I remember when CNN.com used to have a poll on the main page and comments on articles. I remember them starting to fail and their subsequent removal.

Obligatory comment that CNN is a massive pile of shit.

I remember that, too. You could call them out on their bullshit. I assume it is why the comments were removed. LOL.

I member

Are we looking at the same page? It seems there is a comment section!

We are not. That's Business Insider (what the OP linked) I was talking about my experience with CNN

Hell, look at /r/politics. It seems like ALL of the "real" news sites are saying every single person who could possibly be associated with the Trump staff will be a complete disaster and are all monsters. It's insane that this is what virtually all of our biggest news sources are doing, and worse that so many are believing every word. It's starting to feel like we're about 5% more of the US becoming brainwashed by the mass flood of bullshit away from being a complete dictatorship with the feelings and views of the majority being told to them by the "news" at every turn.

His CIA director wants to execute Snowden. Stop being brainwashed and accept that his picks come straight from the big banks.

Bank and MIC company stocks went through the roof after he won. I wonder why?

Bankers celebrate dawn of Trump era

I'm sorry. You've been conned. But keep relying on fake news so your fragile beliefs aren't shattered.

You sound so angry man

Of course I am. Why do people think Trump is so great? He's far worse than Hillary could have been. The man makes me sick. And those who excuse his behaviour make me even sicker.

Of course I am. Why do people think Hillary is so great? She's far worse than Trump could have been. The woman makes me sick. And those who excuse her behavior make me even sicker.

Steve Bannon has a legally documented dark history. There's no smear there.

What do you mean by "dark history"? Genuinely curious, here.

CNN is fake news

CNN: Clinton news network

That was a long running joke for years before the 2016 Presidential campaign. Now I'm serious when I say it.

It's been serious for a long time.

I love seeing their comment sections on FB. The highest comments are starting to be the ones bashing them

Have you seen the comments that infect news articles on most sites that aren't Reddit? 3/4 of them are barely comprehensible, non-topical, spam, or just plain terrible things to say. Aint nobody in the news industry got time or money to separate the wheat from the chaff anymore.

I'd put a higher percentage down to astroturf, fair share of BS but occasionally informed people would throw in an informative response to correct such BS.

Yeah, there are diamonds in the rough, sometimes...but after reading through hundreds of crap comments for a few insightful ones on most MSN sites, I found alternate sources to fuel my need for discussion.

Hence Reddit, voat and similar sites.

You mean that "I make 8 zillion dollars an hour" guy is lying to me? The hell am I suppost to do w/ this garage full of herbalife now?

I think it's easier for news sites to push their agendas with comments sections. By curating people's comments, they're able to better drive their narrative and manufacture consent. Sheeple gonna sheep.

did your newspaper have a comment section before Internet? No. Where were your complaints, then?

did your newspaper have a comment section before Internet?

Letters to the Editor, back then it was harder to censor because the local paper was a few blocks away (or less in Australia) and there were a variety of competing papers happy to call out a rival for a bigger audience (broader circulation leading to more ad revenue).

Simplistically: City paper 1 not publishing a correction from a letter to the editor would see a full article in City paper 2.

Right, but why would the lack of a comment section be a problem when you're there to read the news? You've already got many social media platforms to complain on (which millions use to do just that). How does this belong in r/conspiracy?

Right, but why would the lack of a comment section be a problem when you're there to read the news?

Discourse and fact checking, as well as asking questions to understand any poorly explained material in a published article.

You've already got many social media platforms to complain on (which millions use to do just that).

Not everyone reading articles uses them or will congregate on the same site, aside from arguments of censorship on sites that allow comments or places people go to for discussion of the story.

How does this belong in r/conspiracy?

Propaganda, Cultural Marxism.

You still have discourse and fact checking widely available to you. And everyone DOES use social media. Have you seen the comments on CNN facebook posts?

It's not propaganda or cultural marxism, y'all are just running out of things to bitch about.

Why didn't you guys complain about not having something that hadn't been invented yet?

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

I guess you didn't read the rest of the thread. Considering that when you bought a newspaper, you bought it to read the news. Your comment section was whatever unfortunate soul was within earshot. Now, you're going to a website to read the news and you've got social media platforms (which the media sites use) to comment in. A news site (or paper) isn't obligated to give you a platform to voice your opinion, especially since the entirety of the internet is there to do just that.

a millennial and Minecraft type no doubt.

You tried. It's okay.

Says the guy commenting on the internet.

I have heard reports that some media outlets are trying to move the sheeple to a model where a person has to PAY to post comments on articles.

This is ultimately about control of information and proves how threatening the internet is to tptb since it is (relatively) still a bastion of freethought and open communication.

NPR followed suit a few months ago. The Bernie supporters were rightfully throwing them under the bus.

It was long before that, the world just noticed a few months ago. And I'm pretty sure it's that monotone droll they use that makes them seem credible.

Nah, comments got pulled in august: http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/08/17/489516952/npr-website-to-get-rid-of-comments

I remember checking it out. There were some nice last hurrah type comments and lamenting.

Yeah, they have a nice consistent presentation. The range of stories is really good too. I used to be a huge fan but they pushed their bias into propaganda territory, or maybe I just finally noticed. Still pop in once in a while but take everything with a grain of salt. I also notice a ton of stories featuring Jews or Israel.

Edit: NPR is npr.org in this context. There are affiliate station sites that do their own thing.

Yeah the Jews and Israel was first, only because nobody could face the native American tragedy. Then it was blacks in the 60's, then they won so it was gays/Mexicans in the 90s, then they won, now it's Muslims. If the Muslims win then they'll kill the Jews and the whole thing starts over.

For the 23rd time.

I have no problem with civil rights, even if it conflicts with Christian morality or ethics or whateverthefuck.

I also notice a ton of stories featuring Jews or Israel.

I always wonder if it's this an intentional thing to paint Jews and Israel in a favorable light to serve some purpose, or if it's a natural side effect of having such a huge portion of their employees being Jewish. I mean if everyone who comes up with the stories are Jews then those people will know a lot of Jews and so we'll hear 30 minute segments about their friends picking wildflowers in Israel. It's probably both.

I mentioned it to my dad who likes NPR and now he thinks I'm an anti-semite.

Agreed, I think it's a little of both. Maintaining the victim narrative is a goal for some factions. It is unfortunate that discussing Israel critically is essentially taboo.

You should ask your dad if he feels NPR's coverage of Sanders in the primary was fair and unbiased. That was my trigger/wake up call.

NPR removed their comments section during the DNC when Hillary was getting a lot of bad press and the comments were overwhelmingly agianst her. It was very obvious what they were doing.

I remember leaving a very lengthy reply on a news article talking about how veterans are greedy for wanting their VA benefits etc and how they aren't entitled to them anymore.

I wrote up a heated, but well informed and researched comment and not even a few hours later it was deleted

Probably because you called veterans greedy for wanting the benefits they had been promised.

This person didn't call them greedy. The article did.

Why should who choose to kill innocent people be given benefits?

I thought the same as you, until I realize those are the same guys who would save all of our asses if a fabricated civil war was manufactured to overthrow our democratically elected government... which is what's happened in other countries.

Read more into the newish conspiracy of a "purple revolution" and I'm guessing you'll be much more grateful for the service and patriotism of our soldiers.

This is a legitimate question and hopefully will get people thinking about the morality of our society.

For example, who is MORE morally culpable if human beings are killed in an unjust war (Iraq for example)? The order giver (Cheney/Powell/Bush lying about WMD's etc) or the order follower (military/media/intelligence services) actually inflicting death and violence upon others?

There IS a right answer to this question but many people will try to rationalize away their actions.

Would you please stop with your hate speech. You are disturbing the "real" citizens.

This may sound petty but I have found major news sources make it extremely difficult to find the comment sections.

Yeah I know yahoo news is terrible, but I go to the comments sometimes just for fun. They make it so hard to find the comments.

This really comes down to whether we can sneak an actual, critical thinking human neutral into this equation to give context. The left was first to address "fake news" with any actual intent to define it, which means that what the media is calling "fake news" right now is mostly alt-right, right, or conspiracy right news sources.

The left is just as guilty of producing fake news, I think people often forget that even though the corporate elites rule our lives, the two parties of the government are competing for the attention of those corporations. This means that while most news is bullshit, there are two sources of the bullshit working against each other. Unless you are one of us (a person who can see the corporate machine) you are going to think that 'your' news source is correct. We need Julian. Or at least some other base-line in truth. People need to see that both sides are competing for who gets to brainwash us.

edited because typo

Yes, the MSM is essentially brainwashing that people voluntarily submit to.

I recently had a discussion with someone I genuinely care about involving the high degree of polarization in the US populace leading up to the election and his suggestion was that "if the side that normally watches FoxNews had to watch MSNBC, and vice versa that people would relate to each other better." LOL

My response was that the solution to brainwashing is NOT MORE BRAINWASHING.

His idea has merit. Both sides talking may expose more brainwashing.

Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion, the fundamental issue is whether or not objective Truth exists. It raises issues of solipsism, moral relativism, "perception is reality", etc. Sadly, most people today are simply not capable of or (even if they are capable of) willing to engage in discussions of this nature. This is partly due to the mindnumbing effect of the messages they are constantly bombarded with from "the media."

Here is another way to think about whether consuming MSM is in one's best interest. If you found out your source of drinking water was thoroughly poisoned to a point that filtering was not practical or effective would it make sense to keep consuming it? Now let's say that someone, say your neighbor who you rightfully distrust, suggested that HIS source of drinking water was free of the pollutant in your water. Unfortunately, you happen to know for a fact that your neighbors water also is compromised by a similar unfilterable poison, that while technically distinct is also extremely harmful to your health. Would it make sense to start consuming your neighbor's water? Would it make even more sense to continue to consume your source of water and drink ADDITIONAL polluted water from your neighbor?

Yes, the same way that you can comment on youporn, but your mom won't allow anyone to tattoo their name on her back anymore.

Most "real" news sites have yet to find a reasonable way of dealing with bots and real commenters who refuse to discuss a topic without a series of insults and lewd language. This is why the more controversial pieces often have comments disabled.

Fake news sites have a clear purpose: To make people feel angry, because when you are angry you don't think very clearly. True story.

I just think it's funny that news sites have the ability to let their readers respond publicly to an article. But nope. Not a good idea.

Well the main sites are read by lots of people, they dont want people like us posting in these places. More people might figure out whats happening, and start asking questions that the elite/cabal dont want asking.

They have been told not to allow comments.

They don't want to pay moderators to sort through all the dross, that's all. "Fake" news sites don't have to be as careful about the comments they leave up because they have a smaller audience, they receive fewer comments and fewer people see the ones that are left.

Then they should have a user rated system like reddit instead. The public is good at calling out bullshit. This would be the most democratic way

most comments sections do, the unpopular comments get hidden (but can be revealed)

but according to someone else here many news sites removed the comment sections

The Left’s War on Comment Sections

Not that I agree with not having someone sections, but in common day and a large audience in the millions, that comment section becomes a nuclear wasteland of trash.

The "fake news" talk is being generated out of an institution that created MK ULTRA and still exists as an informal wing of the US military.

The CEO's been doing a talk on "politics aside" where he is basically calling critical thinking a dangerous trait.

I made a post about it here.

Ding ding ding!

Yes, because the fake news sections are full of "concern troll" bots designed to make it look like you're onto something, whereas the real news sites tend to turn them off to prevent gullible third parties from being indoctrinated by people pretending to be [whatever] in the comment section.

perfect example is the guardian, 90% of the commenters are right-wing anti-left trolls, but there's enough of them "concern trolling" (ie: pretending to be lefties to make real lefties look bad) that you can see entire, hundred comment arguments between two people who don't realise the other is reading from the exact same "how to troll in 10 easy steps!" step-by-step guidelines almost.

[deleted]

If you've ever done it yourself for example you can pretty much tell straight away.

just like any person experienced at anything can see straight through when someone's bullshitting like an amateur at their particular thing, in my experience.

I dunno man. Don't wanna paint too many people with a single stroke y'know?

I think it's weird that this day in age a news company on the Internet thinks it's a good idea to not have readers comment.

"Hey Bob. Let's have our readers comment on the articles we write." "No Billy, that would not be a good idea." Billy says, "WTF?"

that's a blatant misrepresentation of it, it's more like this:

"hey bob, whenever we have comment sections open it's drowned out by a sea of trolls and shills maybe we shouldn't let them spin their narrative uncontested?" "great idea billy"

That's a blatant misrepresentation of it, it's more like this:

Bob says, "Billy, I don't like what people are saying about are articles. Turn off commenting." Billy says, "WTF?"

nah, that's a blatant misrepresentation of it, it's this:

Bob says: "there are a bunch of obvious trolls, concern trolls and shills in our comments. Maybe we should turn them off to stop the more impressionable readers being indoctrinated by people who explicitly state they'd prefer we didn't exist" billy says: "good idea bob"

And if you think it's anything other than that, you're obviously a fucking retarded autistic cancerfaggot or some kind of paid disinformation agent from trump or some shit.

You just said what I said but in more detail. I know the reason behind not allowing comments. Your reason being that the comments will influence people more than the article is awesome and I agree. When people comment about an article and provide more information than the article, well, that can be embarrassing for the company. Hence, turning off comments so you only read what the company want's you to read.

What you and I are doing is not allowed on some news sites. News sites that provide information. Their information.

I think your swearing needs work.

You just said what I said but in more detail. I know the reason behind not allowing comments.

Obviously not, since what you said is wrong, and what I said is different to what you said.

I think your swearing needs work.

And I think people who judge based on swearwords (which they are perfectly entitled to use too) are cunts who don't deserve to be listened to

What I said was right. Less specific yes. Also, I have no problem with swearing. You just need to work on it.

OP - It's the other way around. AMIRTIE

Trolls, anarchists.

Haha... At first I thought that you meant with 'fake' news the mainstream meda from our point of view, but it was actually opposite...

To be fair, some MSM news sites do still have comments sections.

But without exception, they are all heavily moderated. Say the wrong thing and your comment quickly gets deleted (censorship).

I'm going to assume it's because the comments sections were overrun with noise that only undermined the journalism, whereas bullshit sites have no signal to crowd out.

Absolutely! As one small example, whether you love or hate breitbart, they not only allow comments but also allow links out to external sources of information.

This is important since it enables others with competing or adverse viewpoints to present evidence to the contrary in the comments. Meanwhile, the "real" sites more often than not don't allow comments at all or certainly don't allow external links in comments to refute the content/opinion of the "news" article.

You can always leave comment somewhere on the internet. That reminds me, I have a comment i was going to post on r/mensrights but i'm banned for dissing anime so here is probably good enough.

Yo fuckbrains bernard matthews wanted to spread bird flu on purpose, it was only when it started interfering with chemtrails that they started dealing with it so they could garner goodwill when they revised the recipe for their supervirus (also known as hep C, spread in 2008 so don't trust the media if they say it was around earlier). I don't know where you get off trying to lecture everyone about medicine and how to seduce chicks, but "firmly approaching her and letting her know sex is on the cards early on" doesnt work and I should know because I eat pussy like a Texan at a Chinese buffet. The first step is not looking like the meth-addled accountant that your r/amiugly post outs you as.

Business Insider did have comment sections on almost every article up until Trump won the election.

I read BI because it was one of the only sites not blocked by my work web filter.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence!

And if they do have a comment section, it is tied to a data collecting network like Facebook, Google, or Twitter.

It's an interesting observation, but it appears to be a symptom of prescriptive morality journalism rather than a real vs fake news difference.

A comment section can draw an audience on it's own, we know from stats that this audience is slightly more male and slightly more hispanic than the general population. Turning off the comments is likely to have moved that group away from many of these news sites.

It seem plausible that a group could have made an effort to make curating those comment sections too much work aiding in the disenfranchisement of comment section users. Since reddit is sort of a universal comment section, you can bet that many went here.

I guess you didn't read the rest of the thread. Considering that when you bought a newspaper, you bought it to read the news. Your comment section was whatever unfortunate soul was within earshot. Now, you're going to a website to read the news and you've got social media platforms (which the media sites use) to comment in. A news site (or paper) isn't obligated to give you a platform to voice your opinion, especially since the entirety of the internet is there to do just that.