Fake News Site Owner Identified

[Revoltingest]

I heard this today.....
An excerpt.....
And as the stories spread, Coler makes money from the ads on his websites. He wouldn't give exact figures, but he says stories about other fake-news proprietors making between $10,000 and $30,000 a month apply to him. Coler fits into a pattern of other faux news sites that make good money, especially by targeting Trump supporters.

However, Coler insists this is not about money. It's about showing how easily fake news spreads. And fake news spread wide and far before the election. When I pointed out to Coler that the money gave him a lot of incentive to keep doing it regardless of the impact, he admitted that was "correct."

Coler says he has tried to shine a light on the problem of fake news. He has spoken to the media about it. But those organizations didn't know who he actually was. He gave them a fake name: Allen Montgomery.

Coler, a registered Democrat, says he has no regrets about his fake news empire. He doesn't think fake news swayed the election.

 

[columbus]

He also said that it only works on conservatives. Trump supporters are the best. Liberals don't take the bait.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

He also said that it only works on conservatives. Trump supporters are the best. Liberals don't take the bait.
Tom

Liberals do buy into fake news though.
I see it regularly.
As a Democrat, he just might be in denial about his own group.

 

[idav]

Liberals do buy into fake news though.
I see it regularly.
As a Democrat, he just might be in denial about his own group.

Sure skeptics can be duped but skeptics are typically, well, skeptical.

 

[fantome profane]

Sure skeptics can be duped but skeptics are typically, well, skeptical.

oh yeah? Prove it!

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure skeptics can be duped but skeptics are typically, well, skeptical.

Liberals, like conservatives, can be skeptical or non-skeptical.
It's all about the individual.

 

[idav]

Liberals, like conservatives, can be skeptical or non-skeptical.
It's all about the individual.

Like people choose to be skeptical about certain things, some choose to be skeptics regarding science and some choose skepticism of religion etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

Like people choose to be skeptical about certain things, some choose to be skeptics regarding science and some choose skepticism of religion etc.

True dat.

 

[Revoltingest]

While NPR finds an Americastanian Democrat running fake news sites,
the Wash Po only finds Russians trying to help Trump....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...3903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html
Odd that they were utterly unaware of the NPR find.
Wash Po seems to be of the semi-fake news ilk, ie, those who tell an
agenda laden story, & ignore relevant info in order to serve a partisan goal.

 

[Acim]

Don’t Kid Yourself — Liberals Are Just As Susceptible To Fake News

(Acim words) Honestly, as someone who used to work at a major daily and paid attention to news outlets, including The Onion, I think this has been ongoing problem for, either a long while or, ever. I'm sure liberals think of Fox News as fake (or faux) news, while at least some of what I see on MSM (i.e. CNN) or LW media (i.e. MSNBC, HuffPo, WashPo) strikes me as embellished/fake news. Long before this recent notion of 'fake news' has popped up.

I don't even know if there's a way around the perceived problem. Checking multiple sources can help, but as the link above shows, if multiple sources are basing something on misinformation, then multiple sources reporting that misinformation doesn't help. Whenever I see "our sources say" or "research shows," I have a little red flag go up that tells me to take the following information with grain of salt.

It's also not just the news of the day, or current information. Such that you'd plausibly think science/scientific data wouldn't be susceptible to misinformation, but alas it is. "Smoking kills" - um, yeah, right. While that is (I think easily) debunked, it is prime example of tell a lie big enough, long enough and the resulting information will have a whole lot of people believing - this is indisputable fact.

I dunno, I'm very curious how others honestly distinguish between misinformation and substantiated facts, especially as it relates to current news. Outside of current news, it's what the debate forums are for, IMHO.

 

[idav]

Don’t Kid Yourself — Liberals Are Just As Susceptible To Fake News

(Acim words) Honestly, as someone who used to work at a major daily and paid attention to news outlets, including The Onion, I think this has been ongoing problem for, either a long while or, ever. I'm sure liberals think of Fox News as fake (or faux) news, while at least some of what I see on MSM (i.e. CNN) or LW media (i.e. MSNBC, HuffPo, WashPo) strikes me as embellished/fake news. Long before this recent notion of 'fake news' has popped up.

I don't even know if there's a way around the perceived problem. Checking multiple sources can help, but as the link above shows, if multiple sources are basing something on misinformation, then multiple sources reporting that misinformation doesn't help. Whenever I see "our sources say" or "research shows," I have a little red flag go up that tells me to take the following information with grain of salt.

It's also not just the news of the day, or current information. Such that you'd plausibly think science/scientific data wouldn't be susceptible to misinformation, but alas it is. "Smoking kills" - um, yeah, right. While that is (I think easily) debunked, it is prime example of tell a lie big enough, long enough and the resulting information will have a whole lot of people believing - this is indisputable fact.

I dunno, I'm very curious how others honestly distinguish between misinformation and substantiated facts, especially as it relates to current news. Outside of current news, it's what the debate forums are for, IMHO.

The key is just to be skeptical of everything, especially people claiming to have all the answers. Most people don't have the time or willingness for it. Multiple sources doesn't help, they just have to be reliable sources. When folks like fox news is found to blatantly and indiscriminately pass fake news they should be avoided. The trash was so bad this election hardly anyone I talk to can tell the difference, everyone professes electing the lesser of two evils which is all based on slander and misinformation. It worked though but they all had a part in the election outcome, they through everything and the kitchen sink at Clinton and she still won the popular, however with swing states all the BS is big trouble which is why we have the catastrophe with a nation that doesn't want the president elected, electorals not wanting to vote Trump, and Hillary currently having now a 2 million popular lead. The most scandalous, hateful and misinforming election in history. Enough couldn't see through the BS to swing the vote just so.

 

[esmith]

The key is just to be skeptical of everything, especially people claiming to have all the answers. Most people don't have the time or willingness for it. Multiple sources doesn't help, they just have to be reliable sources. When folks like fox news is found to blatantly and indiscriminately pass fake news they should be avoided. The trash was so bad this election hardly anyone I talk to can tell the difference, everyone professes electing the lesser of two evils which is all based on slander and misinformation. It worked though but they all had a part in the election outcome, they through everything and the kitchen sink at Clinton and she still won the popular, however with swing states all the BS is big trouble which is why we have the catastrophe with a nation that doesn't want the president elected, electorals not wanting to vote Trump, and Hillary currently having now a 2 million popular lead. The most scandalous, hateful and misinforming election in history. Enough couldn't see through the BS to swing the vote just so.

Just what "source" do you say is "reliable"?

 

[Wu Wei]

Liberal, Conservative, Centrist.... if they are humans...they are all equaly susceptible to being scammed...be that fake news, fake, e-mail, social engineering, or conman..... if you don't thinks so, you are just lying to yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

The key is just to be skeptical of everything, especially people claiming to have all the answers. Most people don't have the time or willingness for it. Multiple sources doesn't help, they just have to be reliable sources. When folks like fox news is found to blatantly and indiscriminately pass fake news they should be avoided. The trash was so bad this election hardly anyone I talk to can tell the difference, everyone professes electing the lesser of two evils which is all based on slander and misinformation. It worked though but they all had a part in the election outcome, they through everything and the kitchen sink at Clinton and she still won the popular, however with swing states all the BS is big trouble which is why we have the catastrophe with a nation that doesn't want the president elected, electorals not wanting to vote Trump, and Hillary currently having now a 2 million popular lead. The most scandalous, hateful and misinforming election in history. Enough couldn't see through the BS to swing the vote just so.

Don't forget that it wasn't just Fox spinning news.
Many other sources were doing so for Hillary.
As Wu Wei says, if humans are involved, news will be spun.
Be careful out there.

Btw.....
I'm not so glad that Trump won, but I'm pleased as punch that Hillary lost.
And I credit this largely to one source, Wikileaks. It has not been debunked.

 

[YmirGF]

I wonder if this is a preliminary move to thwart Faux Nudes? Given how far the entire mainstream media was from predicting the elections accurate results could much of their content also be labeled as fake news?

 

[habiru]

I doesn't know why anyone cannot see that Hillary lost because of her lies and her supporters.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Liberal, Conservative, Centrist.... if they are humans...they are all equaly susceptible to being scammed...be that fake news, fake, e-mail, social engineering, or conman..... if you don't thinks so, you are just lying to yourself.

Reminds me of the recent thread here about the database a professor of media and communications put together of fake/biased/bad news sources, and tips for spotting them.

I wonder if this is a preliminary move to thwart Faux Nudes? Given how far the entire mainstream media was from predicting the elections accurate results could much of their content also be labeled as fake news?

When you look at the numbers, the only thing "the media" got wrong was the outcome, as they did accurately predict Hillary would have more people voting for her, even to being within the margin or error.

 

[habiru]

You cannot believe everything that you here from the media that their sponsors are the Big corporations.

 

[habiru]

The truth will always come out.

 

[sun rise]

Liberals do buy into fake news though.
I see it regularly.
As a Democrat, he just might be in denial about his own group.

That NPR article disagrees. "I see it regularly" begs for say 5-10 solid examples.

Coler says his writers have tried to write fake news for liberals — but they just never take the bait.

(and)

"We've tried liberals. It never worked. You'll get debunked within the first 2 comments."