PDA

View Full Version : 513 websites deemed rotten



raregem
4th May 2019, 12:27
Propaganda at it's finest...

This list is at:
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/media/censorship/news.php?q=1556807834

I saw this list of 513 websites deemed fake, satire, conspiracy theorist, clickbait, unreliable and/or bias.
I tried to avoid posting the direct link but, the list lost it's formatting during copy/paste.
I am very upset that some of the names on this list are honest and accurate as they know to be. And, some I believe to be misleading sites.
Project Avalon and Project Camelot are not listed.
The author uses Snopes as one of the "fact finders"
He also states, " Remember: Our list includes only sites whose stories are demonstrably false — not merely biased or partisan."
I post this with the hope that others will scan it for veracity.
I intend to let site owners I trust -know about this list. Grant it I do not know a great deal of these addresses. Still,......
I have ignored some of their articles due to the author. This one got to me.

ramus
4th May 2019, 14:56
That's quite a list. There sources are almost all Universities :
Snopes
The Snopes.com web site is wholly owned and operated by Snopes Media Group Inc. (SMG), a California-based S Corporation. SMG is overseen by a board of directors comprising David Mikkelson, Brad Westbrook, and Chris Richmond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No liberal agenda in California ... or our Universities. Ha ha
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Below a list of their references:

FactCheck.org’s Misinformation Directory(FC), created by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Fake News Codex(FN), widely quoted by Snopes and others, maintained by web developer and data designer Chris Herbert.
OpenSources(OS), run by Merrimack University media studies professor Melissa Zimdars.
PolitiFact’s Fake News Almanac(PF), by PolitiFact, a joint project of the Tampa Bay Times and Poynter.
Snopes’ Field Guide to Fake News Sites and Hoax Purveyors(SN), created by Snopes, the oldest and largest online fact-checking organization.

Valerie Villars
4th May 2019, 16:49
I noticed educate-yourself.org and infowars.com are both on the list.

Bill Ryan
4th May 2019, 18:58
This was the original link:


https://poynter.org/ifcn/unreliable-news-index

But if you click on that, you're now redirected to


https://poynter.org/letter-from-the-editor/2019/letter-from-the-editor

...which says:

~~~



Letter from the Editor

Dear readers:

On Tuesday, April 30, Poynter posted a list of 515 “unreliable” news websites, built from pre-existing databases compiled by journalists, fact-checkers and researchers around the country. Our aim was to provide a useful tool for readers to gauge the legitimacy of the information they were consuming.

Soon after we published, we received complaints from those on the list and readers who objected to the inclusion of certain sites, and the exclusion of others. We began an audit to test the accuracy and veracity of the list, and while we feel that many of the sites did have a track record of publishing unreliable information, our review found weaknesses in the methodology. We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report.

Therefore, we are removing this unreliable sites list until we are able to provide our audience a more consistent and rigorous set of criteria. The list was intended to be a starting place for readers and journalists to learn more about the veracity of websites that purported to offer news; it was not intended to be definitive or all encompassing. We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication. We pledge to continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards.

— Barbara Allen, managing editor, Poynter.org

DaveToo
4th May 2019, 19:56
This was the original link:


https://poynter.org/ifcn/unreliable-news-index

But if you click on that, you're now redirected to


https://poynter.org/letter-from-the-editor/2019/letter-from-the-editor

...which says:

~~~



Letter from the Editor

Dear readers:

... Therefore, we are removing this unreliable sites list until we are able to provide our audience a more consistent and rigorous set of criteria. The list was intended to be a starting place for readers and journalists to learn more about the veracity of websites that purported to offer news; it was not intended to be definitive or all encompassing. We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication. We pledge to continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards.

— Barbara Allen, managing editor, Poynter.org



It might be worthwhile for individuals/organizations to compile lists of sites that are attempting/have attempted to compile lists of unreliable news sites and have been proven to be unreliable in their own right! :)

At the top of the list would surely be:
https://poynter.org/ifcn/unreliable-news-index

raregem
4th May 2019, 22:26
Thank you all for adding your insight and links.
Valerie, it was educate-yourself.org that got my goat. The editor, Ken Adachi, has worked diligently to provide honest reporting and understanding. He corrects information when he saw his error. Something we all have learned to do in life. He is one editor who truly cares about sharing the truth.

Intranuclear
4th May 2019, 22:35
What is the definition of reliable?
- The site is up 100% of the time?
- The site never suffers from DDoS attacks? (Distributed Denial of Service)
- The site cannot be hacked?
- The site provides 100% truth all the time?
- Every truth provided is 100% accurate? (I'm sure to the best knowledge of the journalist - a massive week point)
- All journalists and editors never ever get extra moneys to publish certain truths vs other ones?
- If the site provides anything that turns out to be untrue they will pay for all damages or apologize profusely till the end of time and never allow mistakes to happen?

Final question:
- Is there even 1 site that fits all of the above?

Of course there are many more categories/criteria that can be used to determine or define "reliable", such as ADs, their quality, their obtrusiveness, their nature, the products they peddle, etc...