Should DU have an alert or policy for posts with suspected fake news sources?

[Quixote1818]

On occasion (including tonight) I see a post that sounds awesome for our side but they are filled with comments saying "fake news site". I would not care too much but often they get huge numbers of recommendations and anyone not looking at the comment section might take it at face value.

I am wondering if DU should come up with some kind of guidelines for sites widely accepted as fake or news sites set up as click-bate even if the article may have quite a bit of truth to it?

Or is it better to allow most anything left-leaning as long as commentators can point out it is probably fake?

Examples of sites that are suspect:

Bipartisan Report https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bipartisan-report/



Palmer Report https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/palmer-report/

[ProudLib72]

1. I say yes

but it should not count against the poster.

[Jonny Appleseed]

2. Is there a way to put a disclaimer adjacent to the site's header or sidebar?

with a list of sources of fake news? because I think that would work well.

[Raine1967]

3. As long as they have links to back up their opinions, I'm fine with them.

I think we REALLY need to be wary about what is fake news and what it a partisan blog site when questions like this arise.

The sites you linked are very partisan, but time and time again, I (personally) and able to click links and get to the source.

They are not fake news, they are highly partisan opinion blogs IMO.

[Ms. Toad]

7. This one IS fakenews.

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/03/26/just-in-all-8-supreme-court-justices-stand-in-solidarity-against-trump-scotus-pick/

It describes a judicial opinion, reversing a lower court ruling as a letter condemning the judge who wrote it.

I wouldn't necessarily label an entire site fake news, but when an article is fake news it should not be posted here (or should be removed as soon as it is identified as fake news).

[ColemanMaskell]

45. Bingo

[nocalflea]

29. Absolutely. We are adults .

It is our individual responsibility to check sources. It is good practice and good discipline to do so.
Most of us know the difference between an informative factual post and opinion. Folks on this site are great about asking a poster for a source and providing sources when asked.

[MichMan]

60. Why shoudnt the OP be held responsible?

Since it is our individual responsibility to check sources, as you said, shouldn't the poster who posted garbage be held accountable for doing so?

[BuddyCa]

81. no, we're terrible unfortunately

this one has 47 recs: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028859888

Leaving it to DUers doesn't work, too many people want to believe the fake news. The admins need to be the ones to stop it.

[nocalflea]

87. The admins need to be the ones to stop it.

While your worried about the slippery slope of fake news ,I'm worried about the slippery slope of censorship. Both valid concerns.
We are all prone to confirmational bias . If we do not take individual responsibility to recognize and counter this bias , that is on us , as individuals.
This is not the only site most of us visit. What happens when there is no admin. to shout out "fake news , fake news " ? Or should DU admin.s follow us around from site to site ? Maybe they'd be willing to become our individual babysitters.Go to work with us , read the newspaper with us ... ?
I am an adult. I neither want nor need a babysitter. If I fall prey to " fake news " or a con-artist , that is on me.

[Ms. Toad]

4. Absolutely.

I am appalled that a completely bogus story has 50 (or more) recommendations, and has survived at least one jury. The author has returned, acknowledged the many objections, but has left it standing.

It continues to get "attaboy" posts and more recommendations - with many apparently not reading the comments pointing out that it is fake news. We should be able to identify, and get rid of, fake news, so that we don't risk the same kind of lack of credibilty the other side has.

(Already posted a request in the Ask the Admin forum.)

[cwydro]

25. I agree.

I find it hilarious how gullible some DUers are.

[LiberalFighter]

55. I would like a place I can trust that provides real news.

If any include fake news then I think it should be avoided regardless of whether they are liberal.

[democratisphere]

5. Just leave it alone.

DU members flush out most of the really egregious fake crap and it is taken down or duly noted.

[Quixote1818]

6. Looks like the one tonight certanly got flushed out. The OP just deleted it after around 60 recs.

nt

[Ms. Toad]

10. Finally. n/t

[Raine1967]

8. We should all be responsible for anything we read here at DU, ESP in GD.

LBN has a pretty rigorous guideline, GD not so much.

Anytime I see a link that I know deserves further research, I do so.

I have seen some VERY suspect things at FDL (back in the day) as well as links from Kos.

On a personal note, I disregard tweets from the like of Greenwald. I like politicusUSA while some do not.

I am reluctant to bring my own blog to DU lest I am accused of spreading fake news.

I guess I am saying is that this could be a very slippery slope.

[MichMan]

61. And responsible for what we post nm

[Ellipsis]

9. I think that would be a good idea...

Though... I believe most of us aren't shy about pointing it out then jumping on the monkey pile.

[elleng]

11. Yes, SOMETHING.

One Fake News story is/was here, and on FB where I informed the poster. We should do everything we can to call it out and stop it short.

[m-lekktor]

12. If right wing conspiracy loon Louise Mensch is considered a valid source anything goes, IMO. nt

[womanofthehills]

40. Actually Louise Mensch has been right on and seems to have some great intelligence sources

Many follow her on Twitter - including me.

[yodermon]

62. only conservatives can bring down Trump at this point. Unless you want to wait til 2018. n/t

[ColemanMaskell]

13. Link to an extensive list of fake (and satire) new sites

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 10:49 PM - Edit history (3)

Link to list of 376 sites deemed not credible news (includes Breitbart, Borowitz, and Bipartisan Report)

http://www.fakenewschecker.com/

Click the arrowhead > at the right of any name in the list to display a brief detail page on why it is listed.

Also the site has other options in the header bar. One lists recent articles -- get to it directly with this link:

http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news-articles

Fake News Within Past 48 Hours
(The actual list of articles, just for the last 48 hours, is too long to cut-and-paste here)

Note that the site includes on its list many non-news sources that could be mistaken for news, especially satire (such as the Borowitz Report) and editorial, commentary, and opinion that leans left or right.

The fact that Breitbart and Borowitz are both on the list does not imply any equivalence between the two sites in any way except that neither can be believed as a news source.

Also note that the list is not exhaustive. The National Enquirer, for one example, is not listed, though most often its front page headlines are obviously outrageously false. The very funny political satire in e-newspaper format "Burrard Street Journal" is not listed. So just because something isn't on the list doesn't mean anything it says is true.

[NRaleighLiberal]

14. you do note DU is on that list as well? colored bars but no legend? Just seems like a random

catch all.

[defacto7]

22. I find the fact check site idea interesting but

too many times find good sites on them as well. A lot of money goes into developing fake news and I'm sure fact checking can be just as monied and just as fake. I mean who's doing the checking? Who decides?

[Warpy]

26. No legend is annoying as hell

but searching the separate biases at the top means they've marked the site as "left bias." Fair enough, nice pretty blue color, satire is often presented here without the "sarcasm" smilie and it's a fine line between satire and fake news, especially to dimwits on the far right.

Black is conspiracy bias, red is conservative bias.

[ColemanMaskell]

43. Click the arrowhead > at the right to go to a write-up of details. DU's write-up is mostly fair

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 10:50 PM - Edit history (3)

Well, mostly fair except the last sentence (...most untrustworthy...), which they use a lot in other write-ups too.

The arrowhead looks like a mathematical greater-than sign >

DU is not, after all, a news site per se. People post all sorts of things here, and I have seen fake news links posted though I'm sure it was due to unintentional mistakes. Notice that satire sites are also included. All they're saying is you cannot trust the site as an authoritative news source. And that is true. You need to click the links and find the original articles.

Here is (most of) the detailed write-up:

Website:
www.democraticunderground.com
Bias: editorialleft biaspoliticalspecial interest

Democratic Underground publishes information from a left biased position with an advocacy for liberal causes. The editorial content and headlines are often loaded with strong words to appeal to emotions and stereotypes. They may publish misleading reports, cite unverified sources, reference bogus reports and omit information that may damage their cause. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion and/or propaganda. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

Unique Visitors Per Month:
593,389

[womanofthehills]

42. So Common Dreams, Alternet and Daily Kos are fake news sites according to this list

[ColemanMaskell]

44. They're unreliable compared to NYT, WaPo, and Newsweek standards. Yes. That's what is being said.

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 10:58 PM - Edit history (1)

The list includes satire sites. It also includes editorial, commentary, and opinion, and other sources that are clearly not news, but might be mistaken for news.

Also a lot of sources that deserve to be on the list have been overlooked.

It seems to include anything the authors of the list deem biased, either right or left, especially (they say) any site that uses emotionally loaded language, seems not to check its sources carefully, and seems to omit facts that would appear to contradict the bias of the site.

It is not a perfect list. It is, however, useful as an initial check if you're uncertain about a story.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. I wish that everyone who recced the other thread would rec this one. n/t

[Control-Z]

16. Should be alerted on

but remain with a bright red notice that it is fake. The subject line should be changed to reflect the same. That way it won't be posted over and over again.

The point should be to stay informed and stop fake news from spreading. If we disappear the topic altogether most of the community would not have seen it even with 50 recs.

[Ms. Toad]

32. I like that idea.n/t

[msongs]

17. everyone knows all tweets are true and worth reading nt

[Lisa0825]

18. I would like to see known fake news and clickbait sites auto-banned from here.

I get really tired of seeing that BS here. If people don't know better or are too lazy, I would like to see certain domains (like BipartisanReport) automatically blocked.

[ColemanMaskell]

82. Maybe using an alert or warning would be better than blocking

Similar to the new Facebook approach, but simpler. It's easier to keep track of a list of sources (like BipartisanReport) than to try to keep track of individual bogus stories (as Facebook apparently plans to do).

There are problems inherent in blocking selected sources, as with any censorship.

I'd rather see a warning given to any person posting such a link, at the time of posting, and if they want to continue in spite of the warning then let them, but add another warning that would appear along with the post, ideally something that would also appear in the list next to the title.

For that matter, I'd like to see a warning appear in the list when the only thing that a post contains is a link with little or no accompanying explanatory text.

The warnings wouldn't have to take up a lot of space, they could be icon-like, emoji-like symbols. The radioactivity symbol would do. Or a stoplight icon, showing either red or the yellow flashing caution signal.

[Hekate]

19. Pass your OP on over to Ask the Admins so they can consider it.

It's a good idea.

[LeftInTX]

20. Someone posted a fake twitter site for Loretta Lynch

Everyone was cheering the fake "Loretta Lynch" on because the fake Loretta was exposing Jeff Sessions for firing Preet Bharara because he was investigating Trump. There is no way in heII that Loretta Lynch would ever say something like that on Twitter. That fake Loretta Lynch site has now been suspended.

[sarah FAILIN]

21. I think we get too "persnickity" sometimes

Sometimes some people see value in things others don't and sometimes even the broken clock has the right time.

I wouldn't want to be alerted on for something that was not necessary to be alerted on.

I WAS alerted on and had a post removed for being a kooky conspiracy theory once and it ticked me off. We are living out the biggest conspiracy theory of all times right now. It makes even real conspiracy theories seem normal and warps our thoughts in a way. We are all in this together, no need to punish each other for small stuff.

As long as we keep up with the RWTP and keep them out, I'm good.

[Ms. Toad]

34. There is not only no value in fake news, it is harmful,

As the last election should have made clear. There needs to be a mechanism for removing it ( or unmistakably labeling it) so we don't contribute to a world in which facts are. Just another person's opinion.

[sarah FAILIN]

37. I guess I didn't communicate that as intended

Some sites, such as palmer report are labeled fake news. I think it's more of what I call a pass-along site. They see a report and pass it along on their site hoping we find value in it. If someone shares what they read on palmer report, it may be true or it could be wishful thinking. I hate to see people get in trouble for sharing something if it isn't actually "fake news" which I think of as having malicious intent. Totally against malicious fake news though

[Ms. Toad]

64. If the news item is objectively false, the post ought to be hidden.

That is what triggered this thread. An objectively false news report that stated:

that 8 Supreme Court justices had written a letter. (They didn't, they issued an opinion in the ordinary course of their business).

that "All eight of the current justices agree that President Trump is completely wrong in choosing Neil Gorsuch to fill the ninth seat on the Supreme Court bench." They didn't. They disagreed with his interpretation of the law in a court below. That happens all the time.

Absolutely no basis in reality.

It was alerted on (at least) twice as a conspiracy theory (the closest category we have as an option), and the jury let it stand. (I alerted in that category, and my alert immediately cleared, so I know an identical alert had already failed). The OP came back, acknowledged it might be fake - but did not delete it until several later responses expressly suggested deleting it.

That same article was reposted at least once this morning. Fortunately, the jury this morning had a different opinion.

The point of the OP, as I understand it, is that there is nothing officially wrong with posting objectively false stories here and thus no way to get rid of them when they do get posted (and perpetuated from here to all sorts of other places). This kind of crap legitimately tars us with the same brush we've been tarring the right wing folks with.

[sarah FAILIN]

74. Maybe I misunderstand the post then.

I was thinking people could get in trouble for posting from certain sites such as Palmer report. I agree that posting obviously false articles is bad and we need to clear that sort of thing out, but I understood part of the question was branding certain sites as fake news sites. To me, that is reserved for Breitbart and the Enquirer and I hate to paint others with that same brush.

I didn't see the post you're talking about.

[Ms. Toad]

83. The OP was perhaps overly broad -

but it was posted after he article about the "letter" from the Supreme Court Justices (from the site linked to) was posted on DU - after at least two - unsuccessful attempts to get it deleted via the jury process (since there isn't a category specifically for fake news) and before the owner of the thread finally removed it (after multiple requests to amend or remove it.

Several of us in this thread recognized the article that was the trigger for this thread - and it has been reposted at least once since then. Fortunately a jury removed the second thread.

[defacto7]

23. I admit I have fallen for fake news a few times...

but for me that's good because I'm leaning what the bad shit is. I don’t want anyone telling me what site is fake and just take their word for it. I want to be able to figure that out by experience. Sensorship teaches me nothing, failing now and then does. One of the reasons I'm here is so I learn from people I trust, but don't ask me to have blind faith in the site's consensus. I'll make trust decisions myself.

There. I think I worded that so it's not mistaken for "concern".

[Stonepounder]

24. I would like to see something like this, but not sure how to implement it.

Even the National Inquirer is right at least twice a century. My personal policy is that if I see it on the MSM (with the exception of FOX) I don't fact check further. Otherwise I tend to Google it. If all the hits are from suspect sources, they I get really suspicious. Or if the headline sounds too good to be true (or too horrible to contemplate) I look for confirmation before posting.

What I really love is when I post something like Borowitz - clearly labeled as such, and people take the article seriously.

[Rhiannon12866]

77. And we generally like Borowitz here - and The Onion.

But we know what they're about. They aren't meant to be news, they're humor.

[still_one]

27. Throw it by ATA. Perhaps the TOS: Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources

might apply to fake news

[Ms. Toad]

36. The one that triggered this had a liberal bias. N/t

[LOL Lib]

28. Thanks, but I don't need spoon feeding.

I was pissed when I clicked on that thread about the justices, but it was handled swiftly. Plus the OP did apologize.

[Hekate]

58. We have TOS, the alert system, and MIRT for a reason....

Trolls come in all shapes and sizes. If you want to see what happens without them, visit a couple of other sites frequently mentioned here as bad examples.

Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty -- and for a board where we can have reasonably civil and intelligent discussions.

[BainsBane]

30. Yes.

[pnwmom]

31. This is the kind of thing to ask in ATA (Ask the Administrators.)

[Demsrule86]

33. NO, it is not always easy to tell

what is 'fake news' and what is not...let just muddle along.Those sites are usually known to some here who posts the truth...we don't need rules for every damn thing.

[JTFrog]

35. Good luck. Discussionist is basically a fake news generator at this point.

I don't think the admins really give a damn about that fight. At least that is the perception I get. Hell, people still post RT and the Daily Caller here as much as they want. Juries rarely hide them regardless of the rules or policy.

[Kaleva]

38. One member's fake news is another member's reliable source.

Not being familiar with many of these sources, I'd either have to spend alot of time researching the alert or just take the alerter's word on it.

[Orrex]

39. Can we alert on vapid "Link to Tweet" posts?

[yallerdawg]

46. "Link to Tweet" posts now load as the actual tweet.

You just have to give the link time to load.

[Orrex]

47. That never works for me.

I've tried on five different devices on three different servers. In every case I have to click on the link, and even then it only brings up the underlying link about 40% of the time.

[yallerdawg]

48. Does this tweet come up for you?

Link to tweet

[Orrex]

49. Right now I'm at work, so the filters block them

That's not DU's fault--it's a limitation of my current platform.

But I'll check from home.

[yallerdawg]

52. We always think everyone sees what each of us sees on our variety of "devices."

It's amazing how varied it all is!

[Orrex]

54. Right?

Laptop/phone/desktop/tablet/watch/god-knows-what-else.

It's amazing that it works at all across any of them!

[tallahasseedem]

41. Or those

posting a million 2020 scenarios just to gain post count.

[hunter]

50. By whose standard?

For example, I consider television news "fake" and tend to ignore posts linking to it.

[gopiscrap]

51. Yes

and then those threads should be locked

[Iggo]

53. If we had dedicated moderators, I think maybe it'd be a good idea.

But I don't think that juries made up of seven random schmoes (you and me included) are gonna whack anywhere near even half of the shit that should get whacked under that kind of rule.

[jalan48]

56. Mainstream, corporate news is never fake? Iraq War anyone?

[R B Garr]

57. Yes, and the same with fake popularity polls. nt

[KittyWampus]

59. Yes, I do hope someone respectfully asks Skinner to consider this.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

63. LBN should show source on thread title page, I would ignore many if they did and not waste my time!

[synergie]

65. The problem with the links you posted is that

they're not fake news, and they merely reflect the political viewpoint that the sites use, not their credibility.

Neither of those sites are "fake news" they do have a left bias. They cite their sources, so you can go verify information and evaluate it further.

For example, a site that was often used here, which had a left bias, USUncut, didn't do that, some of the things they asserted was not verifiable, and in some cases was outright false. It also wasn't a news site, it was a blog for some organization with its own agenda.

I think it's important to recognize the difference between a news site and sites that offer commentary from whatever position on valid news. Media Matters and Crooks and Liars is left political commentary, they don't break news, they do offer direct links to their sources.

I think something being "left" and being taken seriously for that reason alone is a mistake, it's how ratfucking happens (manipulation by the other side by appearing to be speaking from the opposing point of view).

If people are going to say something is "fake news" they should be able to back up that charge, and if it's fake news, that should not be difficult. What's happening now is that people are just using that term about things they don't like.

[ColemanMaskell]

69. That's good about "Breaking News" thread, it disallows commentary articles

Although commentary, satire, and plain false reports occasionally make it in here, they are usually flagged quickly

[synergie]

72. That's the benefit of being a liberal site :-)

Even the fake news purveyors were complaining that their tricks didn't work so well with most of us, since we do our homework and will call out the falsehoods.

There were a few anomalies on the left, but for the most part the vast majority of us didn't fall for that. 66 million strong

[Ms. Toad]

73. Seriously?

This is merely reflecting a political viewpoint - and not a matter of credibility?

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/03/26/just-in-all-8-supreme-court-justices-stand-in-solidarity-against-trump-scotus-pick/

While Trump was attempting to persuade Congress of reasons Gorsuch would be a good choice, Chief Justice John Roberts penned a letter from the Supreme Court that addressed the issues with Gorsuch’s “approach” being “the law of the land.”

What is being referenced here is a Supreme Court opinion, not a letter penned by Chief Justice.

All eight of the current justices agree that President Trump is completely wrong in choosing Neil Gorsuch to fill the ninth seat on the Supreme Court bench.

Utter nonsense. The Supreme Court opinion reversed a circuit court decision in which Judge Gorsuch did not even participate. Not in your wildest imagination is that a unanimous assertion by the justices that "President Trump is completely wrong in choosing Neil Gorsuch." It is a purely a disagreement with a legal interpretation by a three-member panel of judges - in which Gorsuch did not particpate - which relied on an opinion Gorsuch wrote in a completely separate decision.

You are correct that the article cited a source (a Think Progress article). But nowhere in the Think Progress article was the word "letter" used, nor did it suggest the Justices offered an opinion on Gorsuch's suitability for the Supreme Court.

This is not about not liking the message. It is about an objectively false story being made up out of whole cloth - as Trump does all the time - being posted as real here on DU, and about too many people treating it as either true, or merely opinion, juries refusing to hide it, and there being no mechanism to have the story pulled so we do not appear as idiotic and careless with the truth as Breitbart.

[synergie]

84. I've never found either source to be terribly credible.

That's because I do click through and read the cited sources and seek out others.

I just never thought either source was news, it clearly had a bias, and the sources they used didn't match up at times. They were less egregious than USUncut, which certainly had a left bias but used RW talking points that they didn't link to and which searches only led to RW sources.

I think it's the responsibility of those posting a site to do their due diligence, and just as you've done here, people are quick to point out the errors.

The issue with some of these sources is the confirmation bias, people really liked what they were being told and didn't question it, and were rather vicious to anyone who pointed out the errors.

I'd like to point out that I didn't reference bipartisan report which didn't pass my smell test when I saw it popping up all over my facebook feed. MMFA and C&L don't have these issues, they also don't claim to be news organizations, they are liberal critics of the news media.

[Ms. Toad]

85. You responded to the OP with the comment, "Neither of those sites are 'fake news'"

The OP only identified two sites:

Bipartisan Report https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bipartisan-report/

Palmer Report https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/palmer-report/

When you said "neither of those sites" it seemed clear to me that you were referring to the only two sites linked to in the OP - one of which was bipartisan report - which you seemed to be defending as not "fake news," but as having "a left bias."

[synergie]

86. Right, my point was that they're not fake news because they're not news sites.

When I said the names of the other sites, you didn't think that I might have been referring to them? Since I typed all those other words?

They do have a left bias, but one needs to figure out the difference between news and opinion. Those are not fake news sites, they do have a bias, but they don't do original reporting on their own and they link their sources. They offer perspective on those sources, which any responsible person would click through to check.

[Ms. Toad]

89. That's not now "neither of those" is usually interpreted when it precedes all those other words. nt

[synergie]

90. Generally, when there are paragraphs, it's helpful to read them and understand what they all mean.

Had you read the 3rd one, you'd have understood my point, since it was rather clear.

Had you read the one below that, you'd perhaps have figured out the examples I gave to further make my point.

Generally, words and paragraphs are there for a reason, and if one is confused, one should consult them, stopping after two words in the first sentence of a post with many others, including paragraphs is generally not how readers process information.

This very type of lazy reading and disingenuous argument is how people get "fooled" into drawing conclusions that are away from reality. Some people like to run with their confirmation bias and go on and on in rather silly tangents, when the source they chose to ignore actually makes a point they either could not grasp or chose not to.

That's why these things need to be called out, not everyone is playing an honest game.

In this instance, I went back to the source that was so confounding, and lo and behold it didn't say what was implied, in any of the subsequent commentary about my original post. Generally those seeking to foster actual discussion or who have an actual point to make don't engage in such behavior, but we do have all kinds of folks showing up here, whose intent is to foster discord, not to actually make valid points. The good thing is that they're not exactly hard to identify.

[ColemanMaskell]

67. How easy is it to spot "Fake News" if you don't consider the source(the site) ?

Real News vs Satire (one flavor of “Fake News”) – Is it that Easy to Spot the Difference?

Not always.

An example of jarring similarity

CNN (Real news article)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/health/abortion-texas-lawmaker-trnd/

Texas bill would fine men $100 each time they masturbate
By Isabelle Chapman, CNN
Updated 5:42 PM ET, Mon March 13, 2017

(CNN) A Texas lawmaker has proposed a bill that would fine a man $100 each time he masturbates.
The bill also imposes a 24-hour waiting period if a guy wants a colonoscopy or a vasectomy, or if he's in the market for some Viagra.
Rep. Jessica Farrar, a Democrat, knows her bill isn't going to get very far. But she proposed it last week to make a point and give male lawmakers a taste of their own medicine.
. . .
Farrar's bill would penalize men for masturbation because such behavior is a failure to preserve the sanctity of life and "an act against an unborn child." . . .


The above came only a couple months after the following satire (“fake news”) article:
http://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/female-legislators-unveil-male-ejaculation-bill/

Female Legislators Unveil ‘Male Ejaculation Bill’ Forbidding The Disposal Of Unused Semen
By the Burrard Street Journal Monday, January 23, 2017

WASHINGTON, DC (By J. McConkey)—A group of leading female legislators have enacted a new bill that forbids American men from disposing of “unused” sperm, requiring them to bring any recreational semen to a nearby fertility clinic.
According to noted alternative facts specialist, Stephanie Yorke, sperm is intended for “procreation only” and not to be “wasted” on pleasure:
“Any sperm not being used for the purpose of procreation must be immediately donated to a sperm bank,” Yorke warned. “Failure to do so will lead to hefty fines . . .

[ColemanMaskell]

68. Second example of jarring similarity

Next example: Borowitz satire
TRUMP BOLSTERS FOREIGN-POLICY TEAM BY ADDING CARSON AND PALIN
By Andy Borowitz August 2, 2016

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—After stumbling badly on an interview question about Ukraine, the Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump attempted on Tuesday to reassure voters about his geopolitical expertise by adding the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and the former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to his team of foreign-policy advisers.

“Donald Trump always said that, as President, he would surround himself with the best people,” Trump’s spokesperson, Hope Hicks, said. “In Governor Palin and Dr. Carson, Mr. Trump now has the Dream Team.”

Speaking to reporters, Palin dismissed the controversy over Ukraine as “much ado about a gotcha question.”

“Donald Trump is one hundred and ten percent correct when he says that no one needs to be worrying about Ukraine,” she said. “If you look Ukraine up on Google Maps, like I just did, it’s right where it’s always been.”

. . .

Trump’s spokesperson said that the additions to his foreign-policy brain trust should give voters “great confidence” that a Trump White House would be equal to the challenge of an international crisis. “When that 3 a.m. call comes in, and Mr. Trump is busy on Twitter, Dr. Carson and Governor Palin will be there to take the call,” she said.

- - -

Compare the above satire (“fake news”) with the following real news later the same month:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bachmann-boasts-role-trump-adviser-multiple-issues

MSNBC
Bachmann boasts of role as Trump adviser on multiple issues
08/23/16 11:00 AM—UPDATED 08/23/16 05:05 PM
. . .
Tea Party firebrand Michele Bachmann says she is advising Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on foreign policy.
The former Minnesota congresswoman attended a fundraiser in the state for Trump on Saturday, where she revealed to the press that she has his ear on foreign policy.
“(Trump) recognizes there is a threat around the world, not just here in Minnesota, of radical Islam,” Bachmann told Minnesota Public Radio. . . .

[Chitown Kev]

70. Palmer Report isn't "fake news"

It has an ideological lean and will spin in a certain ideological direction...but their opinions are based on sources that they link to in their storiies...rather like a cable show, actually.

[womanofthehills]

75. Agreed - and everytime I post something from the Palmer Report, someone goes crazy

- usually someone who never reads the Palmer report. I'll always ask them to tell me something Palmer wrote in the last few months that he got wrong - never get an answer. Same thing with Louise Mensch. Lord forbid, I post something from EcoWatch. EcoWatch will get me alerted.

[ColemanMaskell]

80. The list is imperfect, certainly. I leaves off The National Enquirer, for example.

Besides leaving out some obviously fake news sources like National Enquirer, the list includes a large number of things that are not news sites at all -- like the Borowitz Report, clearly labeled satire at the top of every article; and like DU, as has been pointed out above, which also is not a news site. By what appear to be their criteria, Fox News belongs on the list too, but of course it isn't listed.

They seem to include anything that might possibly be mistaken for a news site, if they happen to have noticed it. They include some satire sites but not others. They lump bias in with outright lies, when clearly those are two different things.

Still, it's a starting point. It's something to check. Vastly better than having no list. You do have to exercise your own judgment on how you use it.

If some site is found on the list, it doesn't mean any particular story you found on the site is inaccurate, but it probably does mean you should try to double-check the story with a quick google search for supporting (or contradicting) accounts. In my opinion.

Similarly, though, if some source is not found on the list -- Fox News or the National Enquirer, say -- it certainly doesn't mean you can trust the source.

[Chitown Kev]

71. Furthermore, even if there is a right wing bias

that doesn't mean that the reporting is bad

For instance, there one reporter at Daily Caller that I actually like that will throw in spin and loaded words but, evertheless, links to his own sources.

[Rhiannon12866]

76. I think that's covered under "extremist and hate content" sources

I think that covers "unacceptable" sources. They can't think of every possibility, but jurors should be able to get the point... and DUers are excellent in pointing these things out, as you said.

[LovingA2andMI]

78. Yes...

Yet the "Palmer Report" links are still allowed here --- which is tragic IMHO....

[BuddyCa]

79. Bipartisan Report should be banned now

It should be done by the Admins, it shouldn't be left to DUers.

the liar who runs the Bipartisan Report admits it's click bait, i.e. lies.

He has a team of 12 liars he pays to meticulously craft lies to spread around.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattles-own-click-bait-news-site-serves-up-red-meat-for-liberals/

“We fall into the click-baity category,” Brotman says.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

88. Yes - the reply button.