Doppelgänger
New
And post "none of the above" if you don't agree. The forum limited how many I could list. :)
Some sites use a variety of sources some reputable some not. What I try to do is, when possible, click through to get as close to the original source as possible. Then I see if I can find other reliable corroborating sources. Then I go see what the other side says and check their sources and corroborations etc. This sounds hard but with google it isn't too bad. In the end you have to use your own judgment. Of course determining if a source is reliable is not always easy. Often the mainstream media insert their bias in subtle ways or repeat canards that have been debunked long ago. I am always suspicious when they seem to be quoting someone but don't actually use quotation marks.
The most reliable sources, in my opinion, are experts who blog that I have read for a while and have come to trust. By experts I mean people who have a career, like a lawyer who blogs about law, or a scientist who blogs about his specialty. The political bloggers and the news commentators I do not find to be reliable. And you should be most suspicious about stories that agree with your bias since you will be less likely to think critically about them.
On sites like infowars, zerohenge, corbett, I always make sure I understand their sources. Sometimes they are okay, sometimes I don't really trust them.
One thing I find dangerous is scanning headlines without looking at the articles because often the headlines are misleading or the articles are not from reliable sources. Drudge is often bad this way although I do look at the site.
http://observer.com/2016/11/the-kremlin-didnt-sink-hillary-obama-did/
Democratic panic about Russian disinformation neglects to mention that it was the White House that refused to stop it
...
Nearly a year ago, the State Department created a Counter-Disinformation Team, inside its Bureau of International Information Programs, as a small, start-up effort to resist Russian disinformation. Consisting of only a handful of staffers, it was supposed to expose the most laughable Moscow lies about America and the West that are disseminated regularly via RT and other outlets. They created a beta website and prepared to wage the struggle for truth online.
Alas, their website never went live. Recently the State Department shut down the tiny Counter-Disinformation Team and any efforts by the Obama administration to resist Putin’s propaganda can now be considered dead before birth. Intelligence Community sources tell me that it was closed out of a deep desire inside the White House “not to upset the Russians.”
Actually, I'm little interested in the concept of 'fake' news.
Much more interesting is: what is 'news'? What one person considers newsworthy may be of no interest whatsoever to another person. Just because certain topics are pushed forward and hence become a de facto definition of what is news, doesn't make it so. The topics which are not even mentioned, not faked, just ignored, may be the real news.
I remember when I was in my late teens I found the news very disturbing and hardly ever watched/listened to/read it. Some years later I felt it (following the news) was almost a 'grown up' sort of thing to do. But nowadays I'm almost back where I started, I hardly follow the news apart from fragments here and there, but I do so for different reasons. If I'm going to invest my time and energy into something, I want to consciously choose what that will be, not abandon responsibility for what I'm absorbing. This is analogous to choosing what food to include in my diet.I hardly ever watch "the news" (whatever that is or means) and I don't read much from newspapers now (I used to). I refuse to be wound up and I feel better for it.
Actually, I'm little interested in the concept of 'fake' news.
Much more interesting is: what is 'news'? What one person considers newsworthy may be of no interest whatsoever to another person. Just because certain topics are pushed forward and hence become a de facto definition of what is news, doesn't make it so. The topics which are not even mentioned, not faked, just ignored, may be the real news.
Republican e-mails were hacked and posted on-line. Why was all the dirt on republicans suppressed? There was no dirt.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291317-gop-emails-leaked-on-site-connected-to-russian-hackers
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.