[serge2k]

Neat.

Clicked on Obama, got 2 stories from the left about the Michelle Obama "Ape" comments, and on the right a story about Obama supporting a border fence.

Then a bunch of other stuff from each side.

The one about the fence was from Breitbart, and it's an interesting example of the problem. Something that seems to have happened a lot with these emails is "BREAKING NEWS! SOMETHING HORRIBLE OR HYPOCRITICAL!" and then you read it and what the article is saying is "true". It's "true" because you can pick and choose sentences and build that narrative, but in context things are more complex.

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/10/22/wikileaks-podest...

That's one I saw yesterday.

> WikiLeaks Podesta emails: Clinton Foundation works with Big Pharma to keep AIDS drug prices high

Pretty horrible sounding title. That would be a big deal.

> the Clinton Foundation opposed lowering the costs of AIDS drugs in the United States.

Sounds pretty horrible and corrupt. I should hate her for this.

But if you read the email

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24440

> As you will see when you read this memo, we think that publicly pressuring the US and European AIDS drug companies to lower prices and bringing pressure to allow generic AIDS drugs into the United States will have limited if any success and could seriously jeopardize our negotiations to continually lower prices in poor countries. We also believe that there are other more impactful ways to address the US AIDS crisis today.

There is much more to it, it's a paragraph from an email not the entire thing. It still shows a very different picture.

So this isn't fake news, but to me it's still shitty journalism. It's very shallow, it doesn't really present any data (just the link to the emails, no analysis). I feel like you could make an argument from the America first perspective that we should be arguing for generics and lower prices, and worry about the effect elsewhere later. It doesn't do that though.

[nogbit]

Exactly, one day people may wake up and realize that they were sold to the highest bidder. All of this media is shit. Zero investigative work is being done and it's written in a opinionated way. It's all opinion garbage (which at one time was much less in papers) geared to making you click on more garbage to render some more ads.

I seriously can not look at news online anymore. I used to use news.google.com religiously (I've never used FB or Twitter for my news) but even that shows the same shit. It's so bad now and has me very concerned. During the 80s and early 90s CNN Headline news did a good job I thought...it's garbage now.

FB and Google are kidding themselves if they think they can fix this as their bottom line demands it to function as is.

Simply stop giving them the page loads...boycotts work wonders my friends (and no, ad blocking will not suffice).