1860? What are you talking about?

> site:nytimes.com DNC Corruption

> Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Resign DNC Post - The New York Times (Jul 24, 2016)

> D.N.C. Hack Raises a Frightening Question: What's Next? - The New ... (Jul 29, 2016)

> Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign ... (Jul 22, 2016)

> After Lying Low, Deep-Pocketed Clinton Donors Return to the Fore ... (Jul 28, 2016)

Just because they play both sides of the field doesn't add credulity to the objectivity of their coverage.

I am so jaded to believe that both sides pay them for coverage. Either in money or political favors.

The weird thing is, it doesn't seem to have affected the election at all. From the article:

> He set up a website, posted gushing stories about Hillary Clinton and waited for ad sales to soar. “I don’t know why, but it did not work,” said the student, Beqa Latsabidze, 22, who was savvy enough to change course when he realized what did drive traffic: laudatory stories about Donald J. Trump that mixed real — and completely fake — news in a stew of anti-Clinton fervor.

> But he, too, discovered that writing about Mr. Trump was a “gold mine.”

> “It’s all Trump,” Mr. Egan said by telephone. “People go nuts for it.”

Is it possible fake Trump news was the result, and not the cause, of Trump's appeal to the American people ? There's more in the paragraphs below that makes one think this is the case.

You'll note that those results all start appearing in July - after the DNC shoved Sanders out of the race. When the corruption was relevant, the "reputable" media was silent.

I tried the same search with DuckDuckGo and got the same results as what I posted.

Perhaps this is fake? Perhaps not. Who controls that? http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/pizzagate-4chan-un...

Media claims its fake: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pizzagate-shows-how-...

> Censorship by private corporations and government is not the answer.

You yourself complain about lack of reporting about an issue, lack of truth, and then you go on to celebrate the spreading of lies? Fake news are basically just lies so opposing them is to spread truths, and to call efforts to spread truth "censorship" is 1984 logic.

Also, as I'm sure others will point out, FB and google already arbitrarily restrict content on their platforms so there is nothing "unprecedented" about it. There really isn't much of a case that filtering fake news is different banning from Simpsons clips or music remixes.

I think the words you are looking for are Double Speak when you refer to "1984 logic." Anyways, the fact that there will be people who might say something stupid is not reason to further restrict the right to free speech.

You can actually use that as a litmus test for free speech: There will always be stupid, awful, and racist people, and if they don't exist you know they lost their right to free speech.

I'd rather be free from tyranny than have a few bad apples--either way we're going to have the bad apples anyways.

It is actually unprecedented. Clips from the Simpsons being banned may have been banned on broadcast TV, but it does not mean someone could not upload that clip to Youtube (you do get the point, don't go into some strawman argument about copyright laws).

I think that bad establishment news and "fake news" being relevant at the same time isn't a coincidence. The lack of trust in the establishment news sources opens a market for alternatives. However working outside the establishment is inherently the Wild West, so what you're going to get may well be even worse on average. But it's very important to keep around because some of it will be much better for certain topics, and it'll at least keep the establishment in check.

Exactly. I'd be worried if sources like The Real News Network or The Intercept got erroneously lumped in with "fake news".

Has the intercept been labeled fake news? I knew greenwald had harsh criticisms of the american media.

No, they haven't. I'm just responding to the parent post saying that I hope they don't get caught up in the storm and labeled as such.

'Fake News' is not an 'alternative'. It's literally fake.

'Pope endorses Trump' - fake.

'Trump molested three children from Texas' - fake.

'Americans invade Canada' - fake.

There's a problem with 'actual fake news' not just 'biased news'.

CNN - despite it's bias - is still mostly a decent news site.

Go to CNN.com, Fox.com, MSNBC.com - and look at ALL of the links. It's mostly just boring, factual news.

I acknowledge that. The problem is that at the fringes there's news that will be labeled as fake by some and not others. If that stuff gets censored that's a huge problem to me, to the point that I'll accept the clearly fake news, while we think of a better way to deal with it.

The NYT broke the story on Clinton's email scandal, and followed it continuously, long past other media outlets and to the point where it was getting criticized because the vast majority of its coverage of Clinton was dedicated to a single scandal to the exclusion of much other newsworthy reporting it could have done.

Your failure to use the right search terms is not evidence of media bias.

Wow. The DNC corruption scandal began in summer of 2016 and involves Debbie Wasserman Schultz being removed from her position as DNC chair over the evident corruption with, "how to deal with Bernie Sanders" popularity (the DNC should be neutral actor).

Clinton's use of a private email server began in spring 2015.

They are related, but hardly not even the same thing.

Thanks for that comment about using the right search terms. I'll try to use "the right search terms" next time. /s

"clinton email scandal" != "dnc corruption"

Also, your last sentence would be apropos had we been given GP's search terms and you rebutted with a set of terms that did indeed give the desired results.

Gee why are you completely ignoring what the article is about??

I remember a certain criticism of Trump's: "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it," campaign. So the argument went that Trump's phrasing cleverly drew attention from whether or not building a wall was a good idea, and created redirected discussion to a straw man argument about whether Mexico should pay for it.

Right now the media coverage appears as: "fake news is _____ insert headline," like "motivated by profit," is the focus of the article. It's the same as Trump's clever phrasing: What is assumed is that there exists this problem with fake news, and it's bad. The debate has been shifted about why fake news exists, or what to do about fake news, the debate in the media was never about "is it right to try to suppress fake news, or does that lead us down a slippery slope?" Same tactic. Don't fall for it. Clearly the big media corporations have not just political pressure (which is undisputed) but a very obvious profit motive behind squashing out alternative news.

> It leads to giving unprecedented to private corporations in controlling what people are able to see and hear.

You don't know much about Rupert Murdoch or Hearst, do you?

Thanks for that. I am aware of who they are.

Ok so AFAIK what you are trying to say is that corporations, as well as media moguls, already have power in controlling what people say and hear. It's true that is already a problem. So why don't we try to stop it from getting worse?

The fact is the trend is towards people digesting news through filters such as Twitter, Facebook and Google. I don't want to see private corporations have unprecedented control in censoring the perceived choice of consumers in what they see and hear.

The war on fake news is lending to a theme towards censorship. I think most people are aware most news is already produced by a few major media corporations. I don't want to live in a world where everything else is considered "fake."

I get the abstract argument against censorship, but I think the 'fake news' in these discussions is fairly clearly defined as news that's made up from nothing (and isn't opinion). There is some element of "I know it when I see it," but I think it's possible to be fairly objective. I'm sure Facebook et cetera won't want to be accused of censoring something that turns out to be a real news story.

Moreover, my understanding is that Google and Facebook already censor what consumers see based on what their data suggests they will like (or what will generate greater ad views/clicks/whatever).

It seems to me that the real problem isn't that aggregators may "censor" news, it's the suggestion that there's nothing to be done about it. Surely consumers can just read the NY Times or whatever sources they trust instead of relying solely on social media. The problem might be apathy or lack of free time or lack of critical thinking, but I don't think it's Facebook and Google trying to stop fake news from spreading on their networks.

What did the grandparent post say that indicates ignorance of Murdoch or Hearst? If anything I'd suspect the opposite.