how does printing untrustworthy, slanderous material not make them fake news or, at the very least, put them on the same level as cnn (in your perspective)?
Fake news is not a title you give lightly. News being slanted or having a few select bad authors does not generalize to "fake news." cnn is not fake news, it's unreliable, there's a very distinct difference.
You cannot
rely on them and them alone unless you have something like video evidence. That is the distinction.
There's a lot of stuff out there that's just reporting on stuff that objectively happened for example, "Annoying Orange walks out of executive order signing before signing orders" is something I believe the WSJ and several other news outlets reported on today. It's an objective fact; he's on video walking out before signing the executive order and it's included in the articles, yet we don't blast the WSJ for false reporting, because it's true. This is why it's absolutely not okay to dismiss an entire journal because they have a few bad authors,
because you'll end up dismissing objective facts because someone you didn't like said them.Fake news on the other hand is completely different from "unreliable sources." Over the course of the election for example, there were many many websites popping up with the
sole purpose of generating fake, clickbait, facebook-share-bait articles in order to gain insane amounts of ad revenue. They'd impersonate more reputable journals, often using similar URLs to confuse people, and until they're caught and taken down, consistently generate revenue for the people running it.
THAT is fake news.
Ipquarx is one of those people who can't see the truth and will claim your sources aren't credible because it's cnn or brexit and not WSJ.
This is why I don't post sources, no one knows what's credible or not anymore, find your own source.
Ipquarx is one of those people who can't see the truth and will claim your sources aren't credible because it's cnn or brexit and not WSJ.
WSJ is not reliable and it has proven time and time again to be untrustworthy. It's fake news.
As of right now cnn is more credible than WSJ.
I don't recall cnn costing youtube millions of dollars and innocent people over loving bullstuff.
Your trolling's taken a turn for the worse, tony. Gonna go for a quintuple post?
