These sources publish false information that cannot be validated or are related to pseudoscience. The information on these sites is speculation that is not supported by evidence. These are the most untrustworthy sources in media.

This is in no way a complete list, it grows all the time, since Putin, Steve Bannon, and the Trump criminal is working on creating "Fake News" all the time

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/conspiracy/

21st Century Wire
369News
A Sheep No More
ACN Latitudes
Activist Post
AdwNews
Age of Autism
Alt Health Works
American Free Press
Anonymous
Another Day in the Empire
Answers in Genesis
Awareness Act
Blacklisted News
Center for Security Policy
Charisma News
Christian Times Newspaper
Climate Depot
Coast to Coast AM
Collectively Conscious
Collective-Evolution
Conscious Life News
Conspiracy Planet
Countdown to Zerotime
Counter Current News
CounterPsyOps
CS Globe
Daily Occupation
Daily Star UK
David Icke
David Wolfe
Data Asylum
Disclose TV
Discovery Institute
EcoWatch
Educate-Yourself
Every News Here
Evolution News and Views
Food Babe
Freethought Project
From the Trenches World Report
GeoEngineering Watch
Global Research
Global Skywatch
Government Slaves
Greenpeace
Gulag Bound
Health Eternally
Health Impact News
Health Nut News
Health Sciences Institute
Higgins News Network
HL12
Humans Are Free
Illuminati News
Independent Living News
Infinite Unknown
Infowars
Institute for Creation Research (IRC)
Institute for Responsible Technology
Intellihub
Investement Watch Blog
Jews News
Jones Report
Knowledge of Today
LaRouche PAC
Liberty Videos
Live Action
Living Resistance
Living Whole
Mercola
Morning Ledger
Natural Awakenings Magazine
Natural Cures
Natural Cures Not Medicine
Natural News
NoDisInfo
Now the End Begins
Pak Alert Press
Political Blind Spot
Prison Planet
Prophecy Today
Prop or Not
RealFarmacy
Reflection of Mind
Rense
SCEPCOP (Debunking Skeptics)
Sign of the Times
Secrets of the Fed
Sheep Killers
Shoebat
Skeptiko
South Front
Stillness in the Storm
Storm Clouds Gathering
Sustainable Pulse
The Anti-Media
The Common Sense Show
The Controversial Files
The Daily Sheeple
The European Union Times
The Event Chronicle
The Forbidden Knowledge
The Last Great Stand
The Liberty Beacon
The Mind Unleashed
The Rundown Live
The Stream
The Truth About Cancer
The Truth Seeker
The Waking Times
Thrive Movement
Topinfo Post
True Pundit
TruNews
Truth Broadcasting Network
Truth Channel Politics
Underground Health
USA Hitman
Veterans Today
Vigilant Citizen
Voice of America TV (voiceofamericatv.com)
We Are Anonymous
We Are Change
Whale.to
WhatDoesItMean
Why Don’t You Try This
Wikispooks
World Truth TV
Your News Wire
Zero Hedge

Nice of you to include mediabiasfactcheck.com on that list... <grin>

Also, I had some hopes that your list might be a good one worth something when I saw Voice of America on it, I thought...

VoA is a CIA propoganda mouthpiece, and has been for quite some time... Decades...

Then... I realized that you listed voiceofamericatv.com, and not voanews.com... Oh well...

But seriously:

1. ALL news 'sources' publish, from time to time, information that is false... Some will print a retraction when called out on it, many will not... but the retraction is usually buried in a middle page, in fine print, surrounded by lots of ads, so most people will not see it.

2. Just because something can not be validated does not make it automatically false.

3. Just because something runs against YOUR biases does not make it false.

4. ALL media is biased in one direction or another.

5. You left a LOT of sites off of your list... CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, etc. etc. etc.... Shoot, likely much to the chagrin of many around here you even left FOX News off the list.

6. There is less and less 'hard news' published by the media. More and more of it is just 'op-ed'. As you referred to it... speculation. The news media SHOULD just present information and let the people make up their own minds about it. Instead, they are way too busy trying to tell the people WHAT to think about it.

7. ALL media is untrustworthy. Deal with it.

You are slipping, Castro Tut... <grin>

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

The list is not "biased news sources"- which *would* include the likes of CNN on the left, and FOX on the right.

The list is *fake* news sources.

Even biased news sites generally have reliable sources. Even Fox News doesn't often spread *fake* news, no matter how biased and ridiculous their spin is.

---

#resist

But seriously:

1. ALL news 'sources' publish, from time to time, information that is false... Some will print a retraction when called out on it, many will not... but the retraction is usually buried in a middle page, in fine print, surrounded by lots of ads, so most people will not see it.

2. Just because something can not be validated does not make it automatically false.

3. Just because something runs against YOUR biases does not make it false.

4. ALL media is biased in one direction or another.

5. You left a LOT of sites off of your list... CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, etc. etc. etc.... Shoot, likely much to the chagrin of many around here you even left FOX News off the list.

6. There is less and less 'hard news' published by the media. More and more of it is just 'op-ed'. As you referred to it... speculation. The news media SHOULD just present information and let the people make up their own minds about it. Instead, they are way too busy trying to tell the people WHAT to think about it.

7. ALL media is untrustworthy. Deal with it.

I find it odd that even here, with this educated bunch, people have the misconception that "fake" new is untruthful reporting or any news that disagrees with "my" view.

That is absolutely *not* what fake news is. Therefore, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. would not be on the list. Nor Fox for you right-wingers that think the term "fake" news is something the left made up to attack the right.

Fake news are sites that were created for the sole purpose of reaping money from clickbait. They are sites setup with stories written without an ounce of truth that plays into a natural bias of the readers. This isn't just the occasional mistaken reporting. This is purely made up BS to earn money from clicking on links.

Fake news is a legitimate problem and not a partisan political attack. Those sites listed are well-known, actual fake news sites. That's why the legitimate news sites were left off.

I'll quote Ozz here because it needs to be said again:

"Fake news are sites that were created for the sole purpose of reaping money from clickbait. They are sites setup with stories written without an ounce of truth that plays into a natural bias of the readers. This isn't just the occasional mistaken reporting. This is purely made up BS to earn money from clicking on links.

Fake news is a legitimate problem and not a partisan political attack"

I'll quote Ozz here because it needs to be said again:

"Fake news are sites that were created for the sole purpose of reaping money from clickbait. They are sites setup with stories written without an ounce of truth that plays into a natural bias of the readers. This isn't just the occasional mistaken reporting. This is purely made up BS to earn money from clicking on links.

Fake news is a legitimate problem and not a partisan political attack"

+1

---

MK, do you have a rational response to Ozz, or a rationalization?

P.S.-I hope A.R. kicks some butt running for the Texas State Senate.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Great "news"! Chocolate rations are going up from 20 to 25 grams per week!!!

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Great "news"! Chocolate rations are going up from 20 to 25 grams per week!!!

I see your 1984 reference there... :P

And yes, I do have a response.. just a tad busy at the moment. Will post it later.

\

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

But seriously:

1. ALL news 'sources' publish, from time to time, information that is false... Some will print a retraction when called out on it, many will not... but the retraction is usually buried in a middle page, in fine print, surrounded by lots of ads, so most people will not see it.

2. Just because something can not be validated does not make it automatically false.

3. Just because something runs against YOUR biases does not make it false.

4. ALL media is biased in one direction or another.

5. You left a LOT of sites off of your list... CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, etc. etc. etc.... Shoot, likely much to the chagrin of many around here you even left FOX News off the list.

6. There is less and less 'hard news' published by the media. More and more of it is just 'op-ed'. As you referred to it... speculation. The news media SHOULD just present information and let the people make up their own minds about it. Instead, they are way too busy trying to tell the people WHAT to think about it.

7. ALL media is untrustworthy. Deal with it.

I find it odd that even here, with this educated bunch, people have the misconception that "fake" new is untruthful reporting or any news that disagrees with "my" view.

That is absolutely *not* what fake news is. Therefore, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. would not be on the list. Nor Fox for you right-wingers that think the term "fake" news is something the left made up to attack the right.

Fake news are sites that were created for the sole purpose of reaping money from clickbait. They are sites setup with stories written without an ounce of truth that plays into a natural bias of the readers. This isn't just the occasional mistaken reporting. This is purely made up BS to earn money from clicking on links.

Fake news is a legitimate problem and not a partisan political attack. Those sites listed are well-known, actual fake news sites. That's why the legitimate news sites were left off.

Pardon me, OzzFan, but you are switching senses of the phrase 'fake news site'. The sense of that phrase that has everything stirred up recently is "fake news" site. That is, a news site that posts incorrect/false news stories along with the rest of their stories that might possibly have some element of truth in them in order to advance an agenda. You just described an altogether fake "news site". To use your phrase, " created for the sole purpose of reaping money from clickbait".

Recently, the Trumphole has stated that "negative polls are Fake News", then goes on to mention CNN, ABC, and NBC polls. The Trumphole has (about half of) a point here. The complete point is "ALL 'polls' (other than actual elections) are Fake News". Through appropriate question design and sample selection, any given poll can be made to support whatever position that the people that commissioned the poll wish.

THIS is my point. All 'media' does this. All are biased and untrustworthy.

Your point seems to be that some people are getting rich through ads on so-called clickbait sites. Well, what is wrong, really, with that?

After all, we just got done (yesterday) with one of the biggest 'clickbait'... err.. 'clickerbait' events in the entire world. The superbowl. US$166,666 per SECOND for a TV ad on that game's channel during that American Football game?!?!?

Both sorts of 'fake news sites' are problems. All media outlets are guilty of it (one kind or the other... maybe even both).

One of the entries on that list that was posted several posts back... I am surprised that it was posted *here* on THIS site...

Coast to Coast AM...

Yes, that radio show/website (if they have one... dunno) is full of a lot of suspect stuff (paranormal schizz, some other stuff). It also had some good stuff on it (hard science, Dr. Michio Kaku and Dr. Brian Greene -- both theoretical physicists -- were frequent guests over the years). And old Art Bell (that show's first host) did a LOT of publicizing THIS project (S@H) in the few months before it went live back in 1999. A former co-worker of mine used to listen to that show every night at work. It is where I heard about S@H.

Oy...

They are not blind, yet they cannot see... They can hear, but cannot understand...

Ozz, you are not attacking a few cranks and crackpots out to make a buck...

You ARE attacking all of ad/subscription sponsored media, in toto.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

THIS is my point. All 'media' does this. All are biased and untrustworthy.

Yes, and your point is seemingly not founded on an understanding of how journalism works (or how to distinguish between good journalism and "fake news"), and is thus "fake". Congrats.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

MK, do you have a rational response to Ozz, or a rationalization?

P.S.-I hope A.R. kicks some butt running for the Texas State Senate.

By "A.R.", are you talking about A.R. Schwartz?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

THIS is my point. All 'media' does this. All are biased and untrustworthy.

Yes, and your point is seemingly not founded on an understanding of how journalism works (or how to distinguish between good journalism and "fake news"), and is thus "fake". Congrats.

I know how journalism worked. You are confused in thinking that journalism still exists. It does not.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

THIS is my point. All 'media' does this. All are biased and untrustworthy.

Yes, and your point is seemingly not founded on an understanding of how journalism works (or how to distinguish between good journalism and "fake news"), and is thus "fake". Congrats.

I know how journalism worked. You are confused in thinking that journalism still exists. It does not.

Today we have these forms?

Advocacy journalism – writing to advocate particular viewpoints or influence the opinions of the audience.
Broadcast journalism – written or spoken journalism for radio or television.
Citizen journalism -- participatory journalism.
Data journalism -- the practice of finding stories in numbers, and using numbers to tell stories. Data journalists may use data to support their reporting. They may also report about uses and misuses of data. The US news organization ProPublica is known as a pioneer of data journalism.
Drone journalism – use of drones to capture journalistic footage.[9]
Gonzo journalism – first championed by Hunter S. Thompson, gonzo journalism is a "highly personal style of reporting".[10]
Interactive journalism: a type of online journalism that is presented on the web
Investigative journalism: in-depth reporting that uncovers social problems. Often leads to major social problems being resolved.
Photojournalism: the practice of telling true stories through images
Sensor journalism: the use of sensors to support journalistic inquiry.
Tabloid journalism – writing that is light-hearted and entertaining. Considered less legitimate than mainstream journalism.
Yellow journalism (or sensationalism) – writing which emphasizes exaggerated claims or rumors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism

---

...

Today we have these forms?

Advocacy journalism – writing to advocate particular viewpoints or influence the opinions of the audience.
Broadcast journalism – written or spoken journalism for radio or television.
Citizen journalism -- participatory journalism.
Data journalism -- the practice of finding stories in numbers, and using numbers to tell stories. Data journalists may use data to support their reporting. They may also report about uses and misuses of data. The US news organization ProPublica is known as a pioneer of data journalism.
Drone journalism – use of drones to capture journalistic footage.[9]
Gonzo journalism – first championed by Hunter S. Thompson, gonzo journalism is a "highly personal style of reporting".[10]
Interactive journalism: a type of online journalism that is presented on the web
Investigative journalism: in-depth reporting that uncovers social problems. Often leads to major social problems being resolved.
Photojournalism: the practice of telling true stories through images
Sensor journalism: the use of sensors to support journalistic inquiry.
Tabloid journalism – writing that is light-hearted and entertaining. Considered less legitimate than mainstream journalism.
Yellow journalism (or sensationalism) – writing which emphasizes exaggerated claims or rumors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism

Wiki missed one, seeming the most rampant one
Lazy journalism -- telling stories based upon a single source.

---

MK, do you have a rational response to Ozz, or a rationalization?

P.S.-I hope A.R. kicks some butt running for the Texas State Senate.

By "A.R.", are you talking about A.R. Schwartz?

Nope.
Science educator.
Famous on the innerwebs these last 7 to 9 years.
Am sure I.D. was pointed A.R.'s way a few years back.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

THIS is my point. All 'media' does this. All are biased and untrustworthy.

Yes, and your point is seemingly not founded on an understanding of how journalism works (or how to distinguish between good journalism and "fake news"), and is thus "fake". Congrats.

I know how journalism worked. You are confused in thinking that journalism still exists. It does not.

Today we have these forms?

Advocacy journalism – writing to advocate particular viewpoints or influence the opinions of the audience.
Broadcast journalism – written or spoken journalism for radio or television.
Citizen journalism -- participatory journalism.
Data journalism -- the practice of finding stories in numbers, and using numbers to tell stories. Data journalists may use data to support their reporting. They may also report about uses and misuses of data. The US news organization ProPublica is known as a pioneer of data journalism.
Drone journalism – use of drones to capture journalistic footage.[9]
Gonzo journalism – first championed by Hunter S. Thompson, gonzo journalism is a "highly personal style of reporting".[10]
Interactive journalism: a type of online journalism that is presented on the web
Investigative journalism: in-depth reporting that uncovers social problems. Often leads to major social problems being resolved.
Photojournalism: the practice of telling true stories through images
Sensor journalism: the use of sensors to support journalistic inquiry.
Tabloid journalism – writing that is light-hearted and entertaining. Considered less legitimate than mainstream journalism.
Yellow journalism (or sensationalism) – writing which emphasizes exaggerated claims or rumors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism

Journalism operated under a strict code of ethics.

Per the 'American Society of News Editors', a brief outline of that code is as follows:

1. Responsibility.
2. Freedom of the Press.
3. Independence.
4. Truth and accuracy.
5. Impartiality.
and
6. Fair Play.

http://asne.org/content.asp?pl=24&sl=171&contentid=171

The 'press' today violates ALL of them. 'Journalism' today should be classed as 'entertainment'. It is about 'ratings' and/or ' the number of viewers/readers'. It is about selling ADs and making $$ (ie. Clickbait).

I stand by my statement. Journalism no longer exists.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Infotainment

---

...

Journalism operated under a strict code of ethics.

Per the 'American Society of News Editors', a brief outline of that code is as follows:

1. Responsibility.
2. Freedom of the Press.
3. Independence.
4. Truth and accuracy.
5. Impartiality.
and
6. Fair Play.

http://asne.org/content.asp?pl=24&sl=171&contentid=171

The 'press' today violates ALL of them. 'Journalism' today should be classed as 'entertainment'. It is about 'ratings' and/or ' the number of viewers/readers'. It is about selling ADs and making $$ (ie. Clickbait).

I stand by my statement. Journalism no longer exists.

Individual violations of each aspect of the code does not mean that journalism no longer exists, if there is one journalist that still abides by them, then journalism exists. As it is your claim that no such journalist exists, please provide the proof; alternatively, modify your statement to clarify that "in your opinion journalism no longer exists". IMHO it's misleading to present opinion as fact, whether in news media or on these fora.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Wiki missed one, seeming the most rampant one
Lazy journalism -- telling stories based upon a single source.

As I understand it, only in exceptional cases would a single source suffice for most journalists, imho, it's one of the ways that helps differentiate between the good and the bad. "Fake news" does not even need one source.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Wiki missed one, seeming the most rampant one
Lazy journalism -- telling stories based upon a single source.

As I understand it, only in exceptional cases would a single source suffice for most journalists, imho, it's one of the ways that helps differentiate between the good and the bad. "Fake news" does not even need one source.

Yes it does. The imagination of someone had to think up the BS. That's the source.

---