How do you define fake news, and which news sources do you trust?

[Machiavelli]

Here are two interrelated questions for you:

• How do you define fake news?
• Which news sources do you trust?

[LateForLunch]

Here are two interrelated questions for you:

• How do you define fake news?
• Which news sources do you trust?

hah hah that's an easy one. The leftist mass media's unrelenting, abject, monstrously unrepentant mendacity provides the exact opposite of reliable news. I just naturally assume that anything the leftist mass media reports (or advocates through editorials) represents the OPPOSITE of whatever they want people to believe it to be. If they report something as the truth, I naturally assume that it is fallacious. If they represent it as moral, right minded and innocuous, I know for a virtually certainty that it is amoral, craven and pernicious.

It doesn't ALWAYS work but it works so often and so well that I rarely have to do much individual research because eventually just scanning watchdog sites/talk radio (Drudge, Breitbart, WND, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt and their affiliates) provides accurate cross-checking references for authentic topical information sources for any issue which rises to the top of the new cycle ( especially those which "grow legs" or "tank treads").

For matters concerning militant fundie muzz shenanigans there is the ever-ready Jihad Watch and affiliates (Apostate.com) . Also there is Dr. Sebastian Gorka's site/articles. Mark Stein (Limbaugh's sub) is also generally up on the most current muzz horrors as well.

For matters of DC/Beltway stuff there is Hugh Hewitt.

For Constitutional law / history of government there is no better source than the Great One (Mark Levin). He has never been wrong in any historical reference, nor on any prediction of court behavior that I am aware. He will disagree often with the Men in Black but he never misses the mark (heh) in regard to the crux of the legal issues (i.e. he knows the excuses that the activist judges will commonly use to violate the law and legislate from the bench under pretext of "interpretation").

For specific matters of foreign policy, there is always John Bolton's site/articles.

[EC]

Here are two interrelated questions for you:

• How do you define fake news?
• Which news sources do you trust?

1/ Fake news - where the story and the actual facts aren't even in the same building. Biased news, where the facts are present but slanted, is a different kettle of fish. All news is biased.

2/ News sources I trust - none. I will give slightly more credence to any news source (left or right) that has a long term, predictable bias to it, enabling me to see the wood for the verbal trees, especially if they source their reports. Any video news is treated as pure propaganda - it's far easier to lie on film than it is in print.

[kevindavis007]

Here is a list of fake news sites:
https://fayeknooz.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/925/[/size][/font]

[Sanguine]

I don't think there is one way to do it.  Even the National Enquirers get it right sometimes, and even Fox/Washington Times/whatever get it wrong sometimes.  And, understand that we can all be mislead.  You have to be willing and able to question and adjust.

[LateForLunch]

I don't think there is one way to do it.  Even the National Enquirers get it right sometimes, and even Fox/Washington Times/whatever get it wrong sometimes.  And, understand that we can all be mislead.  You have to be willing and able to question and adjust.

Beautifully stated, Sanguine!!
That is the essence of what those who promulgate misinformation count on - THAT MOST PEOPLE WHO CONSUME NEWS DON'T OR WON'T take the time to verify with an objective source what they are told.

Since roughly the Viet Nam era, mass media has become a strategic weapon in itself. Owing to their knowledge of effective methods of propagandizing, leftist mass media entities have become especially adroit at using words in this way (as munitions).

Once we understand how this works, it becomes more apparent that words have multiple dimensions of usefulness, but in a strategic sense, the most important one is the EFFECT THAT THEY CREATE BY THEIR DISEMINATION.

People need to learn to question, 'What is the purpose of the words I am reading/hearing from this person?" People need to learn to ask themselves, "Is the author/speaker trying to convince me of something (acting as an advocate) or trying to inform me of something (acting as an educator) or doing one under guise of the other?

One of the principles of detective work is to discern the motive for actions. Much of the clues about the validity or bogus nature of information lies in understanding the motive of the person wielding the words. Until people endeavor to practice critical thinking in the classical sense (believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see until it is verified by a trusted source), we will continue to be routinely deceived, misled and hoodwinked by despots, conmen, psychopaths and thieves. 

http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/heres-most-influential-person-of-20th-and-21st-centuries/#!

[Sanguine]

.....Until people endeavor to practice critical thinking in the classical sense (believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see until it is verified by a trusted source), we will continue to be routinely deceived, misled and hoodwinked by despots, conmen, psychopaths and thieves... 

That warms the cockles of my heart!