Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, November 26, 2016

Jobless and with graduation looming, a computer science student at the premier university in the nation of Georgia decided early this year that money could be made from America's voracious appetite for passionately partisan political news. He set up a website, posted gushing stories about Hillary Clinton and waited for ad sales to soar. "I don't know why, but it did not work," said the student, Beqa Latsabidze, 22, who was savvy enough to change course when he realized what did drive traffic: laudatory stories about Donald J. Trump that mixed real -- and completely fake -- news in a stew of anti-Clinton fervor.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

His flagship pro-Trump website, departed.co, gained remarkable traction in a crowded field in the prelude to the Nov. 8 election thanks to steady menu of relentlessly pro-Trump and anti-Clinton stories. (On Wednesday, a few hours after the New York Times met with Latsabidze to ask him about his activities, the site vanished along with his Facebook page.)

"My audience likes Trump," he said. "I don't want to write bad things about Trump. If I write fake stories about Trump, I lose my audience."

Some of his Trump stories are true, some are highly slanted and others are totally false, like one this summer reporting that "the Mexican government announced they will close their borders to Americans in the event that Donald Trump is elected President of the United States." Data compiled by Buzzfeed showed that the story was the third most-trafficked fake story on Facebook from May to July.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Its called clickbait. The stories spread because the journalist dont check out the stories they just recopy them.

#1 | Posted by tmaster at 2016-11-26 06:49 PM | Reply

"The stories spread because the journalist dont check out the stories they just recopy them."

Journalists? You mean FB readers. If it agrees with their pre-view, it MUST be true!

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 06:53 PM | Reply

It is no different here when people will post and op-ed piece as if it were a fact.

#3 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2016-11-27 12:01 AM | Reply

Yeah, everybody loved Clinton until they started reading stories on FB!

#4 | Posted by DRJIMMIES at 2016-11-27 12:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

let's not act like only one side was guilty of dis- or misinformation this time around.

cnn, wapo, nyt, politico, et al, were caught acting as pathetic lackeys for the dnc/clinton campaign during the primary and general, and now need to deflect from their abysmal performance during the entire election season. these outlets and others created and mutually reinforced the echo chamber which left their readers/viewers in shock, but it's much easier to scream and cry salty tears about "muh russia" than to reflect.

SJWs always lie, they always double-down, and always project. we're witnessing a master seminar, folks.

#5 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2016-11-27 04:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

mike krieger and glenn greenwald respond to "the list".

#6 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2016-11-27 04:55 AM | Reply

from the former:

I rarely write about Russia, with the exception of trying to prevent insane neocons and neoliberals in our government from actively seeking a military confrontation, because I -- like most normal human beings -- would prefer not to contribute to the manifestation of World War 3. Likewise, I try to prevent war breaking out in all circumstances where I think it can and should be avoided. I intentionally almost never use RT as a source, and I've never quoted anything from Sputnik. Unlike The Washington Post, I try to be extremely diligent about not publishing fake news, but I am a very strong critic of U.S. government policy, because much of U.S. government policy is certifiably insane and unethical. You can disagree with my opinion on that all you'd like, but I challenge anyone to find anything that could reasonably be considered pro-Russia propaganda on my website. If Liberty Blitzkrieg really is a Russian propaganda site, this should be easy to do since I've published thousands of articles over the years.

and the latter:

Some of the websites on PropOrNot's blacklist do indeed publish Russian propaganda -- namely Sputnik News and Russia Today, which are funded by the Russian government. But many of the aforementioned blacklisted sites are independent, completely legitimate news sources which often receive funding through donations or foundations and which have been reporting and analyzing news for many years.

The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin.

One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS' Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.

The group eschews alternative media outlets like these and instead recommends that readers rely solely on establishment-friendly publications like NPR, the BBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Buzzfeed and VICE. That is because a big part of the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy.


#7 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2016-11-27 05:05 AM | Reply

I hope you realize Liberty Blitzkreig is a lunatic web site.

"Michael, You have a very excellent Blogsite and the articles are informative. I ran across your blogsite by accident. I plan to return when I have more time. I am of the opinion that Obama and his cronies, etc. will lead to the ultimate destruction of the United States – Economically and morally. The only true hope for our country is a nationwide Revival which I do not believe will come. Obama from my research is a Marxist Muslim who was and is funded and directed by George Soros who's goal is to destroy the United States because it stands in the way of his globalist goals for the World. What God did at the Tower of Babel shows God's displeasure with Globalism. Even though many people believe that Globalism is the ultimate solution for World problems, they are wrong because God has never allow this to this date. According to Holy Scripture a final One World government will be created but it will be the worst disaster that mankind has ever seen."

libertyblitzkrieg.com

That is the type of thinker who goes there. Lunatics.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-27 06:38 AM | Reply

CNN has been doing this for years. Where is the story?

#9 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-11-27 07:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The fact that so many Trump supporters visited those sites suggests that they were looking for some reason to justify their support of Trump. They had heard/read all of the bad press on Trump and didn't want to believe it. So, they turned to these sites.

Now that these fake news sites aren't the draw they once were, Trump supporters won't have as many sources to justify their support for him. Despite Trump's boost in popularity following his election, I predict that his popularity will tumble substantially within the first 6 months of taking office because his actions will not live up to his promises.

#10 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2016-11-27 07:55 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I hope you realize Liberty Blitzkreig is a lunatic web site.

Rhetorical, I suspect.

#11 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 08:30 AM | Reply

"cnn, wapo, nyt, politico, et al, were caught acting as pathetic lackeys for the dnc/clinton campaign during the primary and general, and now need to deflect from their abysmal performance during the entire election season."

Oh, yes. They've been very "progressives" oriented for many, many moons but reached their zenith during this election.

"Unlike The Washington Post, I try to be extremely diligent about not publishing fake news, but I am a very strong critic of U.S. government policy, because much of U.S. government policy is certifiably insane and unethical."

Well, if that's your opinion, you must be racist, bigoted, a misogynist, a Nazi, and anti-American. :-) Welcome to the club! I've not ever visited your website, but I'll be sure to do so now.

#12 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 08:34 AM | Reply

Rise of Political Clickbait 4: Exposing Facebook's Fake News (2015)
www.youtube.com

Published on Nov 24, 2015

Politics on Facebook is a minefield of lies and hoaxes.

In a world where many are trying to do their part to use technology to make the world a better place, a select few political Facebook page administrators have lost their way and fallen victim to sacrificing integrity for advertising dollars.

Instead of this video being all about legitimizing or demonizing specific political parties or ideologies, its aim is to uncover a dishonest online news model that's growing by the day, influencing our friends and family for the worse. The focus is on the unfortunate rise, severity and frequency of deceptive journalism on these pages.


#13 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 08:36 AM | Reply

Based on their anonymous qualifications, PropOrNot is likely a "fake news" group...

#14 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-27 08:39 AM | Reply

cnn, wapo, nyt, politico, et al, were caught acting as pathetic lackeys for the dnc/clinton campaign during the primary and general, and now need to deflect from their abysmal performance during the entire election season. these outlets and others created and mutually reinforced the echo chamber which left their readers/viewers in shock, but it's much easier to scream and cry salty tears about "muh russia" than to reflect.

#5 | POSTED BY ZARATHUSTRA

You're wrong in comparing the talking heads on cable TV and the seemingly thousands of op-ed writers at the seemingly thousands on on-line writers with the real problem of fake news. Fake also means "fabricated" just saying something inaccurate or false is still not the same as fabricting something with deciectful intent.

Whenever an op-ed douchebag from CNN or Politico.com says something outrageously inaccurate or flat-out lies, there are still mechanisms in place to clarify, and if needed retract, whatever was said. Not so with fake news.

#15 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 08:46 AM | Reply

#15 - they know that. They're only hope of holding on to that thin veneer of satisfaction they get by reading and passing along FAKE news is to deflect, obfuscate and conflate.

#16 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 08:52 AM | Reply

"Their" only hope - sheesh!

#17 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 09:02 AM | Reply

the comment section of the article is interesting, once you read it down a bit.

#18 | Posted by ichiro at 2016-11-27 09:03 AM | Reply

they know that. They're only hope of holding on to that thin veneer of satisfaction they get by reading and passing along FAKE news is to deflect, obfuscate and conflate.

#16 | POSTED BY YAV

People saying outrageous things on a message board, a comments section, or on Facebook is not the same as fabricating stories, per the 9:38 you-tube video in post #13.

#19 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 09:04 AM | Reply

yes, "fake" means false. fabricated untruths.
shoddy journalism is not "fake."

#20 | Posted by ichiro at 2016-11-27 09:06 AM | Reply

yes, "fake" means false. fabricated untruths.
shoddy journalism is not "fake."

#20 | POSTED BY ICHIRO

I agree.

But some in this thread are calling and comparing shoddy journalism as "fake news".

#21 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 09:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#19 - who said it was? I'm addressing actual click-bait fake news, and no I haven't bothered with your video because I'm not confused. Did you read the article that is the basis for this thread?

#22 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 09:13 AM | Reply

Those "some" are right-wingers that were the subject of my "deflect, obfuscate and conflate" point.
Zara cited PropOrNot as a strwaman (equating it to FAKE news) so he could strike it down.
A logical fallacy.

The Right is constantly confusing news they don't like, or legitimate opinion pieces as "fake news" because they can then dismiss everything they don't like as "fake news."

I guess I don't get your point.

#23 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 09:18 AM | Reply

Did you read the article that is the basis for this thread?

#22 | POSTED BY YAV

Yes, I read it. The NYT's link is mostly about people spreading misinformation to make money.

The you-tube link in post #13 is a deconstruction of a fake news story that was purposely fabricated.

Here's another one...

Rise of Political Clickbait 5: The Planned Parenthood Colorado Shooting Lie
www.youtube.com

Published on Nov 29, 2015

Political news pages on Facebook lied about the 2015 Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado in order to bring in advertising revenue and capitalize politically.

The goal of this video is to expose the bank robbery lie that was published by conservative media to millions of people, and to pay respect to the victims of the Planned Parenthood shooting attack in Colorado Springs.

Please keep in mind that is possible for me to point out a lie without necessarily representing the other side of the issue, and that I point out the lie not to score political points, or to show opinion, but to seek the truth about the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting attack.


I'm not saying you don't get it, but this thread is meandering away from the actual fabrication of news, to simply saying that the MSM sucks per them missing Hillary losing the election.

#24 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 09:25 AM | Reply

I can't wait to see the fake news stories about how an economic collapse is a good thing.

#25 | Posted by kudzu at 2016-11-27 09:32 AM | Reply

shoddy journalism also includes includes clickbait headlines.
some headlines don't even appear in the stories, yet the article itself isn't "fake."
a lot of youngsters wish to make names for themselves by using this sort of sensationalism, not just in their headlines but their entire comport demeanor/appearance.
we have a few of those here?

#26 | Posted by ichiro at 2016-11-27 09:36 AM | Reply

I figured we were in agreement. Thanks for the clarification.

#27 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 09:37 AM | Reply

"The Right is constantly confusing news they don't like, or legitimate opinion pieces as "fake news" because they can then dismiss everything they don't like as "fake news."

A legitimate opinion piece isn't "fake news." I can write my opinion that The Hillabeast is the most corrupt woman to have ever lived in the "White House." However, if I write a piece about her harrowing incident with snipers in Bosnia, you might consider that to be "fake news." That "fake news" comes out of the administration and the media all the time, but most of we conservatives are smart enough that we aren't confused. That's why we scoff at that 4.9% unemployment rate. We also know that figures don't lie but liars can figure.

#28 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 09:57 AM | Reply

#28 - Thank you for being the perfect illustration - again. It was actually entertaining reading your twists and turns.
You managed to say 'A legitimate opinion piece isn't "fake news"' (which is what I said) and then you went on to blur/smudge/slime the lines and then perfectly illustrate my point that the news you conservatives don't like you then label as "fake." That's just perfect!

And you then hilariously say "we conservatives are smart enough that we aren't confused."

All I can say is "awesome" and "thank you!"

#29 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 10:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I figured we were in agreement. Thanks for the clarification.

#27 | POSTED BY YAV

Yeah -- no problem ~

#30 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 11:12 AM | Reply

"NPR, the BBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Buzzfeed and VICE"

Sounds a lot like: Sugar, Caffeine, Marijuana, Alcohol, Ibuprofen, MDMA, Heroin, Nicotine, Aspirin, Cocaine, Iron, and Meth to me.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

#31 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-27 11:47 AM | Reply

Fake news is obviously part and parcel of the consolidated and corporate NYC MSM.

#32 | Posted by Robson at 2016-11-28 06:42 PM | Reply

Fake news has a definition.
Learn it.
Show you're capable.
Prove you're not an idiot.
For once.

#33 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-28 07:09 PM | Reply

-Fake news has a definition.

Yep. CNN. Clinton News Network.

#34 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-28 07:27 PM | Reply

And now "idiot" has an updated definition.

#35 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-28 08:45 PM | Reply

Fake news has a definition.
Learn it.

Fake news is the mainstream media using the DNC and Podesta as clearing house for their articles. Fake news is the mainstream media colluding with the DNC to shape attacks against unapproved candidates and to blunt criticism of preferred candidates.

The audacity to challenge "fake news" in the face of these repeated examples of corruption never ceases to amaze me.

#36 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2016-11-29 08:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#36 - You loons just won't stop.
Dense can't describe the impenetrable stupidity you constantly exhibit.
Just change your name to Humpty Dumpty already.

#37 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-29 08:56 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort