• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Frank Hovis

Fake News

Recommended Posts

What is this really?

About the time of the US election there was a rash of related clickbait stories that were obvious lies (Trump Divorce!) but these soon died down as people ceased clicking on them.

Beyond this you have the usual bias of outlets like the So-Called BBC who spin things ridiculously. A good recent example being Mark Sampson being sacked as England women's football manager for behaviour in a previous job in Bristol but vast prominence given to the non-story of the black player who falsely shouted "racism" so that you went away thinking that was why he was sacked.

Then you have the omissions - the absence of MSM stories on the long list of suspicious deaths linked to the Clintons stands out. 

So once you take out the spin, the omission, and a very short-lived round of actual fake news in 2016 what is actually left?

So why would fake news "worries" be growing? Unless it is more propaganda to justify control of the internet as is clear from the story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41319683

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protectionism, they will introduce kite marks do you can identify "quality news" or some shit, license use of it to MSM compliant news outlets then go after social sites that allow non kite marked news stories, then indie news sites, blogs etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, Facebook revealed that it is to reveal to congress the extent of Russian Advert on its platform that MAY have been political. BBC stays they spent a large amount on advertising on facebook to pervert the election.  Well, it is revealed, those Russians that MAY have spent politically was around $50,000.

out of a total ad revenue for a year of $26.8 BILLION.

BBC rubbing their hands...at these 3000 ads that MAY have been political.

No mention of the allowed memes of Trumps behaviour without evidence and the banning of memes about Clinton because that is Hate speach.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

What is this really?

About the time of the US election there was a rash of related clickbait stories that were obvious lies (Trump Divorce!) but these soon died down as people ceased clicking on them.

Beyond this you have the usual bias of outlets like the So-Called BBC who spin things ridiculously. A good recent example being Mark Sampson being sacked as England women's football manager for behaviour in a previous job in Bristol but vast prominence given to the non-story of the black player who falsely shouted "racism" so that you went away thinking that was why he was sacked.

Then you have the omissions - the absence of MSM stories on the long list of suspicious deaths linked to the Clintons stands out. 

So once you take out the spin, the omission, and a very short-lived round of actual fake news in 2016 what is actually left?

So why would fake news "worries" be growing? Unless it is more propaganda to justify control of the internet as is clear from the story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41319683

WTF?

Quote

The independent review clears Sampson and his staff of wrongdoing but it is understood that Aluko was paid £80,000 in a confidentiality agreement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big thing in the MSM is their so called "fact checking"

Often it is no more than alternative opinion.

"ALT-RIGHT says X, we asked someone in the government who said that's not true"

Seen a lot of this bullshit recently from the So-Called BBC, le Monde etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

What is this really?

About the time of the US election there was a rash of related clickbait stories that were obvious lies (Trump Divorce!) but these soon died down as people ceased clicking on them.

Beyond this you have the usual bias of outlets like the So-Called BBC who spin things ridiculously. A good recent example being Mark Sampson being sacked as England women's football manager for behaviour in a previous job in Bristol but vast prominence given to the non-story of the black player who falsely shouted "racism" so that you went away thinking that was why he was sacked.

Then you have the omissions - the absence of MSM stories on the long list of suspicious deaths linked to the Clintons stands out. 

So once you take out the spin, the omission, and a very short-lived round of actual fake news in 2016 what is actually left?

So why would fake news "worries" be growing? Unless it is more propaganda to justify control of the internet as is clear from the story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41319683

The whole Sampson thing seems to be covered in mystery and opportunism.  He was investigated for something when he was at the Bristol Academy a few years ago and he was cleared of that then but he's now been sacked from the England job (female team) because of what he apparently did.  Apparently along with some resurrected discrimination/racism accusations.

The So-Called BBC seems to be just jumping on the bandwagon and seeming to lean towards the accusers side but adding no clarifications or investigations of its own except the superficial

Now apparently the whole issue is being used to piggy back a demand for the England manager to be female.  Mark you not necessarily the best manager but a female manager.  I think that's the female team and not the male team - you can never be sure.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dgul said:

If found the So-Called BBC article to be quite amazing.

The thrust of it was that  the internet was full of fake news, and that something needed to be done.  Rather than the internet has allowed an agenda driven media to be found-out. 

The actual survey results were notably media-agnostic -- people could have been answering 'I can't trust things I read on a weird blog-site -- something needs to be done' or 'the internet has allowed me to get a larger opinion/fact-base that just what I get from the conventional media -- was I being lied to all those years'.  

But, I suppose the conventional media has been round long enough to be able to successfully twist stories like this.

and at the moment the conventional media has more powerful connections.  Surprisingly the huge internet companies don't seem to have much power in influencing TPTB narrative which in itself is quite astounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dgul said:

If found the So-Called BBC article to be quite amazing.

The thrust of it was that  the internet was full of fake news, and that something needed to be done.  Rather than the internet has allowed an agenda driven media to be found-out. 

The actual survey results were notably media-agnostic -- people could have been answering 'I can't trust things I read on a weird blog-site -- something needs to be done' or 'the internet has allowed me to get a larger opinion/fact-base that just what I get from the conventional media -- was I being lied to all those years'.  

But, I suppose the conventional media has been round long enough to be able to successfully twist stories like this.

Well the So-Called BBC are experts on the subject as they have been distorting the news for years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Long time lurking said:

I think this is the reason Trump loves twitter ...try spinning that  

Well that is the MSMs problem.

The medium is the message.

The means of communication and is content exist in a symbiotic relationship. Facebook and Twitter etc are social media platforms that rely on users generating the content.  If you start blocking or over regulating what people can say then essentially you destroy the product.

With regard to news when an a major breaking story occurs now it is often served up so quickly in its raw form via social media that those who wish to influence the way this information is presented to the public just can't keep up.  The authorities therefore struggle to  control the narrative. Every person on the planet with a modern mobile phone is now a potential news reporter. This is why we are seeing ever more desperate attempts to intimidate people into sticking to the script via ever more bizarre interpretations of what constitutes hate speech etc.

 

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

I think that's absolutely it.

The facts are getting out first and people are then directly discussing and speculating upon them.

The media has therefore lost control. The days when a PM would cosy up to newspaper proprietors in order to have a flattering take presented have gone.

The media no longer shapes the opinion of many people under thirty (or forty?) as they form their opinion within their self-selected peer group.

This is my peer group; it was ToS but when big media in the form of Google decided to shape its opinion from without I could just leave and did.

TOS is a classic example. 

As soon as the Mods tried to stifle certain comments it lost a shed load of posters. This impacted not just on the content that caused the issue but a lot of other stuff as well including things not on the OTT board. The site was already in steep decline but their action accelerated the process

http://www.rank2traffic.com/housepricecrash.co.uk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, twocents said:

The whole Sampson thing seems to be covered in mystery and opportunism.  He was investigated for something when he was at the Bristol Academy a few years ago and he was cleared of that then but he's now been sacked from the England job (female team) because of what he apparently did.  Apparently along with some resurrected discrimination/racism accusations.

The So-Called BBC seems to be just jumping on the bandwagon and seeming to lean towards the accusers side but adding no clarifications or investigations of its own except the superficial

Now apparently the whole issue is being used to piggy back a demand for the England manager to be female.  Mark you not necessarily the best manager but a female manager.  I think that's the female team and not the male team - you can never be sure.

He has been sacked from this job for something he supposedly did in another job. He was investigated in the previous job and they didn't find enough to proceed, and they gave him a reference for his current job.

Am I the only one seeing a massive settlement in the offing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

TOS is a classic example. 

As soon as the Mods tried to stifle certain comments it lost a shed load of posters. This impacted not just on the content that caused the issue but a lot of other stuff as well including things not on the OTT board. The site was already in steep decline but their action accelerated the process

http://www.rank2traffic.com/housepricecrash.co.uk

 

Can you do that for us?  Would be nice to see how dosbods performs in pretty graphs. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, twocents said:

Now apparently the whole issue is being used to piggy back a demand for the England manager to be female.  Mark you not necessarily the best manager but a female manager.  

Has to be an opportunity for David Moyes, just self-identify as female.

Might not win much, but then again they probably won't now anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, twocents said:

The whole Sampson thing seems to be covered in mystery and opportunism.  He was investigated for something when he was at the Bristol Academy a few years ago and he was cleared of that then but he's now been sacked from the England job (female team) because of what he apparently did.  Apparently along with some resurrected discrimination/racism accusations.

The So-Called BBC seems to be just jumping on the bandwagon and seeming to lean towards the accusers side but adding no clarifications or investigations of its own except the superficial

Now apparently the whole issue is being used to piggy back a demand for the England manager to be female.  Mark you not necessarily the best manager but a female manager.  I think that's the female team and not the male team - you can never be sure.

I was, generally, a supporter of the England womens team. But after this disgraceful sacking,  I really hope they perform poorly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.