CIA's "mop up man" Ken Dilanian is the NBC 'reporter' used to channel claim about president Putin + US election https://t.co/GOci4EWwdv
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 15, 2016
RED ALERT: FB to label “Fake News”
In a hilarious turn of events, FB is gonna use snopes to bury and silence news stories…
Watch FB’s stock tank!!
http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-will-fact-check-label-fake-news-in-news-feed-2016-12
NEW YORK TIMES CEO DELIVERS SPEECH ON ERADICATING “FAKE NEWS”
Excellent article by Kirt Nimmo:
On Monday, Mark Thompson, President and CEO of The New York Times Company, delivered remarks to members of the Detroit Economic Club.
Thompson threw around the idea of government censorship of “fake news.”
What can we do about it? The first thing that springs to some people’s minds is some form of censorship or regulation. I note in my book how the 17th century British political thinker Thomas Hobbes came, at least in part, to blame extremist sermons and tracts – tracts which could be mass-produced and disseminated widely within hours thanks to the still relatively new technology of printing – for England’s descent into civil war. He later argued that the war might never have happened if a few thousand of the extremists had been rounded up and executed.
Now, while I don’t suppose that even the sternest critic of fake news would advocate the death penalty, there are certainly some who favor a kind of functional censorship, with fake news sites identified and taken down, and fake news somehow filtered out of search and social media by human or algorithmic means.
Thompson then admits this is unrealistic. Besides, there is a thing called the First Amendment.
And who said that the public should only be allowed to read the facts anyway? The First Amendment essentially says they should be allowed to write, distribute and read anything they damn well please. If some of them turn out to prefer churning out and eagerly consuming lies and fantasies, so be it.
He then suggests a Ministry of Truth, of sorts, run by corporations, but admits this is worrisome.
If we imagine the tools that might be used to excise fake news from the web and social media – a mighty algorithm combing every sentence, every image for any trace of falsehood, aided perhaps by legions of human scrutineers employed by some of the world’s biggest corporations – they sound suspiciously like the means of control employed by the world’s most repressive regimes. They are probably not practical and, even if they were, they would be worrisome or worse in our free societies.
Thompson then falls back on a solution imposed by the state by using food labeling as an example.
Imagine a supermarket where the products had no nutrition information printed on them, and no one was prepared to vouch for quite where they had come from, and the owners told you they couldn’t really take responsibility for the quality of anything. Would you feed your children food purchased from that supermarket?
Nutrition information on food products was mandated by the FDA in 1994. Is this what Mr. Thompson is advocating? A new government agency—a ministry of truth—that will decide what is fake and what is not fake news?
He then praises his own newspaper and admits it screws up occasionally (he does not mention the Iraq lies published by the Times with an end result of 1.5 million dead people).
If readers find misinformation and lies, he says they can always write a letter to the editor. “You can see who wrote the story and, if you think it’s inaccurate or biased, you know who the editor is, and the publisher,” he writes.
Finally, the CEO of the Times uses the fake news meme to push subscriptions.
It’s like any quality product. If you want real journalism, you as a consumer will have to pay for it. So subscribe. Subscribe to your local paper, or The New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post, or, if you’re feeling particularly flush, to all of the above.
At The Times, we’re making real progress, with audiences and subscriber numbers larger than at any time in our history, as well as big gains year over year in digital revenue. We still post healthy profits.
Hmmm. This appears to be fake news.
In May, the Times reported a $14 million net loss for the first quarter of 2016. “The net loss for the quarter was roughly the same as in the first quarter of 2015. Total revenue fell about 1 percent, to $380 million, from $384 million in the first quarter of 2015.”
http://anotherdayintheempire.com/new-york-times-ceo-delivers-speech-eradicating-fake-news/
How all the MSM is fake!
Found this great tweet that explains succinctly how all the MSM is fake:
https://twitter.com/CraigRBrittain/status/808425213276745728
Newsweek “fake news”?
Great video about fake Newsweek news:
Are they calling for a “Ministry of Truth” to shut down “fake news”?
They want to call our news fake news while ignoring the fact that they have lied and lied and lied over and over… this makes them fake news…
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/are-they-actually-calling-for-a-ministry-of-truth-now_122016
The truth about Fake News
Great video by Stefan Molyneux:
How to report fake MSM news!
Finally, a way to report fake MSM news like the fake landing under fire in Bosnia.
How NYT used fake news to bring Castro to power
Fake News, Criminalized
Fake News, Criminalized
by TDB
Dec 8, 2016 3:22 PM
Via The Daily Bell
MI6 Chief Says Fake News And Online Propaganda Are A Threat To Democracy … The chief of MI6 has said he is deeply concerned by the threat posed by rival countries attempting to undermine democracy through propaganda and cyberattacks. –Buzzfeed
The next step in attacking the alternative media is to criminalize it.
Right now the alternative media is under attack in Europe for “hate speech” and (potentially) terrorism. In the US, the alternative media is being accused of presenting Russian propaganda. Earlier today, this approach was taken up by British intel (see above).
In the US, there are Congressional attempts underway to provide funds for law enforcement to investigate alternative news sites as supporters of Russian propaganda. But so far there have been no major statements from US federal law enforcement officials. Now, however, we have one from Britain – as the head of MI6 has spoken up.
Since Western alternative media is simply an outgrowth – an expression – of discontent with the current system, those producing it cannot ultimately be seen as tools of Russian propaganda. However, alternative media is proving deeply disconcerting to the larger Western power structure. For this reason, suspicions of Russian propaganda merely provide a justification for investigation. One an investigation has been pursued, it may not stop until something – anything – is found that can be construed as criminal or at least problematic.
In this way alternative media can be first criminalized and then hounded. Or so the plan goes …
More:
Alex Younger, aka “C”, used a rare public speech to say he was deeply concerned about the risks posed by hybrid warfare, where countries take advantage of the internet to “further their aims deniably” through “means as varied as cyberattacks, propaganda, or subversion of democratic process”.
Although he did not name Russia directly, the comments come following accusations that the Kremlin has attempted to influence elections in the US and Europe using underhand tactics ranging from undeclared direct funding, to hacking emails, to spreading fake news.
“Our job is to give the government the information advantage; to shine a light on these activities and to help our country and allies, in particular across Europe, build the resilience they need to protect themselves,” Younger said. “The risks at stake are profound and represent a fundamental threat to our sovereignty; they should be a concern to all those who share democratic values.”
In fact, what is being planned is not going to work. It will likely make life miserable for certain reporters and others associated with the alternative media. But it is far too early for the powers-that-be to stamp out alternative journalism (and the thinking behind it) no matter how much they wish to.
For one thing, alternative journalism is now representative of a larger mindset among tens and even hundreds of millions of people, especially in the West. Thus it will take at least a full generation to wipe out new perspectives and rediscovered information.
Second, because the news is representative of people’s points of view (rather than vice-versa) alternative media insights and information will continue to be presented in various ways – on the Internet as well, only not so obviously.
Finally, the growing war against the alternative media will only reinforce its relevance and credibility, thus causing more people to become informed (or deepen their perceptions) about the issues presented in the so-called alternative media.
There is a whole alternative culture that is offered by modern alternative media. Some of it may be leftist but the initial approach – for those who have tracked its emergence on the ‘Net – was basically libertarian and freedom-oriented.
Even today this specific cultural approach informs a lot of alternative reporting. The fundamental ideas is that the market itself should make determinations regarding human interactions rather than government run by groups of people with greater or lesser competence.
This approach is rooted in free-market – Austrian – economic theory which is actually accepted throughout mainstream economics. It begins with marginal utility, the idea that credible prices can only be generated by marketplace competition. But its insights are much broader.
If everyone in formal academic economics including Keynesians accept the reality of marginal utility (as they do) then how can such massive governments exists, passing thousands of laws, rules and regulations – all of which are essentially price fixes? Shouldn’t human behavior be moderated by competition instead whenever possible?
The same goes for central banking. It contravenes fundamental economic logic. Ask almost anyone in banking of economics (on the left or right) if they believe in marginal utility and the answer will be “yes.” Ask anyone if they believe price-fixing is effective or productive and they will answer “no.”
And yet central banking is a form of price fixing and so is government. Western society exists in a bubble of cognitive dissonance. What is accepted academically is not applied in reality.
And thus freedom – and libertarianism – cannot be attacked logically. Instead, false arguments will be created to damp down the alternative media.
But as pointed out above, it is not going to be simple or easy to remove fundamental truths from the body politic. The last time we witnessed this kind of paradigm was after the invention of the Gutenberg press that blew open societies throughout the West and helped create the New World and then the republic of “these United States.”
It took about 500 years for control of society to be re-established from the top down by certain historical groups … and yet here we are again. The same sort of technological undermining has taken place and it won’t be easily repressed.
It may not take another 450 years but it certainly won’t happen in 10 or 20. And by the time it does take place it is certainly possible that another information revolution will have come to pass.
Time and history are working against authoritarianism and not with it. Depriving people of knowledge and history is a signature of repression. But in the current technological era it becomes more and more difficult.
What is pending is period of chaos and difficulty. But over the next century we may see an efflorescence of the sort that took place after the Gutenberg press with the expansion of the Renaissance and the advent of the Enlightenment and the rediscovery of scientific thinking.
Conclusion: Things may indeed change. But not necessarily in the way controllers imagine.
Fake News? Y? 