Over FIFTY percent of internet news sites are FAKE. Completey fabricated. Reported on CBS today that FAKE news sites are/were common during the presidential election.
Most of the fake sites promulgated lies about Mr. Trump. The LEFT gone wild.

So for all those, such as @Sccreendo, who enjoy posting such trash as references I say to you STOP. STOP and realize that you are simply re-publishing fake stories (fiction) and when you do so it proves to others that you are prejudiced, biased and careless.

Just STOP. Please.

codyb12889 | 27 marzo 2017

Fake news about fake news. This is good bring on more, maybe if we reach a perceived 100% we will see people go back to the good ole days of fact checking.

codyb12889 | 27 marzo 2017

Oh my did I post fake news about fake news about fake news? Oh man, things get crazy when you separate yourself from facts and logic.

vp09 | 27 marzo 2017

It's a dilemma-- what is real and what is illusion?

Is all that we deem or dream-- but a dream within a dream? -- E. A. Poe.

finman100 | 28 marzo 2017


mark.willing | 28 marzo 2017

The double-edged sword of the news media's "Fairness Doctrine" which was deemed unconstitutional in 1987. One the one hand, it made it necessary for discussion of topics from multiple perspectives. This had a tempering effect on "opinion" and placed more emphasis on actual facts, because both sides of the topic were presented. On the other hand, "free speech" includes one's right to opinion and belief without the constraints of facts. So, after 1987, "opinion and belief" programs were allowed to air, attracting specific audiences. So, here we are today, 2017, with mainstream news outlets attempting to present facts, but also with a flavor of bias. As a consumer of news, I admit it can be difficult and rather time consuming trying to sort through several different media outlets in an attempt to sort through fact and opinion. I am a data guy, about hard facts,...I work in a hospital where someone's life is dependent upon sorting out hard facts from bias and opinion. It's not easy some days. The question and topic is how best to educate the people on the topic of the day without bias and opinion, and otherwise "fake news"? Perhaps in the current day, knowing that constitutionally, people have the right to opinion and belief, it possible for a news outlet to present "just the facts" anymore? If so, this is what I am seeking. "The truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."

Remnant | 28 marzo 2017

Have you tried "One America News (OAN)"?

It has more factual news than any of the other cable channels.

I get both OAN and its sister channel "A Wealth of Entertainment (AWE)" on the FIOS cable from Verizon.

rxlawdude | 28 marzo 2017

I'm sort of a Fairness Doctrine geek, as I believe this was indeed the inflection point downward into the sewer that is AM Hate Radio.

The Fairness Doctrine was NOT declared unconstitutional. It was unilaterally withdrawn by the Reagan Administration's FCC. The Supreme Court nibbled around the edges in Red Lion Broadcasting v FCC in 1969 (ruling that "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.")
SCOTUS revisited in 1984's FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, and again nibbled around the edges. ("Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine '[has] the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing' speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case.")

As I said, the killing of the Fairness Doctrine had tremendous impact on over-the-air broadcasts in that it permitted one sided rhetoric to go unchallenged.

We now sludge through the sewer that the Reagan Administration fomented upon us.

Captain_Zap | 28 marzo 2017

Mostly op/ed with a conservative bias.

rxlawdude | 28 marzo 2017

@CZ, not surprising that folks like @remnant are fed a steady diet of OPINION pieces that they mistake for news. Sad.

mark.willing | 28 marzo 2017

@rxlawdude: Apologies for paraphrasing Wikipedia regarding the First Amendment and it's unconstitutionality.

Wikipedia: Fairness Doctrine.

"...In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In 1986, the 99th Congress directed the FCC to examine alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine and to submit a report to Congress on the subject.[16]

In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."[17] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:

“ The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists. ”
At the 4-0 vote, Chairman Patrick said,

“ We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country's inception.[18] ”

reed_lewis | 28 marzo 2017

OK. I bite. Name one fake news story about Mr. Trump.....

rxlawdude | 28 marzo 2017

@Mark, the court of appeals did not rule on the constitutionality of the doctrine.

SCCRENDO | 28 marzo 2017

@compchat. If you fail to understand what is fake and what is real how can you even be a judge on whether anything I post is real or fake. I happen to cross check my references so I am satisfied with the validity of what I post. On the other hand you seem incapable of posting a valid reference to much. Can you even link your CBS report above.

SCCRENDO | 28 marzo 2017

Here is Remnants suggestion for unbiased real news. LOL

finman100 | 28 marzo 2017

Jesus, that's sad.

reed_lewis | 28 marzo 2017

Still waiting for a single fake news story about Trump. There are none.

....And reporting what he actually said is not fake news.

McLary | 28 marzo 2017

There don't seem to be any trustworthy news sources anymore, left, right, or center. Actually, the news should all be center. If your bias is showing, you are not doing your job correctly, or with integrity. There will never be another Walter Cronkite.

Like most of us, I simply didn't notice how bad things have become, until recently. In the weeks leading up to the US election, there were countless reports of violence erupting wherever Trump held his events. I am no Trump fan, so I was shocked and amazed when I realized that it wasn't Trump supporters causing the violence. Event after event, Trump supporters were being physically assaulted, for having the nerve to attend a political rally for their chosen candidate. The news simply reported things like; " more violence broke out at a political rally for Donald trump today."

The backlash against the media is completely understandable. The big news organizations are supposed to be above all the partisan crap, and provide citizens with all the facts. News is no longer reported, it is crafted.

News organizations are supposed to be our guiding lights. Instead the lights turn out to be torches, quickly followed by idiots with pitchforks.

rxlawdude | 28 marzo 2017

Yeah, and Trump didn't lose by 3M votes, and had the largest inauguration audience ever. Just two examples of what the right called fake news.

Just balancing your example.

Tropopause | 28 marzo 2017

Says the fake mclary. ;)

RedShift | 28 marzo 2017

"Says the fake mclary. ;)"


McLary | 28 marzo 2017

That pretty much sums up the intelligence level to be expected around here. "I know you are, but what am I?" Brilliant! You sure put me in my place. It is to be expected from a fake lawyer, and a fake entrepreneur.

Madatgascar | 28 marzo 2017

@McLary, I have to agree. But news sources have tough choices to make. Journalistic integrity requires reporters to call out politicians for lying, so some traditionally impartial news sources now appear to be showing a bias where none existed before. I'd rather they do that than try to equilibrate both sides for the sake of the appearance of impartiality.

compchat | 28 marzo 2017

It's pretty easy to spot fake/bias reporting. Instead of report that "Mr Trump said his wife is beautiful", the fake/bias/news media reports " Trump CLAIMED his bitch has great tits".

A bit exaggerated but you guys get the point. When you hear "trump was forced to admit", "Trump was caught saying", "trump claims that" you know you are watching fake/biased news.

You can find these same phrases in the internet sites @Screendope loves to quote. He "cross checks" his references on different fake news sites and claims that they are factual because he "cross checks them". Check out his prior posts and you will see that they are all junk internet news sites (50 percent are). It's hard to blame him for being so gullible. I'm sure he's busy trying to change the "parts" of many of his patients so he doesn't have time to do legitimate fact checking.

compchat | 28 marzo 2017

Sunday night CBS news...broadcast. I stopped looking at junk news sites. You should too.

reed_lewis | 29 marzo 2017

Again, how is this FAKE news? The bias on the reporting is one thing. But facts are facts. When have facts been falsely reported?

...and Trump is like a used car salesman. How can you tell when he is lying? His mouth is open.

RedShift | 29 marzo 2017


Come over to the Bay Area mate. I will show you how fake I am. I will even buy you a real round. This is a real offer. :-)

I call you fake because your handle alludes to another poster, mclary, who was genuinely funny. I don't find you funny, just predictable.

How you can call me a fake entrepreneur, I have no idea, you don't know who I am, what I do, and what successes and failures I have had up until now to build a startup. You have no clue at all. That comment you make is purely based on the perceived insult.

Captain_Zap | 29 marzo 2017


McLary knows who mclary is. McLary used mclary's signature line several times after his arrival. It wasn't funny in the locations where the new McLary used it.

RedShift | 29 marzo 2017


This bloke is consistently to the right of center, and for once makes a semi-reasonable post (not really, but in HIS head anyway), gets called out still, then loses it and calls others fakes. I don't mind meeting him if he comes around to the Bay Area. Seriously. I don't particularly like to inflate anything, coz that doesn't get me anything in real life.
I've spent a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get to this point. Many times 2 years ago, I thought I was going to drive my company into the ditch, and probably myself, soon after. Then I discovered that cliche everyone talks about: never give up. I did not, and now, it is so much fun, it's a high you cannot experience any other way.

But I've paid, my family has paid, a big price. I watched, as my friends passed me by in their net worth. In quiet giggles, I was mocked at parties for sticking my neck out. Yet, I persevered. Only because I am cocksure about what I do, and just don't give up.

This is my first time leading a company. And we have some big names in our account as first few customers. While it's easier to start a software startup doing something in apps or 'cloud' or 'fog', easier to start a services startup, it's supremely hard to start a tech product startup that specializes in extremely complex energy analysis.

If this bloke wants to meet me to see I'm not fake, I am fine with it.