>>2224851

Q used YourNewsWire? That's news to me.

Prior to all the fake news accusations, there was a massive push to setup satire sites that were 'not satire' (for example: 'RealNewsRightNow' - the satire disclaimer is buried in an out the way 'about us' page, and was owned by a guy living near the CIA HQ in Langley. The WHOIS info has since changed and ownership swapped).

The goal of such sites is to lure people in with the initial appearance of truth, but bury in the article or somewhere else on the site some sort of angle that could be used to discredit anyone referencing it.

For example, RNRN took up the claim of the MH370 'in a hanger' discovery, but only near the bottom of the article did it stop being serious and apply 'satire'. Classically it's never funny, either.

The original plan, I think, was to use these clearly intel funded sites to discredit conspiracy theory in general (by saying 'see: these are fake news sites!'). But the 'satire' sites never really gained much traction against the likes of reliable outlets like Drudge, Zero Hedge, Brietbart or Natural News.

The other approach is to subvert a good outlet into a liberal leaning orbit. whowhatwhy.org used to do independent journalism, for example, but in the last 3 years, much to my alarm, it's basically become CNN-lite, right down to the abortion opinion pieces, Trump-Russia garbage and pro-climate change.

(In contrast, it used to do investigations of the CIA, discuss overlooked intelligence operations, and highlight serious issues of mass surveillance. Why would they now believe CIA reporting on Trump?)

Project Veritas is an excellent outlet, because it supplies video proof of it's claims, and every discovery it makes is explosive, a throwback to true journalism (where, you know, journalists actually investigated topics and didn't write hit pieces). It's lambasted as being 'conservative' despite the fact it's clearly not, and has outed a lot of voter fraud - the shit it covers is highly explosive but you won't see it in any major news outlet.

Another good source for on-the-ground reporting is Timcast (who highlighted SPLC's inaccuracies in citing what was clearly a 4chan hoax, and highlights issues with snopes accuracies). He's a self-admitted centrist-leftist but he always applies level-headed reasoning, and classically breaks down and refutes news stories. He's forced outlets to retract false claims of him being 'alt-right', and offers neutrality that is clearly absent from a lot of news reporting.

Unfortunately the impartial news sources list I can reference is dwindling. Outlets I'd normally consider reasonable are pushing themselves into baseless anti-Trump ravings, and between Project Veritas and Timcast, there's not a lot of alternatives out there that aren't garbage misleading sites or anti-Trump haters.

Regarding research for outlets and whether they can be misleading, it's a case of testing the waters. Anti-Trump garbage outlets out themselves on the first page. Disinfo sites require you peruse articles (for example, ShadowProof has a ridicule piece where a George Soros supporter jokingly claims to have been forced to sign an NDA under terrible working conditions, with the title misleadingly framed as someone publishing their NDA - eyeballing the PDF it's clearly full of misleading garbage).

The fact they have to set up these garbage sites to mislead by pretending to be 'one of us' is telling, because it shows traditional methods do not work.

>>2224851

>Might be better to teach them how to spot fake news like you can.

Per request:

Tips for verification:

1) Check WHOIS of a site, including basic background check of owner (if possible)

1a) Check site age. Younger sites are more likely to be disinfo outlets.

2) Check about us page - usually agendas, disclaimers, etc will be buried there

3) If it accepts donations, check who from if it allows you to find out

4) Always read articles thoroughly, don't skimread and dump the link to others (which is what they hope you will do, as they employ bait and switch: good title, bad content)

5) Look for secondary citations (EG links to external supporting evidence) and look at the quality of the citations:

5a) Good articles link to neutral or independently verified citations (EG a PDF from an FOIA, for example)

5b) Bad articles link to agenda-driven outlets or charities whose funding depends on the hocking of the viewpoint (EG a pro-immigration page citing pro-immigration charities)

5c) No citations requires a search of keywords to check it can be independently verified, if not, discard (absence of citations is not absence of truth but makes your job harder)

6) If a story is cited from somewhere else, legally speaking, the site must make it clear. If a website does an entire copy/paste lift from another outlet with no accreditation, this is a bad outlet (not only dishonest, but you can't judge credibility of source). It's always advisible to restore original source when quoting as it gives the true reporter credit for their work.

7) Be wary of 'cherry picked' quotes that seem to be selectively edited (this is a practice done by both sides). Fully read whatever source the quotes come from for context. If they don't link or they bury the reference, dig it up, as this usually implies it contains evidence that doesn't support their particular stance.

8) If critically analysing an article, always break it into segments. This allows you to filter out the fluff and zero in on the reasons, and detect whether or not they're valid. Media outlets often use 'linear chain' reasoning, so if you refute one part, the rest of the argument collapses.

9) Factor in an outlet's preferred stance or bias. For example, Russia Today might present useful insights, but it's goal is to always protect Russian interests. Likewise, CNN might (lol!) present something interesting, but it's goal is to always protect it's liberal interests. Knowing which way an outlet leans lets you know where they're most likely going to fall down on (EG CNN won't accurately report democrat corruption, RT won't necessarily print anything critical of the Russian government, etc). All outlets and people have bias, it can't be eliminated, just simply accounted for (anyone who tells you otherwise is lying).

10) If an article is garbage or misleading, it might be possible to still salvage some good information (or even use it as proof given it's misleading status). For example, CNN might skewer reporting, but it might have an external reference that you can extract and use elsewhere. Inversely, if CNN's article is so incredibly garbage and such a poorly thought out attack piece, you can use it to infer the opposite is true (or at least highlight how bad the reporting is supporting the inverse). Failing that, the attack piece might give you a clue as to where to look (often they're as stupid as HEY, DON'T LOOK AT THIS THING I'M ABOUT TO TELL YOU ABOUT).

If all else fails: search, search, search. Break up the article into sections and research each of it's claims. Don't fall for the trap of 'many outlets are saying this therefore it must be true' because a lot are owned by the same company and thus regurgitate the same attack pieces: three men do not make a tiger.