the spying had NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA. \n\nSo is the FBI lying? Is Grassley lying? Nunes lying?\n\nThey are all lying? \n\nHmm. Only one way to find out. Declassify everything and let everything out into the open. If it’s nothing, chuck Grassley, the fbi, and Devin Nunes will all look like idiots. \n\nFunny how this memo is nothing yet the democrats said last week it was against national security (which proved to be untrue)\n\nRelease everything.\n\nAlso, you know who else can read the fisa warrants? POTUS. And probably already has.\n\nYou aren’t thinking this through and putting way too much faith in institutions that have got so much wrong in their reporting.\n\nNow this is just my guess .... but I Can’t wait for the transcripts of Ivanka being spied on for some reason to leak.... now there is no proof of that, and nobody has actually said that, but I’d know what anything about fisa warrants (I do) and how the entire process works, I would be surprised if a lot of people were spied on illegally and none of it will have anything to do with Russia.\n\nRemember what Nunes said after he left the scif last year.\n\nYa ever think that Russia probe might ensare whoever lied to the FISA judge? Or whoever lied to Congress about the dossier? You are not thinking this through or looking at the actual facts ",
"The police and government need to read this comment. ",
"/r/coolguides",
"[here's a guy, who admittedly is part comedian, part talk show host, who does a pretty decent overview of this problem,](https://youtu.be/VOu30hBgPXg?t=12m57s) using specific lies told by trump and hillary, and how they are over and under represented.\n\nyou can follow along and verify if what he's telling you is true or not. It's a long video, but the segment in question is only about 10 minutes long, and i've scrubbed it to 12:57 where you'll want to start watching",
"> They're anonymous only to us. The journalist has verified the person's identity and credibility\n\n\nThe faith is strong with this one.",
"It’s heavily biased, but it’s not literally fake news. The stories CNN covers are actual events, they just take an extremely partisan stance on them.",
"ya no kidding. Since when though. Could've sworn I've seen you there",
"https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/09/the-grassley-letter-everyone-is-ignoring-is-way-more-important-than-the-nunes-memo-216956\n\nI guess I can keep catching you up... can I ask how old you are?",
"Ok ? They weren’t suggesting to watch CNN Billy. ",
"Wait, you guys use headphones? The speakers at your not work or something?",
"Snopes ... Right ...",
"> Try and figure out why you came to different conclusions. \n\nThis doesn't apply to many things, like religious debates. They are just repeating what they were told to repeat since they were born and indoctrinated into the religion. They didn't get there through a logical thought process.",
"Hahahaha, sup homie :)",
"You aren’t catching me up. It’s clear you haven’t read the memos yourself. \n\nThat’s an opinion column. It’s also short on facts and it’s pretty clear Ms. Sanchez is spinning for the establishment. It’s ironic your posting a politico piece when that’s one place where everybody is complaining about. \n\nInstead of asking me how old I am, there is a better question: did you read either of the memos?\n\nDid you actually read them. \n\nJust read both memos.\n\nThe FBI confirmed Both. Come back and let me know what you think. \n\nI say just release the fisa warrant Completely. Grassley has already read it. I’m sure trump has as well, just release all of it. If all of this is bs, you have to wonder why they wouldn’t risk their credibility, don’t you? I’m sure all the evidence would make them look like fools, wouldn’t it?\n\nRead the memos and come back \n",
"Broooooooooooooo what ahahahha\n\n\"So are most cults\"\n\nLooooooooooooooooollllll I don't think you can recover from that one lmfao.. Go show yourself out ;))",
"Negative 32 karma for saying reality is just reality. Jesus Christ Reddit...",
"Which fallacy?",
"Is Obama human? ",
">If every piece of “objective reporting” is actually an editorial\n\nStupid shit people say that only plays in internet message boards",
"Once again, please cite the example. Please.",
"Why would I? I still haven't seen anyone cite an example that backs up the claim. Not one single example. Just downvotes.",
"Ok lol yes a news report is only going to give you things that happen. It is not going to explain the significance or lack thereof to you. \n\nCan I ask which sources you think are legitimate?\n\nRead both memos when they were released. Nunes doesn't understand what a FISA warrant is, which once again he didn't read. His own words on fox lol. How exactly is he going to author report on things he has never even read?\n\nThe FBI has explained a good amount of times how this works and how the memo is entirely incomplete and just sort of cherry picks. Its legitimacy is irrelevant if there is 0 context. Its like confirming someone said \"This movie left me amazed...\" when they finished it with \"... at how little acting ability the cast had.\"\n\n",
"Here's your facts.\n\nI'm going to take 3 claims Trump made, and 3 claims hillary made, and show you how many times those claims were fact checked. For the sake of argument, let's say that all 6 claims are in fact false.\n\n* Trump claimed he did not support the Iraq War- 6 fact checks \n* Claims about Obama's birth certificate-8 fact checks\n* Claims of large scale voter fraud-5 checks\n* total checks: 19 checks, total claims: 3\n\nNow Hillary Clinton\n\n* Landed in bosnia under sniper fire-1 check\n* in NY city on 9/11-never checked\n* the fbi was fine with her email use-1 check\n* total checks: 2, total claims: 3\n\nSeriously, I invite you to fact check me, head over to politifact, count it yourself. But, how I see it, we have a republican who's checked falsely 19 times over 3 claims, and a democrat who's checked falsely twice over 3 claims.\n\nYou see how that completely destroys the argument right?",
"I have no idea what the error is supposed to be.",
"I'm surprised this post doesn't have more dislikes from Trolls and bots. ",
"> The point is that, like any other investigative outlet, they have their own bias.\n\nThat was absolutely, objectively NOT the point. ",
"Follow the link I posted to this thread to see multiple proofs of literal fake news spread by CNN. Sometimes because they're too dumb or in a rush to get a sensation going, sometimes because they need to follow orders and spread propaganda. Even heavily biased leftie liberal sources such as Huffington Post, Vox, or Snoopes have refuted CNN's claims, ffs!",
"I'll make it easy, since you like ignoring stuff. \n\nWhy would the FBI be against Trump... and then announce they plan to reopen a case on Hilary a week before November? Do the just kind of half ass their conspiracies?",
"> The economy is at an all time high\n\nAaaaaaaaand you don't understand. Typical. Maybe you should refresh your memory for what the economy did during the Clinton admin, then Bush, then Obama. Maybe you'll understand. Earlier I brought up Kansas as a microcosm of Republican fiscal policy, look into that too.\n\n> for once we have an administration looking out for middle America\n\nlol dude...I'm so...fucking...sorry. I can't help you. I'm also not going to bother reading any further because you're a moron, and I've already wasted enough of my time.",
"The fbi never said it was cherry picked. In fact they confirmed it. If there is missing context why don’t we release it all? \n\nI find it hilarious how last week we couldn’t relate these memos and now they are nothing.\n\nYou didn’t actually read them. Go read them instead of just repeating Rachel Maddow spin",
"> It's tabloid text by professional standards. \n\nPet peeve of mine: laymen saying shit that can only be said with authority by non laymen. Like defining the standards of a profession. ",
"Example given by u/CodeMonkey1 to me:\n\n>Trump says black youth unemployment is at 59% - [Politifact says Mostly False](http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/), because although Trump is referencing a real statistic on black employment, it is not the specific statistic normally used to measure employment.\n\n>Bernie says black youth unemployment is 51% - [Politifact says Mostly True](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/), because although Bernie is referencing a statistic which is not normally used to measure employment, his general point about blacks being under employed is true.",
"The TOP brass of the fbi as well as the DOJ was. This is now confirmed fact. \n\nThey reopened the email case because Hillary’s emails were found and/or they thought they were helping her. It’s either one or the other. \n\nYou do know there is an OIG investigation into all of this? Go read the text messages \n\nGo read the memos. You haven’t clearly ",
"The point with many of the political 'whataboutisms' floating about today is that whatever Hillary did (or did not do) literally does not matter as much as what Trump is doing. Or not doing.\n\nBecause Hillary does not have power and Trump does.\n\nTherefore bringing up Hillary when people discuss Trump is whataboutism.",
"Yeah where’s the *Protect Yourself From Giants* leaflet?? ",
"If you think global warming does not effect the economy you need to be approached like a toddler.",
"They're at home watching CNN",
"https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/how-decades-of-democratic-rule-ruined-some-of-our-finest-cities/\n\nIt's not rocket science, you waste a lot of money on govenment, on handouts, you pander to votes instead of solid economic policy and society crumbles. I could say the same, peace.",
"I had Reddit ads turned off for a while. But then it because *obsessed* with showing me what looked like a ripped off, cooked sheep leg in a torture rack. \n\nNo thanks. ",
"Except people like acting like Trump's behavior is almost always unprecedented when it isn't always. ",
"That's a red herring, because the host url is irrelevant to the screenshot. Did you see the screenshot? Politifact and the other leftist funded sites contradict themselves too often by rating true statements as false and vice versa. ",
"Lol snopes. ",
"+1, thanks for the souce.",
"I've tried giving you links. Not good enough I guess.\n\nCan you cite any of your claims?",
"What's funny is pizzagate still passes the smell test and yet the msm sells you the idea that they are they gatekeepers of knowledge. Its only legit if it comes from the hooker lovers at snopes.",
"> I could say the same\n\nNo you couldn't, you'd have to actually know something to do that.\n\nYou and every other \"pede\" are exactly the same. Enjoy your collective.",
"You gave me biased OPINION PIECES. \n\nhow about Read both memos and lets discuss what you don’t believe based on just the memos that the fbi has confirmed as true. \n\nMissing context? That doesn’t make them untrue. So let’s just discuss what each memo says and what you think isn’t true. ",
"Anytime really. ",
"Searching amusement park rides gets you (at least now) more than one instance of the same impossible thumbnail. A loop with the top half -missing- and roller coaster cars just rolling along in mid air. ",
"Snopes IS \"fake news\" though. It's biased as all hell and [run by propagandists](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7b3hm3/snopes_author_facebook_page_shows_links_to/). It's very disturbing stuff once you research the authors behind Snopes.\n\nEverything on this card applies to the \"fact-check\" sites as well.",
"As I said before enjoy the improving state of our country.\n\nWe can sit here and argue back and forth forever, it doesn't change the fact people have jobs and can provide for their families now and that's what matters.\n\nTry to keep an open mind.",
"https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/02/politics/fbi-nunes-memo-full/index.html\n\nLol ok... here? Here is the FBI saying it. \n\nSo why do you think your supreme leader is blocking the Democrat's reply to Nunes' memo?",
"I read news amalgamators for headlines, view BBC News for British stuff and have a couple of political commentators for editorial stuff. They are self-admittedly right leaning, and fully admit to having a bias and typically implore their listeners to read or research certain topics. ",
"You need to calm down and make an argument which isnt entirely made from Ad Hominems. Are you 12? ",
"As the person who posted the link: I entirely agree with you. ",
"The latest incident is the stupid military parade.\n\nTrump asks people to research the possibility (which I myself think is dumb) and people are acting that is he literally ordering the parade to happen. It would like calling up Burger King and asking if they can host a soccer game celebration Then Fox News runs a story on how the soccer team is ordering Burger King customers to clear out for a soccer team.",
"Uh huh.",
"> And does it matter if those sites mention him? That doesn't make him \"right leaning\". His own political views are what make him left leaning. What of his views do you think exclude him from being considered \"left wing\"?\n\nWhat makes him a \"right-wing media personality\" in my eyes is simply: The right-wing media like him and quote him a lot and pay him. His personal views aren't really important regarding his credibility. His customers' views are. \n\n\n\n> He is claiming that sites like Vox, Mic, Salon, etc. are not in the lists used by this study. How can you stand by that study when these types of sites are not included while others such as The Daily Caller are?\n\nFirstly, if your opinion differs from the scientific classification you're probably wrong. I mean, I can look at an X-Ray, too, but if my doctor says it's harmless and I say it's cancer the probability of my doctor being right is probably higher than 99%. \n\nSecondly, you can look up the sources in the link. I neither have the time nor the patience to analyze all of those, but if you for example compare vox.com and dailycaller.com, you can see that there is a difference. Both are biased, but you can see some differences. E.g. Vox is better with making clear what's commentary and what is an normal report and all in all their speech is less hyperbolic more issue based than the daily caller. Attacks on the not-so-biased media in general like [this](http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/11/north-korea-olympics-mainstream-media/) are simply what gets you classified as junk by any reasonable person. ",
"Thanks Obama ",
"TIL telling the truth is deflecting lol.",
"Not at my local library. I reported a homeless dude who came up to me, said scary words I did not understand and then managed to slip away in the confusion. Three employees walked me and my mom to the car. ",
"What??",
"I don't get it. What Trump is doing now is literally more important than whatever Hillary ever did.",
"They pretty much cherry pick the shit out of pizzagate and misrepresent it and call it fake without getting into what it actually is it at all. Its funny cuz the term \"fake news\" first became popular when pizzagate started gaining traction. In fact it was the first time anyone heard the buzzword \"fake news\" was on ABC news in a story about pizzagate where they forget to tell you what it is, and instead tell you its all fake and debunked, without providing facts/details at all.\n\nCheck out some actual reporting on it;\nhttps://youtu.be/-GZFHLAcG8A",
"You've given me nothing... no links... at all and you don't understand how news works. \n\nThe memo does not even support the claims it makes. Page left the campaign. Then the warrant was filed. I'm not going to repeat what's in literally every reputable news outlet. Read through this TOTALLY BIASED LIBERAL AGENDA and please explain what you think they have wrong.\n\nhttps://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/2/16965086/nunes-memo-dud-release",
"Why? Cuz someone told you they were? Snopes wad created by two random people with no degree in journalism or any investigative experience. Literally 2 dudes who will write whatever who ever pays them most. You should really check out the ongoing lawsuit for some reality.",
"Of course, you’re citing Thr Federalist, a rampantly conservative/libertarian source which is claiming a rival website is politically biased against the political philosophy the Federalist supports. And round and round we go. ",
"Yes! protect yourself from fake news.",
"I didn't make any kind of commentary on the level of importance, but if someone is using it specifically to dismiss something he does then obviously it is to defend him. That is all there is to get. \n\nIf it is to disprove the lack of precedent, then usually people assume it is the former reason. Only way to know which it is would be to ask. ",
"Even politico has a bias. Just stick to looking over different news from both sides. Does your inner BS signal go off? It's probably not true, but look into it further. More complex subjects will have more dead ends. ",
"oh ok cool let me rephrase. Where do you do the further research that Hannity asks you too?",
"CNN isn’t credible. \n\nLet’s just discuss the memos. They talk of Omission. Omission doesn’t mean they are fake. It means some things are missing and possible context. The Grassley memo has added this context and further confirmed. CNN doesn’t address this because this is just about the Nunes memo. CNN is deliberately conflating this to confuse viewers who only read headlines. You probably didn’t even read the story. \n\nLet’s just talk about the memos. The fbi has CONFIRMED THEM. \n\nWhat on the memo do you find to be inaccurate since you know you’ve read them?\n\nFurther, since this entire thread is about bias — have you read what right wing media is saying about the memos? Have you read what left wing media is saying about the memos? Have you read the memos themselves? \n\nAnd what conclusions have you drawn. \n\nCNN isn’t credible and it’s clear you haven’t read right leaning sites on the issue. Meanwhile I’ve read all the left leaning sites on this and it’s pretty clear your just repeating headlines and actually haven’t read the memo.\n\nGo read the memos, and then come back and tell me what you find issue with. What parts do you think are wrong. But keep in mind, the fbi has confirmed them. They just stated context was missing to which I would say—-great! Let’s under that context and release everything. \n\nThe best way to get to the bottom of this is by releasing everything. So go actually read the memos instead of posting garbage sources like CNN ",
"And underpaying. ",
">When journalists for papers like the NY Times quote anonymous sources, they're anonymous only to us.\n\nSo you take it on blind faith. You might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster just saying.",
"Keep in mind too, as a lawyer, I’ve been following this case religiously, so I’m not going to let bullshit arguments fly ... I know this case inside and out as best to my ability on what’s available publicly (and not from twitter conspiracy theorists like I’m sure you follow)",
"Be careful with this... Most of this card is true, BUT most of the info applies to the sites like Snopes, Politico and Politifact. Much of the info on those sites are proven to be [run by propagandists](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7b3hm3/snopes_author_facebook_page_shows_links_to/). Like the last step says, be open-minded. Don't just accept that something is debunked because a site says so. Many times they are lying, omitting facts, and twisting the truth.\n\nBasically this can all be summed up with \"do your own research and don't trust ANY news source\".",
"Also important, a news article might be true, but also consider what they *dont* report",
"are you jordan peterson? are you his wife? please accept that you don't know shit. you can assume he wouldn't like it all you want, you are most likely right. it doesn't mean anything to me though i don't want to suck his cock i just like certain things he says some more than others. being a fan doesn't mean i need the guy to approve of my every action. that is not how normal people behave. more importantly please educate me on what tribe i am basely proclaiming allegiance to, i'd love to hear that one.",
"lol, don't watch Hannity, I very seldom catch bits of Tucker Carlson. We can take digs at each other or we can have a civil discussion, up to you. ",
"You may not want to see the people you surround yourself with for who they are but rest assured that everyone else does. My only hope is that you someday take a step back and look at that sub objectively.",
"VOX —- ahahahhhhaahahahahahah — almost worse than the first two you posted. \n\nIsn’t it funny that that Ezra Klein’s site is repeating the same “narrative” as these other two links you’ve posted almost word for word; “Nunes memo a dud” ... almost like it’s coordinated .... \n\nWait a second it was the same Ezra Klein who was busted getting a massive amount of journalists to conspire to manipulate the news in favor of pro obama narratives and not actual objective reporting ?\n\nJOURNOLIST — have ya heard of it? Dude is this your first foray into politics posting that VOX shit. Come on. If you want a far left perspective and opinion on culture and politics, ok—but they ain’t no nuetral reporting. They are gonna say any thing that’s bad for R and good for D\n\n\n😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂",
"I already was, it was called the Obama administration. That is, after all, who you have to thank for all of that.\n\nIt's a pity you didn't seem to heed your own advice.",
"Pizzagate. They didn't even get it right. They just say its fake, and talk about something that is fake(comet hoarding kids) and act like that is what pizzagate is. Its not. No one reputable ever said there were kids at comet. All the actual researchers pointed straight to the Pegasus museum, the place where these actual auctions happen. Human trafficking is not partisan.",
"It was a publicity stunt that has clearly worked well.",
"thanks for the redpill bro",
"Law enforcement is almost always a voting demographic that is heavily right wing. You don't see a whole hell of a lot of liberal cops.",
"Outside of British news, you read headlines and listen to political commentators who spin it for you. All I'm asking is where you do further research? Surely you're not spending HOURS digging through legislation like its your job, so where else do you do research?",
"I say let’s release everything! Let people make up their own minds. Funny how it was a national security threat last week but now it’s a “dud”\n\n\nWonder where this will lead to?\n\nWonder if they spied on Ivanka....",
"Says the guy who couldn't defend his position and is still deflecting, hours later, over imaginary internet points. lol",
"hehe I just laughed. Where did you go to law school?",
"Haha I'm glad I've given you some entertainment for the evening. I'm not sure where my posts' karmas were at before I decided to ridicule our exchange in my little clubhouse, but since you've clearly been stalking my activity, I'll take your word for it that they used to be way low. Please though, don't thank me for blocking your name, it's a common courtesy. I didn't ask for anyone to brigade and I'd rather they didn't. \n\nAt the time I posted the title you'd avoided mentioning anything specific about the study (actually you'd avoided mentioning anything about it at all except to tell others to read it) but I'm sure at this point that you've had to have read it; you'd be absurdly foolish not to. It, however is a matter of actually having to talk about it, which you appear to not want to. I still would, maybe not with you. After all it's sort of hard to have a discussion when the other person just decides to do their own psycho-analysis of you to tell you what they believe you think and feel.",
"I went to a good enough law school to point out that asking me about where I went to law school is logical fallacy. Stay on topic. ",
"Does the headline sound unrealistic? This one is very important. I almost fell for a story that Elon Musk had sent a Tesla flying in space with a mannequin in it...",
"The problem with that is you are essentially dealing with \"raw information\" at that point. Now, if you know how to interpret that information, then that's fine, but the reality is that so often you may be missing context or other expert understanding that it's hard to make an informed decision on your own.\n\nObviously, there are risks of bias when you have an expert tell you how to understand something. But I think that there are also risks for letting the uninformed make their own uninformed decisions as well. Ignorance can be just as dangerous as bias.",
"The problem is the people that need to see this have no desire to go out and prove to themselves whether or not Snopes, Politicfact, etc is biased. They have believed something for so long they can't even imagine being proven wrong at this point. So they don't even try to change their opinions. And critical thinking doesn't take place, it's because they never question anything to begin with. And I really have no idea how to solve that, and it frustrates me. You can show proof and pull out facts with multiple sources and first person testimonials and yet they clam fake news, or pull the 'oh I really don't care now' card. ",
"This is why I believe Philosophy should be a mandatory course for any duration of time rather than not at all.It wasn't even offered as a course at my Canadian high school, and we had over 30 extra courses.",
"https://i.imgur.com/iy8v2rM.jpg",
">Which only Bernie cited.\n\nThe fact that Politifact used this is *good*.\n\n>Because Trump did NOT back up his claim at all. \n\nThe fact that Politifact did not due their job and back this up is *bad.* Especially when Bernie already did their job for them.\n\n>Because Sanders backed up his claim. And it was mostly True because you need the extra context to be able to understand what Bernie was trying to say. \n\nJust like you need the extra context to be able to understand what Trump was saying. But apparently in the case of Bernie, it's fine because he's on the left.\n\n>Which they tried to do by asking for Trump to provide a source on where he got that information from. Trump refused to do this, or more likely couldn't.\n\nIt's Politifact's job to search for the truth (or falsity) in statements candidates make. Especially when Bernie *already provided a source that supports Trump's statement*, it's either deliberate malice or laziness on their part to just say \"Nah it's false because Trump didn't give a source.\"\n\n>No you just need to understand that in Bernie's case he has a source and it needed to be there to provide the extra context for what he is saying. Trump on the otherhand didn't have a source to back up his claims so it came off as mostly false.\n\nNo, you need to understand that reality does not care about whether you provide a source or not. Either the reality of the situation is that both Bernie and Trump are right (because they made the same statement), or the reality of the situation is that they are both wrong. Politifact's job is to report on how a candidate's statement reflects reality, not on how well they managed to schmooze the Politifact reporters.\n\n>Because Trump was claiming something and that source didn't provide the extra context needed for his claims. Whereas Bernie issued more information as it related to his claims and a source. Which is why you have the two different ratings. \n\nSee previous statements.",
"Why would you assume that I had? I specifically engaged based exclusively on countering the incorrect facts and assertions, even avoiding attribution of this to anything to do with \"muh capitalism\" and instead countering it straight up through science ie. when someone says the sun is the ONLY thing that determines the climate you say \"what about an asteroid?\" rather than \"what about 150 years of heavy industry?\"\n\nThe funny thing is without even talking about capitalism the reply just defensively predicts the connection and establishes the discussion in the adversarial defense mode because the person I'm talking to is incapable of approaching the topic neutrally, and are completely unwilling to engage in pure discussion of a concept without enmeshing that discussion with the polarized political commentary that goes with most right wing denialist positions.\n\nYou quickly realize this is inescapable because their presumptions about how climate actually works is engineered to deflect the obvious possibility that economic activity could be responsible. I was impressed at how quickly the other person just reoriented the entire tone of the discussion. All I did was talk about climate science, but it became a political argument without my contributions and then the fallacies showed up in lieu of data based replies to counter my statements. Also an incredible amount of bizarre logic to do with how one conceptualizes the role of the sun in climate.\n\nBut yea, just tell me its my fault. The entire point of my comment was to say I didn't talk to them like toddlers and they still do it.",
"I often disagree with the political commentators I watch, and I think that's healthy. I have already mentioned going straight to the source cited in articles, all reputable news companies will cite the source near the beginning of the article, it doesn't take hours, it takes minutes. ",
"It is. However, if you add to that the XXX% increased risk of rape or murder you get a logical argument. The problem is when there's nothing more behind an argument but the emotional part.",
"Non-sarcastically, though, how do you determine what is true? Are there sources you consider non-biased and factual, and how do you know you have correct information on their ownership and interests?",
"Assuming you're in the US? Safari and Chrome ad blocking techniques haven't applied to emerging markets like AUS.\n\nSource: I help serve multiple millions of ads/day.. in AU.",
"https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-hpsci-memo\n\nDude its fun to entertain myself here, but this is going in circles now. I handed you a detailed explanation from Vox that you just ignored. One thing at a time. Respond to that comment. Tell me what in that article's explanation is inaccurate. It is that simple. I'll gladly review your explanation or one from a right wing \"news\" site, if you review the one from Vox. We can't move on here until you do that. ",
">Only check against these three sites.",
"If you think it takes minutes, you have 0 idea what you are talking about. The only thing that takes minutes to read is the 3 page piece of crap Nunes shoved to try to distract people. ",
"I wish I could take credit for it. That's some Matt Stone and Trey Parker writing at its' finest though. ",
"> But apparently in the case of Bernie, it's fine because he's on the left.\n\nOr because he supplied the extra content? It's not hard.\n\n>when Bernie already provided a source that supports Trump's statement\n\nDoes it though? That's the thing. Does Bernie's source support Trump's statement? Could it be possible they are attributing different things to the same thing and therefore while on the face of it, it looks the same, once you look into it, it's totally different? \n\nFor example, if I left some food out in the yard. I could say \"God will bring some flies to this food, watch and see\". And I could say \"Flies will come to this food, due to some scientific phenomena\". And you know what? When the flies do arrive, they(or I..) *both* could proclaim \"AH HAH! See I TOLD YOU!\". But only one is going to have a source to back them up. \n\nAnd that is what happened here. \n\n",
"Tu quoque has been recognized for hundreds of years. It's not some Trump-era phenomenon.\n\nNearly every change of power in politics is accompanied by gallons and gallons of tu quoque. However, very rarely is it actually fallacious.\n\nDuring the Obama administration it was common to hear arguments that go: \"Obama has exploded the national debt . . . \" \"oh yeah, well when Bush was President the debt went from . . . \"\n\nTrump/Hillary/Obama generally follows the same pattern.\n\nGenerally, however, what people are arguing is not that the underlying behavior is proved good or bad by someone else supporting/opposing it, but what people are doing instead is attempting to identify insincerity in the person claiming to be upset by something. Essentially they are saying \"you didn't protest when someone you supported did something similar, therefore I do not consider your protestations now to be sincere, or I find your argument hypocritical.\"\n\nIt's an argument tangential to the merits, but it's still a common (and perfectly reasonable) thing for people to argue.\n\nHillary may not be relevant to current governance, but she may be very relevant with regards to the consistency or hypocrisy of someone claiming to be bothered by one thing or another.\n\nIt is also reasonable for someone (as it seems you do) to also reject the entire structure of the argument.\n\nHowever, I would be hesitant to jump at a claim that fallacious reasoning has been employed.",
"lmao that was a good one. You couldn't even fake one? Answer my comment with the Vox article Mr. Former Lawyer. \n\nFuck it just because I like reading these, why did you quit being a lawyer. What do you do now?",
"This basically just proves what I just said. Thank you for posting this. They have concerns about “omissions”. They’ve stayed what is included is factual. Further this only addresses the Nunes memo. The Grassley memo has added further context.\n\nNothing in the memo was incorrect, per the fbi, Exactly what I said. I say we release everything! \n\nHave you read both memos? What do you think isn’t true? Per the fbi — they are both factual. They just have concerns about omissions. I say we release even more info to include those omissions. Sunlight is the best remedy to get to the bottom of this.\n\nBut what do you personally think in the memos is incorrect? Still waiting",
"This looks like a condensed version of the class everyone in my school took every year about researching sources for papers",
"you have yet to respond to anything in the article you pathetic loser",
"Thanks man, did some LOL'n for sure on that comment",
"I never said it was Trump-era only. All I said is Trump's actions are more important than Hillary's actions. \n\nTherefore talking about Hillary when Trump is the topic is fallacious",
"Business owner. Working in deep state gets boring and yes there is a deep state. It’s just called the administrative state or the civil service, and yes it has been politicized as of late, though it’s always been political to an extent. It’s been really bad from what I’m hearing friends still inside deep state. Anybody who says there is no such thing as “deep state” is an idiot. Nobody would deny that the administrative state exists. Deep state is a nickname, and yes there are a lot of good unbiased people working there but it’s growth I had been out of control and it’s political nature starting in the mid 00s is why I left. ",
"Global. Right now we're in the middle of GDPR compliance. Fucking massive in scope and it's penalties are absolutely batty.",
"Unbiased means(in this situation) you judge the result of a presidents term unbiasedly and with full knowledge of a presidents term. Trump is one year in and people who are working are benefiting from him already. My position can change at the end of his term since I'm a swing voter. But in your position of \"stories\" just reinforces your bias and further proves my and clearly many others' point. If the economy is doing well and the lower class benefits from it then what's the problem? That's not a rhetorical question. What is the problem with the economy under Trump? My position can easily change, can yours? Again not another rhetorical question. Can it? ",
">Does it though? That's the thing. Does Bernie's source support Trump's statement? Could it be possible they are attributing different things to the same thing and therefore while on the face of it, it looks the same, once you look into it, it's totally different?\n\nNeither of that matters. What matters is if *the thing they are saying is factual or not*. I don't understand what's so difficult about this for you.\n\n>For example, if I left some food out in the yard. I could say \"God will bring some flies to this food, watch and see\". And I could say \"Flies will come to this food, due to some scientific phenomena\".\n\nYeah, this is a pretty shit strawman you're making. Here's a better example that's actually relevant to what happened:\n\nI have food in the yard. I leave it there for a while. I say \"There are flies on the food.\" Someone else says \"There are a lot of flies on the food.\" Another person says what I say is true, and that person B is a dirty liar about the flies because he has the wrong political view on what to do about the contaminated food.",
"hahahaha nice. What kind of business you running? Have you filed with any state or city entity?",
"Lol. Why so you can dox me? Come on bro. ",
"Right, I was simply trying to make the response I was giving more generalized. You gave a specific recent example and I preferred to note the broader phenomena.\n\n>Therefore talking about Hillary when Trump is the topic is fallacious\n\nHighly unlikely, except in the context of formal debate. Even there, Hillary is an incredibly relevant element of discussions about Trump's nature.\n\nIf someone argued something like: \"What Trump is doing in Iraq is okay because even Hillary supported expanding the war on ISIS.\" That likely is a fallacious argument, but that type of argument is very focused. Most often people use references to Hillary vis-a-vis Trump to point out hypocrisy or inconsistency in criticism, and that would not necessarily be fallacious.",
"Remember the last step, it's the most important one. Don't let your biases overrule your ability to discover truth.",
">What matters is if the thing they are saying is factual or not. I don't understand what's so difficult about this for you\n\nGiven the fact that they are both wrong and only *technically* right if you read the article. Yes.. Yes it does matter if they can provide context on what they said is right or not. ",
"I know it’s not your intent to insult people as a form of argumentation, but rather it is your intent to get to the truth. You seem like you want the truth and that means you should read those memos yourself and we can discuss them ",
"what are you even talking about? do you wanna stay on topic?",
"the article you linked is about whether or not the fbi issued warrants for Obama's arrest",
">Given the fact that they are both wrong and only technically right \n\nNo, incorrect. They both made essentially the same statement. Either the statement is true or false.\n\nThe fact that one leans to the left and one leans to the right has nothing to do with the veracity of their statement.\n\nYou can make completely legitimate arguments about whether it's *well-supported* or if it's a *reasonable claim* for that candidate to make. But those have fuck all to do with whether it's a truthful statement or not.",
">I do see you talking about “creating a narrative”. If I’m misunderstanding you, then what do you mean? To my ear, the phrase “create a narrative” means distorting the facts to suit an agenda or fabricating (creating) something that the facts don’t fully support.\n\nYou don't have to fabricate anything to create a narrative.",
"> and that would not necessarily be fallacious.\n\nAnd yet many times actually is because the real intent is not focusing on inconsistency in criticism but to deflect, however possible, from the topic of Trump's actions.",
"Unfortunately the people going to the library are usually already the smart ones. Dear fellow Redditors.... /s",
"Deflecting from one topic or transitioning to another is not fallacious. You might not like it, but even \"derailing\" a conversation is not a matter of logical argument, it's merely changing the topic of discussion.",
">The fact that one leans to the left and one leans to the right has nothing to do with the veracity of their statement.\n\nNo one is talking about this. \n\n>Either the statement is true or false.\n\nIt depends on context, like I explained already. The statement is false on it's face. Only with supplementary information does it make it *more* correct. Which Bernie supplied. Have you read both articles? ",
"All the dummies tast need a bookmarker to tell them how to think. ",
"This seems like good reporting to me. Instead of just saying both numbers are similar so they are both right or wrong they tried to get to the source of the statistics. In statistics especially methodology is as important as results. I could say out of nowhere that wage growth is at a twenty year low and even if I'm close to right, I'm still wrong because I don't have any true knowledge on wage growth.",
"Aren't these all things journalists should do?",
"[...the OP of this thread is talking about this](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du3n51u/)\n\n>It depends on context, like I explained already. The statement is false on it's face. Only with supplementary information does it make it more correct.\n\nI disagree. It's either correct, or it's incorrect. We're arguing in circles at this point, so I doubt we're going to ever agree on this point.",
"Uh huh.",
"Just be fucking smart.",
"The \"Subscribe to our spam email\" popups are a close second.",
"BBC has a left leaning bias according to reddit while most people I know in the UK think it's right leaning.",
"Ahh right... ok well that makes sense. I'm sure the flow and effect will land in this market in no time then.",
"Exactly (though lets not be ridiculous, the person's probably more like 12 feet tall) and that's a large flyer (not a leaflet or bookmark) that they're holding.",
"lol yeah Oxford is so reputable huh",
"That's why I don't understand the whole Russia Hacking thing. You're serially basing your vote on something you read on social media? We'll I guess I'll support Mr. Mittens for present and my cousin's 3 year old for vice. Seems like a good ticket. ",
"I'm lazy? I'm spending all this time explaining somebody else's reasoning, bud...\n\nNot sure if you didn't realize who was replying, but if not, you need to think your comments through.\n\nI didn't want to dip into personal insults, but it's reasonable to say you're autistic at this point, if you really have this little understanding of normal human behavior.",
"But honestly there _isn't_ enough time to be expert on every subject to the level where you don't need to trust some sources. People have lives to live, jobs to do, families to care for.",
"Apparently since you don't want to actually read the articles, here is the \"ruling\" for each:\n\nBernie's:\n\n>Sanders said that for African-Americans between the ages of 17 and 20, \"the real unemployment rate … is 51 percent.\" His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-American youth have significantly worse prospects in the job market than either Hispanics or whites do. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.\n\n\nTrump's:\n\n>Trump says the unemployment rate for black youths is 59 percent.\n\n>The unemployment rate is a widely used term with a specific definition: It refers to the percentage of jobless people in the workforce who are actively seeking employment. In May, the unemployment rate for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 18.7 percent, or less than one-third of Trump’s claim.\n\n>Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to our question about where the candidate got his 59 percent figure. But it appears likely it comes from a computation of all 16- to 24-year-old blacks who aren’t working and may not even want a job, including high school and college students.\n\n>Clearly, black youths have a harder time finding work than whites. But Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics.\n\n>We rate his statement Mostly False.\n\nSo what is the point here? They are BOTH wrong. And only after Bernie clarified what he mean't did it become \"mostly true\". For Trump there was no such clarification, and since he is basing it off all 16 to 24 year olds it's false. \n\nYou see you have to dig into the details to understand somethings sometimes. This is the *entire* point of the thread. ",
"You're missing the point. Also, Google has been getting nonstop flack lately for turning super biased. Particularly with youtube channels.",
">Apparently since you don't want to actually read the articles\n\nApparently, you want to skim them and cherry-pick statements that support your argument. For someone complaining about the way Trump argues, you're sure arguing a lot like the man.",
"You're missing the point of my entire comment. Go back and reread it. Also, work on your social skills. If you can't handle this brief exchange, something's wrong with you, bud.",
"Guess what, too bad you didn't tell any truth. What you did do was succumb to your own prejudices all the while saying Trump's \"fake news\" is the \"real news.\" \n\n🤣\n\n",
"> You think an Oxford study is somehow partisan?\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority",
"I think your words speak well enough for the both of us. Thanks for the help.",
"My local paper growing up! ",
"I'm sorry did you want me to quote the entire article? You still haven't read them have you? I didn't cherry pick anything. That was a summary of the article and why they chose to give them those ratings. ",
"Yes Snopes that bastion of truth... A site run by couple from their garage",
"Then you can still try and be understanding of why people have, maybe even \"need\" religion in their lives.",
"# number 6 is bullshit.",
"If only",
"“Skip anonymous news reports”\n\n\nI’m assuming they mean reports without clearly defined authors.\n\nIf they mean anonymous sources anything in the least 10 or so years and 50% of everything before that vanishes.\n\nI got anonymity, but over the last couple years it seems to have moved away from a tool to protect informants to a weapon news companies use to give them plausible deniability or excuses when it comes to stories lacking factual evidence. ",
"What's wrong with it? Show me something they've done was proven to be wrong or biased. ",
"Yup.",
"Exactly.",
"Odd. Others would say that the normal media is so far to the left, that the center-right media looks like far right in comparison.",
"People have a bias. An organization can set itself up to remove bias in their outgoing content, if they want to do so. ",
"I don't think I'm missing anything here. Seems like you're the one not understanding. It's real simple, people will take you as seriously as you take yourself. That's all I said. \n\nAnd I'm not really getting worked up or anything, maybe you're just imagining that I'm having some problems or something?",
"Im a Russian bot and have not been programed to answer that question.\n\nPlease, try again. ",
"Oh wow, someone's tired, sat safe behind their keyboard threatening people with starvation and nurturing their own dementia. Oh the irony..",
"Isn't this like every MSM though?\nLol",
"earth is flat you dumb asses",
"I read opinion pieces to gage the public opinion on things and it seems reason has gone AWOL for a decent portion of the Western World ",
"Why did I know your argument was going to be *But the left isn't as bad!* Yes, okay, we got it. Do you think that is a good excuse? \n\nThen it's *But all news is biased. Everyone has an agenda.* Yes, some news outlets are more biased than others. Some are less accurate or truthful than others. Bias does not necessarily mean propaganda, but it can. What's being disingenuous is claiming it's only a problem for the right ",
"Hell, I get customers asking questions at work and they’ve tuned out before I’ve even started speaking. Aisle 5. The spices are in aisle 5. Aisle ... 5. 5. Number 5. That way. 5. Yes, aisle 5.",
"Pretty much. Hopefully people will see why it isn't okay for that reason. The rest of the bookmark is A-okay. ",
"Smoke screening for what? All I’m saying there’s more to bias than just fact reliability. Whatever your frustrations with trump or Hillary are are unrelated to this conversation.",
"Their bias with youtube channels is a non-political bias, so I don't see the problem there. \n\nWhat point am I missing?",
"it's not absurd to value a source that sticks as closely to unbiased fact as possible\n\nnothing against opinion pieces for what they are, but especially these days news without agenda is some sort of holy grail, everyone wants to put their spin on the narrative",
"I see the concept of relevance and false equivalency is lost upon you as well. I hope you have a bib for all that drool.",
"Now you're twisting my words, haha!\n\nThe court decided that the cop's testimony was true, which stated that Brown tried to grab the cop's gun. So much for \"unarmed\" and the idea that he was executed in cold blood like CNN kept peddling.\n\nAnd you're arguing that a Twitter post should be breaking news, small summary and a handful of a description of the context at the same time, something which is impossible. And all this while pretending that Fox's post wasn't entirely accurate and objective as opposed to CNN's.",
"Holy shit I hope you realize snopes and politifact are lying propaganda machines... and don’t bring up the fakenews of the Washington post and NYT constantly sited on /r/Politics and /r/news ",
"« Snopes », « politico », « politifact ». Ok. \n\nAll the rest of the information on there is fairly good, but those three sites have a very obvious bias, so at that point would it even be fact checking or just affirming what you want to believe is true?",
"dig deeper is the one that really matters\n\ndig as deep as possible and evaluate what you find --- be humble enough to acknowledge when it's outside of your expertise and your opinion is useless",
"Nobody needs validation from the likes of you. ",
"> \"Someone familiar with the matter\"\n\nI hate this --- it's gotten much worse with Trump (not defending him)\n\na formerly responsible outlet like NYT runs a big story based on hearsay of an 'anonymous insider'\n\nBloomberg says someone said *Russia Scandal*\n\nit's like Trump has made the press as bad as conservatives think it is\n\n",
"you can easily find 5 shitty news outlets in your echo chamber\n\nlooking for a left wing and right wing source is better, but right+left doesn't always result in the full picture\n\nI think 'dig deeper' is the key here, listen to the source, not the spin",
"I thought you were supposed to just scream \"FAKE NEWS\" at everything that seems to hurt your team and believe everything that seems to help them?",
"Facebook has been extremely confusing for me lately.\n\nIt wants to suggest cartoon porn to me. Or at least that's what the Facebook page header seemed to say. I was not checking it out. \n\nFortunately it stopped suggesting any new facebook pages at all. Now it is obsessed with suggesting blatantly misleading Facebook Marketplace ads.\n\nI ask for things in five miles or closer that cost less then five bucks. It shows me things fifty miles away that costs five hundred bucks. \n\nFuck you, Facebook",
">Be open-minded. Ask questions.\n\n*But don't question these biased news sites which are listed below!*\n\n ",
"That is currently your opinion. As of right now, there is no evidence of anything you have said. Obama may have triggered the wiretap process, or it may have been in line with an ongoing investigation. It seems that it's unlikely related to Trump, as we have records of the Page investigation preceding his entry into the race. We will not know for sure either way until the entire investigation is complete and the full story comes out. Asserting, as you are doing, that it is specifically one way is disingenuous. We do not have anywhere near enough information. We can, at this point, only conclusively say that Obama did not order the wiretap, because the president does not have that power. ",
"That's not what I said, but nice strawman. Instead of just assuming your liberal leaning sources are correct, consider every source legit until you can corroborate other sources.\n\nOr you can just pretend you're being the intelligent one in every conversation.",
"Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.",
"It's neither. You said something stupid, and people called you out on it. You're just using your political bias to be an asshole and blow it off. It doesn't matter where people post. I'm a Libertarian, I post all over the place. It's only intellectually dishonest asshats like yourself that assume of you ever see a non liberal that it's a brigade. Besides, defeat their arguements, don't use this ad hominem bullshit. It makes you look foolish.",
"Damn. The rantings of a lunatic. Anyone with 2 brain cells, as you out it, is going to see that YOU are an extremist. Just on the left wing. You're nuts. Most right wing people are regular everyday people. \n\nYou really need to get outside, out of your echo chamber. The very fact that you believe this shows that you haven't done your research at all, and instead believe every worships Trump and Alex Jones.",
"*\"You think our country's so innocent?\"*",
">It needs to be said. It’s not something to be polite about. It’s the fate of the goddamn world.\n\n\n\nSaving the world one reddit post at a time, eh? Most people who were scared by the election results seem to have a similar opinion to you. There are some who are a little more understanding of the people who voted for Trump. Unfortunately, none of them are influential enough to impact Democrat policy enough to actually draw any of the Trump voters back to their side. Politeness is always good but isn't why this mentality matters.",
"It is unprecedented frequently e-goddamned-nuff.",
"I will go slow for you. If we are discussing whether or not something is murder, and you say, \"But you keep skipping over the fact that it was the victim's birthday\" that would be a non-factor detail for the determination. Is this clear, or are you still confused?",
"They're really not the same, and if you think they are then you're not paying sufficient attention to just how absurd the shilling and propagandizing on FoxNews has been for years. Now let's go watch this car crash!",
"I just thought I was supposed to starting yelling \"Fake news!\" And then start angrily tweeting about it...",
"The term \"ransom\" has no such qualifier that states it is only a ransom if the money is not technically owed. If anything the fulfillment of the contract was the ransom paid, because the US literally stated that they held the payment back until the prisoners were released (and communicated this to Iran to put pressure on the release). The US took a payment that would have been a simple payback, and leveraged it into a ransom situation.",
"Of you’re not going to read the police reports/watch the court hearings/look at the data you are never going to know whats going on",
"I think \"supply side\" is the euphemism in this case. It's a theory constructed based on a desired outcome rather than a theory based on rational observation of human behavior. It's the equivalent of trying to prove a pet conspiracy theory. \n\nIt's not particularly far off to call it trickle down when the entire theory is based on lowering taxes for the owners of capital so that the masses will have cheap prices. ",
"I feel bad for Barron because Trump doesn't seem to love him as much as golf. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if W saw his grown daughters in college more frequently than Trump's seen Barron over the same period of time.",
"Can anyone point to a \"fake news\" that was widely believed around the election. Keep hearing about but no one knows which ones people were believing.",
"Ironic since most of the back and forth was about the fact that no argument was presented, just one liners. ",
"Last point in the best advice",
"Obviously, that's what I said, they acknowledge that. Are you retarded? That's why I said check for yourself.",
"[relevant SMBC](https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2075)",
"I can't find any examples of this. Could you please quote something from politifacts and give an informed counterpoint to the quote? ",
"My favorite was when you didn't reply to any of the substantive points made by other posters and only responded to the person hurling insults. \n\nAs someone who has huge problems with both US parties, I want to let you know that cable news is all garbage and Fox reporting on the bombing attempt endlessly is the same as CNN reporting on it briefly and then going back to talking about useless Trump coke stories are both fucking stupid. They're both pandering to different crowds of people in order to please advertisers. \n\nEveryone needs to reduce the amount of ad supported media they consume. Right wing talk radio falls into the same trap. ",
"Oh so now you're against bias not inaccuracies ",
"If you read this and think \"well fuck thats kinda me\" the best thing you can do is challenge yourself to have a civil conversation with someone about your opposing views. It's excellent practice for working in hospo or retail and if you don't learn anything new you at least learn how to dumb down your argument ",
"I know you're kind of joking, but I'll make libraries partisan! The right wing numbskulls in my city, freaking out with the Tea Party shit about federal debt, are ***the sole reason*** we lost a lot of money to stop our new library from being built back around 2009. They don't understand fucking financing and got a measure passed that halted the construction that was just about to start (yeah, blueprints, permits, planning, environmental studies, all were done and paid for), and now because of that the city government is crippled and unable to finance *anything* without a vote.\n\nNow we're stuck with our too small, run down, non-ADA-compliant, leaky roofed, earthquake hazard of a library, and we lost most of what we'd already paid for (round about a million if I remember right) and even more that was coming from County and District library funds (that we won't get now even if the chucklefucks agree to a different new library), because these stupid pricks wanted to \"save\" the city from government bloat.\n\nOh yeah, and they were helped along by a crooked developer (and his friends and family) who just wanted the location. That guy has since both gotten himself into the city council, and gotten himself removed from the city council by a referendum vote after he pulled some crooked shit. Who could've seen that coming?",
">Now you're twisting my words, haha!\n\nHaha it's called quoting you!\n\n>And you're arguing that a Twitter post should be breaking news\n\nNews to me.\n\n> small summary and a handful of a description of the context at the same time, something which is impossible.\n\nWord salad.\n\n>And all this while pretending that Fox's post wasn't entirely accurate and objective as opposed to CNN's.\n\nYou really like telling stories about people.",
"\"Fact check stories\" Ok\n\n\"With sites like snopes, Politico, and Politifact\" \n\nHad me until this one. No, DON'T use these to \"fact check\" ",
"Too Long did not read",
"\"Hmmmm... this left leaning biased website just confirmed my beliefs... It must be true!\"",
">Fact check with sites like Snopes, Politico and Politifact.\n\nJust when I was about to take this seriously.",
"No. It isn't.",
"Your link is conspiracy theorist bullshit. You know that, right?",
"His show said it.",
">implying fake news is partisan ",
"And yet is somehow more accurate and honest than anything put out by the Whitehouse...",
"Someone who frequents T_D is categorically unqualified to judge the merits of such a study. It doesn't matter how many brigades you call up to fool with karma scores either; actual people aren't falling for your shit.",
"CNN headlines almost never match up with their articles anymore. Literal \"fake news\".",
"Since when is being correct associated with the left?",
"Defending anonymous sources doesn't really help your case much.",
"They're actually trying to exhaust us intentionally. It's pretty disgusting.",
"What's wrong with them? Don't like sites that call out your toupee'd hero on his bullshit?",
"Yes - I more or less consider the meter as part of the headline. It isn't the article.",
"Umm, no.",
"The images are there on the site, and they're not fabricated. You can check yourself on archive.is",
"I think the press was always like this but Trump has whipped them into a blind rage and their hatred of him is really bringing out their worst qualities for everyone to see. It may be for the wrong reasons, but Trump is right about American media being \"fake news\". Corporate for profit media doesn't care about informing people properly.",
"Name one right wing outlet that isn't completely full of shit though. You can't.",
"Who has the time for this",
"...both of which put by-lines on all of their original content...",
"Well, they are. I laughed when I got to that part of the chart. The only part that made no sense.",
"But there is clear evidence to the contrary, so believing in flat earth is retarded, much like your argument.\n\nI'm saying instead of sitting in your Reddit circlejerks of \"trump's Nazis are bad\" and \"dems are cucks\", you read opinions from all sides and make your own decision, for me it happened when I realised that journalism in general is dead.",
"The fuck do you mean you people?\n\nIf you mean \"trump supporter\" I'm not, I live in the UK and vote for the Lib Dems, I voted against brexit, and consider myself centre left.\n\nYour agressive stance against all differing ideas to your own is why you specifically will not try to make your own opinions, instead taking the circlejerk stance of whatever is top of /r/news. Maybe if you consumed a range of media, or even just media that's less angry you could be a nicer person.",
"> feel free to show a snopes article that lies in favor of the democrats.\n\nWell, you sure fulfilled that request.",
">The court decided that he wasn't shot? Or that the officer didn't shoot him?\n\nBecause that's totally what I wrote in my other posts, rofl. Your efforts are cute btw, and your account's playbook is pretty obvious. 2 month old account, commenting only on political subjects, lots of carefully formatted copy-pasted posts, it's like I've seen this before...",
"Known of any unbiased fact-checking groups then? ",
"You’re right, Trump was more misleading. ",
"No it isn't. Why do it think that? They always explain their reasoning in an unbiased way, and cite sources.\n\nI think your confusing facts with left-leaning bias again.",
"They've been jerking themselves over the Olympics nonsense, but that isn't \"glorifying\" them at all, especially not in a political context. Have you been ignoring all the coverage of them *before* the Olympics thing?\n\nPointing out that a preemptive nuclear strike against them is an absolutely shit-for-brains retarded idea is not a defense of North Korea itself or its government.",
"They forgot the most important step, make sure and get CNNs permission to view anything first.\n\nhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/",
"> Really? You might want to look at the comments. Lots of people are claiming that.\n\nI was reading them earlier, and nobody was claiming that. You may be inferring it from people saying things like, \"they're less biased\", but that's not an absolution.\n\n> Yes. The left ( at least on reddit ) - politics, enoughtrumps, etc...\n\nlol - I'll believe you when I get banned from /r/politics for saying Hillary was a bad candidate.",
"Can you give a single example of Snopes being wrong?",
"\"Be open minded\" is the motto of new-age crap sellers too. so becareful about that....",
"Defending anonymous sources... doesn't help my case... which is that people who think anonymous sources are 'fake news' don't understand how journalism works.\n\nJesus Christ.",
"That should be easy since they always cite their sources.",
"I am convinced that this election has changed the media. CNN has been a big offender and seems to give a huge amount of credit to stories that have no real source.\n\nThis video is obviously from the right but it's interesting that CNN is literally telling the \"independent\" voter panel what to say.\n\nhttps://youtu.be/GqCIub3SmCI\n\nI don't even know where to get news from anymore. CNN is not trustworthy in my mind and it seems like no major site has any sources or actually seems balanced.",
"All of those sites cite their sources though, so they're a pretty good place to start.",
"Prove it.",
"No, those are called \"facts\", but I can see how you'd get confused.",
"Yes it is, if being for the facts means it wouldn't be conservative then it also means it wouldn't be liberal. Because both are guilty of lies and to be truly factual one would have to abandon bias towards any side.",
"Oh Lord please spread this round like the plauge it would be a good wonderfully plauge full of facts",
"FACT CHECK WITH POLITICO LOL",
"I feel like you don't get much exposure to what you call \"the left\" if that's how you feel about it. Talk to anyone actually *on* the left - progressives, or the democratic socialist Sanders crowd, and almost everyone there will be happy to complain to you about how the Democratic party leans center-right on most issues. Talk to people from *outside* the US and compare with European politics, and find pretty much the same thing - almost anywhere in the EU, the Democrats would be the conservative party.\n\nAnd your comparison with the right during Obama is very disingenuous, and at most sounds like you don't remember what happened around then. You're necessarily comparing nonsense like the birther bullshit with the Russia investigation, which has tons of info circulating (that we even know of) and has already led to indictments. You have about 7 investigations into Benghazi where Hillary cooperated and nothing was found every single time, vs Trump's escapades trying to discredit the investigators with nonsense like the memo, doubling down when it's shown to be nonsense, and avoiding giving any testimony (at the behest of his lawyers, to be fair). On policy you have things like the ACA which were in hearings for months while concessions were made to Republicans for ultimately no reason while Republicans complained it was \"too fast\" and pushed out-of-context quotes (like Pelosi's \"what's in the bill\" line) to discredit the process, vs current Republicans refusing to even show what bills they're working on until less than an hour before the 2am vote. Please feel free to share how the current Democrats are acting like the Republicans during Obama's first few years. Where's the democrat representative who flat out said that the party policy goal is to block anything the Republicans try to pass like McConnell did in 2008?",
"Wherein the euphoric internet arguer ignores the entire comment he replies to and trolls user histories for excuses to disengage.\n\nSo since I have a new account, you're allowed to spend an entire comment putting words in my mouth?",
"Yes, the facts themselves don't actually lean, but relative to the narratives of the parties the facts are closer to one side than the other. And the side they favor isn't the one with the guy who claimed it was a sunny day when it was raining.",
"No no, Alexi. Talking point is now “collusion is not illegal.” Talk to Sergei, he catch you up, da?",
">\tCNN is fake news because of this one incident.\n\n>\tI can’t find the fake news but believe me, I seen it. It was because of that Times reporter.\n\n>\tOh here’s a link to the Times apology as proof that CNN did it and is fake news. \n\n>\tI don’t have to prove it. (((Millions))) of people saw it. \n\n👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻 ok man whatever you say ",
"Or maybe because it's a common sentiment? Or rather, because Steven Colbert is a popular comedian.\n\nAnd why do you think this is what will make the left lose? Or do you actually believe the guy who said it didn't rain during his inauguration, which had the biggest crowd size ever, and that the recent memo totally hurts the democrats?\n\nAlso, the whole, \"the left hurt my feefees that's why I voted right\" is hilarious given your whole bullshit \"snowflake\" narrative during the election. Like, if pointing out things that are true triggers you so hard, there's no way we're getting your vote regardless. We're going for the less emotionally brittle people in the middle.",
"People kept saying that Hillary was the better candidate",
"\"Trawled\" is a generous way to say that I've scrolled over 10 posts you've made.\n\nI am very curious to see what statement I made that \"put words in your mouth\". Have I claimed you wrote something you haven't? Although I shouldn't put too much faith in your answer based on this exchange. Toodles.",
"So then we are met with a problem....we can view a dubious headline, cross-reference it with Snopes, find that the headline is rated true, and still come off without the truth.",
"> \"Trawled\" is a generous way to say that I've scrolled over 10 posts you've made.\n\nSuch a generous sample size to be satisfied enough to put me in a box.\n\n>I am very curious to see what statement I made that \"put words in your mouth\".\n\nEvidently not curious enough to read my comments before hitting 'reply' and acting like an asshole.\n\nI love the simultaneous \"I'm above you and don't have to answer to you\" while still wanting to get your shots in.\n\nOh no. What if you leave and I'm deprived of your gregarious disposition. \n\nPlease. No. Don't.",
"So you project your narcissism onto me because I asked you to elaborate on your thinly veiled insult. I get you want Trump to be a Russian spy, anything to get your mind of your PM who corrects women that say \"mankind\". \n\nIf you can't understand my final point, then you have no place commenting here as that was the whole point of this chat. Trump made an objectively factually true statement. A website that is treated a the paragon of truth proceeds to say Trump's factually true statement is \"Mostly False\" because \"Trump wasn't responsible for the factually true statement being factually true\". If you can't see an issue there, then keep using Politifact, but you won't get any benefit from it.",
"Share this picture on your facebook or twitter. It'll get to the right audience eventually. ",
"If you tell a lie long enough..\n\n“It’s in a quote so it must be true”",
"The genius part of all this is that...\n\nAin’t nobody got time for that!!!\n\nEspecially with rent and work and taxes etc \n\nRent is too damn high! \n\nOh and fear of the police/war/what ever part of society is being demonised atm means that energy is drained from all of us...",
"My \"fact checker of the fact checkers\" souce clearly admits to bias\n\n>In review, Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines. All information is well sourced to credible media and or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifact’s fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category\n\nBUT WHO WATCHES THE WATCHERS??\n\nNow let's see what the same source thinks of forbes😂😂\n\nhttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/\n\n",
"No, just after the 100th lookup where an obvious opinion is deemed falae or a lie, or an absolutely proven fact is listed as mostly a lie, you can see it. Then you look up the doner list and realize its an agenda rather than fact based website and then you see the real truth. \n",
"Don't forget to filter blogs and opinion pieces",
"You’re mistakenly thinking you always need to wind up in the middle. On an issue like that, clearly the answer would be to kill no one. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read both perspectives (no matter how vile) and attempt to understand WHY others think you should. \n\nTHAT is how critical thinking works. And it applies to taxes, guns, immigration, voters rights and all the other hot button issues that people on both sides think are so cut-and-dry that they won’t read anything outside of their social media bubble. \n\nOn most critical issues, by knowing real motives behind why those who believe differently than you do so, you’ll be in a better position to debate them. It might even help you change their minds. \n\nSigned,\nAn Actual Independent ",
"Does Facebook stop you from posting good news? ",
"I do not have either I'm afraid. Toxic the lot of them. ",
"This is from a site that rated forbes as \"conservative\"\n\n>In review, Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines. All information is well sourced to credible media and or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifact’s fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category. Our rating scores are provided below:\n\nhttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/\n\n>and round and round we go\n\nGet off your ivory tower and LISTEN TO US. I'm not the only one saying this in this thread. You are living in a false reality when you buy into the liberal \"narrative\" or any narrative for that matter\n\nYou can't rely on others to think for you. You gotta do it for yourself..",
"Also, be sure not to forward it any where else or to anyone else.",
"[Then I’ll just regress, ‘cause I feel like I’ve made myself perfectly redundant.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx3Pk8yTu6I)",
"They are, instead, on reddit reading one.",
"\"Fact check with Snopes, Politico and Politifact\"\n\nOkay then, because those are neutral, right?",
"Breitbart only seems more biased than the AP or NY Times? Seriously? No, it's a straight up propaganda rag. They used to have a section called \"BLACK CRIME\" for crying out loud. If you said the National Review or something, then maybe, but Breitbart?",
"#2: If it's on Reddit, it's exaggerated.",
"Not if all the news sites you go to are part of the same echo chamber.",
"This is the first time I have ever heard of that version of the pizzagate story. Also it's the first time I've heard of the Pegasus museum. And I've read pizzagate threads on /r/conspiracy.\n\n\nBut if the story was that the missing kids were being held at the Pegasus museum, then why did that guy bring a gun to comet ping pong? ",
"And even if it's a big organization, entity,reputable individual,main steam media..Question them too and do your own research.",
"Are you okay? Would you like to take a minute to calm down, maybe step away and open your colouring book and relax for a bit.",
"I went water skiing with Brasky and he ate the Bible!",
"Conservatives: the earth is 6000 years old\n\nLiberals: no it isn’t\n\nYou: you’re both wrong because you’re both biased",
"Why even respond if you have to be dishonest and knowingly misrepresent what I'm saying?",
">Consult and compare competing sources\n\nYou mean like compare what ABC NBC CBS PBS NPR CNN CNBC HLN BBC WAPO NYT and my local newspaper say? ",
"Your link is a fake news site that is full of conspiracies. Sites like those are what the weak minded believe in. Instead of providing real info and sources like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact do, your link provides nothing but conspiracy views and incoherent thoughts. Please provide a fact checking site that you deem to be trust worthy. I bet you can’t because the only sites you read support your viewpoints. At least fact checking sites use a considerable amount of their resources to actually “fact check” and what not. ",
"See my complete lack of shock!",
"I wanted Sanders, try again.",
"Except the narrative itself, of course. ",
"LOL, you guys are only 30% of the population, Trump only won because a lot of people voted for him because he wasn't Clinton, or just \"for the lulz\". You are going to be the one in for a rude awakening in 2020.\n\nGo to Hell.",
"What about politically charged internet hoaxes?",
"The moment they regard snopes as a fact checking website is when you realize they never followed their own steps in combating fake news. ",
"You have a very trump-trolly affect.",
"Says 0 points on my post.",
"Yeah, you got me all wrong, dude.\n\nNice try though.\n\n",
"The facts generally land on one side of the aisle. Evolution vs creation in schools, sex education vs abstinence only, climate science vs climate change is a Chinese hoax, there’s a group that tends to side with evidence and a group that doesn’t. When one group tends to care about facts and the other group does not, it’s insane to act like the truth isn’t political.",
"What? You really think we win by taking the high road?",
"I would be suspicious if presented a screenshot as evidence for statements I actually believe. Screenshots can be manipulated. ",
"I mean people are downvoting but not offering evidence seems weird.",
"You clearly didn't read it, since you've twice now contradicted evidenced statements of fact from the article. \n\nRegardless- do you really think Bill Nye hasn't become aware of things like De la Chapelle syndrome since 1996? Especially since he specifically mentioned it in the episode on gender from a couple of years back.",
"Here's a few to start....\n\nhttps://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/",
"Its sad that modern day society has reached this point. But we should all question news that sounds sketchy.\n",
"Websites don't seem to understand: the only site that has earned the right to autoplay videos is YouTube.",
"You sound like the neckbeard that other neckbeards are ashamed to be around.",
"Unless Politifact knows who killed Seth Richards, they should be rating it as \"there is no credible evidence to suggest this is true\". If they rated it as false, that would be incorrect.",
"It's okay. I complain about my own, too. =3",
"Don't be Republican. Also helps.",
"lol at checking facts at Snopes. The site is rubbish and as agenda driven and as full of lies as any tabloid newspaper.",
"I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about facts. The Washington Times is not subject to the same rigorous fact-checking procedures and practices as the Washington Post. The Washington Times is a radical propaganda arm of the Unification Church (also known as \"Moonies\").",
"I see you bots got your talking point memo today.",
"Sure thing, 57 genders.",
"> The Overton window is seriously red-shifting\n\nGood. It hung out in blue land for far too long.",
"57 genders.",
"Yeah right, who has time to fact check in a world run by headline reading stock traders.",
"Yes. One of the most selective and prestigious research universities in the world. ",
"Well if they are hoaxes they are as easy to disprove as regular ones.",
"Use snopes, politico, and politifacts? Should i cross reference buzzfeed too?",
"I just use one on Chrome called Disable HTML5 Autoplay. I don't go to a large variety of sites though, so you've probably already tried this one and had it break.",
"..or news that's too good to be true. Or aligns too perfectly with our own desires. ",
"> The facts generally land on one side of the aisle.\n\nThat's a backwards way of thinking of it. The facts are where they are and it's the political viewpoints that land on them or not.",
"\"Cited sources and quotes\". Ah yes.",
"We got ourselves an expert on sweden here guys! I bet he's even googled the country on the Interwebs and knows where it is on a map! ",
"When they've been going to Pyongyang and acting as if its all fine and dandy and like a vacation, there's a fucking problem. ",
"Interesting isnt it? Its almost like...they have an agenda and aren't following the fucking picture at all",
"I get my news from independent sources and foreign places such as Al Jazeera, Japan Times, RT, and occasionally the BBC. Although, a few of those are biased as well\n\n\nAnd i'm not taking NYT seriously when they buy into the white privilege bullshit like they do. ",
"That’s a meaningless rephrasing. The truth is where it is, and it isn’t evenly distributed.",
">It's not particularly far off to call it trickle down when the entire theory is based on lowering taxes for the owners of capital so that the masses will have cheap prices. \n\nThis is incorrect. I'm not sure if you haven't done enough research and are trusting what others have told you, or if you've done just enough research to confirm your bias. Either way, this isn't correct. It is a talking point I've seen, many times, from people who aren't economists and can't be bothered to learn more than the absolute minimum of macroeconomic theory.\n\nThat isn't to say the system is without legitimate criticisms. There are absolutely valid criticisms of it, and improper (or ill-timed) implementation can be particularly disastrous (see Kansas). But there are reasons that something like 45% of economists support it as a model, and most of those reasons are completely apolitical.",
"Anyone I would consider a moderate noped out of online politics around the end of the Bush administration. The rest during Obama's second run.\n\nAt this point between community guideline algorithms and the complete lack of anyone needing to fund such a thing to further their agenda I wouldn't be holding my breath.",
"Exactly. But \"bias\" is used as an excuse to ignore them when said hoaxes are debunked.\n\n\nIt's pretty clear that when someone accuses sites like snopes of having bias, the implication is that he or she doesn't want to listed to facts and would rather go on believing the unsourced e-rumor forwarded from grandma.",
"Ah, thanks",
"Cite one case in which snopes was wrong and the e-rumor was right. Shouldn't be too hard for you.",
"The problem is that so many idiots come prepared with reasons to discard out of hand every single one of those great points:\n\nFact-checking? No, those websites are liberal propaganda, InfoWars is where I get my facts!\n\nCredentials? What, from a college? Those liberal indoctrination camps?! No, I get my info from a fake doctor on InfoWars who says he's an alumnus of prestigious colleges (no contradiction there) but actually just did a weekend course there once. \n\nDig deeper? Of course I did, I went on the_donald subreddit and they told me it's true that Jade Helm will be a false flag attack on democratic principles by the Obama government...",
"Fact check with Snopes 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂",
"false equivalency?\n\nIt's the same equivalence you apply but for some reason trust the GOP more.\n\nSadly you're an idiot.",
"Donnie’s boys are hitting this thread hard. “Wanting people to fact check and research sources for news articles?! These sources don’t lean towards my political views so fake. Reeeeeeeeee!!”\n\nIt’s sucks to see people fighting so hard against reality and devoted so much to such an awful cause. I used to think it was just stupidity. But I’m starting to realize it’s a whole lot of willful ignorance and just downright spite that courses through these people. ",
">I was using hyperbole, \n\nWhen using quotations, it should *actually* be a quote. Paraphrasing is one thing, but using it to, as you admit, hyperbolize what they said really shouldn't be done. But that was a huge red flag in your post, and so I question whether or not the rest of your quotes are all \"hyperboles\" as well.\n\n>I can agree that it might be somewhat misleading because we're not spending the money on every immigrant, but I'd at least give it a \"somewhat true\" because the numbers are still accurate.\n\nIf they were spending money on every immigrant, as you admit it clearly implies, the cost would be 228 billion dollars. The total cost came out to be 182 million, which is 0.08% of that amount. These numbers, while based in some factual numbers, aren't even remotely accurate.\n\nTheir definition for mostly false:\n\n>MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.\n\nAnd I believe this fits that criteria perfectly. It is based on some real numbers, but left out critical facts that give a different impression. The numbers they ran with are based on what the government spent on a single, temporary program, but you and I both agree that it implies a much larger group of people, and if that entire group was included, the cost would be 1200 times higher than it actually was.\n\nCouple this with the claim that this is \"rewarding\" them and it is even more misleading. Unless, of course, you really think giving temporary housing to unaccompanied minors, who we arguably have a duty to provide assistance too (ethically and under international law), is \"rewarding\" them.",
"'Check author's credentials, and skip anonymous reports.'\n\nOK, so it's not news unless it's reported by someone ensconced by corporate media? I think Noam Chomsky might argue that all corporate news is biased, 'credentials' or no.",
"The truth isn't distributed, it seems that your approach to facts is coloured with bias. Thinking that facts come to you rather than you go looking for facts could lead you to believing a lie if told by a liberal and denying a fact if told by a conservative. This isn't meaningless rephrasing, the way you describe things shows how you really think.",
"Its not our fault when they get caught in a lie and their reputation is damaged forever. Snopes is run by one dude in his now sad empty divorced singleguy flat, and facebook have the genius idea to rely on THIS to fact check the tens of thousands of fake news that they throw at users. I don't think the solution about it is to trust one fact checker or another, but more to dismiss any social media news, or even better, leave social media altogether.",
"Dude, you watch the point fluctuation on Reddit comment threads?",
"Some dude that just likes the sound of his voice, rambling on about a study he didn't read, all the while calling another user \"ignorant\" for reading the study and seeing a political bias. Lmao. These people are doomed. ",
">caught in a lie\n\nWhat lie? Be specific.\n\n>and their reputation is damaged forever.\n\nNo source will be 100% accurate 100% of the time. It's the pattern that matters, and snopes is very, very reliable.\n\n>Snopes is run by one dude\n\n\nThey also have a forum",
"Eh. Sounds like too much work. I'll just read a headline and assume I know what's going on. ",
"Majority of people are too lazy to do any of these steps though. For me, the headlines on Reddit is enough.",
"The 3 listed \"fact checking\" sites are progressive talking points vendors who are repeatedly proven wrong often times they don't even issue retractions. ",
"I like that it references social media echo chambers. \n\nHowever, its just too bad that most of the people that cry fake news, are not intelligent enough to follow this flow chart...",
"We should not unconditionally trust in snopes and politifact too. Question everything. ",
">ivory tower\n\nMmm... now, see, that’s your problem right there. Because I hold more liberal viewpoints, you automatically presume I’m some sort of ivory tower elitist. Which is complete bullshit and a wild assumption **by you** meant to pigeonhole those you don’t agree with. Some background: I grew up poor in the ozarks. My dad, a high school shop teacher, died when I was out. My mom was only able to keep our family together because she received meager social security death benefits allowing her to keep us fed and housed. As a kid, I worked yard crews in the summer (back before that type of thing became an adult job) to help out with money. At age 15, I started working for our local town’s newspaper on the printing press (massive piece of heavy machinery). Being under 16, that work was illegal, but there was no real oversight and the safety regs were definitely lax. I worked there part time and McDonald’s part time through graduation so I’d have enough saved to go to college and help keep the lights for my family. After my first year in college, I spent the summer working a factory floor job in a place that manufactured wire products. Worked with a woman who had her hand cut off right beside me because one of the 1940s-era cutting presses being used had a defective trip switch and activated when it shouldn’t have. I busted my ass in college, worked some IT jobs part time to pay for it (my undergrad was in info systems), then went to law school on student loans. I understand the value of hard work. I understand working shit blue collar jobs. And I’m about as far from the ivory tower as you can get. I’m second-generation white trash. I own guns, hunt, and conceal-carry. \n\nMaybe you need to get off your moral high-horse and stop making assumptions about those with whom you disagree. I’m liberal *because* of my poor background, not because of my good one. The fact that you dismiss my experience and beliefs as part of some “false narrative” is both ignorant and disrespectful. You want me to **listen to you** when you just immediately are dismissive of me and my beliefs? Nah. You can go and fuck right off, friend. ",
"I guess you don't know what the term means, or you're just oblivious to the context of this thread. \n\nKeep making yourself look dumb, though ('-')b\n\nEdit: you also make a lot of assumptions about how much stock I put in the words of politicians. Assumptions which are hilariously false.",
"https://i0.wp.com/www.lostrepublic.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/14717260_558273691045337_8841793433697175652_n.jpg?w=480\n\nhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxutgSHUUAAB6-Q.jpg\n\nPolitifact is a joke. Do a google search if you want more evidence.\n\nEdit: A google search found a better written response to this. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4unci4/can_someone_give_me_an_example_of_when_politifact/",
"Did you miss what I said?",
"During and after political debates, perhaps have a panel of judges that give scores based on quality of the argument irrespective of what the argument is for or against. UK picturing Olympic judges here.\n\nAlso, when certain fallacies are brought up, they get to blow a really loud whistle and throw a yellow flag at them, ala the NFL.\n\nIt would make debates longer, but also vastly more entertaining. Every moment you're tensed to see if the debater is going to be an idiot and get a flag on the say.",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du4k71n/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du4k71n/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvtep/saw_this_in_my_local_library_today/du4k71n/",
"People can also hate hearing it because it's not true! Funny how that works.",
"And, by the way, Forbes is a conservative media outlet. For fuck’s sake, it’s owner and editor in chief was a goddamn GOP presidential candidate. Just because it’s not as conservative as you are doesn’t mean it’s not conservative. ",
"That’s what you’ve got. That’s what you respond with when you have no meaningful response. “Nonspecific, strawman, catch-all retort. That got him. Look how good I got him.”",
"Also hard when the story is backed by the government, like the fake news that got us into the 2nd Iraq War, the Vietnam War, and the Spanish American War. ",
"Synopses no more is factual.",
"I would like to add- Is this an “opinion” or unbiased facts. ",
"lmao",
"People would say that but they'd be wrong.\n\nOne of the longest running and most high profile examples is the reporting on the FISA warrants and Steele Dossier, culminating in the Nunes memo. \n\nThe propaganda aound the tax plan routinely failed to mention how the middle class tax cuts expire while the others don't, on top of ignoring that the growth projections [are almost universally considered ridiculous](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/4/15536394/american-economists-trump-tax-plan)\n\nThat's all without getting in to the \"Deep State\" stuff. \n\n&nbsp;\n\nTo the study I linked that you're responding about in the first place, the point of using the measures they do is an attempt to be more objective about exactly the claim you make, and your claim is not supported by an even analysis of the available sources... Right wing media is simply more likely to uncritically support the GOP regardless of potential issues or conflicting information and \"leftwing' media is not all in fact \"left wing\" and not nearly as much as right wing sources are.",
"Listing specific sources kind of defeats the purpose...politico is frequently incorrect.",
"That's not what they said.",
"Actually no, they are a wire service. ",
"You know who's spreading some straight up bullshit, fucking YouTube. Im an Aussie with a left bias and recently discovered Jordan Peterson so I watched some clips about him. Suddenly my recommended videos are all \"watch sjw get DESTROYED\" and channels like conservative first, MAGAblah blah blah. I wouldn't even mind if it recommended me \"right wing\" content that was anywhere near sane and thought out but I'm just getting fed straight up nonsense. ",
"Literally an advertisement for Snopes, Politico, and Politifact.",
"LOL... Yikes. Tolerance n shit.. ",
"The top one of which is literally one guy with no employees or specialized training. He had a good urban legends website back in the day, but I think the Snopes guy has gotten in over his head when he somehow became the political fact checker of record. ",
"The most important question to ask those around you being, \"should we be doing this?\"",
"Share it with someone who has both.",
"https://www.originalprongles.com/",
"You mean like the internet? Fucking retard lol.",
"Instead of being angry about it you could consider evolving your viewpoint. Almost everything right of center in the US is in desperate need of a sanity reset.",
"This is good. Let me quote / paraphrase the late great geroge Carlin :\" what is all this teach your kids to read shit ? Why are we just teaching them to read? Children should be taught to read, then question what they read . Children should be taught to question everything.\"\n",
"http://yournewswire.com/snopes-caught-lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised/",
"Same here through all of my schooling (inner-city public for K-5, charter for 6-8, and private for high-school and college). I might have just lucked out though, as I've definitely heard some horror stories. ",
"The bias comes from which statements you pick. Also they use a sliding scale which bullshit, something is either true or it isn't. It just gives them wiggle room on their bias.",
"> Okay well I guess we have very different ideas of what a scientist is.\n\nYeah, I'm weird and use Webster's dictionary to refer to what words mean. *shrugs* \n\nA highly successful professional, studied, and accredited meteorologist with a lifetime of experience and awards from the professional organization for the field who has devoted considerable research time on the subject which caused him to be frequently requested as a representative to speak at climate debates kinda counts, even if you don't like what he has to say.\n\nI expected that you would double-down though rather than apologize for misrepresenting his credentials, and side with the fake news that is politifact, run by a left-wing liberal news outlet under the guise of being an independent apolitical fact checking service, when they are anything but. ",
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html\n\nAlo I don't care they have a forum. What sites doesn't, if you think reddit is an echo chamber, I wouldn't even imagine the circlejerk on those closed internet community.\n\nEDIT : Also what I was saying before is that beginning as a fact checker is fine, but since ALL politicians are dirty liars because thats what politics is, once you get into this arena, you're bound to start slinging steaming lying shit. ",
"I found logic and semantics to be much better than philosophy, which was just another christian pretending to be liberal while shoving religion down my secular throat.",
"http://yournewswire.com/snopes-caught-lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised\n\nLOL, yikes.",
"here, use this as a guide: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/06/humans-need-to-become-smarter-thinkers-to-beat-climate-denial\n",
"Wow. Your reading comprehension skills are truly amazing! It’s almost like I was using a pointless anecdote to illustrate how pointless his anecdote was. I’m glad you got the point I was making.\n\nAnd your second point literally makes no sense. No one is arguing men and women being the same biologically is a conservative idea. \n\nActually, I take back what I said about your reading comprehension. You get an F. Try again.",
"Why is the headline in \"te olde archery contest\" font?",
"Umm the Left is, by definition, authoritarian. Considering you kind of have to be to institute Leftist policies (government control of healthcare, guns, economy, etc).",
" >one of you\n\nyou mean a logical person who questions the mainstream narrative, I presume.",
"CNN praised Kim Jong Un’s sister just this past week even though her regime has enslaved millions of its own citizens in work camps through starvation and violence. ",
"So he's being impeached for real this time or what? 🙄",
"So what you're saying is its OK to use a biased site to verify truth as long as you check the sources.....\n\nSo if politifactbias can be used as a source to fact check politifact then politifact can be used as a source to fact check political statements.\n\nGot it.\n\nHow could you not see what my statement was implying? Are you retarded?",
"...and an informed electorate.",
"RT is a literal state propaganda outlet. Also, lol at the reason you don't like the NYT.",
"Snopes, Politico, and Politifact are totally non-biased! ",
"Its actually written in my curriculum for research that you need to identify if an organization is left of right leaning! They can still be good sources, just acknowledging bias is important. Another question I use when fact/source checking is, “who stands to gain from this information.” Because they’re usually the ones sponsoring it in some way.",
"I've lived with a bunch of swedes.\n\nsweden is in deep trouble.\n\nkeep denying it though, people will surely forgive you for it...",
"Absolutely question everything. But we all need to be working with the sames facts. Hence Snopes and Politifact and FactCheck.org etc.",
"> The whole \"state's rights\" bullshit was egregious as hell \n\nAnd led to the majority of states legalizing marijuana and gay marriage. ",
"That guy has literally posted like 100 comments in this thread saying the same shit. I think he works for Snopes, LOL!",
"https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#73554626227f\n\n>\"Snopes’ sole political fact-checker, Kim Lacapria, “describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans regressive and afraid of female agency.” Prior to joining Snopes, Kim Lacapria reportedly known for publishing fake quotes and various hoaxes — furthermore she admits she’s a liberal Democrat. At the end of the day, if you see your favorite urban myth being debunked on Snopes there is a pretty good chance you’ll get pretty good information — if you’re looking for political “fact checking” you might take a second look.\"\n\nIts really important now more than ever that we stay politically educated in America. Please try to keep up, this was front page news for a week straight",
"Of course, that is complete horse shit.",
"Holy shit, you think Snopes is partisan bullshit and *THAT* website isn't?? \n\nSnopes was technically right about their claim that the allegations were most false. Everything they say in that article to paint Snopes as misleading, is misleading itself. There's so much spin from them that it makes Snopes' spin look like a straight line. \n\nThey didn't lie. Hillary DIDN'T laugh about the outcome of the case, she laughed about some of the bullshit she encountered during the case. And yes, she was just doing her job, so she's not *personally* defending a child rapist, she was doing her job and *professionally* defending one. \n\nShe also DIDN'T assert that the kid was lying or making it up, she only brought up that it happens sometimes that kids misremember things and that it was possible the kid might be doing that, introducing doubt. The jury must find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hillary did her job introducing that doubt. Do you really think she thought the kid was lying? Hell no. But what's she supposed to do, throw the case for who she's representing and undermine the entire justice system?\n\nLOL yikes is right. I guess you'll believe anything if it comes from some far right rag claiming to be fair, unfiltered truth.",
"> After this article, they changed the rating \n\nThat alone shows a liberal bias. New facts required a new opinion.",
"Anonymous reporting is fine but it must be done in tandem with an organization that has credibility and accountability. Nameless blogs are just pipelines for Anti-American propagandists to sow seeds of division these days.",
"So, left leaning = leftist? \n\nThank you for attempting to confuse any other readers that might come along.",
"> There STILL is no evidence of Russia collusion\n\n/r/Keep_Track \n\n\nNo evidence, except for all that evidence. Russia *was* involved - the only question is whether or not Trump was himself personally involved.",
"I don't know the song, but still, the sentiment in the post is nothing to aspire to.",
">It’s sucks to see people fighting so hard against reality \n\nIt's fucking heartbreaking and soooo demoralizing. You are literally trying to help keep people from blowing their own faces off and they resent you for it.",
"Actually the snopes article includes all of the details that the article claimed it left out. Also the claim it debunked included text on an image macro at the top of the page.\n\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/\n\n\nSo why does a site like yournewswire attack snopes? Because they want their readers to continue believing unsourced e-rumors ",
"I wouldn't know whether the people propagating fake news ever set foot in a library.",
"Snopes and politifact are *undeniably* useful for basic fact-checking.\n\nThen you should look at sources like Associated Press, and Reuters, to double-check with other articles.\n\nI'm not pretending that there isn't a \"bias\", but \"bias\" is not itself \"incorrect\". You can be exactly accurate with your facts, and still have a bias - the bias doesn't *have* to be so egregious as to change the interpretation, but I suppose that's a nuance that you'll latch onto and ride home to mama, forgetting that the point of the statement is that *everything* is biased, the problem with \"bias\" in media is when it's used to *ignore* or *misrepresent* facts. Also, if you refuse to use a source with *any* kind of bias.... you better be out there on the streets yourself doing the reporting.\n\n**I challenge you to show me something snopes/politifact got wrong *intentionally*.**",
"But you expect people to fall for your false equivalency? \n\nWho exactly made the decision that you're better qualified to judge the merits of something simply because you DON'T visit T_D?\n\nWhat is that person's qualifications and what study are they basing that OPINION on?\n\nYou don't want me to assume your gender, race or sexual preference but it's OK for you to assume my intelligence, education, training, experience and character based on....demonstrably NOTHING? \n\nYou're literally choosing to judge people because they prefer to discuss things in a place you likely completely misunderstand, and for your own reasons, prefer not to visit, and nothing more. \n\nAre you understanding yet how hypocritical, foolish, wrong and arrogant your statement was yet?",
"> snope, politico and politifact\n\nSigh....they might as well just have said vote democrat. ",
"That article doesn’t focus on any of the e-rumors that snopes has debunked.\n\n\nActually the forum is dedicated to the fact checking element, not politics.",
"Oh, absolutely. It's just not a hard and fast rule.",
"Make sure to include yahoo news in there... prime source material as of late",
">bedrock assumption that some things are true\n\nLike you for example have a bedrock assumption that if some source says something negative about Trump, it's most likely right.\n\nBbc has posted plenty of clickbaity tabloid shit just like every news source out there. No news source is reliable these days, because reliability is not important to the average consumer. The average consumer just wants people to agree with them, so the media will post stuff that shits on Trump so the consumer will agree with them and share the article, thus increasing ad revenue. Never believe any journalist anywhere, you have to look into the actual information yourself. Like if NYT posts something about the paris agreement, you should ignore the headline and look at it yourself to see what it is. Even if some things are true, all news should be assumed to be fake news, left wing or right wing.",
"Heh, just tried the same thing. You're right... Pretty scary. Google also promoting Snopes/Politifact articles at the top of every search on almost any political topic.\n\nThis is so fucking cancer.",
"> Because all they do is seemingly fact check republicans more than democrats\n\nThis isn't actually true, they also grade right sources more harshly then left sources for similar unfactual statements. A right source will be regarded as \"mostly untrue\", while the left source gets \"not entirely true.\" Both distinctions are completely arbitrary, yet the right sources are more often given more dis-favorable ratings.\n\nThere's no need to get testy.",
"First off, you are a bigot for assuming my nationality, feel free to report yourself to the nearest reeducation center.\n\nHow about living with a few swedes for multiple years? I'm sure I've talked to them for more than 5 minutes over the course of these years. \n\nTwo of them fled the country because it was turning far left.\n\n> Polices do come here but get met with gang violence\n\nThis is _SO MUCH BETTER_, it's not just women, gays, jews and apostates that fear for their lives, it's the security forces as well! Perfect! Sweden is doing fine! Stop being a russian! \n\n[And stuff like this is deeply troubling](https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269244/sweden-appoints-pakistani-muslim-head-national-robert-spencer)\n\nGo ahead and dismiss this out of hand for being \"Right wing\", but NONE of the left wing media are talking about this.\n\nKnow why?\n\nBecause it isn't very nice to put someone who doesn't respect the swedish culture as the HEAD of the cultural heritage board.\n\nEven the left wing media knows this, that's why they aren't reporting on this pretty blatant example of trying to change the history of sweden.\n\n\nLuckily you know better, and sweden [always had grenade attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden)\n\nIt was also always muslim, [amirite](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/13/viking-burial-clothes-woven-with-allah-unveiled-by-swedish-university) ?\n\n> It's not refugees, it's not Muslims or Arabs or something\n\nYes. It's only whites, of course, how silly of me. we SHOULD be replacing them, filthy whites.\n\n[Hey, they retracted their warning for women to stay in inside or get raped, sweden is fixed!](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-police-women-alone-dark-victim-blaming-advice-retracted-a8117291.html)\n\n\n\n\n",
"I try to reason with people in my real life circle of friends and acquaintances with simple logic and facts. I stray away from the team politic bullshit and try to separate it. I also try to be calm and non confrontational. “Take away the red and blue. Look at what is going on. Look at the actions and voting records. What do you think about this?” They take the normal routes of whataboutism and just circle around with force fed generic bullshit talking points. If you systematically dismantle each argument they get more and more hostile until they either start personally attacking you or want to change subjects. I’m getting burnt out dealing with people. Tired of it...especially when it leads to nothing learned. I’m just wondering what it will take for them to open their eyes and see. I guess like most conservative friends I have something will have to absolutely effect them on a personal level for them to understand. Which sucks, because I don’t want anything bad to happen to them. I don’t want it to get to that level. But empathy is strongly lacking in their worldview and without that tool in your brain...I think you truly are lost as a citizen. It’s like caring for your fellow beings around you is a dirty concept to them and I don’t understand why. I mean, isn’t that a huge part of Christianity? Being that most conservatives identity as Christian? It boggles my mind. ",
"And you still didn't read it. Well done!",
"What is an \"implication\" anyway? Sounds like some made up bullshit word",
"If 'credibility and accountability' were a priority, high level public AND private sector officials would not be forging credentials and fabricating accounts. ",
"I know what you mean. Because in my experience it's a crock of shit, and lefties don't like being called out on it. ",
"I have a black friend, so I can't be racist! ",
"???",
"Oh no, I'm not saying this proves I'm not racist.\n\nIt proves that I know what I'm talking about.\n\nTry again.",
"wow are you dense. ",
"On politifacts, each image is accompanied by a long article filled with rationales. Those information is actually quite important and useful. ",
"This guy will get votes, and more to the point, they had nobody who would best this guy in the primary? They couldn't let the Dem run unopposed? Why does a nazi Holocaust denier feel that the Republican party is the right place for him in the first place?\n\nObviously the party isn't gonna go goosestepping, but there's a lot more than whether they're actively supporting.",
"Fox's dishonest reporting maybe empowered him a little but CNN covered him 24 hours a day on 3 different channels and their website - giving him all the free press he wanted.",
"I have experience with swedes, I don't think you do.\n\nYou think the country is fine, right?\n\nExplain why it is doing as well as denmark or norway.\n\nI will be thoroughly surprised if you can muster even a single argument.\n\n\nhttps://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11861/sweden-feminism",
"I think there's Christianity as a means of social identification and organization (exclusionary and cruel by nature) and christianity as a philosophy that loves your fellow man and would do anything to help make the world a better place. They rarely meet.",
">If the economy is doing well and the lower class benefits from it then what's the problem? \n\nThe healthcare bill eliminating healthcare coverage for millions, rescinding DACA and turning it into a political football, ending protections for trans students in public schools, his support of religious freedom bills, his support of bad reforms to our immigration system, his handling of Charlottesville, his attempts to exit NAFTA, his repeated desires and threats to impose 30% tariffs across the board, the ballooning of the deficit with tax cuts during a period of strong economic growth, the gutting of important regulations from Dodd-Frank that were intended to prevent another 2008 collapse, rolling back of many environmental protections, and more. The economy has been in a upward direction for a couple years now, and there is no doubt Trump's election caused the stock market to perform remarkably well as the economy continues along roughly the same pace as it has been since the end of Obama's term, which is a good thing.\n\nMy position, of course, can change. If Trump abandons trying to restrict legal immigration, if he grants pathway to citizenship, if he ends travel bans, if he puts financial regulations back in place, if he passes healthcare bills much better than the current one, if he changes course on LGBT discrimination, if he changes course on trade, etc. ",
"It being an implication is an assumption you have made. That is on you not the author.",
"Fully agree.",
"But then people wouldn't spend their way into debt and our upper class wouldn't be as rich. Can't be having that. ",
"Super late to the party, but r/neutralpolitics is great at filtering out the bullshit and getting down to the facts. ",
"Lol yikes you literally had to type a response that long to warm up for the mental gymnastics you tried to use to respond to that poster. They linked proof Snopes is complete garbage, sorry you can't accept that! sad!",
"The thing is, trust is far easier to lose than to gain, and once lost is significantly harder to regain. There have been a lot of retracted stories over the past few years that had cited anonymous sources. Which has led to Gallup recording public trust in journalism plummeting.\n\n[http://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx](http://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx) ",
"And I’m talking about SPIN. It exists on both sides. If you can’t see that a WaPo, CNN or Politico are to the left as Fox News or Washington Times are to the right, you’re part of the problem. \n\nSpin is different than facts v opinion. Spin is context. You can make the same facts bend in different directions with SPIN. \n\nMy point is not to go believe the Washington Times. My point is also not to go believe the Washington Post. My point is that if you want to have meaningful discussion, you need to read them both and attempt to understand why people put their preferred spin on things.\n",
"Ah, thank you for the info.",
"Under Obama the economy was never climbing up. It was stagnant. Your other issues have nothing to do with the economy and further proves my point about how extremely biased you are. ",
"They just want people subscribing to the proper fake news",
"This is serious indoctrination on a mass scale we have going on here. We don't even know when we are getting correct information at this point, unless you are already suspicious and willing to look harder, Jesus. ",
"You aren't actually cross referencing anything if you can't be bothered to read more than a single icon at the top of a page. That isn't fact checking. ",
"Reagan was for amnesty in exchange for a secure border. Congress didn't follow through on the deal after getting amnesty, though.\n\n[ http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/08/what-trump-could-learn-from-the-reagan-immigration-amnesty/](http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/08/what-trump-could-learn-from-the-reagan-immigration-amnesty/) ",
"Hey, thanks for the reply. However I strongly disagree with your core thesis and I think you are missing the point. Sure humans have the \"right\" to cry. As you say, people/professional news reporters, legitimately believed that the country would fall apart because Trump was elected. We can go back and prove this... famously The Economist's lead economist predicted a stock market crash with a Trump win and he's said its the biggest miss in the history of their publication. You can also look at Nate Silver who's one of the most respected statisticians. The list of doomsday predictions goes on and on.\n\nAll of those predictions were based on real data. But we KNOW they were wrong. They **weren't** trying to intentionally report fake news, they were victims of cognitive blindness and confirmation bias. So my point was/is, if you believe in something strongly enough to drive you to tears, you aren't able to consume information on that subject objectively. And when you can't do that, you aren't in a position to spread accurate information and so your job should **not** be \"reporter of information and news\". \n\n",
"You have nothing to prove me wrong so you use *your* mental gymnastics to say that I'm wrong instead of proving it. His link proved nothing and neither did you. Well done. I'd expect nothing more from a far right, mouth breathing troll who parrots his glorious leader and repeats his \"sad!\" exclamation every chance he gets. Try again. ",
"Of course he does! (Did you just assume my gender?)\n\nWhat else is he going to do while sitting in the basement as mommy is warming up her breast milk?",
"you're reading it in the opposite direction, it's about whether obama ordered fbi to get warrants against trump",
"You really think that if the website owner can commit fraud he can't lie on his website ? Especially if it's for the people he leans politicly, get your head out of your ass, I'm done trying to educate you, keep your head in the sand and let Zuckerberg pump his content into your more usefull hole.",
"“Fact check with sites like snopes” lol",
"Gotta remember that 90% of the media is controlled by five corporations and war is very good for business. They push for war often enough, you may as well consider the MSM as part of the military industrial complex. ",
"They're reading tracts in the local mall's parking lot.\n\n\n",
"did you even read the article? that's not the claim they're debunking.",
"Says the guy gorging himself on fox lmao. Love the irony ",
"> fluoride in the water was turning frogs asexual\n\nI thought it was hormonal birth control getting into the water and messing up the wildlife? ",
"My HS actually covered these in a psychology course and had us apply them various examples of news articles. It was a great crossover series.",
"FBI is part of the executive branch, POTUS is literally their boss. And thanks to the Patriot Act, the NSA is basically wiretapping all of us. Member when bulk data collection was in the news a few years back? ",
"Lol yeah you totally don't have a biased view of reality either",
"I'm not a conservative. This just goes to show how incredibly boneheaded and simple-minded you are that you assume everyone who sees clear and obvious bias must be of the persuasion which those organizations are biased against. I'm not American, but if I was, I would most certainly not have voted for that delusional, jingoistic bafoon that is Trump.\n\n>Then what the hell do you trust for news then? if everything is biased? Oh wait only things biased for you.\n\nI listen to multiple sources and try to find a synthesis interpretation that matches objective facts.",
"Washington Post is one of the oldest, most respected names in journalism. It is firmly in the center. I agree that SharedBlue and the Huffington Post editorials are equivalent to Fox News or Washington Times. Washington Post is not SharedBlue or Huffington Post editorials though.\n\nThe Washington Post is more similar to the Wall Street Journal or the Economist.\n\n[Here's an infographic to illustrate.](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iikns9njeBA/WlKCPEuUb_I/AAAAAAABC14/UqxpCMNd_DcxVEp_v3yQJTaSXWyC4M1xgCHMYCw/mediabiaschart_thumb%255B2%255D?imgmax=800)",
"Those bubbles they are talking about, google tends to do that because it thinks it knows what you like. If you want to see other results than what google shows, use duckduckgo.com.",
"You just haven’t been able to show a pattern of Snopes lying to cover up factual stories spread by email, blogs and 4chan. The plain truth is, if those e-rumors were true, they wouldn’t need chain emails, blogs and 4chan to get the word out.",
">then why did that guy bring a gun to comet ping pong? \n\nHe was a spook yo. A plant. A crisis actor if you will. Edgar Madison Welsh/Welch? An actor with his own imdb page and dad is on the board of trustees for a human trafficking 'prevention' group, whose members include convicted rapists. Interesting enough, the traffic cameras pointed at Comet were moved that very morning and many said be on the lookout for a staged attack to make the story \"conspiracy theorists are dangerous\"\n\nI think we should look at the medias reporting. They say e.m.w read a 'fake news' story that inspired him, yet msm refuses to cite an original article. Its because there is none. Pizzagate from the get go was a crowd sourced bipartisan investigation that the main stream media strawmanned and misrepresented cuz they don't want you to talk about it. It started on reddit and 4chan. It was never a \"news story\" at all. It was a few loosely based self posts and this [infograph](http://aprillajune.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Pizza-Gate-Flow-Chart-1.jpg)\n\nThey reported it as \"Hilary Clinton trafficking kids through a pizzashop hurr durr\" cuz that's a lot easier than trying to defend against than what people are actually asserting. This is what pizzagate really is;\n[The medias darkest cover up since the Franklin/boys town sex scandal](https://youtu.be/P8urOO0d7n8)\n\nEdit: r/conspiracy is astroturfed to fuck. It doesn't surprise me that you didn't find this on here. When it all popped off 2 Augusts ago that's when we noticed the steady stream of people coming there just to shit on users ideas with no conversation, just personal attacks and vitriol. Then we noticed most of the traffic of these shill accounts comes from a military base in Florida. People are being paid money to discredit pizzagate that should tell you something.\n\nEdit edit: how is this your first time hearing of the Pegasus museum? That's like one of the main tenants. It connects James Alefantis to the defunct Smithsonian tunnels and bridges an underground corridor between bucks(another Alefantis owned business) and Pegasus.",
"I do not need to waste my time making a list of snopes patterns of lies if the website owner has been exposed already for being a fraudulent scumbag. If you think the shitposting from /pol/, blogs (and did you really say chain e-mail, are you fucking 14 ?) truely affects people, then you got the president you deserve. ",
"that's a tough question. especially considering it is now absolutely legal for the u.s. to use msm to spread propaganda to its citizens. which is why you see all the tabloid type crap from cnn and the other main ones. you gotta navigate thru the b.s. al jazeera, wikileaks, washingtontimes, downtrend, reason, are some I use. wikileaks has been the only one who hasn't posted anything that's been untrue since they started. ",
"Well only one side can be correct here, right? It'd be great if we had way more solid evidence of which side...",
"When did I say the left isn’t as bad? You clearly see this on both sides and I’ll be the first to admit that.",
"Oh no! I don't like NYT because it pushes racist bullshit! I must be a bad person!\n\nFuck off",
"And yet all you had was a canned response you heard on The Colbert Report. Kudos, you got em!",
"I think the RIGHT is as paranoid as it gets. No snopes is ok. the others I have no idea about. Why is it only the right wingers get their panties up? Paranoid much? ",
"Those are all hubs for unsourced e-rumors, which snopes is great at debunking.\n\n\nAgain, lots I talking, but no concrete examples of “debunked” rumors turning out to be true. Just shifting goalposts.\n\n\nWhat next, you going to tell me Obama sold B-2 blueprints to China for debt relief?",
"Why are you incapable of your own critical thought? Why do you think this is ok?",
"Weird that almost always wins arguments on Reddit!",
"Source of the flyer is a subdomain. Not very trustworthy!!!!1",
"Definitely do.",
"I love all the tips except fact checking at snopes and politifact. There isnt websites that are the holy grail of truth, both of those sites aren't always 100% right.",
"David and Barbara Mikkelson (back when they were still together), readily admit that their “fact checking” is “only as reliable as the sources they cite, and they invite readers to look for the truth themselves.” They go on to say, “We don’t expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic.” The couple recruited a specialist to handle their political “fact checking” and as a result we’re seeing more and more political partisan garbage.\n\nSnopes’ sole political fact-checker, Kim Lacapria, “describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans regressive and afraid of female agency.” Prior to joining Snopes, Kim Lacapria reportedly known for publishing fake quotes and various hoaxes — furthermore she admits she’s a liberal Democrat.",
"I work in a hospital and I see this all the time. Some people come in and expect you to magically fix their ailment, but refuse any diagnostic test or bloodwork, and when you tell them that's the only way to figure out what's wrong, they think you've got two heads and are trying to kill them. Then, when you \"aren't doing enough for them\", they want to leave and start yelling about how \"this place is terrible\" and other such nonsense.\n\nI really don't want to generalize, but you can see there's a difference in culture between people that will trust you to do the job properly and those that think it's a snap of the fingers and the world revolves around them.",
"My point is, it is that Iran was not seeking ransom. They wanted their money back (rightfully so).\n\nI would say that the US was holding the money ransom on the contingent that the prisoners were released. \n\nI don't why I am even bothering to comment you are so far out of touch...",
"My community college just introduced a new class called \"calling out bullshit\" all about how to interpret the media and how to respond to crazy people. ",
"What do you mean? The snopes article addressed everything covered in the yournewswire article.",
"And can you point to any of those fake quotes and hoaxes that LaCapria has published?",
">I would say that the US was holding the money ransom on the contingent that the prisoners were released.\n\nHolding money until prisoners are released is the exact definition of ransom. It doesn't matter who has rights to the money. Money for prisoners is ransom. Your words fit the exact definition. Stop trying to do gymnastics.",
"I'm not allowed to go to Wikileaks due to security concerns.\n\nEven if I could, why would I support that criminal Assange?",
"Source? ",
">share it\n\nHow? ",
"I'll grant them that they have honest intentions, more honest than CNN, but they're still human and have fallen prey to ideological blindness.\n \nIf you're not including right-wing sources to challenge your basic assumptions, than all you end up with just another echo-chamber. ",
"lol. It's the exact opposite, but whatever. I am not arguing with you anymore. I have better things to do with my life than argue about a word that's definition runs contrary to your argument. Ciao\n",
"You're not even reading what I wrote.\n\nYes, Bill Nye has changed his mind.\n\nYes, that is all the meme is claiming.",
"The rate at which it caused autism would certainly be relevant. If it was a 50% chance that your child would become autistic I certainly wouldn't be vaccinating my kids(and the vaccine would not have ever gotten out of trials). If it's some extremely small chance and it's the only option to vaccinate against a terrible disease then yes I would probably take that risk.\n\nDon't act like it would be unreasonable for someone to not want to vaccinate their kids if there actually was a legitimate chance the kid became autistic though. That's totally reasonable, it's not like raising an autistic child is remotely the same as a regular child. Obviously there is a wide range of severity for autistic children but they are obviously much more limited in their ability to succeed and are almost always significantly harder to parent. A child being autistic is an unfortunate part of life, don't try to glorify it or act like parents shouldn't want their kids to be autistic or to have to raise an autistic child.\n\nAll of that being said, just to be 100% clear, if my child turned out to be autistic I would of course love them as much as I would otherwise, I'm going to love my kids regardless. I also am 100% for vaccinations. I just wanted to push back on that statement you made and if I misinterpreted what you were getting at I apologize. ",
"Since youre the one beliving a site that tells you they are only credible as their sources, why dont you go ahead and go find it yourself, I mean you wouldn't belive as fact random internet things people post. Oh wait you do. Take a break from ruining an industry or starbucks you lazy millenial and find clues yourself, you might have to go on some evil conservative site but it's okay, they can't trigger you if you brain is a safe place.",
"'Credentials':\n\nhttps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-22/msnbc-anchor-admits-our-job-control-exactly-what-people-think",
"I know, right? Short, sweet, and to the point, and not too biased in and of itself.",
"ah yes cnn disclaimer that it's illegal to read wikileaks 😂😂 almost forgot about that golden moment of fake news. \n\nas for support, I dunno. that's on you. wikileaks as an organization has been truthful so far. assange, whether he's still alive or not, isn't as big a criminal as the dems and repubs who've run this country into the ground or sold it to the lowest bidders. at the end of the day, wikileaks uncovers information. msm covers up information.",
"So they're not a news source because they only provide raw data and reports? By that logic only the bullshit commentary is news. This is what is wrong with the world. Only propaganda that you agree with is news when unbiased reporting is not.",
"Fair point. :) ",
"Mika Brezinski talking about how she would like to make sure the president doesn't get away with shaping the publicly understood narrative with his constant insane lying. I'm glad she feels it's her job and responsibility to counter that fucking bullshit. Thanks for the clip.",
"Y'know, Safari isn't horrible. I don't really like Macs, but their browser is pretty fast and safe.",
"Snopes. Hahah.",
"I agree with some of what you say. Centre to Left wing media will shit on Trump with plenty of stories because it conforms to what they believe in. Same goes with Right wing media and stuff about Obama, Clinton and dems in general. \n\nWhat I don't agree with is that you shouldn't trust any journalist. Even in the most dishonest outlets there are honest journalists but due to pressures of getting views they may eventually conform to just getting easy hits. Yet many media sources will post a bit of both. To pay the bills any company needs a mainstream profit income through things like travel, fashion and celebrity gossip that is sure to get hits which pay out. Articles about Trump are no different. He generates about 5 scandals a day which people will always want to here about no matter their affiliation or nationality simply because he's one of the most powerful people in the world at the moment and he is *very* easy to ridicule from a liberal point of view since he consists of racism, sexism and ignorance to the facts. This worked to his advantage in the elections as it basically dominated all reasonable discussion and everything became about his ego, his scandals etc rather than his awful policies and lack of experience.\n\nAnyway I digress, news sources will also post hardcore factfinding and investigative material that may uncover a scoop or scandal that they have been working on for months. These will get big hits but are few are far between so the papers need to be filled with smaller articles inbetween. You can't have 100% quality articles all the time in a mainstream outlet. Some sources do like but they tend to be more niche and intellectual, possibly a monthly journal and definitely not a large corporation like Fox, CNN, BBC. \n\nMany journalists believe in the integrity of the job. They follow ethics codes and have to adhere to strict standards and practices. It may be slandered by the right but CNN has to put every article through the editors for fact checking and to make sure that every article is triple checked for inaccuracies that could put its' reputation on the line. The same goes for the BBC that the conservatives are frequently out to get. They have to be whiter than white in order to maintain their image of political neutrality. \n\nDuring the election campaign CNN posted an article that used a source that Trump claimed was made up. Although the article was fairly inconsequential it went right to the directors in order to find out who was responsible. People lost their jobs because in a time that CNN was being called fake news they had to be clear that every article was true. \n\nNow I'm not saying this applies to every outlet out there and there are certainly articles that although they may be true still are seen through a political lens. But for the most part journalists will try and tell the truth save for tabloids like the Daily Mail and Breitbart etc. \n\nFake news started out as a term used by the left to characterize news such as the Bowling Green massacre that was entirely fabricated in order to serve a political purpose. Trump and co turned this around on their enemies the free press to say that any story they disagreed with was false. This made the original term lose all meaning and it became a shit slinging contest. A story that contains some inaccuracies is not the same as fake news in its original sense. Pizzagate is not the same as a politically biased story. ",
"That's fundamentally not true. The economy was falling downwards during the recession but grew at an identical pace (just under 3%) that it has under Trump for the longest consecutive number of quarters of growth ever. Unemployment was low (4.1%), the LFPR for ages 25-54 was beginning to return to pre-crash levels (it still is moving that way). Only the stock market has grown under Trump at a rate not matched by the recovery under Obama. That is not a disputable fact. \n\nWhy would the economy be the only thing I judge a leader on? That seems like a ridiculous standpoint, particularly because outside forces create about 95% of economic conditions. Was Bush responsible for seven years of growth, or one year and a half of sky-falling recession? Was Obama responsible for the recessuon of his first four years or tbe recovery of his last four? Was Clinton responsible for the growth under his presidency? What about Reagan? Nixon responsible for the economy of the 70s? JFK and Johnson for the 60s?\n\nThe truth is that none are directly responsible outside of Nixon unchaining the dollar without understanding how to control inflation and Carter-Reagan for appointing and keeping Paul Volcker in head of the Fed to manage inflation. Beyond that, the economy mostly has grown or fallen due to market forces. Both Obama and Reagan pushed stimulus plans (Reagan tax cuts, Obama stimulus) during times of economic downturn that had the effect of boosting the economy out of downturns, but that's simple basic economics 101: deficit spending will stimulate economic growth, assuming the economy is already growing. Likewise, Bush Sr and Clinton both took steps to reduce deficits in times of economic growth, which prevents debt from spiraling out of control and keeps the government solvent long-term, but that was also basic economics 101. Eisenhower spent to stimulate the economy, too, Kennedy cut spending in times of growth, LBJ did both. If you look long-term across modern presidents post-FDR leaving the Gold Standard, economics are largely not partisan and both sides understand how to react to fluctuations in the market, how to stimulate growth and how to manage deficits. And for the most part the economy has grown and performed remarkably well in the modern era. See [GDP growth] (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP), [GDP per capita growth] (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA), [working age LFPR] (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060), and [real wage growth] (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q). These are the prime measurements to judge economic growth by, and as you can see they don't tend to vary based on which political party operating under generally the same economic philosophies is in office. The fact that real wages were growing at the end of Obama's term is no more Obama's doing than the fact that they have been falling since Trump took office is Trump's doing: both are the result of what sectors are getting back to work. Which makes sense: inflation is rising, which causes real wages to go down, after being stable for the past four years.\n\nIf you are considering whether a president is doing well based solely on economic conditions, that's a very poor understanding of the role of the president, how economics work, the current economic climate, the relative lack of effective difference in economic policy between the two parties or individual presidents, and so much more.\n\nFurther, we're talking about news reporting, not our individual views. What you're suggesting doesn't even make sense in that context. News has to report stories that happen. We're talking about bias in reporting, and reporting happens story by story. Your option is either to report a story or not report the story, and within reporting that story to either not take a lens or take a lens. Generally, in actual news stories, few outlets take a particular bias, beyond bltantly partisan sources like Salon or Breitbart. Even Fox and MSNBC's actual reporting and articles aren't all that biased. In news *analysis* you see biases. Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity are not the news: they are news analysts. And once someone is analyzing the news, they are spinning it, so pretty much all news analysis is inherently biased. Same goes for opinion pieces.",
">You still haven't read them have you?\n\nI read the fucking articles before this argument even started, before you latched onto this stupid obsession that I somehow hadn't.",
"Fact checking sites are going to be gamed out of their usefulness if we keep making them the ultimate authority on what’s true. \n\nBottom line: you’re going to have to trust someone with telling you what happened unless you were there and saw it for yourself. ",
"You are the one who accused LaCapria of publishing fake quotes and various hoaxes. You cannot assume that I wouldn’t ask you to provide examples. So far you have refused to do so.",
"Politifact isn't better either.",
"\"Check anonymously-sourced mainstream media agenda-driven reports against agenda-driven opinion pieces masquerading as fact-checking!\"",
"You're an angry dude, I get it, I'd probably be pissed off too with the state of your Union. Can't make a buck doing an honest days work so who's fault is it? Must be these new-fangled ideas and damn illegals and the Washington swamp, and so on. If only you could go back in time to a 1950's ideal society where women and darkies knew their place and a man could get ahead with some honest work. But no, now you've got all this political correctness where men can't be men.\n\nAnd along comes Trump, a guy who says it like it is. Goddamn, that's a guy you can get behind. A man's man who'll run your country like his businesses and make everybody rich.\n\nSure.\n\nExcept now these fucking liberal crybabies are screwing everything up. They won't let him get down to business. \n\nSomething like that, right? Am I seeing your point of view or am I still narcissistic?\n\nYou think I want Trump to be a Russian spy? No. I want him to take your country out of the shitter. I really do. But I don't see it happening. I see your President as selfish and irresponsible and unable to grasp his role. \n\nA website like Politifact might be cynical and biased in their opinion, but they didn't lie about any of the facts. They chose to frame those facts in a different context. They chose to call him out on his bullshit. I found it amusing.\n\nI'm a cynic, a skeptic. I don't accept things at their face value and I know how to research. I'm a bit jaded. I also don't care about Trump all that much, because my stake in his success or failure is minimal. His reign shall pass, and we will all learn from this experience, and be the better for it.",
"Then why not just say that? ",
"I was going to try to respond but it's such a garbled mess I can't tell what your point is. \n\nSnopes, and politifact especially, are agenda-driven opinion pieces masquerading as fact-checking. They frequently characterize true facts as false if they don't like the speaker, or the implication of the facts.",
"They are without question the biggest purveyors of it. ",
"This is a weird evasion of the question. He didnt ask for an unbiased source, he asked for one that was right leaning and gave that perspective. It would certainly be interesting to see a regular right wing rebuttal of the other fact checkers, since one doesn't appear to exist.. Especially in light of that study saying right wingers tend to view and share more factually inaccurate news. I have to wonder how long it would take the right wing to declare such a source as invalid as the other fact checkers, but it sure would be interesting to see.. ",
"WRONG!",
"Yup, that’s what I said",
"I wasn't saying your specific definition, I was just curious if what I always referred to as a \"red herring fallacy\" was now being called \"whataboutism\". Which I guess, yes? Kinda? ",
"“It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias.”\n\n― Stephen Colbert\n",
"You will never learn a thing from this. You probably think I voted for Trump, or that I support anything he does. I don't. I am against idiots like you blowing things out of proportion and giving me legitimate reasons to have to side with Trump. I wrote in Bernie Sanders during the general election because both parties are absolute shit. So far people can't seem to accept that it was liberal crybabies that drove people to support Trump.",
"\"Fact check with sources like snopes and politifact.....\"\n\nLOL.... ",
"Facebook has gone down in quality over the years in my opinion. Yeah there is still good news out there but you'd be surprised how many people prefer to share informal pictures than verified articles. ",
"No. All of them are extremely biased. Snopes and politifact are both horrendously biased and will twist the facts to suit their agenda.\n\n\"Trump created 1 million new jobs: FALSE (in tiny print it will say it was false because he actually only created 999,999 new jobs)",
"> I'm a Libertarian, I post all over the place.\n\nThe_Donald should not be one of those places. It's a cult sub safe space that literally won't let you vote unless you join their ranks.\n\nAnd why the fuck do people say \"I'm Libertarian\" like it helps their cause at all? Libertarians vote party line Republican just like Socialists vote party line Democrat.\n\nYou're a Republican.",
"Forbes lies. A lot. They will often deny the proven fact of man made climate change, for example.\n",
"You should give this article a read. It brings up interesting points of why to be skeptical of these sorts of sites. This doesn't prove anything, it only provides some food for thought. \n\nhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/",
"Since you're not sure if he did his research, could you please provide the sources for your research? \n\nI feel like the conversation is talking \"around\" a subject rather than speaking to objective and quantifiable points.",
"You're a moron. The meme is fabricated. The claim, that Bill Nye said that gender is determined \"by your chromosomes\", is false. Not half true, not mostly false. It's false.\n\nThe meme is claiming a) that Nye said this and b) that Bill Nye having a different opinion on gender in 1996 and 2016 somehow undermines his current argument or the weight of evidence in his favour. This is also false.\n \nTo quote the very short article you're clearly incapable of actually reading:\n\nShortly after this meme went viral and was subsequently debunked, Nye’s detractors latched onto a 20-year-old clip from Bill Nye the Science Guy which featured actress Amy Broder saying that there were “only two possibilities” when it comes to gender:\n\n>“You’re either X and X. Girl. Or X and Y. Boy. The chance of becoming either a boy or a girl is always 1 in 2.”\n\n*This clip comes from “Probabilities”* an episode from the show’s fourth season.\n\nSo what changed? Did Bill Nye alter his scientific conclusions to appease a liberal audience? Was he paid off to say that gender was a spectrum as some have alleged? \n\nNye may have provided some insight into this quandary in 2017 during “The Sexual Spectrum” episode of Bill Nye Saves the World. Before bringing out the “Abacus of Sex,” a tool used by Nye to describe four aspects of sexuality, sex, gender, expression, and attraction, Nye said that his understanding of sexuality, as well as the world’s, was still evolving:\n\n>“If you’re like me, and I know I am, you’re still learning about this field of science. We used to think that there were just two settings. Male and female. But it’s actually a lot sexier than that.”\n\nNye expressed a similar sentiment toward the end of the episode:\n\n>‘Take sex. We used to think it was pretty straightforward. X and a Y chromosome for males. Two Xs for females. But we see more combinations than that in real life.\n\n[…]\n\n>We have to listen to the science. And the science says that we’re all on a spectrum.”\n\nLearning about science is a process. Although a character on Bill Nye the Science Guy may have said that there were “only two possibilities” when it comes to gender, that episode first aired more than 20 years ago in 1996. Nye’s understanding of sex and gender, as well as the world’s, has grown since then.",
"Opensecrets.org and factcheck.org are better options. Biases are impossible to avoid, but IMO these sites are far less egregiously and obviously left leaning than politico and snopes ",
"His ma apparently loves him, but Donnie hasn’t really hid that he doesn’t give a fuck about his kids until he gets them a job.",
"Evaluating Facebook like that is a bit odd, sib certainly surely there are individuals who post good news and articles there, and you have the freedom to choose who you are following. I do admit that the average content by my friends have gone down too, but I wouldn't out the blame on Facebook, but to the posters themselves. Many universities have Facebook pages for example, and their content is probably quite good. ",
"Politico and snopes! Hahahahqhaha",
"Opensecrets.org and factcheck.org are better options. Biases are impossible to avoid, but IMO these sites are far less egregiously and obviously left leaning than politico and snopes",
"Oh yeah. I'm not dismissing the platform as a whole. It's just those small gripes I have with it. Other than that it can be used in many useful ways. ",
"Holy ramblings Batman. I am using economy because it's a focal point to stay focused on. I hope you understand that now. There is no way I'm going to go through all that. \n\nYou said under Obama the economy constantly climbed and you just refuted it in this response. Obama has been the only president in the past 40 years who hasn't seen at least 3% GDP. Trump is likely going to hit that mark. Obamas economy was stagnant and created very little growth. To believe otherwise is not looking at the whole picture. Obamacare nearly decimated private small businesses, job growth was only in the government sector. People were fined for not having expensive insurance. Obama created a surplus which can be good in moderation but he also doubled our deficit which is bad because under his administration there was no true economic growth. ",
"[Here](https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/) they pose the question \"Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist *and later laughed about the case*\", put the entire emphasis on the undemonstrable latter half to give the whole sentence a \"mostly false\" rating, when the statement \"Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist\" is completely true.\n\nAlso, go onto the front page of Snopes and you'll see that it is now a commercial news site with things like [this](https://www.snopes.com/trumps-hair-filmed-blowing-wind/) and [this](https://www.snopes.com/america-first-ku-klux-klan-slogan/). Like I said, it's how they choose their facts.\n\n[Then they said that Soros wasn't a nazi collaborator](https://www.snopes.com/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/)(albeit, given the circumstances, anyone would have done the same).\n\nWhen a site that used to be about debunking myths and urban legends suddenly becomes a fact checking political news site right around the elections, it's highly suspect imo.",
"Wow, that's messed up man. \"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!\"\n\nLiberal crybabies. I'm sure that was it. I'm sure that if they would just SHUT UP and let you get on with things without them sticking their nose in where it don't belong that things would be just hunky-dory? An 'Andy Griffith show' future for all of America?\n\nI've learned lots from this already. There's seven billion people watching your drama and taking notes. I think that for most of us it's like watching a car crash in slow motion. Hard to look at, and look away from the tragedy, but fascinating nonetheless.\n\nWhat will be really interesting is what happens after Trump. What is your happy ending?",
"just because Facts, and Truth in general line up up to the left more often than the right, does not mean those websites are biased.\n\nit just means republicans are more often incorrect.",
"So WaPo and NYT are accurate and unbiased? ",
"The memo does not support its core claim\n\nThe memo begins by making a grandiose claim: The FBI’s use of surveillance power under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 campaign was “a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.”\n\nRespond...",
"You have no form of digital communication? No whatsapp, snapchat or whatever else people use today? Send the link on.",
"I didn’t ask you what the name of your business was or where it’s even located. Just what you do. C’mon if you’re gonna bullshit do it well.",
"Obtaining a fisa warrant illegally and spying on Americans illegally for political purposes isn’t a claim. This happened.\n\n4th amendment matter to you? How about police state tactics ?\n\nIt’s also based on classified information which Democrats have seen and are lying about. The fbi has confirmed this. Quoting a liberal doesn’t make it not fact ",
"Whataboutism is like a specific version of the red herring fallacy. A red herring is when you distract with irrelevant stuff generally, and whataboutism is when the thing you’re distracting with is about the accuser.\n\nSo I say, “Putin is bad because he invaded Crimea.”\nAnd you might say, “Well, who are you to talk? What about the time your country invaded Iraq?”\n\nSo (I think) all instances of whataboutism are red herrings, but not all red herrings are whataboutism.",
"Logical fallacy ",
"Makes sense, thanks. I wish it wasn't called \"whataboutism\" but oh well, I guess it's easy to remember that way lol.",
"lol",
"You what mate? I didn't even intend to participate on that debate, but come on. I read the study criterias to define \"junk news\" and most common medias and most fucking certainly BuzzFeed should be hitting the top of the list. ",
"Well it is. He tries to discredit real news sources, so he can spread his lies. Sad part is you and people like you are dumb enough to fall for it.",
"This Watchmen sequels sucks.",
"[Sure.](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.asp)\n\nThis is a very simple, and objective, snapshot that explains supply side economics and some of the criticisms that it garners from other theories (particularly the Keynesian model). It's one of the more helpful explanations I've seen for people with little to no background in economic models.",
"Which is exactly why the education system is being gutted. Can't have those meddlesome kids growing up with half a brain.",
"Fun fact, XKCD is a side project of Snopes and its only goal is to throw people off the scent of the real conspiracy through this comic.",
"Not every \"conspiracy theory\" is bullshit. \n\nEdit: You know that, right?",
"Community guideline algorithms? Is that a specific thing, or like just guidelines/algorithms in general? \n\nHowever I get lost on the fact that there is not any right leaning fact checking source, or even a \"non-partisan\" one that operates right of field. With all the \"news\" sites the right is funding I'm sure one could argue that there would be a need/funding for a right leaning \"fact-checking\" site similar to those supposed left leaning fact checking sites, just to counteract them. ",
"Obama also faced the only massive recession of the past 40 years, that's a really odd point to make. He was president during the largest recession since the great depression by orders of magnitude, it wouldn't make sense for growth under Obama to be at the same rate as it was under Clinton, Bush, Bush or Reagan. Your statements about Obama are not backed up with data. \n\nAll the net job gains under President Obama were in the private sector. Government jobs have actually declined by 341,000 since February 2009 (the first full month Obama was in office). As in, 100%. As in there was zero net growth in government jobs, completely contrary to your assertion.\n\n>Obama created a surplus \n\nFalse, though he reduced the deficit once the economy started growing\n\n>he also doubled our deficit \n\nFalse, the debt, not deficit, was doubled as a result of the recovery, which makes sense since deficit spending is entirely necessary to combat a recession. The deficit is lower at the end of Obama's term than end of Bush's.\n\n>Obamacare nearly decimated private small businesses\n\nExaggerated a bit, but true. Small businesses are getting raked over the coals with stop-loss insurance, which a direct side effect of the employer mandate.\n\n>under his administration there was no true economic growth.\n\nThere was slow growth, not no growth, in the wake of an extreme recession, which did not occur during any other presidency, and I think we can universally agree he did not cause.\n\nObama and Trump took over vastly different economic situations. I don't know why you're attributing that to either. Trump's economy is nearly identical to the one he inherited",
"While I will not refute your allegations of the President's 'constant insane lying' (though I could make an attempt), My point is that the media is 'shaping the publicly understood narrative' all the time, in many different ways that don't all agree, and there are many fortunes, cults of personality, and government back offices behind that...",
"Try hard to see the irony of your original comment. \"You people\"....\n\nThe response was a person explaining their individual stances on politics. While also observing how divisive and ridiculous your original comment was.\n\nThey told you about themselves. Than made an observation about the regressiveness of reddit politics boards.\n\nYour response. \" Not me\"\n\nAre you an individual or are you a group?\nDo you think for yourself or do you let others handle that for you?\n\nI really don't mean to call you out or \"troll\" you. I am genuinely confused and interested in the \"intellectual regressive progressive\" stance so many individuals anonymously contribute to reddit. \n\nI am less confused by the right wing ideology, and outright bigoted trolling comments made, most likely, by people who lack intelligence. \n\nI, and perhaps others, could benefit from you explaining why this behavior is becoming so common from left wing ideologues? The virtue signalling and group think. The divisiveness and contempt that it shown to other side of political spectrum. \n\nWhat is up with that? In your humble opinion.",
"Because CNN has become a symbol of fake news. If I say one should avoid CNN, it does not mean I'm suggesting to watch other US television networks instead…",
"Ah perfect chance to do some source background checking, let's take a look at what Wikipedia says about the Gatestone Institute, shall we?\n\n>The Gatestone Institute (formerly Stonegate Institute and Hudson New York) is a right-wing[2][3][4] think tank that publishes articles, particularly pertaining to Islam and the Middle East. The organization has attracted attention for publishing false articles.[5][6][7]\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute\n\nWell, there you have it folks, it's aaaall bullshit, suprise suprise.",
"Why is the culture on Reddit to go snooping through someones comment history? So what if he is watching Fox, does that automatically mean he aligns himself as republican? Does that make his critique less verified, because politically / culturally you don't align with his interests?",
"Nope. Nothing in the link regarding the Snopes author is false. I discovered some of these things independently of the article after I found Snopes lying about multiple things they were \"debunking\". If you have something you believe is incorrect, then point it out. I'm open minded. But if you're just going to label and whitewash all conspiracies there can be no discussion. Your first and most important bias is that you deem all \"conspiracy theories\" false. Such stupidity.",
"What is and how?",
"Honestly, there is bullshit on both sides. There are plenty of educated, well-read people who will believe things just because it's telling them what they want to hear. I remember when the MOAB was used a few months ago, some journalist confused the 11 tons of yield it ACTUALLY had with 11 KILOtons, and the entire left ran with in for like 3 days and said \"BAAAH GAWD WE NUKED EM\".\n\nThat's far from an isolated incident. Remember when people thought AHCA would remove protection for victims of sexual assault as a \"pre-existing condition\"? That was also a total lie, victims of sexual assault were specifically addressed in another section of the AHCA (which was a direct carry over from ACA), but did that stop people from flipping their shit? Absolutely not. Educated, reasonable, well-read people failed to check for bullshit and we got a shitstorm. \n\nThe criteria in the OP, along with the CRAAP test (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose), are things that EVERYONE needs to remember. Confirmation bias is a sneaky little bastard that hits everyone from Jethro McNascar to Neil DeGrasse Tyson. It's insidious, for EVERYONE. ",
"What did you think of /u/ScrobDobbins response below? I never see you guys respond after being shown the truth about these \"fact checkers\".",
"So these guys are good at creating alternative facts, huh? ",
"Who or what has said that it was obtained illegally? Nunes and the other dude claimed it. \n\nNowhere has the FBI confirmed it. Them not refuting each and every claim point by point is not a confirmation. Them saying “it left out key points” is just saying that the MINIMAL evidence the memo provided is insufficient. That’s how a professional says “your claim is wrong.” ",
"Separately what says the Democrats are lying? How have you come to this conclusion?",
"Snopes politifact and politico are no more reliable than any other source.",
"Sure but there are credentialed outlets that have track records of being honest and dependable with few blemishes. These are the very same outlets that people on the nut right accuse of being always lying and always disingenuous. The NYTimes is only out to get Donald Trump because of the dishonest despicable things he has said and done in his life. It's that simple.",
"Don't call people friends in the same sentence you tell em to f off😂\n\nThanks for the life story 'friend' but it doesn't change my belief that I am right and you are wrong. You derailed the conversation because I used the phrase ivory tower? Please. \n\n#You are being lazy if you trust a single source to do your critical thinking for you. \n\n#narratives are what the white house sells - it's true, they admitted to it. They work with major media to disseminate information to the public when it is advantageous for them to do so.\n\nYou can choose to accept this, ignore this, or convince me otherwise. But honestly I don't give a shit about how hard you used to work back in the day.. \n\n",
"Interesting. I looked up the examples they had listed and they [both listed](http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jan/31/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-federal-income-tax-rate-was-0-percen/) as [half-true](http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/aug/24/jim-webb/jim-webb-says-us-didnt-have-income-taxes-until-191/). The later one notes that they'd changed their mind on the ruling upon consideration. And considering the context of their research (there was an income tax to deal with raising funds for the Civil War, but not one established by amendment that was later thrown out by the Supreme Court), I agree with the ruling of half-true.\n\nThe second one was taking two statements a year apart and comparing them. And it's ignoring most of the context and ignoring how the statements were different. [And Sanders had data to back it up](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/), and while he didn't quite describe it exactly correct, the trend he was pointing to in the context of what he was trying to bring up was certainly true. Whereas [they literally had to guess where Trump's data came from](http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/) as he didn't bother to respond and [the context] (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reached-58-percent-unemployment-stat-black-youth/story?id=41250145) is considerably different:\n\n> \"It's not proper\" to include those not in the labor force in any unemployment statistics, chief U.S. economist Michael Gapen of Barclays told ABC News today.\n\n> \"It's not appropriate to include people who are in school as part of the labor force and count them as unemployed,\" he said, citing one example. \"They're consciously choosing other activities.\"\n\nAdd to that the fact that they were comparing different groups (Sanders was 17-20 year olds not in school and Trump was 16-24 year olds whether they were in school or not, whether they were seeking a job or not), and it's pretty clear to me that the ratings they gave them both are accurate. Honestly I'd just have dropped an \"unconfirmed\" on Trump the moment his campaign decided not to bother sharing their data.\n\nLikewise the statement you linked to is ignoring context. In fact, it's a showcase of just how important context is. They noted correctly that when Obama uses the wage gap with the phrase \"for the same work\" or \"in the same job\" that it's not accurate. But when it's used in the context of \"women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns\", it's correct. *Some* of that gap is indeed based on sexist hiring practices, but some of it is also the jobs they typically choose to take, or that women are hired more often for part time jobs rather than full time employment.\n\nTake Trump's statement in that context, and not only is he getting it as wrong as Obama did, but he's cherry-picking who he was looking at. I'm surprised he got a half-true. \n\nThe chevy one, based on context, I actually agree that it should have been more like half-true. But that's not getting into our discussion on \"saying the same thing and they'll give it a different result\". I disagree with the methodology they use sometimes or the rating they give, but they're still very useful for determining the data they use to come up with their conclusions. While the truth rating is subjective, the data is written out for you right there if you want to test it yourself. Thus, I'd still use it as a quick-and-dirty fact-checker when I don't have a lot of time to delve into a subject.\n\nNow, if you were able to prove they were using *falsified* or *made-up* data, *then* I'd definitely start treating them as unreliable. But when their sources are literally right there for you to see for yourself, it's not hard to double-check.",
"That's why you read the NEWS section and not editorials from sources you worry might have a bias but understand are still journalistic enterprises with standards and practices that prevent any bias from causing journalistic malpractice or presenting false information... \n\nYou're fundamentally missing my point and arguing I'm wrong with a sentiment no one disagrees with. ",
"Which is what respected journalistic outlets do, regardless of their aggregate bias. That's kinda my whole point. ",
"I should have said and/or between guidelines and algorithms. I had YouTube in mind when I wrote it, YouTube is an and, most everything else is an or.\n\nOn the second point I was speaking specifically of a 'center' or 'moderate' site & I stand by the statement of there being no funding & the guidelines getting in the way on many platforms.\n\nFor right leaning sources there are many, just not in the same package. Right leaning voters are already past the point of viewing any reporting as unbiased so they just compare reports from the sources with a stated agenda against the ones claiming to be neutral in some cases.\n\nIn other cases where you are arguing against someone offering alternate explanation for a statistic the statistics themselves are often enough of a fact check for those taking the conservative view.\n\nTaking an overly simple example: I know that the media is heavily anti-second amendment. I know the NRA exists to promote gun use and ownership. I know where the FBI crime statistics are. I can compare the three and come to a pretty solid conclusion about the actual outcomes are when all three have a number. When they don't it is usually the FBI data that is missing and I can assume the practical answer lies between the two provided.",
"Prove it. Prove to me that Forbes is conservative using weblinks or fuck off. This is what you had asked for above - sword cuts both ways 'friend.'\n\nNone of your arguments will be accepted unless you can back em up;)",
"Hey sorry. You were definitely caught in the line of fire and do not at all deserve those down votes. I posted a similar argument (though a much more contemptuous one) from this thread on The_Donald and some members obviously got over-zealous and went through my other posts; helping me out and hurting those viewed as adversarial. It was a small number of posters but it clearly manipulated your comment scores in a negative way.\n\nYou have my apologizes for my part in those hits to your posts. You also have my upvotes to any posts that got hit and I hope others pay attention to help to raise you back up.",
"OBEY CORPORATE MEDIA",
"I find it quite telling that you defend Obama's economy when even Bill Clinton himself has criticized his \"legacy\". It's like your bias clouds your judgment. \n\n> Americans are suffering “the awful legacy of the last eight years,” Bill Clinton said in March. He explained on April 26, “The problem is, 80 percent of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the crash [of 2008]. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president, 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”",
"So Bush wiretapped Trump? Is that what you are saying?",
"> If someone has a history of fabricating data, you shouldn't accept it at face value. If someone has a history or reason to be biased, again, you should apply greater scrutiny.\n\nPoint out where I wrote or even suggested that anything should be accepted at face value or not be scrutinized. In fact I'm arguing for the exact opposite, that everything should be scrutinized even if the source may be unreliable, because you should be finding flaws with the content, not the source. This is the core of ad hominem. If you believe the source has problems, then you should be able to demonstrate how those problems are reflected in the data/results. \n\nI mean, if we follow your logic, I could just say that you're an unreliable source for ideas about fallacies because you don't even know the difference between a formal and informal fallacy, even though you implied you did by complaining about other people who don't know the difference, and therefore all your arguments must be wrong. But that would be ad hominem, so I'm arguing against the content of your arguments and demonstrating why they're wrong instead, because even someone uninformed about how fallacies work could make correct arguments. ",
"I really can't say I have enough knowledge to be sure of that opinion. I'll admit I've seen some media coverage that made Donald Trump look like a psycho. I've never rolled with him and his crew. \n\nI will say that I distrust TV, print, and eMedia in general, more and more every year I live, because I keep seeing more and more fnords. Wikipedia lies. Talking heads lie. Newspapers lie. And I know that from experiencing things firsthand that were written about, and there's simply too much disparity between my personal experience and the 'Truth™' or THE [expletive redacted] TRUTH",
"Alternative facts are their words, not mine. ",
"Well I'm sorry that you can't rely on any information or experience other than that in which you personally partook. That's a tough way to navigate the world and not a successful way to learn things and understand the bigger picture. You might find that your opportunities are narrower in scope.",
"Seriously? Just Google and find the originals then. There's hundreds of examples like this.",
"Duly noted.",
"I didn’t, I just assumed he did based on his response. I’m guessing that based on your response I was onto something though hahaha.\n\nEdit: \n\n> So what if he is watching Fox, does that automatically mean he aligns himself as republican?\n\n\nIn a way, yes. Watching Fox News *exclusively* does.",
"Awww its ok muffin, just because you're an idiot doesn't mean everyone else is a troll. ",
"What are you basing that off of?",
"Thanks! \nMore material than I can currently pause to read at the office, but it looks to provide a good balance of simplicity and content for when I get home.",
"I'm sorry someone attacked the only station dumbed-down enough that you can grasp. I bet defended them on the internet makes you feel real strong!",
"Bush built the tools and handed them off to his successor. ",
"Defend? you're straight up delusional, that or some employee. \n\n>Actual news does not actually get it's talking points directly from Hillary's desk\n\nGood fucking lord..... NOONE is that stupid. Please just lie to me and tell me your re posting talking points, please.... I don't want to live in a world where someone is actually that dumb. ",
"Snopes and Politico are no longer reliable...",
"nice chain of failure you have going here, thanks for the laugh! try reading the article next time moron",
"Ok, so if Bernie Sanders watches Fox News for a couple hours a day, regardless if he agrees with what is on the TV - he is automatically exclusively transformed into a Republican?",
"Where have I defended fox? at all? all sides are trash, and you sit there and say google things while you straight up suck the dick of cnn? People like you are why the world is going to shit, you demand the \"otherside\" do things you refuse to see in yourself. ",
"> Disable HTML5 Autoplay\n\nTried that exact one. It is non-functioning.",
"Hah.\n\nOkay, man. I’ll play, it it’s gotta be after work.\n",
"It doesn't matter if the world's most prestigious, noble-prize-winning scientist had an argument against climate change. It's still an overwhelming consensus and backed by mountains of evidence. \n Nobody has \"disproven\" climate change, which is your original argument. You could be making the exact same argument about vaccines, ghosts, UFOs, and gravity with this nonsense.\n\nYou're scraping the bottom of the barrel to salvage this silly line of logic. I'll patiently anticipate an angsty paragraph telling me off.",
"Fox news, breitbart, info wars obviously\n\n/s",
"Lol \"fact check with sites like snopes\" they literally just told you to use a satire site to verify a story.",
"Works perfectly fine for me, oddly enough. What sites does it break on for you? Trying to figure out where this discrepancy might be coming from.",
"I think he's standing on the balcony looking over the counter because there's a staircase in the top left corner of the picture ",
"He doesn’t. I’m not playing “what if?” with you hahaha. Fox is conservative. Period.",
"Fisa warrant. The fbi confirmed this. \n\nWhy do you think McCabe is leaving.\n\nFunny how you still haven’t read the memo. Otherwise you would know somebody lied to a fisa court.\n\nIllegal — political.",
"They were lying that releasing the memo was against “national security” ... they don’t want it released because where it will lead.... ",
"Because I don't believe cnn or other bullshit \"news\" im a conspiracy nut? lol as you try and backpedal yourself, dear lord you're pathetic.",
"Nothing you have linked explains your position. Because every example involves taking one line out of context and then saying ‘in the absence of context and background, these claims are more or less not too dissimilar and therefore should be treated identically’. Unfortunately that isn’t how fact checking works \n\n",
"Anything non american..... most of the shit is filtered out then google to filter out the bias. Better than questioning cnn then giving them a pass after years of FAKE news, yes FAKE not biased.....",
"Fallacy is when you make me the argument not what I’m saying, to start. This is basic comp 101 stuff champ. Are you still in JR high?",
"Okay.. Playing is what I am accusing you of, based on your comments. Try to be Real. I'm sure you aren't this way in your real life. Too many ppl seem to hop online and \"play\" identity politics. The moral superiority and grandstanding is NOT real.. \nBut free will exists, so if that is your perogative, keep up the good work. ",
"You're spamming someone over and over with mindless 'nuh uh, you're wrong' comments. Get a life, dipshit.",
"First, their bias with youtube channels is exclusively political, but that's an entirely different discussion.\n\nSecond, you're missing the point of the comment. It's not about giving a man a fish (pointing to X source and telling them to blindly take them as truth), it's about teaching a man to fish (teaching them how to digest information and spot bias or deception).",
"No, my original argument is as following:\n\n* Most people only read headlines\n\n* Politifact implies that it is an apolitical independent \"fact checking\" site, when its a branch of a left-wing liberal political news organization, no different from Hillary pointing to her \"fact checking\" hyperlink on hillaryclinton.com during the debates, and is **NOT** impartial or independent.\n\n* Politifact (and others) use massively misleading Q/A's knowing most people won't read the full article. So they will say things that are certainly true, but worded in misleading way so they can post \"TOTALLY FALSE\" in red, like Trump's claim that Hillary bleached her mail server was totally false, because she didn't use liquid bleach she used a program called bleach-bit when everyone knew what he meant. \n\nThey are dishonest left-wing websites designed to mislead.",
"then don't bother having the icon",
"You're adorable. ",
"The point is to offer some good sources that exhibit the traits mentioned on the bookmark. Snopes meets those standards.",
"I neither defend nor praise. Obama's economy would have looked largely similar under Clinton, Trump or either Bush, given the same circumstances. The point I am trying to drive home is that the economy is largely independent of the presidency and both parties react to economic downturn and posterity in similar manners. The basic policies which impact the economy, particularly GDP and employment, are the same: run large deficits during times of downturn and reduce deficits in times of growth. Reagan ran large deficits in his terms to spur growth, then later raised taxes to reduce deficits. Clinton increased spending during his terms early on, then later decreased spending.\n\nBill Clinton can say as he pleases to promote Hillary, the last eight years were marked by recession and recovery. He's selling you a bottle of bullshit the way Obama, Trump, Bush, McCain, Romney, Sanders, and everyone else who has run over the years tries to sell you the same bottle of bullshit. \n\nThe market, particularly the housing market, crashed heavily in 2007. The economy tanked. The government ran deficits. The economy recovered. The government reduced deficits. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans in that manner is Dems increase deficits by raising spending and Republicans increase them via tax cuts. One has a slightly better impact on GDP (tax cuts), the other has a slightly better impact on jobs and wages (spending). Both will inevitably cause growth. Both parties implement essentially the same strategy to handle the economy, and Obama was not different in any functional way",
"Pretty sure Snopes is politically biased though.",
"I appreciate the sentiment. I don't really understand how someone who seems as polite and reasonable as you are can hang out there, but to each their own. Have a good day, I don't really care about the downvotes",
"There have always been retracted stories. Trust in journalism is down because they're being exposed to propaganda.\n\nI don't think you read your own link. The drop in trust is because of republicans retreating into their world of alternate facts and 'fake news'. Republicans are notorious for changing their opinions and belief in facts based on how they think it will help or hurt their party. This is no different.\n\nedit: lol. I was talking to you as if you weren't part of the cult. I need an auto tagger for you degenerates. ",
"Unfortunately, people will see this list and think it's too much work and go right back to believing everything they read on Facebook.",
"It is their trademark at this point, so that will never happen. ",
"Lol I appreciate it. This one knows what I'm talking about.",
"Oh “ha ha I enjoyed it very much ha ha” and then you go through and downvote all my comments?! Why don’t you stop the charade and get a life you oaf I know it’s you doing it and anyone that is PSYCHO enough to do that just need to get a life ",
"I didn't know it was a scientific fact that abortions should be legal. I didn't know it was a scientific fact that we should build a wall. I didn't know it was a scientific fact that transgenders should be able to use all bathrooms. I didn't know it was a fact that gay people should be able to get married. \n\nThe debate between if a drug does or does not cure disease is not a political debate. Even the debate between if the planet is or is not warming up isn't politics. The only political debate is about how to interpret the facts. If you have many data points you can interpret them differently. \n\nReality has no political bias because it's not even possible. All you're proving is the typical pretentiousness of your average liberal. ",
"... that is not a logical fallacy. Nowhere did I say something bad about you. I'm just asking you to back up any of the shit you're saying. (Such as when you say I should trust you as a \"former lawyer in the deep state/ businessman\")\n\nTo be clear, \"Prove it.\" is not an ad hominem attack. The fact that you think so is kinda... well pathetic. ",
"Hope this isn't too off topic, but thats a bomb ass camera shot right there.",
"You're still missing the point.................\n\n(of the comments you're replying to, not specifically the brochure)",
"National security is a very broad term and is used in more cases than just \"someone will die if this is declassified\". You can look it up. \n\nYou do realize Trump is currently blocking *their* memo right? You also realize *he* is the guy currently under investigation?",
"heh? I just asked how the FISA warrant was obtained illegally and you replied \"FISA Warrant\". Does this make sense to you?\n\nI've read it and asked you questions about it. You have yet to reply to any of it with anything other than what you believe. None of which has any legitimacy. If it does SHOW ME. If you're gonna keep dodging and repeating nonsense then just tell me why you're fucking with me. \n",
"Trump isn’t blocking anything. They put classified information in the memo so they could say trump was blocking it. The fbi and trump would have said repeatedly they will release the memo if they take out the classified methods of acquisition.\n\nSchiff is just playing politics ",
"They LIED TO THE JUDGE. \n\nDid you read the memo? The fbi confirmed this. McCabe also confirmed this under oath. ",
"It is, in fact. Attacking the messenger.",
"you're either dumb or fucking with me lol",
"Provide me a link that says McCabe confirmed this. \n\nProvide me a link that says the FBI confirmed this. For the record, I'm not attacking you... you are safe. ",
"[Is there something comical about my appearance?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Sczb1dnRXCY/maxresdefault.jpg)",
"You said it's about 'teaching a man to fish'. Sometimes people learn through example. Snopes is a good example, as I mentioned before. You can point to specific traits of Snopes (citations, wording, etc) that makes their articles trustworthy. Then, you can compare it to less scrupulous sources that lack those standards.",
"Show me any evidence that there was classified info in it. Did Trump even say this?\n\n",
"You know they're right about some things that the left is wrong about",
"............................",
"You're struggling so hard to do mental jumping jacks to convince yourself you're right about such a stupid point that goes against the purpose of the brochure, and the comments you started replying to...\n\nIt's not a hard point to get, you're basically just being a contrarian jackass now.\n\n\n\nAnyone else who reads these comments can understand, so I'm done entertaining your dumbass replies. You don't want to learn or better yourself, that's on you.\n",
"Lol some people have a life",
"Giving examples of good sources goes against the point of the brochure? Alright, *sure*. ",
"\"Republican Party of Texas\" = conservatives? ",
"No, but a subset but one that will effect the textbook industry and educational standards is a powerful one enough to say that it isn't just some outlier. ",
"FactCheck.org is a good source, acknowledged by conservatives and liberals alike to a non-profit, non-partisan, public interest site. Your response to /u/Caliber199 links to [an image](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVx3YQOXkAUzGsg.jpg:large) claiming that FactCheck.org examined Snopes in 2009 and concluded Snope to be \n\n* \"a 100% fake fact checking org\" \n* \"an extremely liberal propaganda site\" \n* \"with an agenda to discredit anything to be conservative\" and that \n* \"In 2009 FactCheck.org exposed Snopes\"\n\n\nBut in fact [in 2009, FactCheck.org did exactly the opposite. They exposed these claims AGAINST snopes as lies.](https://www.factcheck.org/tag/snopes/) In fact, Snopes is often referred to as an excellent source by FactCheck.org. They even go so far as to say that [\"We... are big fans of Snopes.com\"](https://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/have-you-looked-at-obamas-not-exactlys/)\n\n ",
"> I didn't know it was a fact that gay people should be able to get married.\n\nOk that one you should know, but I understand that you can't mind your own business. Who said straight people should be able to get married?\n\n>I didn't know it was a scientific fact that abortions should be legal.\n\nAgain... no one is demanding you to get an abortion or marry a man. I do not care if you get one when your wife is going to die if she doesn't... let her die I say... it's your way.\n\n>Reality has no political bias because it's not even possible.\n\nI have to ask how many transgender people have been arrested in bathrooms? How many Republican Senators have been?\n\nIt's almost like facts do not fit your cause so you toss them out as irrelevant...",
"Also true!",
"Opposing the poor forms of reasoning that include \"false dichotomy\" and \"false equivalence\" is neither intolerant nor closed minded. In fact rather the opposite. Yearning for the prevalence of valid reasoning, as /u/jerkstorefranchisee does, is altogether admirable. \n\nI suggest you alter your comment to congratulate rather than mock that Redditor.",
">You're a moron.\n\nYou lead with that, it discredits everything you say afterwards.\n\n>The meme is fabricated\n\nI have covered this. His show said it. It is not fabricated, it used creative license to show his face rather than the front of a fridge.\n\n> \n>To quote the very short article you're clearly incapable of actually reading:\n\nInsulting people is a sign of cognitive dissonance.\n\nI have read the Snopes article multiple times and examined all of the source material. His show did say there were two genders.\n\n>>‘Take sex. We used to think it was pretty straightforward\n\nPrecisely.\n\n>Learning about science is a process. Although a character on Bill Nye the Science Guy may have said that there were “only two possibilities” when it comes to gender, that episode first aired more than 20 years ago in 1996. Nye’s understanding of sex and gender, as well as the world’s, has grown since then.\n\nThat's all the meme was saying.\n",
"Doesn't it say something though that the party touting states rights *wasn't* the one that gave states rights on marijuana & gay marriage? I think that shows that the support of states rights was disingenuous on Republicans parts.",
"If you look at the staircase to the left you can tell that the person taking the picture is on a balcony or the second floor",
"CNN is bad, but come on. Fox News has an even bigger reputation for stretching truths, deflection, and just straight up fake news. ",
"Woah lol lots of assumptions there cowboy. I don’t like Trump but even more, I don’t like sites that publish verifiably false stories as though they were fact. ",
"Yea I did that stuff. I specifically tried to dismantle the initial claim that \"the sun is the entire source of climate variation\" by illustrating an undeniable totally apolitical fact, ie. asteroids as intervention in climate that alter it regardless of the sun's output. I stayed totally apolitical, only addressed the error in the assertion with totally uncontroversial facts, things even they wouldn't deny. The immediately reply was to bring \"capitalism\" into the argument, deny economic connections, etc totally unprovoked.\n\nThe point was even trying to focus on the point without dragging it into the mess it was dragged into the mess deliberately to avoid having to discuss the unrelated facts because to this person clearly there is no way to discuss climatology without viewing it through the lens of defending the economic system.\n\nThe next phase was talking about \"energy in the system\" issues and how its not just about what the sun projects but what is reflected back in and absorbed by the climate system, to illustrate that the energy output of the sun isn't the sum total of what the climate will do linearly. This was met with erm... highly illogical leaps and then some references to fallacies and some stuff. Basically he wasn't arguing with me, he was arguing with a caricature and barely keeping track of the stuff I was saying.",
"lol americans that believe wild conspiracies are the funniest\n\neveryones russian right, classic",
"FBI Confirmed what I am saying. ",
"We're just going over semantics here. Again, just misleading without the entire article of context vs what Trump tweeted. Also, I still don't think the payment was made for that purpose, as the payment was supposedly being made for a different purpose. Of course, you could also say the administration was lying.",
"It’s in the memo. And also on video, if you want to watch senate testimony ",
"you have to use your judgement and a variety of sources, letting some arbitrary website tell you whats real is going to make you badly informed\n\n>Are there sources you consider non-biased and factual\n\nno source is infallible, you have to take it in context and look at precedents already set\n\n>and how do you know you have correct information on their ownership and interests?\n\nyeah thats the problem and why most media is untrustworthy\n\nhave you ever looked up who funds fact checkers, or for that matter tv channels like nbc and cnn and papers like the washington post\n\nbecause its literally all only a handful of people with certain ideological interests, and those interests seep through into the reporting",
"TIL The FBI believes in “conspiracy theories.”\n\nDid Alex Jones tell you that?",
"Absolutely. My post was too general. The GOP (not specifically the right) overwhelmingly supports someone who believes in conspiracy theories and ignores obvious science. So they may not themselves be akin to flat earthers but they largely support someone who is not far off.\n\nThe left is not completely off the hook in that regard either. Bernie Sanders is a huge supporter of alternative medicine. People seem to forget about that. He at least does not bring it up very often.",
"the fbi doesnt believe it lol its in their self interest to lie to you like they literally always have\n\nlol at americans trusting their federal agencies, i bet you think the nsa is there to protect you too right",
"Not sure how to respond to this but either way it seems like you've decided what is right and wrong",
"There are a lot of heated debates in the veterans office in my school. Veterans have no reservations about political discussions. Things get physically collegiate at times. I think these will help.",
"A totally fair criticism by someone who is not a journalist pontificating from their armchair.\n\nYou want to neuter the press. I think that's wrong. ",
"Congrats on using the totally original \"straw man\" argument. You've graduated played-out Reddit political argument school.",
"> But then you said Bernie wouldn't be considered Republican if he watched fox\n\n\nPlease point out where I said that hahahaha. I never said anything close to that lmao. ",
"You said \"he doesn't\". I thought you meant that Bernie wouldn't be considered a Republican if he watched fox. My mistake. You meant that Bernie does not watch Fox news. How do you know? Maybe he watches it to see how the conservatives are responding to his latest speech. This is obviously an assumption on my end, perhaps he doesn't. But by your logic, would watching MSNBC or CNN mean that you're a liberal?",
"In what way",
"Oh, do please explain to me the “FBI’s self-interest,” oh enlightened one.",
"I didn't say it was just some outlier. You're moving goal posts. ",
"I'm not sure what the deal is, but when I reposted your comment, it's still there when I log out. I don't see any obvious rule violations other than somebody interpreting cursing as being uncivil, but there's many others as well. A mod here is being nasty and sneaky otherwise they would have told you why. Odd...",
"I said he doesn’t watch Fox News, you idiot hahahaha. I didn’t say *anything* about “what if” he *did* watch it lmao. Good grief you’re dumb hahahaha",
"When do liberals claim there are whatever number of genders?",
"no way bro! lemme see that link!",
"just find me a link with the video in it...",
"Okay, I’m off work. And looking back at this comment thread... \n\nHonestly, your response to my comment was all over the place and rambly. What do you want me to answer?",
"Oh shit! You’re the same guy from that other thread. Lol.\n\nNo wonder you sounded eerily similar.\n\nYeah... it’s like there are a bunch of ideas floating around in that noggin, and you aren’t quite sure how to get them all out. Instead, they get kind of jumbled.\n\nWhat’s your main concern?\n\nWaaaaaiiit a minute!!!! I’ve been had by a trumpbot, haven’t I?",
"I don't know anything about libraries in the UK or Australia, or any other part of the world. What I am stressing is that the American library system is one of the rare facets of American life where the rhetoric matches (Or nearly does, anyway) the reality. In other words, America talks a good game about being the land of opportunity, but few American institutions are really built with the fulfillment of that promise in mind. To paraphrase MLK, \"in the U.S. we have socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.\" TL:DR: In America, it's a miracle that libraries still exist in their current form. I know the other countries you mentioned have been playing the bullshit austerity card as well, but here if you believe in sharing at all, you're basically a dirty commie. ",
"I said that sharing and community-building are NOT too common here. Also, implied that libraries are one of the few egalitarian institutions in American society. Not sure what's arrogant about that...",
"I got a hearty chuckle from this. Thank you. ",
"Do not feed nor hug the librarians. Okay. Maybe feed. ",
"If it wasn't an outlier, then it must represent a large(ish) proportion of their base.",
"As /u/phenom wrote:\n\n> It absolutely does ruin his point. Bernie camp supplied their reasoning and data to show what he said was right. Trump didn't have anything to show they were right, therefore Trump was talking out his ass and therefore it's false, while Bernie had actual facts to back him up and therefore it's mostly true. \n\n",
"Again, I'm not really sure what you mean. I simply suggested the difference in definitions",
"An argument about what exactly? I made my point several comments ago, and provided sources. Meanwhile I have been trolled now for two days, bordering on harassment.\n\n*I'm not the one derailing the discussion.*\n",
"third grade is 8-9 years old, they are absolutely ready for the basics of critical thought. ",
"When I'm being targeted by a **brigade** of Trump trolls? Yes. It's a bizarre and unique sociological disease and I find it interesting.\n\nSince I made that comment, they've swarmed in even more. You don't think that's pathetic and toxic behavior that needs to be curbed?",
"their continued existence and funding, like it literally always is and has been\n\nare you unaware of how these agencies work, theyre not there for you",
"\"Fact check stories with sites like Snopes, Politico, and Politifact\"\n\nGood joke ",
"Ooooh, I seee. All *35,000* employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation are entirely interested only in their budget. Not a single person among them is a true, dedicated, civil servant.\n\nMakes perfect sense.",
"You lead a sad, strange little life.\n\nBut I guess you're um... other cult members think you're *super cool*, so you've got that going for you? Congrats on the successful trolling, since apparently this means a lot to you.",
"Okay. You jumped in the middle of a conversation and it doesn't appear that you're willing or able to keep the thread. So here's what you just said, based on the context of what was said before you:\n\nReporters can't describe an anonymous source as anything but anonymous. And it's not enough that they refuse to describe the position or expertise of the anonymous person; they must phrase it in such a way to deliberately delegitimize them.\n\nIf you believe this, I feel like it's reasonable to accuse you of wanting to neuter the free press. If it's not what you believe, I highly recommend that you reconsider what you've said.",
"Read the memo. This isn’t going away ",
"Are YOU ok? \n\nI'm sorry I don't play pretend moral authority when I anonymously comment online.\n\nYou know how, in real life, you are not paranoid and delusional about \"trumpbots\"? Why do you partake in the manufactured online outrage?\n\nDo you see the irony in that you do exactly what the dreaded \"trumpbots\" do?\n\nIs this all about Trump? \nIs it the republican/conservative ideology that makes you, and others like you, feel compelled to hop online and contribute your daily two minute hate?\n\n",
"This is what I'm talking about. It's not a response to anything I've actually said.. it's just a collection of random thoughts, mostly questions, that contain some of the words from my post.\n\nFuckin' weird.\n\nBut for real... did you have an actual question for me?",
"Whatever party is coming through and upvoting your incessant drivel.",
"Why do you use words like \"us\" and \"them\" and \"we\" when commenting about politics?",
"The memo claims (without ANY EVIDENCE) that there is classified info in it. \n\nYou gonna gimme a link that shows the FBI (on anyone) confirming the claim or are you enjoying the circles we're going in right now? Sounds like you've given up lol",
"Buddy, you do know not everybody who calls you and your \"side\" out on their bullshit is \"part of a party\" right? Most people are independent, and your \"side\" is universally hated. Partly, because you can't help but blame others for your own problems. Take some self-awareness lessons or something, because you come off as a pretty disappointing person.",
"No it more often then not means \"fake news\". \n \nHere is a statement published on the DHS website, addressing NBCs misrepresentation of election hacking - IE, FAKE NEWS. \n \nhttps://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/12/dhs-statement-nbc-news-coverage-election-hacking \n \nNotice that the sources here arent \"someone familiar with his thinking\" but actually names and specifics mentioned. ",
"^ white knight no lifer. ",
"In general? or some specific context?",
"I'm pretty sure I said that you could quote an anonymous expert as just that. \"An expert who chooses to remain anonymous...\" which would mean that they actually met with or gathered sources from an actual expert who wishes to remain anonymous but still provides an expert opinion. This is different than \"experts say...\" because it's usually used when you can't gather actual sources or when your sources aren't completely credible, or maybe you don't have any sources at all and simply assume some experts somewhere might believe it to be true, which technically doesn't make your story wrong, it just makes it lack actual backed sources. This allows less credibility to the headline because it isn't from any actual expert. If it had been they would either have been quoted and properly sourced, or they would have described the story as having been credible from actual expert sources who wanted to remain anonymous. ",
">> I'm a Libertarian, I post all over the place.\n>\n>The_Donald should not be one of those places. It's a cult sub safe space that literally won't let you vote unless you join their ranks.\n\nYou just desperately cling to your delusions, don't you? A safe space? No. They do that because seething assholes like yourself would brigade constantly otherwise. Just like /r/Libertarian can't have a conversation without liberals and socialists in the thread telling us we're all dangerously insane.\n\n>And why the fuck do people say \"I'm Libertarian\" like it helps their cause at all? Libertarians vote party line Republican just like Socialists vote party line Democrat.\n>\n>You're a Republican.\n\n\nYou're also desperate to prove your ignorance. Who the fuck do you think you are, telling someone else what they believe? Just because you're an idiot doesn't mean it's ok to project it onto others. Just because you don't know the difference, doesn't mean No one does.\n\nAnd I voted Gary Johnson, you monstrous cunt.\n",
">I feel like you don't get much exposure to what you call \"the left\" if that's how you feel about it. Talk to anyone actually *on* the left - progressives, or the democratic socialist Sanders crowd, and almost everyone there will be happy to complain to you about how the Democratic party leans center-right on most issues. Talk to people from *outside* the US and compare with European politics, and find pretty much the same thing - almost anywhere in the EU, the Democrats would be the conservative party.\n\nYou literally pointed out to ultra left groups and claimed they're the left. You shifted the goalposts quite a bit there. So if I say the alt-right bitches Republicans are on the left, that makes me correct? Christ.\n\n>And your comparison with the right during Obama is very disingenuous, and at most sounds like you don't remember what happened around then. You're necessarily comparing nonsense like the birther bullshit with the Russia investigation, which has tons of info circulating (that we even know of) and has already led to indictments. \n\nThere was also a ton of info circulating on Obama's MANY scandals (not just the birther thing. Seriously? THAT'S disingenuous). You can choose to ignore it, or focus on sources that ignored it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Besides, a couple individuals did some shady shit and now the whole administration is implicit? Fuck outta here. You're as intellectually disingenuous as they come.\n\n>You have about 7 investigations into Benghazi where Hillary cooperated and nothing was found every single time, vs Trump's escapades trying to discredit the investigators with nonsense like the memo, doubling down when it's shown to be nonsense, and avoiding giving any testimony (at the behest of his lawyers, to be fair).\n\nNow that's just funny. It was proven to be nonsense? Ok then, you progressive truth denying looney. Russia is totally real, but all left scandals didn't happen. You make me laugh.\n\n On policy you have things like the ACA which were in hearings for months while concessions were made to Republicans for ultimately no reason while Republicans complained it was \"too fast\" and pushed out-of-context quotes (like Pelosi's \"what's in the bill\" line) to discredit the process, vs current Republicans refusing to even show what bills they're working on until less than an hour before the 2am vote. Please feel free to share how the current Democrats are acting like the Republicans during Obama's first few years. \n\nWho the hell told you that? Negotiations have gone on for ages, with democrats refusing to budge an inch unless it's absolute insanity. That's just an absolute lie. Have you heard about the DACA talks? Just an example of transparency you're sure to ignore. I'm sure you'll roll your eyes and call me ignorant to yourself, but seriously, this propoganda shit has to stop.\n\n>Where's the democrat representative who flat out said that the party policy goal is to block anything the Republicans try to pass like McConnell did in 2008?\n\nPelosi, Schumer, Waters, I could go on.",
"Spam. Reported",
"Name-calling? Are you seriously whining about that? Wow, someone’s sensitive hahahaha. \n\nLmao you are clearly missing the point here haha. I’m not really surprised since you don’t seem too bright, but I’ll happily explain to you. The point I’m making is *not* whether or not watching a partisan news channel automatically makes you align with that party, which is what you have obviously misinterpreted my comments to mean (again, not surprised hahahahaha). \n\nWhat I’m saying is that *anyone* who watches *just one* of these heavily partisan channels is at a severe intellectual disadvantage to someone who grabs news from *multiple* sources. \n\n*That* is the point I’m trying to make. Not *”lolol guyz if Bernie watches fox he’s a Republican lolololol”*\n\nAgain, you don’t seem too bright, so let me know if there’s anything else you need me to walk you through. ",
"Never claimed not to, also never claimed that my biases were reality. Takes a special kind of stupid to do that. ",
"The memo was based on classified intelligence.\n\nThe FBI confirmed this. They didn’t just make up shit.\n\nIf it was just made up:\n\nA) why did the democrats fight it being released\nB) why did the fbi want more info in it?\nC) why has the fbi confirmed it as fact\nD) How was releasing it last week a national\nSecurity threat, per the democrats and now it’s fake?\n\nDude ... come on. I haven’t given up on anything. The obama admin got busted and now it’s all coming out. I say release everything ",
"> A safe space? No. They do that because seething assholes like yourself would brigade constantly otherwise.\n\nSo a safe space. \n\nYou're on the wrong side of history. You seem so delusional and set in your ways that you'll be on the wrong side of history until you die.\n\nWhat a miserable existence. Well it should be... but you're too clueless to see how pathetic you are.",
"What? We're having a dialog. You said something, I said something in response, then you responded and I responded in kind, etc. How is this spam? Are you ok?",
"There's been plenty of examples, have you been reading the rest of the comments?",
"I get it. Good one",
"US lawyers [Believed that the US would be found to owe Iran 4 billion dollars](http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/). Instead, they preemptively struck a deal to get the dispute out of arbitration and into a settlement deal. \n\nThey then held a 400 million payment until Iran returned the prisoners. \n\n",
"I do have a source, in fact. http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/\n\nThe U.S. struck an agreement to pay 1.7 billion to Iran, so that they would not be found to owe 4 billion (which is what US attorneys expected to be forced to pay). So yeah, they would have paid regardless, because it would have been much worse for the U.S. to not pay. \n\nThey leveraged that payment to encourage Iran to return US citizens. That's not a ransom, because the money was not for the prisoners.",
"no most of them dont care or arent aware and are just doing their menial paperwork jobs\n\nthe people who run it however are very much personally invested in maintaining their positions\n\npositions that wont exist if trump \"drains the swamp\" as it were\n\ndo you remember what happened to jfk when he said he wanted to dismantle the cia? they arent the good guys you goof lol",
"Do you think making fun of autistic people is funny? What the fuck is wrong with you? \n\ne: get a life. Seriously, making fun of people with special needs is the lowest of the low. You are a piece of shit. Just because you’re upset that I laughed at you doesn’t mean you get to take a jab at people with special needs who have *zero* control of the hand they were dealt in life, and zero relevance to our stupid argument. Go fuck yourself, jackass.\n",
"First of all I’m not a Democrat, and second of all, how many Democrats do you think switched sides to vote for Trump? How many of those do you think are not only people who voted for him, but people who still support him to this day?\n\nIf you want to incorporate those people into the Democratic Party, all you’re doing is dragging the party *significantly* further right and losing a ton of people on the left. For God’s sake, Trump supporters are to the right even by Republican standards. \n\nAlso, cool it with the “saving the world one Reddit comment at a time” talk, it makes you look ridiculous given the fact that you’re just as deep in this thread. Not to mention that you were the one trying to police my language as if it mattered, remember? And it does to some extent, I’ll agree, but if you’re going to say that, at least be consistent in your argument. Don’t resort to cheap shots that contradict why you responded to me in the first place. ",
">By 2015, the issue stood before a panel of nine judges, including three independent jurists, who were reportedly near a decision on binding arbitration. According to Obama administration officials, the U.S. was concerned that the tribunal would mandate an award in the multiple billions of dollars. “The Iranians wanted $10 billion,” says Sick.”I estimate that the tribunal would have awarded them $4 billion. That’s what the lawyers were saying. It’s not as much as they wanted, but a lot more than we paid.”\n\nIt would be more compelling if it was an actual legal analysis on the merits instead of a political one looking at it from the post hoc justification of a conditional payment for the release of hostages. The Administrations position on the deal is consistent with their actions, but that is just accepting on face value Irans legal claim. ",
"What part of \"I don't have a party\" did you not get? I didn't say anything about the results I expected. I've done investigations before and you can't have a pet theory. You go where the information takes you and you accept the results at the end. That's it. They take time and releasing information before you have solid conclusions is as dangerous as having a pet theory.\n\nMaybe you should look in the mirror and apply your post to yourself. From my perspective, it looks like you need to take a step back and appreciate what you have in life because every one of your post in this thread is full of bitterness and anger.",
">I'm not the one derailing the discussion\n\nYeah clearly/s\n\nYou are the one that aggressively started attacking your opponent when he kept his cool.\n\nYou're not being trolled. You're the troll. Or you're an angry child. \n\nWhen your point was debunked you instantly resorted to Ad Hominems.",
"Companies settle all the time when they think they'll lose more in a court case. If the lawyers estimated they'd lose a lot of money in the tribunal, it makes sense to settle. ",
"Indoctrination at its finest!",
"Sure it is, pal. Its full of annoyance and apathy to your poor attempts at feeling morally right.",
"You're fucking sad.",
"> You literally pointed out [two?] ultra left groups and claimed they're the left\n\nThey're some of the farthest left groups we have in the US, and to the rest of the world they're hardly center-left. If you want to say \"the left\" is the Democratic party, its policies lean center-right. \"So if I say the alt-right bitches Republicans are on the left\" makes literally no sense in any context. Sorry if what I said confused you, but the point is that \"both sides\" are not balanced around the center in the slightest.\n\n> There was also a ton of info circulating on Obama's MANY scandals (not just the birther thing. Seriously? THAT'S disingenuous)\n\nThe sheer volume of bullshit puts the average scandal on that level. There were a few that were legit, and in many of those cases Democrats/the left were rightfully pissed as well, but they do tend to get drowned out by things like Benghazi which, after far too many investigations, turned out to be bullshit. I'm fine with criticizing Obama where it's deserved - he was definitely not perfect - but why did the GOP focus on bullshit over anything of merit?\n\n> Now that's just funny. [The memo] was proven to be nonsense?\n\nIt hinged on the FISA court not being informed of the dossier's origin, which turned out to just be flat out false. It was also not granted specifically because of the dossier, they had other material to pull from. It was also focusing on a *re*application to a warrant that was originally given before they had the dossier which is admitted *in the memo*. Carter Page has been on and off investigated since 2013, was his original warrant a result of the dossier as well? Are we still ignoring who started the dossier's research in the first place? And of course, releasing the memo despite advisers saying not to, then refusing to release the counter to the memo because his advisers said not to (when they actually didn't) is exactly what someone with nothing to hide would do.\n\nI never even said \"Russia is real\", but you know what clearly is? Obstruction.\n\n> Who the hell told you that? Negotiations have gone on for ages\n\nFor DACA, yes. Not for the ACA or the tax bill. Is your memory that short? And democrats have already budged a ton, are you just ignoring everything? They agreed to delay DACA to pass CHIP by itself, they're caving on (legal) immigration and on funding for the stupid wall as concessions for Dreamers. Where the hell do you get your lack of information from?\n\n> Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, I could go on.\n\nI bet you could. I also bet you couldn't actually cite any quotes from them saying anything similar to what McConnell did in 2008.",
"Brother, you obviously have no idea how Internet trolls work. Your (remarkably determined) presence here is doing the exact opposite of curbing them.\n\nI don't think you're getting \"brigaded\", I think you're just kind of making a minor fool of yourself at this point. I don't say that to make any kind of point or try to support my position, such as it is. Just as a bit of a favor from one anonymous Internet stranger to another. Don't let Reddit get in your head. It's not worth it. There's no point. Have a drink with your friends, or play a round of Halo, or mess around with a guitar a bit. Something you actually enjoy. If you feel you need to get political, great! The 2018 campaign season is just gearing up, and I'm sure some candidate you could support is looking for volunteers in your area.\n\nJust... not this.",
"They owed the payment. Then they said they were holding it until the prisoners were released. Are you suggesting that that was a bluff? There is no reason to believe that the State Department was lying, and the state department is on record admitting that \"Negotiators took advantage of the convergence in order to ensure that Iran returned the prisoners by withholding the payment until the American detainees were in the air and headed out of Iran.\"\n\nThey withheld the cash until the prisoners were released. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest that they were bluffing without any proof.",
"Doc’s calling you guys in for your meds, dude.",
"https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts/\n\nRead the first 2 paragraphs. It is comical how biased this site is.",
"Not only did you provide a link which shows facts which can't be disputed you failed to link to any of the three sites which are actually being discussed. Pretty sad on your part.",
"When Trump said that she “acid washed” the emails he clearly did not mean literally. Yet they took it and ran with it in an effort to mislead people. ",
"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/\n\nHow about this? They state that it’s flat wrong that she deleted the emails in order to avoid scrutiny. How could they possibly know that? You cannot trust Snopes (which is run by literally one employee who has donated to the Clintons campaigns), politfact, or politico. They are all democratic stooges",
"Except even ignoring his ignorance of computer terminology Trump still makes several false claims which are explained in that article. \"Acid washed\" makes absolutely no sense in regards to the program that was used so not even that is incorrect.",
"Except they're completely right. Trump made a baseless claim for which he provided no evidence which the director of the FBI completely disagreed with. Did you not read the article?",
"He clearly got his message across. He’s not an IT guy. I don’t know how that stuff works either. But it’s all the same: the emails were destroyed",
"I did. Jim Comey has lied too many times to the American people (once more now being the release of Susan Rice’s email in which she details a third meeting between Comey and Obama, when Comey said he only met with him twice). He is not a reliable source when it comes to disavowing the Clintons. He also claimed that Trump Tower was never wire tapped when Trump brought up the claim last March. That was a lie.\n\nhttp://thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/either-former-fbi-director-comey-or-former-obama-ambassador-susan-rice-is-lying-based-on-yesterdays-email-released-by-senator-grassley/\n\n\nhttp://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-fbi-clinton-emails-drafted-statement-686140\n\nhttps://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-seeks-inquiry-into-allegations-that-obama-tapped-his-phones.amp.html\n\n\nhttps://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html\n\nThis link is the ridiculous CNN article that pretty much says Trump is bullshitting when he claimed that Obama had him wiretapped. It’s especially rich because they actually broke the story about the wiretapping:\n\nhttps://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html",
"But his message was wrong. Hillary didn't pay to have the emails destroyed. Every single part of his claim is wrong.",
"Ok I understand this will be hard for you to comprehend but Paul Manafort is not Donald Trump. Trump was incorrect when he said Obama had him wiretapped and CNN published both stories because believe it or not Manafort and Trump are separate people. Honestly how do you not understand that?",
"Nobody is claiming she paid anything. Your changing the verbiage to fit your argument. He only claimed that she had them deleted to avoid scrutiny, which you cannot prove or disprove.\n\nFor the record, I think she paid a Reddit user names Stonetear to have them deleted. But that’s just me",
"They wiretapped Manafort while he was Trumps campaign manager and didn’t consult him. Trump and Manafort were in constant private contact with each other, Yet Obama didn’t warn Trump? I’d call that wiretapping. Even worse is that the recently released memo claims that Obama was obtaining fisa warrants from dubious sources, such as yahoo articles. \n\nDo you understand that?\n\nShittiest most biased article ever even admits how chilling this is:\n\nhttps://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/540321/",
"TIL not making fun of people with special needs is considered “taking the high road” to a scumbag.\n\n\n\n> I wasn’t making fun of people with special needs\n\n\n> you autistically haha'd into the internet for several comments. \n\nYes you were, asshole. Fuck you, dude. You’re pathetic.\n",
"I agree that I fed too many trolls, but I'm also absolutely being brigaded. It's textbook. As soon as he posted this thread in T_D with the (patently false) title of something like \"Leftist rants about study he didn't read\", I was immediately swarmed by T_D posters. *This is what they do.* It was actually very interesting to observe.\n\nI'm definitely not the fool here. It's weird that you see it that way, unless your sympathies actually lie with these under-developed shit-posting morons.\n\nReddit's not \"in my head.\" I write and research for a living. I'm also heavily involved in my community. Reddit comments are just a form of rhetorical exercise. But the way these people have hijacked and toxified digital platforms needs to be seriously addressed.",
"Hilarious.",
"You definitely didn't read the article. It specifically talks about how he claimed she paid to have them deleted. ",
"Manafort had been under investigation for years. Trump choosing to associate with disreputable individuals does not change the fact that no wiretapping of Trump has ever been ordered. Do you not understand that?",
"? \n\nLost the argument so you result to shallow and meaningless statements. \n\nAmazing.",
"He said it was an expensive process. Which is technically true: her lawyer fees are probably not too cheap. Not to mention it cost her the presidency, the most valuable prize of all. \n\nI find it hilarious that they jumped through so many hoops in order to disprove Trump by saying stuff like “she did not use a chemical.” They completely missed the entire point of the accusation, and in doing so are forced to explain how exactly she deleted emails which were subpoenaed by Congress. I’m sure that killed them inside. ",
"Someone is salty about downvotes. Maybe just read the study in the future instead of trolling and spamming. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯",
"I'll go ahead and move past the autistic comment since I guess you're going to be the asshole that makes fun of people with special needs regardless of whether or not I chew you out about it, which is simply pathetic that you have to make fun of people that can't help it in an attempt to make yourself feel superior in some way.\n\n\n\nYou claim that I never mentioned anything about having multiple news sources. That's straight-up wrong. I mentioned it literally within the first few comments\n\n > So what if he is watching Fox, does that automatically mean he aligns himself as republican?\n\n\n> In a way, yes. Watching Fox News exclusively does.\n\n\nThe word exclusive means sole, the only one (not **multiple sources**). When I said that in a way, watching fox news exclusively makes you conservative, you *completely* misinterpreted what I said. \n\nApparently you think I meant that if Bernie Sanders were to watch Fox news *one time* he would automatically and immediately abandon the entire Democratic Party and Liberal mindset and just *magically* become a republican. How you thought that's what I meant is truly beyond me hahaha. \n\nWhat I meant, that apparently went right over your head haha, is that anyone who *exclusively* (again, that means you are only getting *one* source and not **multiple sources**, hope this helped you understand what exclusively means) watches *one* extremely partisan source of news is more likely to become ideologically aligned with that source's perspective. I was referring to the average american being raised on fox or cnn automatically leaning one way or the other... not \"lolololol hey guyz what if bernie watches Fox for 2 seconds? I bet he transforms into a conservative\" hahahaha.\n\nI absolutely *love* the irony of you trying to call me sick, whereas you think its perfectly acceptable to make fun of autistic people. Makes *perfect* sense /s hahahahaha.",
"I understand that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Manafort has been surveilled by the Obama administration twice: once in 2014 before he met Trump, and once again in 2016 while he was his campaign manager. Trump chose Manafort because he ran a successful campaign for President Ford in 1976. He was known as a great campaigner. When Trump chose him as his campaign manager Trump knew nothing of the investigation, and Obama should have warned him of his shady past. However, I don’t think Obama wanted to give that away: he had a perfect trap on Trump. But the first round of surveillance brought nothing to fruition. It wasn’t until the second round of surveillance that Mueller was able to find out the details of Manaforts past (well before he met Trump). So you are kind of right, although they were two separate occasions separated by about a year. \n\nBut to claim that Trump had any knowledge about Manaforts past is just ridiculous and not founded in reality. ",
"The Obama admin got busted... who exactly seems to be saying this? You'd think everyone would be up in arms. \n\nDemocrats fought it because its a total distraction from and a way to undermine the perfectly legitimate Mueller investigation. Plus its a reckless of potentially declassifying information. \n\nYou are still yet to show me any shred of proof the FBI confirmed jack. A link dipshit. Show me some public statement, written or verbal ANYWHERE that says this. If you can't do that, then just say so. ",
"Ok then, well I hope that sparkling personality of yours works out for you. Have a good one. ",
"Uhhh, did you even look at the link. The proof is right in your face.",
"What's amazing is the self-delusion of psychotic Trump trolls who think that *making things up*, then spreading the lie in their echo chamber, and then harassing someone for two days = \"winning\".\n\nAnd what's *incredibly ironic* is how this whole thing started because you snowflakes couldn't stand the fact that rightwingers are found to be *empirically* more gullible and less educated than the general population, and more susceptible to \"fake news\" and bullshit - and your response is to *literally create fake news* about a random reddit discussion.\n\nDo you not see this? The original troll literally proved me right by manufacturing a lie, spreading it to his comrades, and creating a self-perpetuating frenzy of cultish ideological masturbation.\n\nIt's actually incredible. And I bet you recognize all of the things I'm talking about, but you'd sooner die than admit any of it.",
"This level of projection is honestly strange and sad.",
"Lmao\n\n\"Im not derailing the argument\" , \"Godamn Trump had 2 scoops of Ice cream, godamn trolls!!!\"\n\nIts honestly hilarious how incapable you people are of holding a civil argument, you're clearly having a mental breakdown so instantly result to using childish insults and made up assumptions.\n\nYou are clearly 12 years old. ",
"I feel like thats the case with at least half of the arguments I get into on this site.",
"Okay buddy. You got it.\n\nLeave me alone now please, y'all had your fun.",
"You should leave us alone. We want to have honest and civil discussions and not some angry redditor screaming playground insults for no reason but his personal vendetta. ",
"LOL jesus fuck.",
"\n>LOL jesus fuck\n\nWhat? Say that again but slowly.\n\nYou're vocabulary is so godamn limited its amazing. You sound and act like a 12 year old on xbox live.",
"Those came after I posted the comments.",
"> retarted \n\nThe irony hahahaha. You try to call me retarded and yet you’re the one that can’t even spell it hahahahahaha. \n\nI don’t *watch* anything, I *read* the BBC, NPR, WaPo, NYT, Fox, Reuters, NBC, Bloomberg, and CNN, among others. \n\nEdit: also. Your dumbass doesn’t seem to realize that calling someone retarded and saying “no no I love special needs people” aren’t synonymous, you stupid fucking hypocrite hahaha. If you truly love them, then why do you use it as an insult against me by calling me retarded? You’re dumb as shit hahaha\n\nEdit: \n\n> you yourself are biased\n\nLiterally *everyone* is biased, you idiot hahahahaha. Everyone on the planet is influenced and biased by one thing or another. It’s literally impossible to be completely and totally unbiased because everyone is influenced by something or another. ",
"If you don’t believe there’s bias in the media you’re completely blind to it. I’m not a Republican or a Democrat, I just hate lies, misinformation, misdirection, whipsaws, and sneaky storytelling that goes on today. Cable news is dying a slow death from lack of ad revenue, network news isn’t far behind.\n\nAlso, have a look here. Just look how Snopes weasels it’s way in to avoiding saying that it’s true.\n\nhttps://www.snopes.com/you-had-a-hunch-the-news-system-was-rigged/\n",
"Annoyance maybe but obviously not apathy or you wouldn't bother replying, pal.",
"Uh.... are you okay dude? Hahaha. Literally never used caps lock, you seem a bit unhinged haha. \n\nEdit: I’m sorry for laughing, but seeing you try to reason is just hilarious hahaha. I’ve had a great time talking to you because it’s so damn funny haha\n\nI think you're just mad that you can't even tread water in a debate. ",
"Bias is unrelated to something being true or not. That is not how being critical works. You don't just say \"they are biased look at this other story\" then throw it out the window. It's ONE of several criterias. I would argue it's not even one of the more important ones. \n\n\nIf there is anything to complain about \"today\" (pretending either of us can reliably talk about how it used to be) is that people are lazy and will throw out any story just because who says it without thinking about any other criteria for a second. Not that you will agree and all of this is pointless.",
"What rough percentage is \"large-ish\"? ",
"That's also adorable. I love it when absolute retards like you use that phrase. You think that your political opinions are a fact, like an absolute moral authority. You have no ability to use logic or reasoning, yet call others ignorant for not agreeing with you. \n\nLet me know how sophomore year of college goes. When you grow up, and get a job, we can talk.",
"Seeing as you have nothing more to contribute, I guess I win hahaha. \n\nStill chuckling at “retarted,” thanks for the laughs hahaha. It’s kinda funny how much me laughing at you obviously bothers you, it bothers you to the point that you’re willing to mock me like a 10 year old child would! That’s just pitiful. Sad! ",
"Employment was already at 8% when the stimulus bill was signed... \nIt's like you're deliberately ignoring parts of the article. \n\nThat's called BIAS. thanks for playing. ",
"Yeah no. He said having her hard drives \"acid washed\" was an expensive process. Not one pert of that sentence represents the truth.",
"So you're now acknowledging that Manafort was wiretapped due to being under investigation and that Trump was not, that's good.\n\nAs for Trump deserving a warning from Obama, that's just straight up idiocy. Obama was not the reason Manafort was being investigated. Trump being told that Manafort was being investigated would have only given Manafort a warning that he was being investigated. Do you really think after Trump was warned repeatedly that the Russian government was trying to influence his campaign and after his son and other associates met with representatives from Russia for the purposes of influencing the election that Donald didn't have sufficient motivation to check to see if the people he was listening to had criminal ties to Russia?",
"yep you should totally trust the guys that spy on you and overthrow other countries for drug money\n\njust like when they said saddam hussein was going to fly a tiny rc balsa wood plane over to america and disperse chemical weapons with it despite it having like a 2km range",
"Except it's not me who has to verify your claims. You do. Why aren't you understanding this? You are trying to convince me of something. It's not enough to say \"WELL IT JUST IS OKAY?!\" \n\nIf you want people to believe what you are saying you need to back it up with evidence otherwise you are literally just talking out your ass like I said before. \n\nIt's on you to prove that you're not completely uninformed. Which as of right now is not going very well. ",
"You are wrong. The democrats are fighting it because they broke the law and want to impeach trump because they didn’t get their way.\n\nThe fbi has confirmed the report. Stop believing everything you watch on msnbc.\n\nWhy not read what others are saying and then compare the two and then ask yourself... why is one side saying one thing and the other side saying the other and who should I believe more and who has actual facts.\n\nYou are clearly misinformed and that’s why when we say the American media is the enemy of the American people—it’s true \n\nHave some internal dialogue with yourself and ask why somebody like me would believe this? Ask yourself why—if trump actually committed a crime—none have been produced.... your not asking yourself the right question or thinking critically. ",
"FBI never said that.\n\nFurther, CIA/DIA were the ones saying all the stories about Saddam were BS.",
"the fbi just frames people and kills political activists they dont like that makes them trustworthy",
"Agreed!",
"What link?",
"Hm. I was going to say that you're *really* dedicated to this, but that's not exactly it, is it? I think it's closer to an addiction, which fits with the insular, obsessive mentality festering behind all of this behavior. It's not just an ideological avocation for you - it's a compulsion.\n\nThe projection I understand, but I don't think I realized how thoroughly invested you guys are. You've built your identities and self-worth around this perpetual virtual conflict that requires the total abandonment of logic and personal integrity. And you reward any input or behavior that bolsters the tribe's narrative, regardless of facts, fallacies, hypocrisies, social norms and values.\n\nIn the past, this kind of thing had no real impact on the larger sociopolitical fabric, and we could safely ignore the extremist delusions and bad behavior of a few random nuts. However with the introduction of the internet, this nonsense can spread and become mroe intrusive and sophisticated in its application.\n\nThat's why I'm documenting all of this. Accountability may not exist very much around here, but the more we understand these new regressive and destructive forces, the better they can be counteracted. I've noticed this about the modern rightwing - they operate as if accountability simply does not exist. And that's at every level, from the shittiest internet troll to Trump himself. Which tells me that *forcing* accountability is the solution, the soft spot in the armor, the Achilles heel.",
"Uh huh.",
"have you ever heard of malcolm x or branch davidians, or are you just refusing to admit youre wrong because youre that much of a contrarian\n\nwouldnt be surprised at either tbh",
"Nice text,\n\nThis is amazing. You accuse me of having an obsessive mentality and you waste your time writing this jargon. There is no factual evidence of any kind here. Also there are tons of spelling mistakes. Clearly a rage induced rant.\n\nJust a long rant about how you dont like the right. Simply a mess of playground insults. \n\nThis is astounding yet deeply hypocritical. You have the audacity to call anyone you disagree with an extremist. This is beyond me.\n\nI hope you're shitposting, because I've never seen a more clear example of a mental breakdown on reddit than this.\n\nYou are the polar opposite of a smart, well tempered human being.\n\nEnjoy your sad lonely life of being an anti trump troll for the next 7 years.\n\nYou're the type of retard that ruins the image of the modern left, not interested in civil debate. Just spewing the typical \"anyone I disagree with is a nazi\" mentality. \n\nPlease, comment more. All you're proving is that you're an irrational, gullible and hot headed child. You lack the ability to think critically and all you do is shitpost. \n\nI think this rage is coming from deep personal problems. You need to calm down and have a long look at yourself. ",
"You have two options from here.\n\n1. Provide a source that backs up \"The FBI confirmed the memo\"\n\n2. Keep jerking off and admit you're a moron by default. \n\nThere is no third option. The choice is yours. ",
"I’m floored by your response. On the one hand you want me to admit that Trump was not under investigation when Manafort was wiretapped the second time, yet on the other hand your giving Obama a pass for not sufficiently warning Trump about Manafort because Trump was under investigation? Yes, I do think Obama should have warned Trump that his campaign manager was under investigation. I know he would have warned Hillary. So Trump deserved a warning.\n\nBy the way, there is still no evidence that Trump was a part of the FISA warrant that had Manafort wiretapped the second time. ",
"Branch Davidians was ATF. \n\nMalcolm X had a target on his back from everyone.",
"LOL yeah. I think I nailed it.\n\nAnother interesting part of this is how they regurgitate the *exact* slams and insults that the rest of the world regularly levels at *them*. But this isn't delusional - this I am quite sure is on purpose. Look at the language. \"Hypocritical\" \"Shit-Posting\" \"Anti-Trump Troll\", as if there are people who engage in the same behavior they do just from the \"other side.\" This is a purposeful deflection. As long as they can create a fantasy where they are *reacting* to a fabricated victimhood, they can rile up this sort of highly dedicated collective response.\n\nThey reverse reality as a matter of course. They take their own feelings and behaviors and hypocrisies and apply them to their \"enemies\", often using the *same exact language.* It's fascinating.\n\nAnd look how upset they get when you figure them out! I can practically feel the angry spittle. \n\nI guess the good thing is, most of these guys are clearly very bad at this. The behavior is painfully obvious, and the vast majority of \"normal\" people easily reject it. Which of course is why they stick so closely to their \"safe space\" at T_D, even going so far as to recruit their fellows for vindictive brigading.\n\nImagine though if Trump was actually *smart* and *capable*, while holding the same authoritarian impulses and disregard for accountability, liberty, and democratic values? Or imagine if any of these raving internet crusaders actually had charisma and rhetorical prowess, and could convince people that their backwards nonsense was valid? That's why it's important to recognize this stuff, understand it, and call it out.",
"> they also grade right sources more harshly then left sources for similar unfactual statements. A right source will be regarded as \"mostly untrue\", while the left source gets \"not entirely true.\"\n\nBut they don't do that.",
"Yes, I fully expect the state department was bluffing in this case because it was zero-sum. If Iran wanted more money all they had to do was not turn over their prisoners and decry to the world that the U.S. does not honor their debts or settlements. The U.S. hurts diplomatically on the world stage, Iran gets to humiliate the U.S. in court for not abiding by the settlement agreement, and the tribunal at the Hague likely rules that the U.S. is liable for even more money due to breach of contract. \n\nThe fact of the matter that the U.S. has to pay no matter what means that Iran is not getting money for prisoners. If anything, they're getting *less* money than they could have held out for, since they were *owed* money. The U.S. was banking on the idea that Iran wanted money faster than to score political points, and in this case, the gamble paid off. ",
"See you're not even willing to try. If you could show me actual evidence to back up your arguments and they make sense, I would absolutely concede. \n\nBut you're not gonna try at all. Now you're calling me names because you're getting emotional. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's good to get passionate about \nwhat you care about. \n\nBut you're just assuming that I'm only here to argue and win. And no matter what you do it won't matter Because maybe you think that arguments are only to shut down the other person instead of convince them of another point of view? \n\n",
"I never once said Obama (who did not have any connection to the investigation into Manafort) shouldn't have let Trump know Manafort was under investigation because Trump was himself under investigation but rather because it's a terrible idea to tell the closest associates of someone under investigation that said person is under investigation, especially when the investigation hinges upon being covert.\n\nAs to your point about Hillary, you do remember that Obama did nothing when the FBI opened its investigation into her just before the election, causing her to drop in the polls and likely being the cause of her loss, right?\n\nAnd yes Trump was not involved with the FISA warrant used to wiretap Manafort. Trump was lying when he claimed that Obama ordered him to be wiretapped, you've just flat out said it yourself.",
"bastardized how?",
"I thought of a third option.\n\n1. За встречу Comrade!",
"FBI confirmed the memo ",
"хорошая сука",
"Huh?!? What are you talking about??! I’m way too lazy to do some psycho shit like that, my friend.😂 ",
"I read your article linked below. It doesn't directly refute what I said, so you'll have to get down off your godly platform and educate the peasants. \n\nOf course it's a talking point and of course I'm biased. Supply side has been a disaster for the US. That bias doesn't mean I don't understand the de facto effects and political motivation behind the implementation of the theory, and it doesn't mean the textbook graphs version of the theory has anything to do with reality. ",
">Supply side has been a disaster for the US. \n\nThis is objectively false, so apparently your bias does in fact keep you from correctly grasping reality.",
"I'm sorry I couldn't accomdate your attention span",
"I have two personalities, it’s called online performance art",
"[But they do, though.](https://i.imgur.com/c8wx9Xy.jpg)",
"Explain or shut up. You're clearly thinking about the state of the country in a different way from me. I'm considering the sociopolitical implications of the Reagan era implementation of the theory. If you're focusing on GDP and other measures I can see how you'd be confused and utterly lost in nonsense. ",
"But they don't, at all. \n\nFor the first example: Trump is talking about employment, and Bernie is talking about real unemployment. Real unemployment is a very specific term, one that has fundamental differences to simple unemployment. The real unemployment for African Americans is indeed 51% as per official government statistics, though as you can see politifact doesn't believe that that interpretation of the data is 100% accurate. Which is why he is ranked as mostly true, because while their is room to disagree with the specifics of the data, it is a sound interpretation that is close enough to whatever the truth may be.\n\nHowever, trump is talking about simple unemployment, which is absolutely nowhere near the 40%+ number he pulled out of his ass.\n\nThe second example is much the same, again. In context Bernie repeatedly talks about real unemployment when citing numbers like this, though he does sometimes omit the word \"real\", which is something he shouldn't be doing. The exact numbers are debatable just like in the previous example, but the numbers are ultimate rooted in statistical evidence, even if your exact interpretation might lead you to find different numbers. That, combined with him dropping the word \"real\" in that exact sentence, caused his statement to be ranked lower this time, at only half-true.\n\nAnd to go back to trump again, he is saying real unemployment, but he clearly does not mean \"real unemployment\" in the same sense that Bernie is talking about \"Real unemployment\" AKA U-6 unemployment. With the idea that he is talking about normal unemployment in mind, he is once again talking out of his ass. His 18-20% numbers don't match up with either normal unemployment or Real unemployment. Hes just claiming unemployment numbers are wrong because they made Obama look good.\n\nSo take you stupid fucking image and go shove it back up your ass, nobody wants your misinformation here.\n\n\n\n\n",
"Most higher learning institutions are absolutely couched in Liberalism. However that is different from 'American Liberals', the democratic party or left wing politics generally.\n\nGender and social studies departments may be considered couched in left wing politics, but the classic liberal nature of most universities has relatively little to do with that. \n\n> immediately discount any source that isn't supporting their preconceived ideas or narrative.\nThus, \"post-fact.\" \n\nPeople have been confirming their bias for countless thousands of years, its just easier to do it now. The whole 'post-fact' world trope is hokum.",
"I'm sure you say that to all the debates you runaway from ",
"Man you get testy easily. Sorry if I offended you.\n\nAnyway, we don't know if either of them were using the technical or the colloquial definition of \"real\". Since Bernie used it improperly, as you admit, we can likely assume they were both just speaking colloquially - something I'm willing to forgive them for, given they're likely not addressing a crowd of BLS bureaucrats.\n\nSpeaking of the BLS, [when politifact said that wasn't what the data said, they meant it](https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006). Unless you have some other data you can link that Bernie was referring to? Anyway, the 40% number wasn't just pulled out of his ass, [here's an article from the (failing) NYT about how you can find that number.](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/upshot/the-real-jobless-rate-is-42-percent-donald-trump-has-a-point-sort-of.html) Furthmore, the exact quote was, \"The highest I've heard is 42%\", and [this article explains where he probably heard it](https://www.inquisitr.com/2218523/david-stockman-says-unemployment-is-really-42-9-percent/) Now, I want to note I'm not claiming Trump was correct. My only point is that he and Bernie seem to be incorrect in the same way and yet Politifact is giving him \"false\" and Bernie \"Half True.\" \n\nBut seriously dude, no need to get so testy.",
"Is that why you deleted all your posts? ",
"Nice to know you're not embarrassed or anything ",
"> Anyway, we don't know if either of them were using the technical or the colloquial definition of \"real\"\n\nBut we do though? It's a term with a specific meaning. The only time their usage is vague is in bernies second statement, where he fails to properly use the word \"real\" in that specific sentence, though context (both before and after) clarifies what he really meant.\n\nThe fact is: Bernie has shown an understanding of real unemployment, regularly used the term correctly, and regularly cited reasonable statistics to back up his claims. Bernies worst fault is sometimes failing to say the word \"real\" when mentioning real employment specifically. Trump has never shown and understanding of the word, yet cites statistics mirroring both U-3 and U-6 unemployment, while calling both of them \"unemployment\", at random whenever it meets his needs. He has never clarified, he has never provided statistics backing up his claims. There is no comparison between Bernie and Trump here.\n\n>Unless you have some other data you can link that Bernie was referring to?\n\nYou provided a link discussing the actual numbers Bernie was using not even a full sentence after you asked me this. Come on now.\n\n> Anyway, the 40% number wasn't just pulled out of his ass, here's an article from the (failing) NYT about how you can find that number.\n\nBut it was pulled out of his ass. His statement was in context to employment statistics released under the Obama admin, which touted unemployment at ~5.6%. He then countered that and started crying about that number actually being at ~41%, which it isn't, because the only thing anywhere near ~41% unemployment is real unemployment, an entirely different statistic.\n\nLike I said early in my post, he uses real unemployment numbers when attacking democrats, and uses unemployment numbers when touting his own supposed success. This is why he got pants on fire and false ratings, he should know better than to be using these two terms interchangeably to both attack others and defend himself. His interchanging of these two words is bad enough, but the way he interchanges them is the height of dishonesty.\n\n>My only point is that he and Bernie seem to be incorrect in the same way and yet Politifact is giving him \"false\" and Bernie \"Half True.\" \n\nAgain, you need to take into consideration context. Bernie repeatedly uses the correct phrase, will clarify when he says the wrong one, and will provide statistics to back it up.\n\nTrump has never once used the appropriate phrase, interchanges them at will to make a statement that he thinks makes him look best, never clarifies, and never provides evidence to back up his claims.\n\nPolitifact simply does not take a single sentence out of context and give truthiness ratings base on that. If they did, you would have a point, but they don't.\n\n\n",
"Why did you respond? You're just going to delete that reply like you did the one before it \n\nBTW anyone still paying attention to this shitshow, his past two replies have been 'yep' before deleting them. Real quality stuff here guys. ",
"I see the truth does not matter to you. ",
"You know why that happened, right? They didn't think to themselves, \"Oh shit, someone's telling it like it is and our whole house of cards is going to fall down.\" *They came to laugh at you.* You're a good example of what they want to believe their opposition to be.",
"fbi did the siege itself and burned women and children alive\n\n>Malcolm X had a target on his back from everyone.\n\nand the fbi killed him LOL but lets trust them right theyre the good guys\n\ntrust us its russia not us lying",
"LOL, no. They invented their own fantasy here. I’m a “good example” of their downfall - a person who sees through their shit. This isn’t the first time they’ve targeted me. I always make it a point to call out Trump troll behavior, and it drives them nuts. The more they lash out and over-compensate, the more you know you’ve struck a nerve. It’s not unlike a child throwing a fit. \n\nYou’ve apparently misread this entire thing (or you’re an apologist). These weirdos aren’t actually “laughing” - it’s a frantic delusion driven by selective reality and cult dynamics. ",
">I'm considering the sociopolitical implications of the Reagan era implementation of the theory. If you're focusing on GDP and other measures I can see how you'd be confused and utterly lost in nonsense. \n\nThat some serious goalpost moving for discussion of an economic model and it's success in the economy, but it's okay because you're still wrong.\n\nThere are plenty of sociopolitical things that notably improved during \"Reaganomics,\" like: rate of unemployment, number of people in the workforce (not the same thing as unemployment), number of people in poverty (and that is taking into account that the poverty line rose somewhat notably which you would expect to increase the nominal poverty rate), median household income and number of small businesses lasting more than 18 months.\n\nAgain, that isn't to say that it's always the best method. It's not. See Kansas over the last few years if you'd like an example of it dramatically failing. It's generally an effective method under times of increased inflation (which, as the Kansas state government failed to notice, it hasn't been since the fed has been artificially keeping rates low). But, during periods like the mid-late eighties, when the cpi was increasing significantly each quarter and general sales were not increasing to match it, supply side economics worked very well to improve things.",
"You need to get your head checked my friend. \n\nYou talk about liberty and freedom, yet you support antifa. Us right eingers always supported those, its the left with their identity politics and speech laws that hate freedom.\n\nYou're clearly locked in your liberal echo chamber and you simply spew insults.\n\nYou anti trumpers are completely crazy, you simply cant hold a civil discussion. You derail it to name calling and crazy conspiracy theories.\n\nGo cry about how Trump hurt your feelings some more. You're screaming into air. \n\nIts amazing how obssessed someone can be, at a pointless cause. No wonder you're being downvoted, you're absolutely bonkers not a slither of evidence to back up your neurotic ranting.\n\n\n\n",
"Sure. That article is from over a year ago. This however (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/) is from a source that librarians and other neutral, information professionals use to fact check sources to search for bias. Snopes continues to check out reliably on the facts as coming from unbiased sources. Politico, on the other hand, has a left-centered bias and some possible questionable sources. This is why you check things. \n\nEdit: In case you were wondering, Forbes has a right-center bias https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/ \n",
"So are you the new guy or did the same guy just get “reminded” what his fucking job is?",
"Dude the fact that are still clinging to a fake story despite the facts being out there is pathetic. It’s been a witch hunt all along and speaking in Russian doesn’t change that fact ",
"^ Case in point. \"I’m a 'good example' of their downfall\" - seriously?\n\nAs someone who leans reluctantly towards the Trump side of things (if there must be two opposed sides), I'm delighted that the left considers Trump support \"a frantic delusion.\" It means the lesson is being studiously ignored, and the mistakes are being doubled-down on. It'll give me a certain level of schadenfreude to see the Democratic equivalents of Sharron Angle, Todd Akin, and Christine O'Donnell crash and burn in winnable races. Maybe there's a Dave Brat waiting for Nancy Pelosi. But as an American and reasonable person, I'm far from it. Nothing in modern politics is good for the country as an organization, or for the vast majority of the people in it. You, and the T_D brigadiers, such as they may be, and all of the macrocosms that you represent, need to understand that your opposition came by their opinion legitimately, or they believe they did, before you can even hope to do anything about it. Otherwise the Legislature will continue to be paralyzed by interpartisan mistrust and sniping, the Presidency will continue to collect more and more power to itself, and we'll have an electoral dictatorship before you know it.\n\n(/painfully earnest rant)",
"Hey you got more fluent. Someone paid attention in class. \n\nI kinda like this though. It keeps me entertained and keeps you from actually having to fuck with any other idiots.\n\nOk I’ll go again. What fake story??? All of this has been proven time and time again. Why does Trump even care about the memo?",
"That the obama admin spied on trump illegals — yeah it’s been proven. \n\nThe entire impetus for the Russia investigation being a farce — proven.\n\nThe constitution being shredded — yeah proven. \n\nGlad we agree",
"Ok...but what about... Trump not imposing sanctions on Putin?? \n\nYou know what who cares if Obama spied on Trump? He’s the President! He can do what he wants! \n\nThe Russia investigation is being run by a Republican!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ",
"What about sanctions? What does that have to do with the government being used against a private citizen based on a lie? What does that have to do with anything?\n\nThat doesn’t prove anything. If the investigation was a farce and sanctions were implements because it was a farce.... not sure what your point is. \n\n“Who cares Obama spied on trump?” You are either a troll or 12 years old. You do know we have that thing about the contrition and you don’t spy on political opponents just to dig up dirt and then invent a Russian farce to cover it up. \n\n\n“The Russia investigation is being run by a republican” — now that’s the lamest talking point out there and shows little understanding of why trump won. Trump RAN AGAINST the republican establishment and won. He isn’t a republican. He just happened to run in their party. Did you even pay attention to the primaries? John McCain is a Republican. \n\nTrump is a true outsider. And that’s why they hate him and lie about him. You really didn’t pay attention to the election. Get out of your bubble.",
"Why are sanctions important? Maybe because it’s exacty what Steele was earning us about??\n\nAs for Obama...It’s called opposition research bro. Show me what’s illegal about that!\n\nTrumps not a Republican then! Why don’t you see that he’s just a phony! A big fat phony!!",
"That’s logical fallacy. Sanctions? Trump has said he wants to work with Russia in the Middle East where it makes sense. That’s a rational thing to do. Sanctions doesn’t seem good if that’s the goal. Sorry if Washington doesn’t like that. \n\nThe dossier was bullshit and the genesis of the whole thing. \n\nConfirmation bias have you heard of it?\n\nOne thing being true doesn’t mean another thing is true. That’s confirmation bias. \n\nWhat if trump knows the entire Russia thing is bullshit, which he does, so he doesn’t feel the need for the senate to impede his foreign policy plan? \n\nDude you are really bad at this. Have you even read the memo?\n\nTrump gave up a billionaire lifestyle to save the America. He’s unfairly slandered and lied about daily by the media, liberals, you — all to save America.\n\nWhen you grow up, you might just see that. But you have to get out of media bubble first. The media, your teachers, comedians — they are lying to you.\n\nI’m old. I lived through Reagan. They said the same shit. They even had a witch hunt investigation. ",
"You are being played dude. Think we were originally talking about snopes.\n\n\nThis is a good thing to look at. The key question is, who decided they were legit fact checkers. The media has an agenda. The link covers how media establishes authority in relation to things like (fake news) in addition to their blatant anti white agenda. Take a look\n\nhttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/900867721474301955.html",
"Congrats of snuffing out the political lean and not actually consider the arguments being made within the article. \n\n\nBTW - All news sources have a political lean. It's even discussed in the article that mentioned one of the authors from Snopes had ran for a political office. Did you read the article? ",
"When you say \"improve things\" you're still speaking only in economic terms. Banks, interest rates, the fed, quarterly sales, inflation, employment. Poverty is an economic term, not a social one. Who cares if people in the US make fuckloads of money if the suicide rate is rising and addiction is increasingly rampant? Supply side economics contributes massively to widespread misery and depression. \n\nGet out of the box and consider that supply side favors the production of goods without demand. It promotes the creation of demand through marketing rather than actual human needs and well being. All it tells people to chase is the sale. You're rewarded for artificial demand. It's fucking backwards. I don't give a shit about what it does for unemployment and median income. Those are macroeconomic terms that (while not totally useless) cannot alone give anyone the ability to compare economic systems. \n\nWho cares about jobs numbers if most of the jobs are soul sucking endeavors where people find no meaning?",
">When you say \"improve things\" you're still speaking only in economic terms. Banks, interest rates, the fed, quarterly sales, inflation, employment. Poverty is an economic term, not a social one. Who cares if people in the US make fuckloads of money if the suicide rate is rising and addiction is increasingly rampant? \n\nYou're moving the goalposts further again and still saying incorrect things. You claimed to I should look at things \"socioeconomically\" instead of only economically. Poverty is, unquestionably, a socioeconomic condition. Suicide rates increase dramatically during stressful economic times. And, as far as I can find, there doesn't seem to be any link between addiction rates and the state of the economy (which is odd, because common sense says that it would go up during times of financial hardship).\n\n >Supply side economics contributes massively to widespread misery and depression. \n\n[citation needed]\n\nThat's a pretty bold claim to make with literally nothing substantive to back it up.\n\n>Get out of the box and consider that supply side favors the production of goods without demand.\n\n*OF COURSE IT DOES! WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S CALLED SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS!?! THAT'S LITERALLY THE WHOLE IDEA!*\n\nReally though, its general purpose is to try and bring consumer habits in line with the cpi. When the cpi increases (i.e. inflation) it's supposed to reflect that people are buying things at a rate which warrants raising prices. This is not always the case.\n\n>Who cares about jobs numbers if most of the jobs are soul sucking endeavors where people find no meaning? \n\nPeople who were going hungry and now aren't. People who were in poverty and now aren't.",
"So all of this is pretty disturbing (also kindness of funny), but I think the real gem is this part: “no wonder you’re being downvoted.”\n\nIn true allegiance to the Trump administration, these psychotic sycophants have adopted the same tactics and attitudes - from fabricating the intital dog-whistle, right down to insulting the intelligence of every non-rightwinger to see through their bullshit.\n\n**I already exposed you guys.** That happened. I see the operation, and I’m making a document of it. And I know you just can’t stand that. For example, you’re the one obsessively carrying on this “exchange”, while I’m here at work, you know... working.\n\nNow, I haven’t blocked you yet because I wanted to see how far you would go. But at this point I’m starting to just feel bad for you, so take my advice and move along. You’ve made it clear how dedicated you are to the Trumpist ideology and the troll crusade. We’re all duly impressed. Now get on with your life.",
"You're being downvoted because you don't listen. And you're a neurotic moron. \n\n\n>I already exposed you guys\n\nNo, your opponent showed you sources and polls and you just threw a hissy fit.\n\nInstantly resorting to ad hominems and personal attacks just makes me think you have no argument.\n\n>Trumpist ideology\n\nImagine being this retarded. You're clearly a foreign child who knows jackshit about american politics. \n\nWhat a sad life it must be, to rant about Trump the entire day. You've got 7 years to go kiddo and you've gone insane after 1. \n",
"Republicans would hate this, if they actually went to a library that is. \"Libraries are socialist propaganda outlets\" -Republicans probably",
"Man, I'm surprised he hasn't just straight-up blocked you yet. He did that to me after getting really upset about a microwave video.",
"Nice to see you again, how have things been since we last talked?",
"I'm just here to win hearts and minds ",
"You're the one who still keeps trying to have the last word. You can walk away at any time. I won't think less of you for it.",
".",
"The sudden down-voting and shitty comments happened after a user posted this all in T_D so his fellow trollsters could have some fun. Brigading is against site rules, but I let it play out for observation's sake. I mean, we're deep in this thread, and no one else is even going to see this, so I'm not sure why you'd even bothering denying any of this. It's either commitment to the cause, or it's thorough self-delusion. Either way, **people are not stupid.**\n\nAll this repetition and brute force hostility don't actually change anything. Your \"counterpoint\" of insults and deflections continues to prove my observations to be accurate. The more hateful and absurd your comments get, the more we see the true emptiness of your position and character - *very much like Donnie himself.* It's fascinating how it parallels.",
"> The sudden down-voting and shitty comments happened after a user posted this all in T_D so his fellow trollsters could have some fun. Brigading is against site rules, but I let it play out for observation's sake. I\n\nOfcourse ofcourse, when a trump supporter gets downvoted its not brigading, but when a mentally unstable retard is. Its brigading.\n\nJesus your logic is amazing. You're being downvoted because you are a moron. Deal with it. \n\n>All this repetition and brute force hostility don't actually change anything. Your \"counterpoint\" of insults and deflections continues to prove my observations to be accurate. The more hateful and absurd your comments get, the more we see the true emptiness of your position and character - very much like Donnie himself. It's fascinating how it parallels.\n\nWell this is just proves that you're not intersted in debate. Just slander. You're the one who derailed the argument and now you're crying about how insults offend you. Grow a fucking pair you utter hipocryte.\n\nI think your anger issues dont come from your hatred of Trump. You need to see a therapist. \n",
"\"The Trump side of things\" is not a viable political position. It's not a partisan thing - it's a *basic functionality* thing. This is the false equivalence that has festered and corroded institutional stability and shared values - the normalization of abjectly abnormal and destructive ideas and behaviors. Views and policies don't hold weight simply by existing \"on the other side of the coin\". We won't abandon decades of democratic progress. And reality is not silly putty for digital warriors to mold at will.\n\nTrumpism is a symptom of the worst plutocratic and corrupt behaviors of rightwing power-brokers. The election was an embarrassment, rife with foreign meddling, internet conspiracies, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and good old American complacency. The administration has proven to be *worse* than feared, inciting institutional erosion, constitutional crises, deliberate disinformation, and geopolitical backsliding. Now, the informed and conscientious adult majority is working on all fronts to mitigate the situation.\n\nYou've been conned, man. I know nothing I say will prove it to you, but if you really are a \"reasonable person\", you need to critically examine \"conservative\" storytelling and the endlessly false and corrupt stream of shit flowing from this administration. And you might as well know that Trump and this off-the-rails rightwing shitfest has no real longevity, barring a complete subversion of checks and balances. You're witnessing a real-time stress-test of democracy.",
"LOL \"my anger issues\"\n\nWipe the spittle off your chin, buddy.",
"This isnt a joke, you really need to go see a therapist. \n\nI've never seen someone have such a clear mental breakdown on reddit. ",
"Heh, I could say literally anything, and you'd have another flood to unleash. You can't stop. This is the compulsion I addressed earlier.\n\nTheory: this person feels small and powerless against circumstances in his life. He has latched on to a rightwing narrative that shifts blame to immigrants, muslims, liberals, women, \"fake news\", the \"deep state\", etc. This narrative relieves personal responsibility or accountability, and provides a framework of \"sense\", participation, and meaning. It also appeases base impulses of tribalism and confrontation.\n\nIt seems that the tendency towards projection that is observed on the Right can reach a level approaching derangement.",
"This one is recent:\n\nhttp://archive.is/tN8AS\n\nSnopes cut off the part of the pic that has a sperm on Obama's head and said it was false. Snopes is a liberal leaning joke.\n\nhttp://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2018/02/spermhead.jpg\n",
"That's ironic because in fact, Snopes is right here, and not only are you wrong, but you just linked to the doctored version of the photo that originated on 4chan.\n\nThe actual official photo does not have those marks. There is a wrinkle there in the undoctored version of the photo -- but that's all it is: a winkle.\n\nSource: Snopes 😂",
"Pumpkin pie is delicious. I hope you know this. ",
"My cause? \n\nI support gay marriage, I'm pro-choice, and I think transgenders should use whatever bathroom they want. \"reality\" has absolutely nothing to do with any of these. All these have to do with emotions and our values. \n\nLike I said, all you're proving is how pretentious you are in thinking you're \"right\" about an opinion. You're also showing how prejudiced you are. ",
"\n.... dh1xccC.f.dsexcyk",
">\"reality\" has absolutely nothing to do with any of these.\n\nI see, so reality has nothing to do with gay marriage? That is a lot like saying \"you don't think people are really gay\"...\n\nI mean we could pull up scientific facts an whatnot about abortion (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2016/06/27/5-reasons-supreme-court-abortion-decision-benefits-womens-health/#12bca5e47339)... but I guess in your mind, that is just me talking with my emotions right? (Personally, I am pro-life, in that regard, and had a son when I was 19 to prove it - however, I don't push my values on other people. You might say, I ignore my emotions for reason.)\n\n>Like I said, all you're proving is how pretentious you are in thinking you're \"right\" about an opinion. You're also showing how prejudiced you are.\n\nWhat group do you think I am attacking again? And how does that make me prejudiced? Ah yes, how pretentious I am, for stating a fact as fact, and not an \"alternative fact\".",
"Your Trumpist celebration of confrontational ignorance is sad and weird.\n\nI hope you know this.",
"I'm not moving the goalposts. You keep saying that but I don't know how you understand that to be the case. Seems arbitrary on your part. It feels like we're having separate conversations. I said sociopolitical not socioeconomic. I know that poverty is a socioeconomic factor. You must think I'm a moron if you thought that's what I said and didn't reread. \n\nWhat \"state of the economy\" are you looking at when you correlate suicide and addiction rates? What sort of time frame are you considering? The economy has been absolute shit for middle and lower income people for like 25 years. More recently, have you heard of the opioid crisis? There has been a massive uptick in heroin and related opioid overdoses and suicides in the last 10 years or so. Suicide is directly related to a lack of meaning and human connection in peoples' lives. I would argue that's in large part due to US cultural and economic shifts since the early 80s and supply side nonsense. The minimum wage was last raised since what, 2009? People in low wage jobs have to work like 3 more months in 2016 to achieve the same spending power. But it's ok. We'll just keep cutting taxes and creating loopholes for business because if we drive prices low enough somehow people will magically get more in wages...???\n\nPeople are fed? Yeah, by SNAP and WIC and other programs which have recently been at record high enrollment. \n\nHow in the world does it make sense to produce things without demand? The world is finite. Resources are finite. An economic system based on consumption, services, and marketing is unsustainable. \n\n",
"Weird as opposed to what? I don't think finding pumpkin pie delicious is in any way abnormal. ",
"Uh-huh. Say that sentence out loud. Slooowly. See how silly you sound. Imagine if someone said that to you... You'd be better off enjoying your pie mate. ",
"I love the turning point of these interactions, when you guys devolve to lame insults because you realize that your trolling has fallen flat. I think you’re mad that I’m smarter than you, and I love that too.\n\n*You’d* be better off finding a new hobby. Go travel the world. Go back to school. Partipate in reality instead of these fucked-up indoctrinated fantasies that are only turning you into a mindless parrot for a shitty agenda that does nothing positive for you or anyone. I’m not insulting you. This is an insidious form of sociopathy that operates and perpetuates on ignorance and cultish tribalism. It’s destroying your brain.\n\nGood luck and Happy Valentine’s Day, sweetheart.",
"You're lucky I like my women nutty. I have no issues with school, finish my degree this month. But I dare say you do sound angry. It's almost like I don't have to say anything offensive for you to go Ape shit. You're literally my new favorite game. I like you. ",
"They do commit murder 6 times as often as whites. What do you have to say about that? ",
"Who fact checkes Snopes etc. Who decided they were legitimate enough to be the one point of truth. Sounds silly.",
"Nice job copying me almost word for word.\n\nI think what I find the most pathetic about Trump trolls is how *completely unimaginative* they are.\n\nYou don't have to say anything offensive because your entire digital presence is offensive, which you know, which is the point.\n\nIt's really demented how you think other people are going \"ape shit\" over your behavior - they're not. I'm not. No one cares about your impotent fantasies. We're laughing at you and shaking our heads in sad, confused disgust.\n\nAlso interesting that you think I'm a \"nutty woman\" - extremely illuminating comment about your general world view, and it raises a point of how people addicted to trolling create an idea in their head of their \"opponent\" that is fully illusory. Where does that image come from? Are you often rejected and insulted by women in your life? Why is that? Don't answer these questions - I'm just positing a context. Your replies don't matter.\n\nAnywho. Back to work. Have a splendid day, chuckles!",
"A day alive is a splendid day indeed. It amuses me how I can post something bland and uninteresting and you'll invent an entire backstory about why and how it's offensive. The need to be a victim is concerning. However, the use of imagination is quite good for your mental health. \nThe thing you're not getting is that no-one is really looking to insult you. Outside of the nutty woman comment at least, which I thought was at least fairly imaginative. When someone responds with hatred and personal insults over something as bland as pumpkin pie, I feel there's a reason to be concerned. \n\nSo as a concerned friend, please don't hesitate to seek psychiatric help, or at least message me or another friendly face before you have a mental break. You're not alone. You're never alone my friend. If you were here I'd hug you <3",
"I'm responding to who you are. Comment history is a thing. Accountability is a thing. Your bullshit is obvious. No one's buying it, no one cares. \n\nI don't know what's worse - that you try to pull this sort of demented idiotic shit, or that you're not even good at it. Move along, champ. You have failed (I'm guessing in more ways than one).",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYOwJ5gVnLA",
">There is no comparison between Bernie and Trump here.\n\nI'm not trying to compare them at all. I'm not trying to make a point about whether one knows more than the other. I'm saying that *in the specific instance of this quote*, we don't know whether they're speaking technically or colloquially. Because we're not mind readers. I'm actually trying to give Bernie the benefit of the doubt, because it makes his statement less false if he's just speaking colloquially.\n\n>You provided a link discussing the actual numbers Bernie was using not even a full sentence after you asked me this. Come on now.\n\nThe only link I gave about black unemployment charted it at a high of 17.5%. That's not what Bernie was quoted as claiming was the black unemployment rate.\n\n>But it was pulled out of his ass.\n\nRepeating a quote from someone else is not pulling something out of your ass.\n\n>Politifact simply does not take a single sentence out of context and give truthiness ratings base on that. If they did, you would have a point, but they don't.\n\nThe point is that by interjecting 'context' they're also interjecting bias. It's not significant, and I'm not nor have I ever claimed it was. But they do have a direction they favor, this shouldn't be a super controversial point.",
"No, its all tainted.",
"Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Accountability for what my fine friend <3 For getting some chuckles by saying pointless shit and watching you twist it into actual insults on you because you're stuck so deep in a victim mentality that you are incapable of letting this go, incapable of stopping the attack and realizing you're the butt of the joke. To be fair though, failures not something I'm good at traditionally, it just doesn't happen often. I tend to just try until I make it, regardless of how long that timeline is. It's a pretty nice mindset to have, you ever been in the military big boy? ",
"You're ignoring the corrupt Obama justice dept.",
">wrong\n\n>expected payment\n\nIt's right there in your post. Think a little harder.",
"Who fact checkes Snopes etc. Who decided they were legitimate enough to be the one point of truth. Sounds silly.",
"What's hilarious, is that unbiased people, or any rational person for that matter, knows to double check and research any information, regardless of the source. \n\nBiased, metaphorically blind people, are the ones who pick and choose when to apply rationality or fact checking, and keep repeating the same \"CNN Fake News blah blah\" as if some news station is your mortal enemy. So go back to whatever YOU consider \"great and factual news\" (I'm not even gonna ask what it is...), whose sources I'm sure you check all the time :)",
"Does no one realize the underhand jab that’s goin on here? They are talking about fake news coming from strange names sites. The picture to accompany this? The letters ABC. \nSo basically, ABC news = fake news\n\nIt’s subtle, but it’s there ",
"everyone who disagrees with me lies!",
"No 'information professional' uses this site, though I agree with most of their rankings.",
"Snopes was founded by bloggers with zero journalistic experience or qualifications. Most of the writers they hire have the same background or come from high quality sites like raw story.\nThis is literally the resume of their top political factchecker\n>Kim LaCapria is a New York-based Content Manager, Snopes community member, and folklore enthusiast. She has been writing for Snopes since 2014, and never gets tired of unraveling urban legends. When not working, she enjoys air hockey, jjimjilbangs, and casual mermaiding.\n\nHer twitter feed is just a shining example of journalistic integrity and lack of bias\nhttps://twitter.com/kimlacapria?lang=en\n\nThis story is true by the way\nhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html",
"Don't thank me, thank the volunteer contributors to Open Source who make it easy to verify citations and historic events. Light is the best disinfectant for corruption.",
"Do NOT use snopes. It has gotten far too subjective.",
"...I’ve honestly never seen this level of overcompensation in an internet comment. This is like the truck-nuts version of redditing.\n\nYou are clearly a sad, broken person, and you probably make the people around you miserable. And hey, that’s your own business - until you make it *everyone else’s* problem by translating your miseries into sociopolitical regression. That, I’m afraid, we will have to continue to shut down.",
"His brother in law!\n",
"The people swayed by the actual fake news can’t even read and comprehend half the words on that book mark. And they definitely would never end up in a library. You be the judge who I am talking about. ",
"Honestly, I'm considered one of the most overwhelmingly positive and happy people in my group of friends and co-workers. I've been broken before admittedly, however, I put myself back together in a manner I decided I wanted to be. \nYou're the overwhelmingly negative and hostile one in this discourse buddy. I reply here because it gives me amusement watching you lose your head ever post. I knew as a fact, that you would continue to reply to me. So I kept it going. If you're harassing me, you're less likely to be harassing others. The world could afford to have less people like you. \nYou are willing to hurt people around you based on the fact that their view of the world differs from yours. If standing against that is sociopolitical regression, well maybe we need a bit of regression. And you may want to think about your actions and activities and figure out what you're adding to society with your rampant hate towards others with differing views. Ever wonder why it seems like you come across more and more people like me?\nIt's because you are moving further and further into the extremes while lying to yourself and pretending you haven't changed at all. \n\nIf you need help, let me know. I'll willingly take a few hours out of my day to help. ",
"LOL",
"See its habitual <3 you literally have to force yourself not to reply. ",
"> I put myself back together in a manner I decided I wanted to be.\n\nA willfully brainwashed Trump troll? Interesting choice.\n\n> You're the overwhelmingly negative and hostile one in this discourse\n\n\"This discourse\" is a transparent (ineffective) trolling attempt, which you know, and you have no audience here, so let's not bullshit each other.\n\n> I reply here because it gives me amusement watching you lose your head ever post\n\nThere is *no* reality where that has ever or will ever happen. Sorry bub.\n\n> I knew as a fact, that you would continue to reply to me. So I kept it going\n\nYes... trolling. We've established this.\n\n> If you're harassing me\n\nNow this is where trolling meets *projection* - the rightwing's favorite and most laziest tool.\n\n> You are willing to hurt people around you based on the fact that their view of the world differs from yours.\n\nNow we'll add some complete fantasy to demonize the opponent.\n\n> your rampant hate towards others with differing views.\n\nHere's an interesting and modern take - the rightwing believes that all ideas are automatically worthy and viable simply by the virtue of their existence, and if you dare to point out the shittiness of those ideas, then you're an \"anti-free-speech fascist\". This is how they *force* a democratic society to hear their nonsense, despite the fact that the vast majority of sane, informed, compassionate people easily reject these regressive views (and no, we don't need \"more regression\" - [read a book](https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465096204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483385198&sr=8-1&keywords=It%E2%80%99s+Even+Worse+Than+It+Looks%3A+How+the+American+Constitutional+System+Collided+with+the+New+Politics+of+Extremism), read the real news, understand the world as it was and as it is. Regression is failure by definition).\n\n> you are moving further and further into the extremes while lying to yourself and pretending you haven't changed at all.\n\nAnd the final, feeble, laughable lunge. The western Right is extremist by all unbiased historical and political metrics, not only in the US but [around the world](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59ypnn/the-extreme-right-is-more-global-than-ever). And Trumpism, *your* chosen ideology, is an exploitative pestilence of our worst impulses, fears, and cultural pockets of ignorance.\n\nYour entire endeavor here is embarrassing, your brain is rotten, you're full of deflective nonsense, you aren't \"a positive person\", and no one is buying any of this. Game over, and please don't bother trying again.",
"^^^Maybe ^^^time ^^^to ^^^look ^^^in ^^^a ^^^mirror ^^^there, ^^^little ^^^guy.",
"Nah see I come to this post for a reason :) takes 15 seconds gives amusement. Risk reward ratio is great really lol",
"You take \"amusement\" from flaunting cultish ignorance and self-delusion?\n\nCool stuff. What's next, joining the Westboro Baptists?\n\nThis all tracks though. The whole thing is predicated on a denial of reality - including your own role and status in the situation. You believe that you're \"playing\" me, while I've got more material out of you and the rest of the numbskulls in this thread to write a book.\n\nAnd you can't help yourself. You really can't stop. It's a \"reward\" in the sense of a compulsion driven by misery and pettiness and self-loathing. The worst part is, unlike other victims of compulsion, you don't even warrant any sympathy. Because you're behavior, besides rotting your self from within, also makes the world worse. So, again - expect to continually be beaten back by the non-asshole majority, and expect your children and grandchildren to look back at this moment of your life in complete confusion and disgust.\n\nCheerio!",
"I agree, a lot of \"no, I don't like that answer, you're invalid to me\".",
"CNN",
"Dowvotes for saying snopes is not a reliable source of information? Fuck you you fucking idiots. 🖕🏼",
"Any chance there's a PDF of this somewhere? I'd love to give these to the school librarian. ",
">You mean like the internet?\n\n...which is threatened by attempts to abolish Net Neutrality. So yea, he has a point. Even the Internet isn't immune to what he said.",
"To be honest, I don't know what conservatives do for facts. I do know that choosing what to cover can, in fact, show major bias and unconsciously effect readers/viewers. It's why I said I go to source material, especially when my views are challenged.\n\nI'm an atheist, capitalist, well educated union blue collar worker, I definitely don't speak for conservatives, but I also know that sites like Snopes (especially with it's new ownership) are biased in what sources they use, and what stories they debunk. ",
"> Comes from CNN",
"What's one example of an unbiased source?",
"This should be a built in toolbar for all web browsers. ",
"It sounded great until I read snopes, politifact, and politico...... horseshit biased \"fact checking\" ",
"What is your problem with Snopes saying this?\n\nI'll bet Mitt Romney has friendship and familial ties to the investment banking industry. Does Mitt Romney control the financial system?",
"My problem is that Snopes makes it sound like it’s not a big deal. It’s a huge deal and the intertwined nature of government and media and banking and lobbying is toxic and counterproductive to the needs of the people the government is supposed to represent. \n\nI don’t get why you have to counter with “the other side does it too” as if to try and defend democrats. They *all* do this and so many people don’t realize. It shouldn’t be a left-vs-right issue, it should be people-vs-government....and vs media, if they’re going to play that game. Why everyone refuses to acknowledge this is beyond me, especially when the evidence is so clear ",
"4th from the bottom is a hoot!"
] | 6,848 |
pics
|
Saw this in my local library today
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvtlx/my_friends_sister_made_him_a_birthday_cake_yes/
|
[
"Awesome cake for sure, I would be so pissed off it wasnt chicken tho.",
"Wow that's a very convincing cake-human. ",
"I’d probably cry having to cut into that. ",
"I'd be pretty pissed when I realized it was all cake. ",
"Does that say happy porn day blahr?",
"I want proof. Lemme see a slice.",
"Im shocked cotton",
"[idontbelieveyou.ron](https://giphy.com/gifs/anchorman-lies-lie-EouEzI5bBR8uk?utm_source=media-link&utm_medium=landing&utm_campaign=Media%20Links&utm_term=)",
"I’d be pissed that my parents named me Blahr",
"Fuck the cake, give me the real thing ",
"What's porn day?",
"But why will anyone betray chicken taste? For what? ",
"Blahr sounds like a guy from Skyrim. ",
"It's actually cake? What a letdown",
"This is one instant of the cake being a lie that I wouldn't mind at all.",
"Anything’s a cake if you try hard enough. ",
"Maybe a woosh on my part but i think it says born",
"This picture has been posted before. It's not a real cake, it's just a substitute for a cake. ",
"Here’s a slice of the bucket, a couple of chicken legs cut open, and the popcorn chicken as well. Also, the potato and gravy was mousse! \n\nhttps://imgur.com/gallery/4VWaC ",
"https://imgur.com/gallery/4VWaC",
"Happy porn day!",
"Probably his name is Blair or something.",
"I'm curious: what material are the bucket, other containers & ketchup packet made out of? ",
"The bucket and containers look like actual containers. Hopefully they went and asked for new ones rather than reusing ones from old food. Ketchup looks like a combination of fondant and frosting. ",
"Nah that's 90% terrible tasting fondant. Never understood these pretty cakes where very little is actually cake and edible.",
"Looks disgusting",
"Eh, most cakes taste terrible anyway",
"WHY AREN'T YOU RESPONDING TO THE COMMENTS ABOUT HIS NAME FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.\n\nBLAHR?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?",
"Sleeping Giant FTW. ",
"every day",
"I'm calling bull shit on the wrappers and bucket being made of cake",
"Is that actually cake? It looks like molded chocolate.",
"Happy Porn Day?\n\nHAAPPYY POOORRN DAY!",
"your name is tully",
"it looks awesome",
"Even the chicken?",
"Is the bucket cake too? ",
"I feel like it pretty obviously says Blahr.",
"SHUT YOUR MOUTH WITH THAT NONSENSE",
"I’d be very disappointed if I received this and was told its cake and not actually chicken.",
"Marry your friend’s sister",
"I mean if we’re being real here, that’s just fucked up. I’d just want some chicken at this point. ",
"The fact they also built the cake house around it is what I find brilliant",
"tell em",
"Honestly, I'd rather have KFC as well",
"There’s no goddamn way",
"Y u say cake when u serving chicken?",
"OP delivered! How's it taste? Are the crunchies crunchy or fondant?",
"Hahahahaha it’s a different way of spelling Blair, but pronounced the same way. 👌🏼",
"I'd be pissed that it wasn't chicken, still cool though. ",
"The only bad thing about that cake is it’s not fried chicken ",
" I'm thinking coconut.",
"doesn't explain the blahr.",
"Wouldn’t fit with the chicken though",
"Looks like KFC to me",
"What KFC has French fries? Potato wedges yes but those look like Wendy’s fries. ",
"That’s the point...",
"I’m laughing too hard at this! ",
"Especially the popcorn!!!!!",
"Fried chicken grease = lube of the gods",
"I’d rather have the bucket of chicken",
"KFC is shit",
"Fondant is a conspiracy by the pie consortium to make people hate cake.",
"A good day",
"Chicken fried ice cream? ",
"Choice",
"But still better than cake.",
"But fondant is delicious. ",
"Oh my God this made me laugh so hard.",
"But it also says \"happy born day\", so I'm thinking both of those spellings might be for comedic effect.",
"Asking the real question here",
"this is pretty neat and all, but you know he would have been just as happy with some real kfc (im assuming he loves KFC?), and it wouldn't have taken two days to make either.",
"Buddy, you need to get your tongue checked.",
"you are a thief of joy",
"You're shit. \n \nSorry. I get defensive about my terrible dunk/stoned fried chicken go-to.",
"I was gonna say, you wanna give that to me it better fucking not be cake",
"well now I've been called everything",
"I hope the cameraman isnt standing on the cake floor. \n\n\nOr is the camera also cake? Is the cameraman? ",
"Is the tray cake?",
"who's to say he didn't get KFC AND a KFC cake?",
"The chicken seems to be either thick chocolate cake or chocolate ice cream and the crispy bits look like crushed corn flakes.\n\nProbably tasty",
"I'm astonished by the cake town that they managed to make in less than a day. I wonder if anyone noticed.",
"happy fried chicken day",
"I love how she put it on a cookie sheet ",
"He does look like he’s confused, dying on the inside that it’s not chicken, but happy that his SO is so talented.",
"Reckon you could find it for me? ",
"50% popcorn chicken, 50% cake that looks like popcorn chicken. It's a lottery, you don't know what you are getting.",
"Strangely enough, I would be ok with that. Hmmm. Birthday goals...",
"Maybe they threw up while stating his name for the record keeper ",
"2 things.. no ways that's a fucking cake. That's crazy!.. secondly... If I was that guy I would be pissed that it was cake and not a giant bucket of chicken.. just saying lol",
"I knew you were full of shit!",
"his name?",
"Don't worried, they served real KFC as the main course!",
"If someone loves you enough to spend two days making a cake, that seems better than fast food. ",
"Is that deep friend cake? If so that makes so much more sense. I was wondering how they got all the pieces separated like that.",
"It looks like kfc with nutella on it lol",
"nah",
"Wait when is happy porn day? That sounds like a great holiday. ",
"Pretty amazing to make a tray out of cake that strong. ",
"Bullshit ",
"I'm just amazed they could upload an actual cake to Reddit",
"I hope his sister *isn't* his SO...",
"Australia only has chips (fat fries).\n\n[KFC chips](https://www.kfc.com.au/sides-salads/large-seasoned-chips)",
"Oh, I just looked at the title to this post again. Maybe they live in Alabama? ",
"the tray says \"happy porn day\"",
"They accept .cke files now",
"Or crushed cornflakes",
"Cake with chicken flakes? ",
"American KFC doesn't have chips? Wtf",
"Next up on /r/pics : check out this guy going from 999lbs to 200lbs in a few years after dropping a habit of finishing KFC dinner with KFC cake.",
"It looks cool, but I think my brain would be too confused when eating it. Expecting the salty goodness of kfc but getting sweet cake instead. ",
"I don't believe you.",
"I still don't believe you.",
"That's depressing. I'd much rather eat chicken. ",
"Yeah, my girlfriend said the same thing and she doesn't even eat chicken. ",
"Happy Porn Day?",
"DISAPPOINTED ",
"Ah, [the old Reddit Cakearoo...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/7wskjn/criminals_and_neerdowell_people_of_reddit_what/du3cqn9/?context=3)",
"I lol’d at that",
"That picture made my brain summon two weird tastes that I wasn't fully prepared for.",
"That bucket is cake too? That's some insane cake. ",
"Happy Blahrday, birth! ",
"WAIT Where does KFC have fries??",
"Someone named their kid “Blahr?”",
"100% fondant :(",
"The camera is cake, he took the photo with the revolutionary super advanced google glass.",
"OP says elsewhere that the guy’s name is pronounced Blair, but that is the proper spelling. I don’t want to sound like an ass, but I personally hate when I see someone with a normal name with a “unique” spelling for it. ",
"Hold my fondant. I'm going in.",
"Thanks dude",
"turn that frown upside down...",
"The cake is *always* a lie, foolish human.",
"Blahr blahr blahr....",
"No!",
"It's a cheat really, the cake maker used nanobots that turn everything to cake. It's only. Fortunately the birthday boy has a good appetite.",
"I'd be like, that's very impressive and all but now I'm craving KFC and all I got is this cake.",
"BLAHR??",
"They say if you cake in your dreams, you cake in real life!",
"Yeah I'd hopefully be friends with this guy so I could call him Blah around his parents to let them know what gigantic tools they are.",
"Omg she made the legs \"dark\" meat and the popcorns \"white\" meat",
"The beard looks very realistic, what did they make it out of?",
"a real buckets might have been more delicious but we must not abandon decorum, every birthday requires a cake, no matter how shitty the fondant might taste.",
"Does it say happy Born day?",
"Does Blahr main scout inTF2? ",
"They’ve always had them here (US, Michigan)\nThey are like seasoned steak fries, only good when fresh or well done (to me) otherwise they taste like mushy, soggy potato sticks : / \n\n6/10 fresh \n2/10 not fresh \n\nI love me some crispy shoestring fries <3 ",
"\"What h-happened to Blahr?!\"\n\n*\"He's cake now.\"",
"Not sure if I would be happy or disappointed. The fake chicken looks damn good.",
"My phone turned into cake. It was delicious.",
"I've been giggling at yr comment long enough that its not supposed to be funny anymore. At least. Good job.",
"I don't know if I want chicken or if I want cake.",
"[Now with sound!](https://youtu.be/cdEQmpVIE4A)",
"Wish it were chicken",
"That’s not cake, quit calling fondant cake.",
"Holy, that tray looks like a tray, i can't believe it's cake. The bucket of chicken is easy to believe, cause it's full of fucking drumsticks, and no one in their right mind would ever order a bucket of chicken drumsticks.",
"At that point I would be sending someone out to get me some fuckin KFC.",
"Blahr",
"Hate to tell you this but that chicken may be bad.",
"Sleeping Giant FTW!! Awesome cake btw.",
"Man, that would be confusing as hell.... even though you know it's cake, you expect it to taste like chicken but then it taste like cake..",
"I guess today was his.. cake day",
">blahr \n\nI need more explaining",
"I need more explaining",
"How the hell did they pull off the beard?",
" I'm so sorry you don't have someone who would do this for you",
"This was a triumph",
"No offense, but I hate his parents. Blahr <> Blair. That's not how this works.",
"Pronounced Blah-er",
"To be fair, even real popcorn chicken is barely chicken..",
"Its pretty impressive that an entire website can function while made of cake",
"First name - Paul. Definitely a mall cop",
"Princess Bubblegum seems to be getting better at her craft all the time.",
"It's probably just a weird spelling of Blair. ",
"I tried to bite my phone. It was not made of cake. ",
"I’m making a note here",
"Happy Porn Day?",
"great job. But I would prefer an actual bucket of chicken over cake anyday.",
"Yes ):",
"I'm guessing he had to explain that over and over again, growing up.",
"From Omicron Persei 8.",
"The bucket and the bag for fries isn't cake though right?",
"Who said I don't? I just said KFC would be better stop being so narcissistic ",
"I'm not.",
"tru",
"I wonder which is less healthy.. KFC or this cake",
"lmao! Your little freak out about his name made me laugh. Thank you. /patpat",
"Ok"
] | 184 |
pics
|
My friends sister made him a birthday cake.. yes, it’s all cake!
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvtuj/i_spent_the_last_three_years_collecting_stickers/
|
[
"Dude your mom is going to be pissed",
"That’s like 12 man",
"Not when you go out of your way to get as many as possible ",
"I counted 3 minions and 3 weed leaves.\n\nNice",
"Love the Roadkill one! Great show ",
"Right?! I got that at the first zip tie drags"
] | 6 |
pics
|
I spent the last three years collecting stickers and placing them on my bedroom door
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvv12/immortalized_in_concrete/
|
[
"Poor little guy",
"Nice kicks. 👍🏻",
"That’s where Kermit disappeared to.",
"Because someone probably dropped him there...",
"Nice shoes.",
"> Mortalized in concrete\n\nFTFY"
] | 6 |
pics
|
Immortalized in concrete.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wvwm4/does_anyone_know_what_kind_of_bird_this_is/
|
[
"Scale bird. Commonly seen near Redditors.",
"its a banana in it first flight, part of the new changes that the next generation can expect in the Eco system. ",
"/u/Obi1G3, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for violating the following rule(s):\n\n* Rule IV - Title violates title guidelines.\n\nYour title must not ask for general information or feedback. \n\nYou can read the full information about our title guidelines at /r/pics/w/titles\n\n\n\n\nFor information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/about/rules/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/w/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/Obi1G3&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wvwm4/does_anyone_know_what_kind_of_bird_this_is/?context=10\\))"
] | 3 |
pics
|
Does anyone know what kind of bird this is?
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7ww0k2/dragons_eye_in_the_side_of_mountain/
|
[
"That's no mountain!!!",
"dragon disguised as a mountain.... grew trees to be more convincing ",
"Better start running."
] | 3 |
pics
|
Dragons eye in the side of mountain
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7ww1do/my_dad_sent_me_this_pic_of_his_pineapple_finally/
|
[
"I think pineapple is the coolest and best tasting fruit hands down ",
"Here we go again...",
"What about mango?",
"Did he plant it himself?",
"Yes he did. With the butt of one from the grocery store after reading that if you plant it, it will grow",
"Did he stutter?",
"I came here ready to click the link and now in disappointed",
"Im sorry! I’m new(ish) to Reddit and don’t know all the rules. After some snooping (correct me if I’m wrong), you’re supposed to post on other site and then link it? I’m purely a mobile user too so that might have something to do with my blunders. \nAnyway, try this\nhttps://imgur.com/EAOMFYA",
"It will want more space than that pot before long. Much more.\n\n",
"Pineapple breaks down meat protein. When you eat pineapple, it eats you right back.",
"Only if you are placing a piece of pineapple directly onto your exposed muscle tissue for long periods of time. At most, the bromelain in an entire meal made exclusively of pineapple would only irritate your mouth a little.",
"No you did it right. It's an inside joke kind of thing. Some guy posted a while back about his dad growing a pineapple and it blew up."
] | 12 |
pics
|
My dad sent me this pic of his pineapple finally growing in after 15 months. He was so excited!
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7ww321/incredible_detail/
|
[
"Unlike your jpeg... any hi res version?",
"If this was a Lego set, it would cost $50,000.",
"not trying to \"minimize the effort\" on this piece, because it is awesome nonetheless...\n\nbut isn't this a ton of \"figurine, plastic pieces\", that were just glued onto the ship, and then then entire thing was just sprayed with the adhesive/ polymer/ paint stuff? \n\nAs opposed to it being carved, or sculpted, etc.\n\n**Edit:** Goddammit. I knew as I was typing it that the word “just” was the only thing people would get hung up on and cling to and base their entire response around. I made the first sentence “not trying to minimize”, yet that gets walked over entirely. The reddit pitchforks are out.\n\nSorry, it was a simple clarification, not a critique. No one had mentioned it, I thought it was important to say. Guess I could have said it more delicately for you.",
"It's primed, now time to paint it.",
"Seconded, OP please deliver",
"spooky",
"Looks like a [Kris Kuksi](https://www.kuksi.com/) piece. My aunt actually has one of his pieces, a soap-bar sized church-tank (not [this exact one](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/04/be/31/04be31f72a93a1c98508b36f04f0db50.jpg) but like it).",
"\n/u/lil_kreen, your comment was removed for the following reason: \n\n* Instagram links are not allowed in this subreddit. Handles are allowed (e.g. @example), as long as they are not a hotlink. (this is a spam prevention measure. Thank you for your understanding) \n\nTo have your comment restored, please edit the instagram link out of your comment, then send a [message to the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Request to restore comment by /u/lil_kreen&message=This [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7ww321/incredible_detail/du3qgal/?context=3?context=10\\) was removed for containing an instagram link.)\n\n\n*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pics) if you have any questions or concerns.*",
"This makes me think of the opening sequence to Black Sails",
"I want",
"Exactly what i thought",
"The drag on this vessel would be horrendous. ",
"Looks like a party.",
"What is this made of?",
"Arn’t you just a “bundle of bones” covered in “slimy flesh” with a lump of “sloppy grey matter” precociously balancing on top?\n\nAs opposed to a divine being whose sole purpose is to create ships made out of skeletons.",
"Shade level: total solar eclipse.",
"This makes me uncomfortable",
"What is it made out of?",
"All I can think of is what a pain in the ass this would be to clean.",
"Looks like an amped up version of the ship from Tales of the Black Freighter. It’s in and out of Netflix’s rotation. 30 minute animation all hand-drawn iirc. -WB\n\n10/10 chance somali pirates would still try to hijack it with some rusty berettas and a goat. -DT",
"/r/ATBGE ahoy!",
"His main method is \"mixed media assemblage\" so yes it's various objects put together to make the actual sculpture, but describing it in the way you did is actually sort of minimizing the effort. \n\nWhen someone builds a car in their garage they probably don't machine the pieces themselves, they use existing parts. Shouldn't make it less impressive, IMO. Google his other works. They don't look like \"just a bunch of plastic pieces glued together\".",
"It looks like the work of Kris Kuski, if so it's made of thousands of casts of junk from thrift stores, religious icons, military models, any old plastic gewgaws + anatomical skelton models.",
"The flying Dutchman",
"If it is Kris Kuski, it basicly is, and it does. ",
"How much do his pieces go for? ",
"Make a better one then. Dare you. ",
"I see you /r/seaoftheives ",
"Can I have it?",
"TBH no idea. It's very small, and my aunt and uncle are weirdo artists, so I think they know him in some vague peripheral way.",
"Thank",
"Man black sails was a good series!!!! ",
"Looking at the gallery that has a few of his pieces it says \"contact gallery for pricing\". Having worked in a gallery for a few years that means they go from any where between an ass load and a shit load of money. I'd say for something like in the pic easily in the high 6 figure mark. ",
"incredible",
"Where's One-Eyed Willy?",
"I think I see Han Solo in there. ",
"For anyone curious, that tank model is built on the Tiger prototype built by Porche, the VK 45.01, which lost to the Henschel design which became the famous Tiger 1 that most people probably recognize. The prototypes that were built were converted to Ferdinand and Elefant tank destroyers.",
"BOOOOOOO!",
"Bad bot!!",
"The bones of his enemies. ",
"You should also talk about the top part. Its a 1538 battle-church. They were designed in Italy but produced in Germany during WW2. Its the bigger version which can shoot up to 50 bibles per Minute and has a extended look out tower. Typically those would've been manned by 1 priest and 6 choir boys. A interesting tidbit is that the reinforced main door (which could take a hammering of up to 666 lutherian pamplets before it breaks) is removed and a barrel takes its place.\n\nThis gothic clergy was considered the best available church technology wise, at this time. It only had the drawback that it could not be produced in great numbers. The Russian orthodox fighting churches were of lower quality but could be produced at a higher rate.",
"I remember this from Super Mario 3.",
"Ya best start believin' in ghost stories, Miss Turner",
"You are trying to minimize the effort by saying he 'just' put a bunch of things together and painted it. \nBut the same could be said about any bit of art. He JUST combined various colours of paint onto a canvas! Anyone could have done that!",
"Found objects. Most of Kris Kuksis work is very finely detailed narratives between them. His work reminds me of Hieronymus Bosch. I've done found object art before. It can be great nightmare fuel. ",
"I hope to God you don't own a cat.",
"Not to mention the liability issues with naval OH&S. 10 bucks they haven't inspected that lanyard in an age and I am pretty sure some of those sailors have septicemia. ",
"What tank model? Where do you see that?",
"The image in the second link in the comment I replied to.",
"bad bot!!!!",
"Bad Bot",
"How does one buy these?",
"I dont know why, but I laughed so fucking hard at this. I just imagine you scolding a robot like it's a dog that crapped on the carpet.",
"[In 2012](http://theweek.com/articles/476898/where-buykris-kuksi) \"Prices range[d] from $25,000 to $150,000\".\n\nIt probaby is a lot higher now, especially for such a big piece (in main OP's case).\n\nBut [apparently](http://arrestedmotion.com/2017/02/releases-kris-kuksi-claudius-figure/) smaller figures were available for $550 last year, so the church-tank might've been somewhat cheap.",
"Compressed air? ",
"This shit looks like an SCP",
"Fuck you mods. You guys are useless. ",
"[Slightly higher resolution. ](https://i.imgur.com/FmYPcOX.jpg)",
"Hope this person doesn’t have cats...or small children around, heh",
"The true hero here!",
"People need to stop harrassing jpeg. It can do better than this. ",
"It's a bot that crapped on my sub",
"You're a very naughty bot!",
"Damn son, where’d you find this ",
"Art is art, no matter what medium you use. If it's good, then it's good.\n\n\nAnd this is quite frankly a masterpiece. ",
"A ship manned by ghoulish skeleton pirates and *that's* what you lead with?",
"https://youtu.be/XFTcA4QLHw0 oh god yes!",
"Pirate ghost ship or ghost pirate ship?",
"The dust!!",
"I was just like \"holy shit, this is made out of soap?!\" then I reread your comment. Now a little bit disappointed that it's not.",
"I want to get off Mr. Bones' Wild Ride.",
"I want to get off Mister Bones Wild Ride.",
"Just click the box.",
"How the fuck are you supposed to dust that?",
"I only see people chastising you, but I'm glad you made your comment because it's an important distinction.\n\nWhen I thought this was carved out of wood, I thought \"holy shit that had to take at least five years. I'd probably pay $20,000 for that thing.\"\n\nThe majority of the value for me was the perceived effort something like that would take. Knowing that it's a bunch of pieces assembled together, while still cool, significantly diminishes how impressive it is to me.",
"Good luck catching me with your horribly-designed vessel, ghoulish skeleton pirates.",
"I can't imagine they are content to go slow!",
"3D printed",
"That must be a nightmare to dust off.",
"3D printed",
"I love that show so much",
"Lots to see in the [Kris Kuksi googelation](https://www.google.se/search?dcr=0&biw=1920&bih=949&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=eamBWqujNYausAGqhpLoAQ&q=kris+kuksi&oq=kris+kuksi&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0l4j0i67k1j0l4.16813.17211.0.17675.3.3.0.0.0.0.87.251.3.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.250...0i8i30k1j0i24k1.0.wSQlrWlAHlk)",
"It was a great show; finally a moderately (well maybe 20-30%) accurate representation of pirate life. I still think the ending to season 2 was one of the most badass episodes of any show I’ve seen.",
"Kris Kuksi\n\nMy husband went to school with him and Kuksi is a delightful person. He's so humble about his talent. You all should see his paintings... stunning. He's insanely skilled at everything he does! ",
"Must be a tiny little ship, hiding behind the pearl",
"> Inspiration for the sculptural figures featured in the Black Sails titles ultimately came from many sources, including the work of Auguste Rodin and Gian Lorenzo Bernini as well as countless anonymous sculptors whose work is found on ship carvings, crypts, and gravestones. The creations of contemporary artists such as **Kris Kuksi**, known for his surreal sculptures, and photographer Pablo Genovés, who floods beautiful settings in his photo collages, were also influential.\n\n[Source](https://www.fastcompany.com/3025252/how-the-main-titles-for-michael-bays-black-sails-became-a-work-of-art)",
"All the gears make up for it with the extra torque ;)",
"Thank you sir/ma’am, very interesting; definitely explains why I found it similar ",
"Indeed! It's a pretty distinct style for sure.",
"And [The Ghost Ship](https://youtu.be/ExYDXqM-0L8) sails on into someone's life...",
"I'd love to try, if I knew some of the places he got his pieces from it would be a cool project",
"Its from Jason Stieva \nsource: shallowgravestudios on instagram",
"It almost looks like a giant, unpainted Warhammer set.",
"That ship, in the Black Sails intro, my brain tells me it's CGI, my eyes tell me it's real!",
"How the hell is that what I’m saying? It’s not a critique, rather it’s a clarification. There’s a difference. \n\nNo one had said it. Simple as that.",
"Ooohhhh testy... I was being playful, chill out. Glad you took it so well. ",
"Scary",
"Holy crap what is that ",
"I 100% agree. You should do it! You might have to switch themes depending on what materials you find. I bet you can get a bunch of small toys to paint that way at thrift stores and yard sales, that type of thing? I mean maybe not all skulls and skeletons but you could make something pretty damn cool depending on what you find. "
] | 102 |
pics
|
Incredible detail
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7ww42p/down_100_lbs_in_6_months_today_thought_it_was/
|
[
"Congratulations ",
"Wow you look so much younger and confident! ",
"Bro amazing work, only respect",
"Well done indeed. How?",
"Looks like you're ready to resume hosting on G4.",
"Nice work dude, be proud of yourself!\n\nEdit: Who in the fuck would downvote this comment?",
"Huh, I never noticed how losing weight really makes sleeves look longer. ",
"Counting calories?",
"You go, girl!",
"How did you accomplish it? Great job btw",
"Congrats OP, also you might want to x-post this to r/progresspics too",
"What kind of diet program are you working with? ",
"Nice! From Louis CK to normal looking fit guy :)",
"Resident of Flint ---> Captain Flint",
"You look great!",
"Bypass surgery. Has to be",
"really impressive man",
"You're transformed. Bravo!",
"Congratulations man! Keep it up!",
"Doesn't have to be, he didn't look so huge in the before pic that he'd need/qualify for bypass unless he's from a country that has different rules for the above. It could be keto with or without intermittent fasting plus exercise. \n\nKeto/LCHF, intermittent fasting and some exercise will melt pounds off you with very little effort. I lost 3 lbs a week steady with no exercise, so you could do more possibly with some sort of physical exertion I bet.",
"That is so impressive! You look wonderful! ",
"I lost 3lbs a week on LCHF with no exercise and still ate only 3500 calories a week less that my maintenance intake. It's anecdotal, but LCHF and no exercise did the trick for me in very short order.",
"Nice work!",
"You are knowledgeable about weight loss, for sure, but the facts are facts. 4lbs a week on a keto based diet is not impossible at all. So doubt all you want, but the truth is the truth.",
"Keto and excercise, and never cheating once in 6 months. Not even over the holidays.",
"Do people who do Keto worry about relapse? Can someone conceivably live the rest of their lives like that? I really don’t know but that’s my main fear.",
"You just have to be careful transitioning off, and forever be mindful of what you are eating. A slight gain on transition off can happen but you can mitigate that with careful calorie counting and exercise.",
"Its a keto based diet, Sanford Profile",
"Right on. I do Keto with no exercise and I’m down 54 lbs since August. But I did cheat in Dec for my anniversary and Jan for a birthday and tonight because I just want to eat some damn Chinese food. ",
"3-4 months. I lost about 40 lbs or so in that time.",
"I will always upvote these posts. I’ve always been active, wrestled, played football and never been overweight so I can’t understand how good it must feel to lose all that weight, but I do understand how difficult it is to do so from a scientific standpoint, so I will always respect it. ",
"You're assuming he was a healthy weight to begin with for 2k/day. I suspect he was ~270 pounds @ an average height of 5'11 thats ~3k/day just to maintain with average exercise levels.",
"You dont have to sustain it, though. Cut to your goal, then return to sustenance levels.",
"Whatever man, I have both the records and the results, and my health is fine. I had a health coach the entire time and got all vitamins and minerals in. Sorry you haven’t had the results, but facts are facts. Troll away though, I expected at least one of you.",
"I was in the 300 range and 6’1”. My bmr now is at 2k , then it was over 3k. So his calcs are off.",
"Great work, man. Continued success! I’ve heard of keto, but I’ll have to do some research on the Sanford profile. Thanks. ",
"Going from lots of carbs to very low carbs provides a lot of water weight loss. Easily 10-15 lbs. Hell, after a decadent vacation with carbs and salty foods - when I go back to low carb I can easily drop 10 lbs in the first 5 days. So out of those 40 lbs, might not be more than 25 (might even be less) of fat loss. I mean, not to discourage you - but to explain how it actually makes more sense. Aside from knowledge gained about this through research, my own personal experience is based on having lost ~150 lbs with diet (low carb among other things) and exercise, weighing myself and tracking daily.. and taking notice on especially what dietary choices had direct effect on the weight day to day (as in, if I gain 2lbs in 24 hours while on a deficit, it’s not going to be fat weight.. and if I lose 2lbs the following 24 hours.. that’s not a majority of burned fat either). This was a few years ago, and I’ve kept track of similar changes since then.. so I’ve got a lot of data to base it on.",
"Well first, let's say that OP is ~300lbs in original photo and average height of about 5'10. That would mean that base caloric needs are not 2k calories per day, but rather ~2600. Let's say he cuts just that to 2k/day, that's 4200 cal/week saved. \n\nAbout 1200-1500 is the lowest level considered \"safe\", so let's say he cut an extra 300/day (1700 total per day). That's 6300/week. That right there is a bit shy of 2 pounds per week. Add in 500 calories a day of exercise, and you're at 3 pounds. \n\nThis doesn't take into account actual caloric intake before starting (could have been higher, for instance, and plateaued), which may well have been higher. But then again, we could go back and forth guessing at numbers we don't know to try to shut down someone else. That's what Reddit is for, right? :)",
"Again, without knowing any specifics about pre-routine intake, starting weight, starting exercise level, program exercise level, etc etc, you have ***no way of knowing anything you're claiming***. ",
"Whoa congratz bro!! Ur very hard work and mental discipline iz payin off!! ",
"when you want to eat something you shouldn't how do you talk yourself out of it?",
"Cmon man... Don't be *that* jerk ",
"Yeah definitely. Good job man!",
"It's amazing how much cheat meals throw you off. Most I ever lost was about 30 kilo (66 pound) in the span of two months and I believe a lot of it had to do with refusal to cheat. Otherwise one cheat meal becomes a cheat day, to a cheat weekend, to off a diet. \n\nIts important to maintain that discipline. No one quits smoking by only smoking one day a week, so I never understood why people do that with diets.\n\nWhen I finally hit my goal weight I had a single cookie and I still remember it, it was that fucking amazing.",
"Congrats!",
"I think it just depends on the person. I have tried keto several times but always end up relapsing around a week or so. The big thing is doing it long enough to correct your insulin resistance. Once you can revert your insulin resistance back to normal levels then it -might- be ok to slowly implement some carbs back into your diet since they won't have as much of an adverse effect on your body. Obviously for some people like myself that can be a slippery slope because I'm so addicted to carbs, but I'm sure if someone like OP can avoid them for that long they could make it a lifestyle if they really wanted to. ",
"Ahhh, man, those were the days. I still remember watching Xplay on TechTV before it even became G4, at least I think. That was half my life ago.",
"You look great, mate! Well done",
"You look great! You have a good shaped head...shave it, man! It will work well with your new thin face and give you a badass look.",
"Go look at r/keto. People are losing that much weight and more regularly there. That diet kicks serious ass.",
" Comes with age too man. I was a 3 sport athlete in high school(wrestling, football and lacrosse...pole vault too) got older, got comfortable, partied and ate like I was still in high school, got married, kids etc, etc.\n\n\nNow I’m doing keto, down 20lbs in the first month, getting there!",
"Just a matter of, is it worth it to set yourself back, is that moment of food pleasure worth days of diet eating and hours of exercise. That's the mentality I used to fight temptation.",
"You have amazing self control. Super impressed how well you stuck to your plan. ",
"Yup. I'm sure it's pretty scary to give up the bit they have left but he'd look dope as hell with a full shave and the facial hair.",
"Don't listen to the troll hun. I've had great success with keto as well 40lbs in 3 months, but I only had 60 to lose. You've done a great job, the only reason trolls like him comment with that crap is they haven't had the willpower to stick to a diet like keto. It's not easy, for sure, but you did a great job. You should be proud of yourself. Don't let the troll take anything away from that.",
"Idk, I’ve been doing 6 days diet 1 day cheat for 2 years now. Cheat day has never escalated into cheat weekend or week etc.\nThat said from a biochemical standpoint I do wonder how much an effect one cheat day can have. I try to limit calories even on cheat days to 100 or 200 more than my TDEE.",
"[if anything he looks more like Louis after losing weight, not before...](https://imgur.com/gallery/31hlb) ",
"I kind of of a weird bump in the back, but am considering it. I am 39 so I could handle the shaved look. In a play currently and have to keep it for now or the director would murder me, but will post if I shave it!",
"Yay, we're back to progress pics and pictures of signs again.",
"That's not how calories work",
"Well I mean cheat days certainly don't do much as far as favours go. Me for example as an Australian I can't get past iced coffees, that shit to me is like Meth, if I have one, I'll have them all, it takes a long time for me to ween off them. Obviously everyone is different, but avoiding foods until you literally forget what they taste like means you will never crave them again. \n\nI know tons of people that do cheat meals, but really, whats the benefit if you are perfectly able to go without them.",
"An actor? Bruce Willis that shit! :)",
"Stop trolling",
"Because it's very personal. Some people can cheat without going off the deep end and some people can't. I'll sit down and go to an all you can eat hot pot or kbbq join, eat god knows how many calories, and be back to normal the next day. What I can't do is keep cheat foods inside the house, so I don't buy ice cream, cookies, etc.",
"That’s awesome man. I’m in my late 20s and single that’s why I can still talk smack lol ",
"My view on it is I’m being very disciplined during the week so it’s nice to have something to “look forward to” on Sunday. \n\nInteresting idea about how to kill cravings, makes sense to me.",
"Hey Louis CK",
"Oh yeah I totally get you dude, to each their own, for me personally, you only have something to look forward to with cheat days if you still have something to miss, if that makes sense. Someone thats never had a big mac, or, doesn't ever remember how one tastes, would never consider it for a cheat meal because it just wouldn't register.\n\nHope that makes sense? reading it back it doesn't but I'm crashing at work hahaha.",
"Needs more beating cancer or drug addiction.",
"Nah it does. I’ve already seen it a bit myself with regards to ice cream, I hardly have it and now don’t crave it often at all.",
"Picture of man and slightly skinnier man",
"Jesus Christ, six months is fast. Good job. Now keep it off!",
"You’re awesome! Keep it up ",
"You are creating a 2000 calorie a day deficit regardless. \n\nHow you get there is immaterial. Keto may make you feel more full on the small amount of calories you can consume and still create that deficit, but it isn’t burning any calories directly. ",
"Keep up the good work 👍",
"Lookin hawt ",
"Great job! Congratulations ",
"You're saying you last over a pound a day for two months? If that's even physically possible to do while still eating food at all, it's incredibly unhealthy. ",
"He took time off to work on himself",
"Congratulations!!!",
"I thought of Jerome Flynn! Ser Bronn of the Blackwater, amongst other things.",
"That's exactly what I was thinking!",
"100 lbs in 6 months. Thats some commitment right there. Nice work.",
"Check out /r/keto.",
"I assume your iced coffees have some kind of cream and sweetener or it wouldn't really matter. An iced coffee with only ice and coffee has 0 calories.",
"have you taken any medicines to lose the weight? ",
"Awesome job. I really envy people sometimes. I try so hard an nothing.",
"Im thinking more along the lines of Jason Statham!\n\nEdited: spelling",
"Never cheating or never eating? By my sketchy arithmetic 4lbs a week is calorifically very close to a man's weekly recommended calorie intake (14,000 calories). So essentially you just ate the calories that you burnt exercising?",
"Being identified was getting annoying",
"I wonder about the wisdom of hot and cold approaches, seems like it might encourage yoyoing",
"Holy shit, CONGRATS man!!! How many people have noticed your weight gain and asked if you are sick? Lol. I really hope you aren't sick but I lost a few pounds last year (gained it all back) and people were asking if I was sick and when I said no they said I should just get checked out in case",
"I'm currently going through this now. I had lost almost 60lbs over the past year, but really slipped and fucked up and lost 30lbs of progress now. Cheating is a really slippery slope.",
"Good for you! Looking fantastic! ",
"Would you mind telling your exercise regimen?",
"Good going, pal! ",
"You mean Morgan Spurlock?",
"Louie looks a lot different now ",
"Cheat meals on a keto diet can/will kick you out of ketosis. However, many keto meals seem like cheating anyway. I've got 45 lbs lost over 4 months without cheating on keto as well.",
"Nice man good job!\n\nAny tips for someone looking to lose? ",
"Great job!",
"ASKING about his plan to sustain his new weight is reasonable and something that I would like to hear. THREATENING the guy about how sustainable it is has nothing to do with him, it's about your issues. ",
"still bald tho",
"Calorie requirements for a 300 pound dude are 2420 Calories for a moderately active man. A pound is ~3500 calories, so at least initially he could consume ~1800 calories a day and still drop 4 pounds a month. ",
"i want to learn how you did it? i want to do it too! Congrats!",
"Hmm, I guess but 2420 is at the upper end and this guy was doing 4lbs **a week**. 420 per day is challenging but just about doable, I suppose. Raise his calorie budget with a bit of extra exercise.",
"Was gonna say the same thing about the good shaped noggin. Go for it, and maybe audition for a part on fast and furious 27",
"Man do people avoid/r/progresspics?\n\nMods, can we get a filter for these posts at least? ",
"Nice try Louis we can still recognize you",
"When you lose that much weight you don’t even need to hold your own camera!",
"Cheating when you're on keto has pretty direct consequences, so there is a hurdle built into the system. Your stomach will get messed up temporarily, and sugar and soft drinks actually have lost much of their taste initially. Drink a coke when you're on keto, and it actually tastes bad.",
"Tldr of a keto diet plz",
"cancer sux",
"From Louis CK to Bryan Cranston.",
"Eat nothing but meat and fat, lose a ton of weight, fuck your heart up.",
"And you didn't even look that big to begin with! Good job man!",
"Mine was based on protein shakes, meat and select vegetables. I was moderate keto with caloric restriction vs full on just meat and fat. Made sure to get 100% of required vitamins/minerals etc. Lots and lots of water.",
"Sure does, glad I don't have it.",
"I don't know if it's the expression or what but I'm getting \"white Snoop Dogg\" from that picture...",
"Yup, genetics are a bitch, aren't they?",
"Commitment, 100% to whatever plan seems right to you. Every time you're tempted to cheat, remind yourself that you're working towards a bigger goal. Don't give yourself a pass.",
"No one so far has asked if I was sick, but most people in my life know I am doing the diet due to the \"diet food\" backpack I brought everywhere so I could avoid eating things off diet. People have been super supportive.\n",
"No weight loss pills or anything like that. I tried those before with no results. Diet/exercise.",
"that's the plan!",
"one mirror, one wife shot, but I'll take it as a compliment :)",
"Is food a drug, there's an addiction story there somewhere....",
"I'd take his money and fame!",
"No Walter White action here...",
"no sexual misconduct for me...",
"Takes a level of commitment after you drop, that's for sure. It'll be a lifetime change to keep it off, but I'm committed.",
"Godspeed",
"1100 intake a day pretty much constant, pretty much after exercise was nothing. I had a health coach and frequent check ins as far as my health went.",
"Appreciate the concern, but I did have a health coach and a very specific plan for maintaining my health during the loss.",
"You hit a 2000/day deficit with a 1100 intake? Must have been exercising a lot and/or or have a freakishly high baseline requirement.",
"my bad, lookin good",
"Good work!",
"Eating fewer calories than he burns. Weight loss is literally that simple. ",
"Eat less. ",
"Looking good, feeling gorgeous! ",
"Right, makes sense. Congratulations. I considered keto for a short time but it seemed too difficult (I will be a busy medical resident shortly) and a buddy of mine said he felt like crap lifting on it - I do a lot of cardio (6 miles a day) and thought things would go similarly for me. \n\nIts odd. Clearly you have had success. But I recently saw a report by nutritional experts and physicians that rated keto as one of the worst diets you could do. As a soon to be medical professional, it felt silly ignoring their recommendations. ",
"My BMR at start was 2700 cal, and average intake as a moderately active person to maintain was 4k...so the math does work out, it was much fast at the start and slower towards the end, 2 lbs or so a week for the last 2 months vs 6-7 a week at start. Keto also burns fat and the caloric calculations are a bit different when you are converting fat to energy vs food intake.",
"Very impressive. Keep it up. I just started my (Leto) diet 4 days ago and you just reinforced my desire. Started at 315 high. Shooting for 215. ",
"tell me your routine, i am currently 26 years, weighing 88kgs and 5feet 8 inches. thanks in advance ",
"Looking awesome dude 🤜🤛",
"There's always the option to filter it if you're really that annoyed with it. ",
"You can aggressively lose weight if you have the self control to not eat.\n\n\nAggressive fasting (longer than a day, but shorter than ~2 weeks) is actually becoming a thing. ",
"If it were that simple, obesity would not rapidly be becoming a global problem. \n\n\n",
"Even the most aggressive keto diets recommend weening off once you've hit a desirable weight range.\n\n\nAnd some of it's biggest proponents stress that if you don't need to lose weight your only strict goal is ensuring that you consume fewer than 100 grams of carbs daily instead of ensuring that you stay in a state of ketosis. ",
"how the fuck!! im doing whole30, 2 weeks in and am dying lol",
"You’re right that unlimited cheats can derail a diet completely. \n\nPeople do need to know whether they fail or thrive with options. Many of my older relatives balance their diets very effectively by centering their meals around the ripest and freshest and highest quality food they can prepare. ",
"great work",
"That’s excellent. Thank you.",
"Weight loss is literally just that simple. ",
"Great job! Keep up the positive and the weight will stay off.",
"Congratulations.. I wonder if you get different roles now as an actor.",
"Iced coffee by definition of what an iced coffee is, has milk, so its never 0. I mean the cartons of manufactured iced coffee with a bunch of sugar, its big in Australia moreso than most places. In some states it outsells Coke",
"Yeah, pretty much. No, I hate people that reconfirm that absolutely horrible and absurd stereotype. Someone goes from consuming way too many calories a day, through big macs, cokes, ice creams, treats, sitting on their fat lardy ass without moving. To, running every day, eating pre prepared meals of sweet potato, lean meat and broccoli.\n\nYou're going to lose weight fast, some people faster than others. What annoys me is that when people say losing weight quickly is bad for you, what they actually mean is that its probably not sustainable. Depends on the person. \n\nBut if you're going to sit there and actually say that someone smashing big macs, cokes, chocolates and not moving is actually making a conscious move to be 'incredibly unhealthy' by having a diet and exercise plan, well then, you have no idea what you're talking about.",
"Wut? Unless you mix a lot into them iced coffees don’t seem like they would be bad for a diet to me? Am I missing something?",
"https://static.openfoodfacts.org/images/products/931/023/295/3618/nutrition_en.16.full.jpg",
"highly likely, looks seem to play alot into it . But, it's just community theater so...\n",
"That article was basically sponsored by Jenny Craig. No money for corporations to make (other than the meat industry) with keto.",
"I guess my question would be if I can simply eat less calories than I burn (and I do diligently track calories) to lose weight, then why is ketosis necessary? I remember the scientist who only at twinkies and other garbage and still lost weight to prove it only has to do with calorie balance. ",
"That I assume is a nutrition thing for iced coffee but there is no way it would be 350 calories if it were just a black iced coffee",
"Yeah cool, and to us in Australia we don't call that an Iced coffee. That would just be a coffee with ice in it. Here you can still get iced coffees at cafes but typically when we say iced coffee it refers to a flavored sugared milk drink.\n\nsuch as [this](http://www.hospitalitydirectory.com.au/images/product_images/Lion/Brands/Dare/SH_88%20Jul.%2002.jpg),[this](https://cdn0.woolworths.media/content/wowproductimages/large/086538.jpg),[this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Iced_Coffee.GIF)\n\n",
"Damn chill, how am I supposed to know you are in Australia?",
"Nah I've had plenty of iced coffees without milk in them. Also iced coffee by definition of what iced coffee is (it's in the name genius) has ice and coffee in it.\n",
"It was in my first post.. ",
"And I’m supposed to read all your comments? Whatever man \n\nEdit: and beyond that how would I then know the peculiarities of your country just from knowing what country you are from? Seriously this is the fucking Internet not your local cafe",
"I didn't really want to get into a huge debate about the textbook definition of what is and isn't an iced coffee. You Americans love to fucking argue these things. In Australia, that's what an iced coffee usually is. Like I said in my post, I like those ones a lot because I'm in Australia. America does not lead the world on what to name things and enforce their self centered rules, believe it or not.\n\nAnyone else would just say \"Oh, they have a different version somewhere else, TIL\" never fucking Americans though",
"Jesus dude, now who needs to chill. You think I love talking to confused Americans every single fucking time we don't do something that conforms to their personal definitions or traditions on shit. You said it yourself, its the fucking internet, plenty of people use it that don't live within the confides of the united states of America.\n\nAnyone else, from anywhere else on earth, would have stopped talking about it once they saw the first post of a calorie intake, like 5 posts back. They'd just have assumed \"Oh, they're talking about something else\" I'm sorry people in the United States need hand holding for several more hours to reach the conclusion of \"Oh, they have a different one\".\n\nThis may have been annoying for you, but I have to put up with this shit every fucking day because people from the US are just so fucking ignorant.",
"Didn’t read this don’t care (:",
"Then don't reply",
"Are you trolling? Do the words \"iced coffee\" confuse you? What the fuck?",
"Like I said, I don't want to get into this because unlike you I have far far better shit to do than debate the terms iced coffee are with idiots that want to argue for the sake of it on the internet, So this is my last reply.\n\nDoes the word \"Ship\" confuse you? it doesn't for most people. Here is the definition as per the Oxford dictionary.\n\n-A large boat for transporting people or goods by sea.\n‘the ship left England with a crew of 36’\n‘a cargo ship’\n\nDo the words 'Space Ship' confuse you? Its not a literal translation of both words, is it, it has a new meaning.\n\nHow about \"Goosebumps\", do you think of bumps on a goose? what about \"grapefruit\"? is that confusing for you also? ",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iced_coffee\n\nIced coffee is cold coffee with ice. \n\nYou're kind of a simpleton, huh?",
"Actually in university they teach you not to rely on things like wikipedia as the be all and end all",
"I've had tons of iced coffee without milk in it, you're wrong. I don't care if you like wikipedia or not, you're objectively wrong here and I have to wonder if you're trolling or if you're genuinely this stupid.",
"Be patient with him he voted for trump, he’s retarded. ",
"My best friend is American, dude is intelligent as all hell and gave me most of the life advice I needed growing up. On the flip side of the awesome, nice, intelligent Americans, its insane that they also hold the most dipshit people also. No wonder people are always arguing.",
"There are some exceptions and a few intelligent and rational Americans out there. ",
"I actually need to stop shit talking on the US considering more than 50% of Americans I've met have actually been fucking fantastic. I apologize for generalizing earlier. "
] | 182 |
pics
|
Down 100 lbs in 6 months today, thought it was time to share!
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7ww487/i_have_an_obsession_with_mystery_packs_and_suchso/
|
[
"so, what was it?",
"Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie. I was over joyed when I opened it. I love her books. ",
"Had you read this one yet?",
"No. I've read And Then There Were None. That book is one of my all time favorites.",
"/u/livieekitty, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for violating the following rule(s):\n\n* Rule I - No pictures with added/superimposed digital elements.\n\n\n\nFor information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/about/rules/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/w/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/livieekitty&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7ww487/i_have_an_obsession_with_mystery_packs_and_suchso/?context=10\\))"
] | 5 |
pics
|
I have an obsession with mystery packs and such....so I couldnt help myself when I saw blind date with a book!
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwazt/homeless_dude_in_a_chair_taken_in_the_alley/
|
[
"It’s Frank!",
"He is probably happier than us that worry about thousand things and makes planes and then everything wents wrong, depression and stressed out, meanwhile he is enjoying the shining sun. ",
"The dude abides",
"Not a bad looking chair."
] | 4 |
pics
|
Homeless dude in a chair taken in the alley behind my building in St. Louis.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwexx/this_bald_eagle_in_enjoying_the_sun_in_sandy_or/
|
[
"or what?",
"Sandy Or bust!",
"We're in Central Florida. We see them quite a bit. It's always cool!",
"That’s awesome, my first time watching one of these!",
"Yeah, you think \"Florida!? WTF?\" but there are lots here. ",
"Lucky Floridian mofo!"
] | 6 |
pics
|
This bald eagle in enjoying the sun in Sandy, Or
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwhnw/wasp_nest_built_around_an_old_baby_doll/
|
[
"A literal nightmare",
"*Hornets' nest",
"nope",
"This ain't /r/pics, this shit's /r/creepy",
"Ooh, thank you! Fresh nightmare material! ",
"Poke it with a stick.",
"Holy shit... that would scare the life out of me.",
"The new BaBee! From Fisher-Price!",
"r/cursedimages",
"Thanks for the nightmares... Dolls are creepy enough without risking a \"my girl\" death",
"Are all your infants in abortion cribs?",
"Someone should turn that into an SCP. The image totally fits.",
"/r/creepy",
"Those are Sid's hornets.",
"Terrifying. ",
"Jesus Christ in man's kingdoms is that fucking scary",
"You are one repost machine, huh?",
"No thanks.\n\nI'm good.",
"Harrowing",
"Looks like a boss battle.",
"I'd blast that with a dragon fire shotgun shell ",
"#nightmarefuel",
"Why was the doll in a tree?",
"Steven King could do something with this ",
"Thanks for the nightmares.",
"Oh good, I really didn't want to sleep tonight anyways",
"Album cover for any grunge band in the 90’s",
"Is this Dishonored 2?",
"Look!They're already finding uses for out or garbage....isnt nature beautiful...",
"This belongs on r/creepy",
"i actually came in here expecting an SCP link. Sad to not see one :(",
"turn that frown upside down...",
"Smile at SCPs? I feel like thats a good indication i might be about to die...",
"Oh god. Burn it.",
"Ohh nice, that image will hunt me in my next nightmares. Thanks!",
"[Like that guy from Hannibal NSFW](http://geeknation.com/wp-content/uploads/NUP_158673_0576.jpg)",
"Jesus fucking Christ who thought this was a good idea",
"Total nightmare",
"It needs all the hugs!\n",
"We are now in Silent Hill",
"So what’s also creepy is that their is a baby doll already in the tree, and eventually some wasps came by and moved in. ",
"Me neither thanks"
] | 43 |
pics
|
Wasp nest built around an old baby doll.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwi0p/best_biathlon_rifle_at_the_olympics_so_far/
|
[
"She bought the custom Call of Duty gun skins pack eh? Sucker.",
"This is Markéta Davidová, a Czech biathlete competing with a rather awesome rifle at the winter Olympics in PyeongChang.",
"This was posted yesterday and got removed for text graphics, and the text graphics are still in this picture.\n",
"What are the two patches on her face for?",
"Reducing glare from the sun",
"They’re censored because her cheekbones are just too damn sexy. ",
"Shhh, maybe the mods won't notice this time...",
"Lol",
"Weapons should never look like toys. ",
"Why yes, it isn't.",
"They can smell fear",
"The same reason baseball and football players wear them: It cuts down on glare from tge sun, especially bouncing up off snow in the case of biathlon.",
"Charrrrlieeeee",
"It's a tool.",
"Why would this text graphics be offensive? Some rules, I swear. ",
"Czechbones",
"Is it wrong for me to want a rifle just like that?"
] | 17 |
pics
|
Best biathlon rifle at the Olympics so far.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwkad/i_took_a_pic_of_these_strangers_i_hope_they_see/
|
[
"Pole dude is stylin'",
"Great pic and beautiful scene. Gondola mans got the best view though.",
"I wanna be a gondola man. "
] | 3 |
pics
|
I took a pic of these strangers, I hope they see it so they can have it.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwlsr/if_you_look_closely_the_boats_in_this_painting/
|
[
"I want to be able to buy these.",
"For some reason this really hurts my eyes. ",
"You and me both buddy. ",
"Someone please make this so. They can replace my view of an alley with a Venetian summers day. ",
"Huh, you're right.\n\nAlso, GET OUT OF MY FUCKING HEAD.",
"It's nearly impossible to get such bright and vivid photo of backside of blinds in the daylight.\n\nIn a real picture, the boats would be much dimmer and barely visible in the shadow, and not so perfectly aligned.",
"And also, if you look even closer, you'll notice an artist's signature on the bottom right. This is a painting/ drawing."
] | 7 |
pics
|
If you look closely, the boats in this painting are actually ON the blinds, not inbetween them.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwmvb/found_this_cutie_on_my_table_hunting_a_fly/
|
[
"Its lucas!",
"\"Cutie\"",
"Where’s my shoe",
"How could you say no to those eyes?",
"\"No\""
] | 5 |
pics
|
Found this cutie on my table hunting a fly
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwnfi/two_f16c_doing_a_mirror_pass/
|
[
"y tho",
"bc they can",
"I don't think pilots of 19 million dollar jets to this kinda of stuff \"bc they can\"",
"They're communicating. Keeping up domestic relations. ",
"Bc they want? ",
"Giving him the bird?",
"Mav, is that you?",
"Airshow maybe?"
] | 8 |
pics
|
Two F16C doing a mirror pass
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwnng/thought_my_friends_looked_pretty_cool_at_this/
|
[
"Great pic! \n\nReminds me of a rather cool scene from Ferris Bueller's Day Off! ",
"It is! And ar you talking about when they are in the museum?",
"Love the pic. Wish there was something more happening in the empty blue space above them but otherwise it's awesome",
"Georgia Aquarium?",
"Should've ask your friend to reach and act like he grabbed a fish by its tail.",
"Yepppppp",
"I know thats what i said!"
] | 7 |
pics
|
Thought my friends looked pretty cool at this aquarium.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwoqo/this_is_how_you_know_youre_in_dallas/
|
[
"Is Dallas the only place that has ginger beards and yellow bikes?",
"In Dallas, the carpet doesn't match the shades...",
"When you see a bearded ginger taking selfies with things he thinks people will care about?"
] | 3 |
pics
|
This is how you know you're in Dallas
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwqmn/this_optimist_in_my_neighborhood/
|
[
"Hard downvote.",
"Optimist, or optician?",
"Why am I not surprised this is in controversial tab?",
"Downvote? Isn't it crazy for someone to be sporting a 2020 bumper sticker in Feb 2018? It's just odd. Nothing to diwnvote.",
"Tagline: vote for the guy who agreed to allow Hillary to steal the nomination from him last time around.",
"Not only that, even after accusing the DNC/Her of doing so, he gave her all his campaign money.",
"Sounds like you have bones with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, not Bernie. She had already committed her crimes. Bernie had a gun to the back of his neck.\n\nHope you love Trump because with that attitude you are asking for four more years. Good on you."
] | 7 |
pics
|
This optimist in my neighborhood...
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwtiw/travel_warning_for_people_traveling_from_mexico/
|
[
"Forgot to mention this is a repost from /r/México posted by /u/Ingenium21",
"I get the feeling that anti-vaxxers are typically left-wing, but then right-wing rejects climate change. It looks to me like we’re all science deniers. ",
"The political spectrum is a horseshoe. \n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory",
"When Americans come here, they're not bringing their best...",
"I generally agree with this.\nThe far extremes of either political view look scarily like each other.\n\nAnd to be extremely far left or far right is fairly illogical anyway. Neither view has the perfect answers and solution. Sometimes right is correct sometimes left is correct. \nThose who sit more centrally tend to be more inclined to actual debate and rational thinking about things. The far extremes tend to be so fanatical in their beliefs that they reject anything which doesn’t fit their world view.",
"I really will never comprehend anti-vaxxers ",
"I agree, Californians are trash.",
"Fear based mindset. Like many things that make no sense but still happen time and time again. ",
"The common thread is that they're dumb. They:\n\n* Form instinctive beliefs when growing up from parents/peers/media\n\n* New information challenges beliefs\n\n* Attempt to process new information and synthesize new beliefs, but can't (because they're dumb)\n\n* Brain shuts down and reboots in Safe Mode. Revert to instinctive beliefs.\n\nOn one hand you're asking extra-dumb left-wingers to take individual responsibility and trust the advice of \"corporate government\" scientists on things they don't understand, on the other hand you're asking extra-dumb right-wingers to take collective responsibility and trust the advice of \"socialist government\" scientists on things they don't understand. \n\nThe common point is that they can't brain because they've got the dumb",
"In before far-rightists coming in and saying \"we aren't as dumb as lefties\" and far-leftists sarcastically commenting (but raging inside) \"le both sides are totes the same xd\"",
"Sign is in English, not Spanish. I can tell a lot of Mexxers are gonna come into contact with the anti-vaxxers this flu season.",
"countdown === 674",
"The Horseshoe Theory has been pretty widely discredited. If you disagree, [here's an ELI5](https://www.reddit.com/r/badpolitics/comments/3w44bj/meta_eli5_why_is_horseshoe_theory_considered_bad/) ",
"This is pretty solid. I've never seen it before but totally agree",
"Not enough dead bodies piled up (yet) (again) to make policy changes.",
"Hard to upvote this enough. ",
"IMO History should be 80% of public school studies for K-12. Humanity has bad code and near-zero QA.",
">widely discredited by random Redditors\n\nTell me more.",
"We need to make Vaccines compulsory. Unless you have a legitimate health issue that makes vaccines an impossibility, it should be considered child abuse to avoid vaccines for children.",
"I don't even consider antivaxxers to be far-left. Far-left is nationalizing all industries and going full socialist.\n\nAntivaxxers? Degenerates and darwin award winners.",
"Not one political scientist will defend that theory",
"As long as he keeps it in California, I'm fine with it. ",
"As long as he keeps it in California, I'm fine with it. ",
"See, no one talks about the good anti-vax-ers cause.",
"they don't",
"Measles should be eradicated by now, it's baffling to me that people believe a fucking celebrity over actual medical science. \n\nI had measles when I was a little kid and it was awful. My own kids were vaccinated as soon as they were old enough.",
"Is Jenny McCarthy a celebrity tho??? (Shes the only \"celeb\" i know off top that is anti-vax..)",
"I wonder how many of the people that have contracted measles are unvaccinated. We had a killer flew this year. Litterally killed people across the state. They were all vaccinated. A few years ago it was whooping cough. Turned out it didn't matter if you had been vaccinated or not... lots of people got it. ",
"> The political spectrum is a horseshoe. \n\nLOL. Battle cry of the pseudo-intellectual \"enlightened centrist\". \n \nI bet you watch a lot of South Park, yeah? \n \nFrom your own link: \n \n> The horseshoe theory has been criticized not just by people on both ends of the political spectrum who oppose being grouped with those they consider to be their polar opposites but also by those who see horseshoe theory as oversimplifying political ideologies and as ignoring fundamental differences between them.\n\n>Simon Choat, a senior lecturer in political theory at Kingston University, criticizes horseshoe theory from a leftist perspective. He argues that far left and far right ideologies only share similarities in the vaguest sense in that they both oppose the liberal-democratic status quo, but the two sides both have very different reasons and very different aims for doing so. Choat uses the issue of globalization as an example. Both the far left and the far right attack neoliberal globalization and its elites, but have conflicting views on who those elites are, and conflicting reasons for attacking them:\n\n>> For the left, the problem with globalisation is that it has given free rein to capital and entrenched economic and political inequality. The solution is therefore to place constraints on capital and/or to allow people to have the same freedom of movement currently given to capital, goods, and services. They want an alternative globalisation. For the right, the problem with globalisation is that it has corroded supposedly traditional and homogeneous cultural and ethnic communities – their solution is therefore to reverse globalisation, protecting national capital and placing further restrictions on the movement of people.[5]\n\n>Choat also argues that, although proponents of the horseshoe theory may cite examples of alleged history of collusion between Fascists and Communists, those on the far left usually oppose the rise of far right or fascist regimes in their countries. Instead, he argues, it has been centrists who have supported far right and fascist regimes that they prefer in power over socialist ones.[5]\n \n",
"Try actually reading the wikiarticle for a start. \n \nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#Criticism",
"In America, everything is either a donkey or an elephant while the enlightened fencesitters bask in their own euphoric glow, supporting the status quo 100% and then some. \n \n> The far extremes tend to be so fanatical in their beliefs that they reject anything which doesn’t fit their world view. \n \nCan you name me some American congressmen, senators or judges that you consider to be \"far-left\"? \n \nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window",
"> darwin award winners. \n \nYeah, that's totally how it works. Kid dies of whooping cough because of dumbass parents and suddenly the gene pool is better? \n \nRiiight.. .. \n \nAlso, antivaxxing is truly an \"all sides\" issue very much like polio used to be. Religious nuts do it. Russian anti west propaganda does it. Hippie new age mambojambo does it. far right conspiracy nuts do it. Everybody is at it. \n \n \nThere is no need to try to make it a political issue as such. It's a health issue first and foremost. And it certainly doesn't mean that all ideologies are the same even at their most extreme forms. ",
"Can you name some \"far-left\" policies your congressmen have come up with in the last decades? ",
"They usually have two separate signs, so OP just took a picture of this one so it's easier to share her on Reddit"
] | 32 |
pics
|
Travel warning for people traveling from Mexico to California due to measles "epidemic" due to anti-vaxxers.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwtpj/spacexs_falcon_heavy_seen_just_36_miles_away_at/
|
[
"Did you take this pic? What time did you get there that day? I pulled over past Max Brewer bridge just after 9:30am and people said Playalinda was closed to additional people already. ",
"Yeah this is my photo. I got in line for the beach around 5:30AM, and I was about the 200th car in line. It probably didn't take much longer for the line to exceed Playalinda's parking capacity, which is around 100 cars. ",
"MUCH better view than from the bridge :)",
"Wow I thought that was snow on the ground. I’m an idiot. Cool pic ",
"What's really amazing is that 3.6 miles away is further than you think. It'll take you more than an hour to walk that far on paved ground. And it still looks big. ",
"What a awesome experience! Totally jealous! "
] | 6 |
pics
|
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy seen just 3.6 miles away at Playalinda Beach, FL
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwv73/madison_square_garden_feb_20th_1939/
|
[
"Source: https://mashable.com/2016/07/27/nazis-madison-square-garden/#ue382zf2Daq0 \n\n\"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.\" \n- George Santayana",
"This is why I stopped going to Rangers games",
"😊",
"Germans make up one of the largest ethnic groups in the US, even more so in the early 20th Century. It would cause a good deal of problems when we entered WW1. This picture being February, Germany wouldn’t invade Poland until September setting off WW2. \n\nIn context Neville Chamberlain in the UK was still assuring peace with Hitler as of Sept of 1938. ",
"Damn, how old *are* you?"
] | 5 |
pics
|
Madison Square Garden - Feb. 20th, 1939
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwvfs/its_a_little_foggy_out_tonight/
|
[
"[Bare Trees](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8hQKSmHBCI).\n\nTop 25 all-time disc. Fan since the late sixties. Album's a trifle uneven, but the title track and a couple of others still stand up very well.",
"There's a horror waiting in that blackness......",
"Pretty close match. Good thought. I'd never have thought of it. ",
"Silent Hill added it's trademark fog to improve framerate by limiting view distance",
"We get it you vape. ",
"Yeah, the old \"vapers love foggy tree photos\" stereotype. If I had a nickel for every time...",
"I'm actually working on a new idea. It's case for your vape, and the tip is shaped like a penis. "
] | 7 |
pics
|
It's a little foggy out tonight.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwyg5/my_buddy_made_a_shirt_with_starman_and_some_large/
|
[
"Why would we panic. That spaceman is cool AF. ",
"A High-tech Mannequin went to Outer Space and All I Got was this Lousy T-shirt.",
"Yes, and they were printed in \"large, friendly letters\" across the guide 😉"
] | 3 |
pics
|
My buddy made a shirt with Starman and some large, friendly words after the SpaceX launch.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wwz22/eat_your_vegetables_its_good_for_you/
|
[
"Is this your OC, OP?",
"Oooh, baby bok choy! My, how your Brussels have sprouted!",
"You have a really nice head on your shoulders anyone ever tell you that? ",
"I'd fuck me...",
"Tossing the salad was never so healthy! ",
"I’d cover her in ranch"
] | 6 |
pics
|
Eat your vegetables, it's good for you.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wx2b6/if_knowledge_is_power_the_mark_zuckerberg_is/
|
[
"Unfair comparison to Data, that's like comparing chocolate ice cream to dog shit.",
"I agree actually. But this is funny. But also you can't deny the immense power he has based on the data and interpretations and correlations. ",
"/u/cosmicrush, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for violating the following rule(s):\n\n* Rule I - No pictures with added/superimposed digital elements.\n\n\n\nFor information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/about/rules/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/w/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/cosmicrush&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wx2b6/if_knowledge_is_power_the_mark_zuckerberg_is/?context=10\\))",
"Ye he needs some Gitmo time."
] | 4 |
pics
|
If knowledge is power, the Mark Zuckerberg is omnipotent.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wx2js/sammy_sosas_engagement_photo/
|
[
"Now that is a mamacita. Good for him ",
"Steroids....it's a helluva drug",
"I see this is after he went through the Michael Jackson program.",
"Why isn't Sammy Sosa darker skinned anymore?"
] | 4 |
pics
|
Sammy Sosa’s engagement photo.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wx414/my_latin_teachers_friend_giving_us_a/
|
[
"I think you mean 'Arcum et sagittas'.",
"He just nerded up to a whole nother level. ",
"Me paenitet",
"Where are they still teaching Latin?",
"Or archery?"
] | 5 |
pics
|
My Latin teacher’s friend giving us a demonstration about bows and arrows for extra credit.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wx4ce/olympic_speedskating_does_interesting_things_to/
|
[
"It does amazing things to the human body ",
"Hockey does this too. ",
"It makes you grow a pair of sunglasses out of your ass",
"Easy cowboy. I think people are commenting on her incredibly powerful lower body. I didn't even look at her chest until you pointed it out.",
"i think its a compliment to that sweet booty"
] | 5 |
pics
|
Olympic speed-skating does interesting things to the human body
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wx4ki/fake_brick_walls_at_mcdonalds/
|
[
"Next you will be saying the beef isn't real.",
"Probably brick veneer, or also called thin-brick. It's more cost effective but still has the same look as traditional brick. Not a bad solution if you have to renovate thousands of stores. ",
"Came here to say this. Not fake brick. Just thin brick. No, the wall isn't *made* of brick, true. Just a facade."
] | 3 |
pics
|
Fake brick walls at McDonalds.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wx6d6/this_persons_bewitching_jeep/
|
[
"That's hot.",
"Is it? Really?",
"Ya, red hot. "
] | 3 |
pics
|
This person's bewitching jeep
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wx75c/my_dad_found_a_way_to_reheat_leftover_muffins/
|
[
"Does it shoot them across the kitchen when they're done? ",
"That way tends to start fires. ",
"wouldn't they shoot across the kitchen when the toaster pops?",
"Or you could fucking microwave them. ",
"Yeah he actually said you need to clean out the debris from the bottom first or it’ll fall on the coils.",
"I can cook anything, if it fits in a toaster.",
"Or buy a toaster oven",
"This works with mini pizzas as well",
"I respect the fully thought out creativity. Kudos to him! ",
"Been doing this for years in the break room with leftover pizza.",
"Oh god not this meme again."
] | 11 |
pics
|
My dad found a way to reheat leftover muffins that had jam on them...
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wx7zw/the_lighting_and_filter_made_my_eyes_look_like/
|
[
"Those green eyes though!!!",
"blowing eyes they call it in my town",
"You misspelled 'lips'",
"If only there was some kind of device, somewhere, that you could purchase, that would alter the appearance of one of your eyes so that it seemed like you had heterochromia.",
"Whoa, that filter made it look like you have two heads too!"
] | 5 |
pics
|
The lighting and filter made my eyes look like they are different colors. I kinda wish they were now.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wx8hv/neighbours_daughter_upset_of_lack_of_female/
|
[
"NERF AccuStrike Series: AlphaHawk & FalconFire\n\n* 3 character / 3 featured boys / 0 girls\n* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twZsNMzvGBU\n\nElite Rhino Fire\n\n* 6 characters/ 3 featured boys / 0 girls\n* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNk7xFuQ9yk\n\n'Modulus Regulator Blaster'\n\n* 3-4 characters / 1 feature boy / 1 blurred out probable girl\n* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqzsGHpwJJE\n\nN-Strike Elite Firestrike, Disruptor, & Retaliator'\n\n* 5-6 character / 3 main boys / 1 possible girl\n* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2-WZDE-cw\n\n‘Elite Surgefire Blaster’\n\n* 5 characters / 2 main boys / 1 girl as background character\n* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHgb9qXAd4w\n\n'NERF Fest is Here!'\n\n* 15 characters / 8+ featured boys / 1 support girl / 1 blurred girl\n* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCbva1HJqVA\n\nZombie Strike Dreadbolt Crossbow'\n\n* 6 characters / 2 main boys / 2 zombies / **all boys have dialog** / 1 girl\n* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19vDYWgepmQ\n\nStar Wars - 'NERF Glowstrike Blasters'\n\n* **WAIT!** An actual girl as a main character after going through multiple other commercials!?\n* 2 characters - 1 girl / 1 boy\n* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFho6kom7XE\n",
"Sooo, there are girls in their ads....? ",
"I would say barely ... and certainly not an appropriate percentage.",
"You listed 8 examples... how is that not appropriate? ",
"I listed 8 examples where only 1 girl (debatably 2) had a main role ... and these are only the 2017 examples. Anyways... I've given a burden of proof... you now can show me why there shouldn't be a higher percentage of girls in main roles as in the last Star Wars commercial. If I had to guess it's probably only because they were contractually obligated for the Star Wars one.",
"To be fair, there's probably a similar gender gap in reverse for the Easy Bake Oven - which boys love to cook with also.\n\nBut yeah, gendered toys are definitely shown in commercials.",
"You're asking for artificial representation. \n\n\"Insert more girls, because... reasons\"\n\nAdvertisements are always going to play to their largest demographic. That's just how it works. \n\nYou're basically arguing for tokenism.",
"For sure... I was a little surprised at just how biased it was. At a younger age there were many toys that probably weren't advertised to my gender but I still wanted one anyways, and of course the Easy Bake was among them. Who didn't want delicious brownies they could make themselves. Though now as an adult I realize how shitty that toy actually is.\n",
"Sexism is sexism. Can't break stereotypes if you don't force change. Advertising to demographics doesn't make it right.",
"If you want to see how bad it is, walk into Toys R Us sometime and take note of the colors. There is an entire *pink* section - a full row at least, usually more. Then the Legos and such are all in dark blues & greens - the traditional 'boy' colors.",
"let me guess....\n\nshe also complains she only gets paid 73% of an allowance compared to a boy's allowance, and it's because of her sex too right?\n\nwho gives a shit.\n\nfact, nerf guns primary audience and consumer is boys, not girls. Kinda like why you see ZERO boys in barbie commercials, because most boys don't play with barbies.\n\ngo and do something productive... your daughter too",
"It's not sexism. You're reading into something that doesn't exist.\n\nYou *want* to be offended, when no offense is being given. ",
"Jesus, what is the age of consent in YOUR state? ",
"17? 18? idk...\n\nwhat does taht have to do with anything?"
] | 14 |
pics
|
Neighbours daughter upset of lack of female representation in Hasbro ads. So I put together a list of Nerf commercials and their female representation. Pretty abysmal.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxass/the_new_dart_board_hadnt_even_been_up_10_minutes/
|
[
"....and what?",
"Robin hood!",
"A Robin hood happened, dart got stuck in the back of another dart",
"Ohh I see it now. It almost looks like it was further away, on the 8.",
"We are men! Men in tights!!",
"TIGHT tights!",
"This is next. http://i.imgur.com/aT85i5Q.jpg"
] | 7 |
pics
|
The new dart board hadn't even been up 10 minutes yet
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxaua/it_was_2am_and_i_had_to_rub_my_eyes_twice_to_see/
|
[
"What do you mean? She’s clearly just giving her shoulders a rest...what’s the big deal?",
"That's quite a spine, indeed.",
"I, too, have no neck",
"2am in the sunshine?",
"This looks vintage.",
"r/hmmm",
"Time to get a new watch OP",
"She got stegosaurus back",
"It was 2AM for me when I saw this, not 2AM in the picture.\n\n",
"So... sexy? I don't know. Is that what skinny-fat is?",
"Well the dark is OPs light so it makes sense",
"Yeah, there is a board holding up the body on the other side. Someone put her decapitated head down on the side and used glue to keep the eyes open.",
"So do you see into the future or the past?",
"Nice catch! Thanks for the chuckle",
"🎶It’s 2 up in the Mormon’ girl and the DJ’s playin that song 🎵",
"2 am in London ",
"Clearly the future. Severed heads currently don't have the technology to exist. ",
"It’s pretty obvious to me that OP was not the one to take the picture ",
"Maybe it's a swimming pool in Alaska.",
"Hard to see what someone would be confused about - seems a pretty obvious freshly decapitated woman holding her own head over the pool.",
"https://youtu.be/4WMmAfpSANs",
"I'm not proud, but ...",
"“ you’re never going to believe what was clogging the drain! “",
"That's absurd! Who would post something to the internet that wasn't original content? Not in my world.",
"That is one kind of head I do not want.",
"Maybe it was 2am and you were not thinking straight. It's pretty easy to see what they are doing.",
"You're obviously a mutant with time warping powers.",
"Please stop with the title gore. ",
"In the far north there are periods of 24hr sunshine",
"If you call that fat, I must be gargantuan lol",
"This isn’t real. She would be ded. ",
"A few feet to the right, and the shrubs would help mask the bit of hair visible.",
"I think skinny-fat is where you're thin but have no muscle tone. Basically you eat a decent amount of calories to maintain a low BMI, but you dont get much exercise so there's no muscle either. You're a skeleton with flabby muscles.",
"I mean, it's portable, pretty and likely won't have attachment issues...",
"perfect click",
"Great idea! I'll take it all but the talking part.",
"They must not have looked at your username.",
"Yes, it's true. This man has no neck.",
"She gives pretty good head?",
"Could you elaborate",
"You aren't very smart are you?",
"Nah it's where your BMI is normal for your body size but there's little to no muscle definition and lots of hidden fat.",
"Hellooooo nightmaresss my olddd friend ",
"I'd kill for those eyebrows ",
"You're not kidding, when I saw this I had to rub your eyes a few times too.",
"If that woman keeps bending her head forward that extremely, she’s going to get a herniated disc.",
"Still cute.",
"Anyone would craning their neck like that.",
"NO NECK JOE !!!",
"Bet that hurt. Lol",
"Well that's what I heard!",
"Ahahaha. It is very funny",
"Who has no legs to swim.",
"Ez karma",
"This is an example of [horsemaning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsemaning), a photography fad in the 1920s.",
"I couldn't give a flying fuck what's going on, but god damn is that girl's face nice to look at.",
"great, i really like this",
"Dope album cover, I love this band, so hot right now.",
"What you doing up at 2AM?",
"What're you on about? That top CLEARLY doesn't match with that bottom!\n\nSeemed obvious enough to me at least...",
"We call ours spinosaurus. Do you got one?",
"That \"head\" - she looks like Amy Winehouse",
"Imagine if the girl in the pool was on her period. It would be way more convincing",
"Shouldn't her head be facing the other direction?",
"Easy...she's sucking her own titties while helping her friend stay above water.",
"She's not skinny-fat. She's skinny.",
"Eh, they are very alright but not the best out there to start killing for.",
"I rubbed my penis.\n",
"2AM yesterday when you saw this on reddit and then decided it needed to be reposted less than 24 hours later?",
"Not real - eye makeup isn't smudged after being in the pool !!\n\n;)",
"Futurama in 1, 2, 1 2 3!",
"Rule 34",
"OP works at the South Pole confirmed.",
"...",
"Maybe it is North of the Arctic circle.",
"I had to rub my whole body. ",
"I had to rub my eyes to make sure she was actually wearing that much eye makeup to the pool. ",
"2am and the sun is out?",
"Okay I can't think of exactly how the line goes but this makes me think of that line from Dirk Gentry's Holistic Detective Agency where the police detective is complaining about overly clever suicides. It's been a really long time since I read that book.",
"There's a video about that. NSFW. Should never have been made. Comedy/Gore/Porn.",
"Link?! don't just say something like that and leave us with nothing....",
"comedygoreporn.net thx",
"MAGIC ABRA KA DABRA",
"Shut up, Todd! ",
"Yea, so many compression artifacts in this I can hardly look at it either.",
"No need. She's quite clearly already dead. You can have them. ",
"My immediate reaction was, \"Well, that's not too hard to do in Photosho--ohhhh.\"",
"I'm more disturbed at what you were googling at 2 am to find this.",
"general reposti",
"Obviously - I think OP was referring to the swagger eyebrow raise from the dead girl's head. That's a pretty cool post-mortem trick.",
"What the heck is that? It's not even 2 AM. Is OP for real?",
"Time zones...",
"r/fakealbumcovers",
"Hidden fat? Lol😂I love ignorance on reddit. And the down posts for people pointing out the obvious is even better. ",
"Everyone does, but if you're too fat you never really see it.",
"Can confirm, I'm too fat",
"Anyone seeking more info might also check here:\n\ntitle | points | age | /r/ | comnts\n:--|:--|:--|:--|:--\n[Val the phantom of the hotel pool](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bossfight/comments/7tt19i/val_the_phantom_of_the_hotel_pool/) | 515| 13^days | Bossfight| 8\n[Keeping her head above water ](https://www.reddit.com/r/confusing_perspective/comments/7toef0/keeping_her_head_above_water/) | 11000| 14^days| confusing_perspective| 125\n",
"Pretty easy once you explain it.",
"This is me. I'm shaped like a normal person, but there's almost no muscle at all underneath. I have a 34\" waist but if you stab me in the gut with a needle you wouldn't hit abs.",
"Actual skinnyfat person here. Nah, that's just lighting and the pose smoothing out lines.",
"I see. The spinous processes wouldn't be sticking out if she wasn't lurching her head forward I guess.",
"10/10 would slash",
"should probably stop dropping your head in the pool so you don't have to rub your eyes.",
"TIL! Thanks",
"Alright dad",
"Whaddaya call a guy with no arms or legs out for a swim?\n\nBob",
"Woah, 1920s memes. ",
"Yeah along with dressing up your dead and posing with them in photos as if they were alive...",
"Reddit needs the Karma police!",
"Its exactly the kind I want!",
"Username checks out",
"Hmm tru...\n\nYou have me there.",
"Totally looks like 2 am there. ",
"Her name? Bobbi.",
"[Here you go](https://www.runnersworld.co.uk/health/weight-loss/hidden-fat-and-how-to-beat-it) \n",
"I believe in her",
"But what about her ass?",
"I want to see this done with a black man's head and a white woman's body",
"someone please make this a subreddit",
"Looks like a photo from the Netherworld of Beetlejuice.",
"Scrolling down: See Also: Planking (fad)\n\nApparently the only fad to also be interested in.",
"That's just a beta unit starfighter.....\"Louis, you're having a terrible nightmare. Go back to sleep.\"\n\n\nFor those that were not fortunate enough to be raised in the 80s and know the reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9dK32LLtY0\n\n",
"If NBCs Olympic coverage was more like this, it would be a great improvement. "
] | 122 |
pics
|
It was 2AM and I had to rub my eyes twice to see whats going on.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxay1/people_brave_the_snow_to_support_officer_killed/
|
[
"[Story] (http://www.9news.com/article/news/massive-law-enforcement-response-after-officer-involved-shooting-in-colorado-springs/73-515040427)",
"If only the community showed half as much support for each individual killed by police officers.",
"This....\n\nI'll care about fallen officers when they care about fallen innocents, like the dude who got swatted, and then promptly shot in the face for no reason."
] | 3 |
pics
|
People brave the snow to support officer killed on 11 year anniversary with the force
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxb40/a_picture_of_my_grandpa_who_passed_away_two_years/
|
[
"https://i.imgur.com/P3tNruK.jpg\n\nBest I can do on my phone. I can try again on my desktop later. ",
"Will this do?\n\n[Imgur](https://i.imgur.com/6v6Se7k.jpg)",
"Is this a scan of a physical photo? You need to get a much higher resolution scan and not use nearly as much compression. ",
"I agree with bumnut at this resolution there's not much to be done. rescan the photo or if you used a camera to take a photo of the original u8se a highest resolution you can. still no guaranties. ",
"I can see that now. I will try to locate the original photo and a better scanner. ",
"You are technically correct. ",
"/u/SpaceHorsePolice, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for violating the following rule(s):\n\n* Rule IV - Title violates title guidelines.\n\nYour title must not ask for general information or feedback. \n\nYou can read the full information about our title guidelines at /r/pics/w/titles\n\n\n\n\nFor information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/about/rules/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/w/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/SpaceHorsePolice&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wxb40/a_picture_of_my_grandpa_who_passed_away_two_years/?context=10\\))"
] | 7 |
pics
|
A picture of my Grandpa who passed away two years ago. Is there any way to fix this photo?
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxb7p/last_march_mark_mcmorris_broke_his_jaw_and_his/
|
[
"He probably told his parents he was going to stay at his friend’s place for a few weeks to study or something. ",
"i was hoping he was american, simply to ask what costs more, the medical bill or paying to keep the medal",
"Cool. I twisted my ankle and I had to miss work for a week. I work from home. ",
"Talk about some god damn perseverance. That boys got some mighty fine D-N-A. ",
"You have to pay to keep the medal?",
"yes",
"for anyone wandering how that happened \n\n> In March, McMorris was riding in the backcountry near Whistler, British Columbia, when he went off a jump and crashed into a tree, resulting in a broken jaw, broken left arm, ruptured spleen, a pelvic fracture, rib fractures and a collapsed lung. ",
"I don't believe it - that photo clearly shows a medal from the 2014 Olympics. ",
"Does that say Sochi 2014 on the ribbon of his medal?",
"Poor photo choice. He won bronze in both 2014 and in 2018",
"What can be accomplished by not learning your lesson.",
"Maybe if he would have broken more bones he could have done better?",
"Just to show that the winter Olympics are a joke because they only give half medals.",
"Last March i bought a years worth of contacts that last a month per pair.\n\nThis past weekend i bought another years worth, then found three pairs of contacts I hadn't yet used.",
"No, the US Olympic Committee (which is a private corporation unlike many country's committee's which are government funded) gives monetary awards for medals and the medal winner has to pay tax on that which is often interpreted aa a tax on medals. ",
"And.... A friendly reminder of how I’m wasting my life as I sit around 2:30 in the AM getting high.",
"It's amazing what money can do\n\nEdit: nvm he was treated in Canada\n\nI are dumb...",
"wait, they don't get taxed on it as a gift?",
"Some people never learn",
"I twisted my ankle 5 years ago and only recently noticed quite happily that I no longer have pain from it. Slipped hands first on ice 8 years ago, still feel that.\n\nHow the hell do you get out of the physical equivalent of a train crash and make it to gold medal level a year later!? ",
"Yeah, nah, we all know the [real story](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dFTusBp0aT8). Poor Rick, even had to go so far as to change his name and move to a country with affordable health care in an attempt to escape his painful past.",
"Soooo you lost",
"Yes, but he won a medal this year too.",
"Drugs and aggressive physiotherapy. ",
"I just watched the story about him a few days ago... WOW, sooooo close to death. The guys did an amazing job keeping him alive and its mindblowing that after all of that he was able to win a bronze!!!",
"That's some mighty fine health care you've got there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.",
"You're right, sorry for OP's error, here's his [2018 Medal] (http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/B97763072Z.120180211151431000G4NJQ8AA.11.jpg)",
"Am I related to an Olympian?",
"true dedication. that photo is from sotschi (2014) though.",
"I've been to Whistler before and didn't end up in the hospital. Maybe I can be an Olympic gold medalist.",
"Please explain",
"Was listening to an interview on the radio this morning coming to work with him on it.\n\nHe was asked if he ever thought he might not come back, and said he had to hit his friend for suggesting it's okay if he wanted to be done with snowboarding. Seems like a chill dude honestly.",
"So they are giving medals out? I saw some people get these Asian teddy bears with spinning shit on the hats and was very confused ",
"Why does his medal say 2014 ",
"Stop with the damn reposts making the front page ",
"It must be easy as shit to get a gold medal.",
"*bronze medal",
"He was treated in Canada, fwiw",
"He went to my high school! Dropped out before grade 11. The school never once mentioned his success because he didn't graduate. ",
"Technically, it's impossible that you're not.",
"Yeah, but he's Canadian. They have healthcare.",
"That’s it? - James Comey",
"That's that exclusive white people medicine. Same place they were able to cure those doctors with ebola came from. \n\nHad it been a minority athlete, dude would be dead by now. ",
"Back country though. You need to hire a helicopter pilot to get back there.",
"You don't know me!",
"They did a piece (documentary) on him. Had actual film of the crash. The story was amazing. It was on CBC (which kicks ass on NBC for the Olympics). ",
"I'm confused. Is OP saying those were the reasons he is an olympic medalist?",
"I love this story. So awesome. ",
"I've never heard what a spleen does, but I've heard of multiple people rupturing them. I suppose their main purpose is to get ruptured.",
"So he lost then.",
"I reckon I could fuck myself up as badly as he did. But I know I couldn't have come back from it in the same way.... that's what make a hero/Olympian truly inspirational stuff",
"Only bronze huh? Meh.",
"Your mother is a strong woman!\n",
"100% true. If you go back far enough...you're related to everything. My (cousin's cousin's cousin) x N^x+1 is a great white shark.",
"Please, you're clearly a dog."
] | 55 |
pics
|
Last March, Mark McMorris broke his jaw and his left arm, fractured his pelvis and ribs, ruptured his spleen and collapsed his left lung. Today he's a bronze medalist at the Olympics.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxbpj/heres_an_8_shot_panorama_of_the_pleasure_pier_in/
|
[
"r/accidentalWesAnderson",
"Thanks for that! I didn’t even think about it",
">named Pleasure Pier \n\n>not in the shape of a penis \n \ncome on !",
"Hahaha"
] | 4 |
pics
|
Here’s an 8 shot panorama of the Pleasure Pier in Galveston, Tx.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxc2x/when_she_takes_a_break_from_destroying_the_house/
|
[
"Perky pup.",
"What kind of dog is she? She beautiful! Makes me think of Basenji, but I'm probably way off. ",
"This is a rare breed called Longus Neckus Puppus.",
"The rescue wasn’t sure, I did a dna test and it came up Alaskan Malamute and Staffordshire Terrier... Not sure how accurate that is though!",
"My dog looks very similar to yours and the rescue didn't know for mine either",
"Scooby Doo lookalike! My pup has landscaped our backyard and ruined 3 sets of shoes ..I feel your pain. ",
"Thankfully my shoes have been safe, but to date she’s eaten part of a door, a lot of woodwork, and several chairs..."
] | 7 |
pics
|
When she takes a break from destroying the house, my dog can be pretty majestic
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxc3j/sand_under_a_microscope/
|
[
"Nucking Futs",
"That’s my wallpaper for the moment ",
"Looks like an eccentric witches’ assortment of spell ingredients.",
"I'd this what you'd see from any typical beach sand? Or is this some specific sand?",
"Sneaky snails and bokoblin guts, throw in a lizfalo horn and a keese wing, and a dragon horn to make it last a long time. Yum.",
"I really want to eat some of those ",
"This is more \"a collection of interesting things you could find in sand\" rather than \"typical sand\"",
"More similar stuff in /r/MacroPorn and /r/GeologyPorn",
"Something about this picture is very unsettling. ",
"Credit /u/\tBarelyLethal\n\n\nTottally fake. Actual sand just looks like this: http://img02.deviantart.net/3386/i/2011/356/5/c/sand_magnified_by_rlhcreations-d4jxocv.jpg\n\nSand is small but it's not so small that you can't make out the general particle appearance.",
"Isn’t this the “I spy” book cover? ",
"Inaccurate at best... ",
"Still kinda pretty.",
"not fake, just sand from a coral reef"
] | 15 |
pics
|
Sand under a microscope.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxd5i/there_was_an_idiot_in_front_of_me_at_a_traffic/
|
[
"r/idiotsincars",
"Maybe they were ready to die.",
"Well, it IS a Lincoln owner.",
"Natural selection should be rolling though any second now...",
"Ah, light rail at BWI. Bet he'll get a ticket for waiting too long at the curb. "
] | 5 |
pics
|
There was an idiot in front of me at a traffic light today
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxeik/alec_baldwin_plays_a_good_trump_but_he_actually/
|
[
"It looks like this post is about US Politics. Various methods of filtering out content relating to US Politics can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/v2/resources/filter/politics).\n\n*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pics) if you have any questions or concerns.*",
"I see Bill Murray",
"It's a shame there isn't much sketch comedy featuring Millard Fillmore, one of a number of America's \"meh\" presidents.",
"Nope."
] | 4 |
pics
|
Alec Baldwin plays a good Trump, but he actually looks a lot like Millard Fillmore.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxgmp/my_friends_cabin_in_cecilia_kentucky/
|
[
"As someone who has never been to Kentucky this is my idea of what a normal house in Kentucky looks like.",
"Do you mean Dale and stickers cottage?",
"Do you often hear banjos?",
"this is definately kentucky alright",
"I've seen enough Cabin In The Woods shows to know you don't go in that cabin in the woods. ",
"My friend lives on a farm where he has a bunch of land and a really nice house. The cabin was a project of his own.",
"Beat me to the banjo comment. Take your upvote.",
"Couldn’t hear any last night, it was raining too bad! ",
"I recently watched The Ritual on Netflix and this is the exact type of cabin they’re not supposed to go to, but of course they do anyways",
"I just watched that last night. Not a great movie, but not bad either. And yes, they obviously have never seen any horror movie ever...you never go into the cabin in the woods. ",
"You’re right, not a great movie but not bad either. ",
"Drop them britches, c'mon now. "
] | 12 |
pics
|
My friend’s cabin in Cecilia, Kentucky
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxh35/firefly_squid_arriving_at_the_shore/
|
[
"> Firefly squid\n\nSo a fireswim?",
"you would not believe your eyes",
"Enjoy it while you can, it'll be cancelled after one season...",
"[Only twice before have I had the good fortune to observe a rubber tide](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/a7da1fef-c5c4-413e-99ee-a1027571864d)"
] | 4 |
pics
|
Firefly squid arriving at the shore
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxhrr/beautiful_green_and_white_strips/
|
[
"Lilies of the Valley beautiful flowers, my mother had them planted outside our home. ",
"When the weather is warm, I will do it, too.",
"I only wish I had a yard to plant in. But I've even failed at container gardening here in Wisconsin.",
"Looks a little washed out to me. I'm not an expert, though. Is this the raw original?",
"I just took the photo, no modification. Uniform water spraying is made by special spray nozzles."
] | 5 |
pics
|
Beautiful Green and White Strips
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxhtm/found_some_guy_dressed_in_usa_outfit_at_the/
|
[
"Looks like Shawn white",
"Looks kind of like Harry Potter. ",
"Never heard of him",
"It is",
"Is that Justin Timberlake?",
"I think that’s OP on the left.",
"You are correct :D",
"I’ll tell you who he is if you steal his bird handling gloves for me. K thx bai",
"That’s a good Carrot Top impersonator.",
"One of the best snowboarders in American history right there, the flying tomato aka Shawn mothafuckin white",
"That’s Michael Phelps",
"I think you meant Sean Connery",
"I’ll take rough for 300 ",
"Shaun White ? \n\nEdit : I didn’t know who he really was, I don’t watch this sport and it’s the only name I knew. And I only know Lindsay vonn? Cause she was fucking Tiger Tiger Tiger wooods y’all !",
"I heard he hates the flying tomato name.\n\nToo bad cause I thought it was cool. I miss the long hair too but he looks more stylish now.",
"Leaving the Super Bowl, yes.",
"Real question is what are you doing at the Olympics, OP?",
"He said USA, come on!",
"Carrot top?",
"He has never of you either! Hahah or me for that matter. ",
"You don’t know that 🤪",
"You know damn well who that is, and you're making a passive aggressive humble brag post for karma.",
"Oh snap...",
"I do now many people have posted who he is. Thanks Reddit ",
"Man without the hair I have no clue who he is. I see his face on video games, Olympic medal pics, the dew tour but without the long flow I don't know who it is.",
"Jack Black I think "
] | 25 |
pics
|
Found some guy dressed in USA outfit at the Olympics. Can you guys help me find out who he is.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxi2r/so_youre_saying/
|
[
"No, there's no chance. All this means is that the divorce was final and the ex-wife moved out on April 26, 1968.",
"Same sex marriage. Only explanation.",
"I liked Dave Barry's take:\n\nOn this site, 387 people have died being hit by cars while trying to cross the road to see what this sign says."
] | 3 |
pics
|
So you're saying...
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxii1/25_years/
|
[
"“Men age like wine, women age like milk”...debunked!!!! ",
"Hello snarkness. My old friend.",
"three brothers and the dad? ",
"I think we’ve held up well!",
"Supremacists? ",
"Huh? Wear a suit and you’re a supremacist?\n\nOk. ",
"Asking for a friend. ",
"If you're the one on the far right, you made a great haircut decision",
"This really shows the importance of fill flash to fill the eye sockets.",
"In ‘89 that lid was on point",
"r/trump needs there banner back",
"What does that mean? Trump can eat a Bag!",
"These dudes look like old racist trump supporters ",
"You’re an idiot. ",
"Why is that?",
"Because you’re a judgmental dipshit ",
"You don’t think the majority of Drumpf supporters are old racist white dudes?",
"And what are you? A perfectly multi racial, young, woke person?",
"I’m just being honest. Those guys all look like Tom Lodge or Ollie North",
"I agree. The comment was those dudes faces look like actual republican senators faces"
] | 20 |
pics
|
25 Years
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxirv/absinthe_my_bottle_came_in_a_vincent_vanvan/
|
[
"Gogh is one of my favorites...this made my night, where’d you get it?? ",
"I got some of this on a boat from Finland to Sweden! ABSINTHE\n",
"One of the jobs I'm at right now is a local liquor store, this one bottle was dusty on the top shelf and I snatched it. The brand is Absente and it is supposed to be a similar brew of which Van Gogh enjoyed. According to the box lol. But it claims to be absolutely legitimate Absinthe being the only brand available when the ban was lifted. Wormwood and all, but of course there are no hallucinogenic properties. Just a dumbfoundedly high alcohol content.",
"It's delicious for anyone who has a taste for black licorice. Slight green tint to it. Did you enjoy it?",
"Oh yes, I'm a big fan! I always pour it over a sugar cube and its delicious. ",
"it should have an absinthe spoon attached to it as well. I carry about 5 different brands of absinthe in my store.",
"Came with a straining spoon as well and the box says to pour water over the cube on the spoon. Pretty cool stuff, delicious!",
"Yep it has the spoon attached, the top of it has a four eyed Van Gogh staring at you as you pour lol. It's pretty cool."
] | 8 |
pics
|
ABSINTHE my bottle came in a Vincent VanVan GoghGogh box!
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxj5k/77_manute_bol_and_53_muggsy_bogues/
|
[
"Trying to think of a clever ball juggling comment.......",
"... but you came up short?",
"\"Mugsy could suck his balls while standing up straight!\"",
"Manute’s rocking some badass shoes. ",
"At least Muggsy's got muscles ",
"Ran into him with my mom at a grocery store when I was very young. He drove a Jeep.",
"Damn that fool is tall af.",
"Which one? You make a reference to a singular person but there are two pictured",
"Solid point. Mr. Bol is who I meant. Jeep was for head room.",
"They're a package deal. Manute Bol quickly realized that the context of his height is most accentuated by Muggsy Bogues. And vice versa. So they agreed to travel together until the end of time. They each steer one half of the wheel on the Jeep.",
"Sadly, Manute Bol passed away in 2010 :(",
"Spud Webb is only 5-7 and win the dunk contest. "
] | 12 |
pics
|
7-7 Manute Bol and 5-3 Muggsy Bogues
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxj6c/hmm_tough_decision_for_family_movie_night/
|
[
"Cruel Intentions does involve family...relations.",
"Hot moist relations",
"/u/vocino, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for violating the following rule(s):\n\n* Rule I - No screenshots. This includes pictures of screens and photos where the interest is the contents of a screen.\n\n\n\nFor information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/about/rules/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/w/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/vocino&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/7wxj6c/hmm_tough_decision_for_family_movie_night/?context=10\\))"
] | 3 |
pics
|
Hmm, tough decision for family movie night.
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxk15/running_beauty/
|
[
"Cats, big and small, are damn majestic. ",
"“I’m gonna get you, sucka.”",
"Terrifying, yet his face is so calm and nonchalant. ",
"This will stay in the back of my mind every time I go hiking.",
"Quite the impressive murder mitten you have there",
"The tail almost looks like a human hand. ",
"I wish Cougars came with eyebrows so you could tell how pissed off they are killing shit",
"Its shitting one out after devouring someone. ",
"Murder Kitten",
"That's my kind of cougar.",
"My Google search for 'cougar eyebrows' returned some interesting results. ",
"Rombauer Chardonnay in Action",
"Story time!\n\nMy family lived out in the deep woods on a mountain home in Pennsylvania when I was a kid. We only lived there a few years, but I went on so many adventures there. Brown bears and mountain lions (like this one) were common predators there. \n\nI remember one morning coming out onto the deck to walk down the hill and wait for the bus to pick me up for my daily 45 minute ride to elementary school.\n\nAs soon as I turned the corner, on a small hill about 50 feet from me, a full grown mountain lion was feeding on the remains of a deer.\n\nWhen she saw me, she immediately perked up and went into that cat pounce stance. I knew she was ready to attack. That deer carcass was laying there for last few days so there was no meat on the bones to sate her appetite. Even though I was young, I knew the score, there was going to be no way I could run back into the house before she sprinted to me. She was easily bigger than I was at that stage of my life, so I was not even going to be able to defend myself. I just stood there frozen staring into her eyes and she stared into mine. That moment seem to last forever, but it was only a few seconds.\n\nThen, for whatever reason, she jerked her head and ears back and just took off running down the hill the other direction. I just took a huge sigh of relief and started walking down the hill the other direction to the bus stop. \n\nLooking back on those days now, living out there on those mountains I was like Mowgli from the Jungle Book. I had so many run-ins with animals (including bears). I always played up in the Appalachian mountains everyday after school, going on adventures and exploring the land. It’s a wonder I didn’t get myself killed 10 times over."
] | 13 |
pics
|
Running beauty
|
|
/r/pics/comments/7wxkgx/only_in_japan/
|
[
"I just need one blue shell... ",
"I’ve done this, was in Japan in July of last year; so much fun, and yet so scary! Pulling up next to a touring buss, in a go-cart dressed as Yoshi, is quite the experience.",
"So you ride a kart in the city? Or is there a few streets designated to karting?\n",
"No, you straight up drive with normal traffic, through various neighborhoods of Tokyo. The carts are street legal, with mini-license plates, Break and headlights, as well as turn signals. Super fun, but you feel every small bump."
] | 4 |
pics
|
Only in Japan
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.