Is Occupy Democrats a fake news site?

[mrsv]

I was told Palmer's Report is...but these two reports make perfect sense. I'm so hopeful.

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/mike-pence-appears-donald-trump-transition-team-member-caught-wiretap/2036/

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/03/23/new-fbi-revelations-just-exposed-pence-russia-link-everyone-missed/

[6000eliot]

1. I think they are both misleading if not completely dishonest.

[Hortensis]

10. Exactly. I've read that Palmer has produced

some outright fiction, and neither is a reliable news source.

Note that virtually all sites that intend to manipulate people hide their propaganda among credible messages. Readers have good reason to believe some of what they are seeing is true, because it basically is, so trust builds and guards are lowered.

Notably, even when honest, both sites are generally very shallow in their coverage, their goal being gut reaction, not true understanding of issues and events.

Recommend Vox and The Atlantic as just a couple of the many far better sources of understanding out there. Not as far left, of course, but do provide a base for evaluating other information.

[6000eliot]

14. I think that reliability is much more important than ideology at this point.

I belong to some left-leaning Facebook groups, but I'm considering dumping them because people share so much of that crap. As it is, I block anyone who shares Palmer Report or Occupy Democrats.

[Hortensis]

19. Agree totally. I normally pass on by

Last edited Fri Mar 24, 2017, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)

and leave those to enjoy chatting and acting out their anxieties and whatever. Very emotional times. Many posts are sincere, of course, in the belief that they present good information.

What I'd really prefer, instead of blocking, would be a way to mark posters we like so that their posts, or threads they posted on, stood out and didn't get lost in the crowd.

[truebluegreen]

2. No.

[Lucinda]

3. The occupy link seems to be backing up their assessment with mainstream links

Definitely worth watching. Thanks for the info!

[Princess Turandot]

4. Not fake news per se but also not objective news sources, IMO..

Occupy D seems to primarily interpret news reported elsewhere to write articles on their website. In the few articles that I've seen posted here, their interpretations seemed more 'hopeful' than news-accurate.

The Palmer Report pitches everything in support of the good guys (the Democrats). I view the articles in it as analysis or opinions, where that perspective is perfectly acceptable and often good to read.

Generally speaking, I think that websites that base most of what they write on someone else's reporting are not the best primary source news, especially in DU's LBN. Every professional news outlet does a little of that, of course, but they also do a lot of their own original reporting.

PS A site to avoid IMO is Bipartisan Report, which often repackages news with screaming Breaking News!!! headlines that don't match the content of the article, or even 'better', refer to events that happened months earlier.

PPS If you're still reading this there's a website called Observer. com which appears on DU from time to time. Even if an individual article sounds reasonable, the website is owned by the Kushners, AKA Trump's in-laws through the First Handmaiden's hubby. Her hubby was its longtime publisher: he sold the outlet about a month ago for conflict of interest reasons - to a Kushner family foundation! The 'new' owner promoted Jared's longtime chief editor to the publisher gig. I don't trust them myself, or want to contribute to their site traffic.

[JCanete]

8. I haven't heard of occupy democrats, but in your opinion, is there such a thing as

objective news? I've never seen it.

[GliderGuider]

17. Re Observer.com

Ownership sux, but John Schindler posts there. When it comes to natsec issues, he and Malcolm Nance are at the top of the heap.

The same comment about owners vs. writers applies to Heat Street and Louise Mensch.

These folks are commentators, not primary sources by any means, but definitely deserve to be stirred into your daily cup of insanity right now. IMHO.

I read Palmer, but he's almost always behind the curve.

Twitter is where it's at in this scandal. But it's tedious to follow, and you have to be careful about whose feeds you watch.

[Cha]

5. I don't think so.. neither one.. reality has a well known liberal bias.

[alwaysinflux]

6. Not a fan of Either one

I started following occupy democrats on Twitter and it only took 2-3 days for me to be turned off. Although I don't think I saw anything patently false, it gave me the vibe of a fake news outlet. Perhaps it was a sensationalist style in the headlines or writing -- i don't remember exactly, but it put me off.

With Palmer report, it seems like a blog and I don't consider it a serious source either.

[oberliner]

7. They aren't news sites

They both repackage other reporting from actual news sites, throw in some opinions, and slap on a click bait headline.

[BainsBane]

9. It's not reliable

Along with politicsusa, bipartisanreport, and the two you mentioned. Notice how many times those sites have proclaimed something was the first step in impeaching Trump. How many first steps can there be? I've gotten so that I won't read them anymore. I prefer reliable news to sites that cater to what I wish were true.

[Lee-Lee]

11. If you look at their pages on Snopes and Politifact they get more wrong than right

Some days I almost think it's a right wing plot to send all the memes they do out that that are false just to make Democrats look bad. I see so many friends that will share them along on Facebook and then just get skewered by conservatives because it's an outright false or highly misleading claim.

I wish there was a social media oriented news source that could put out just as engaging and easily shared memes and news info graphics but that took the time to be accurate. We need that.

[jmg257]

12. Not exactly fake, but opinions based on others' reports

That are based on still others' reports.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. The Palmer article is speculation, not news; that Occupy Democrats one is misleading clickbait

Palmer at least tried to make a case - but he assumes that the main FISA target has to be one of the 4 Trump associates already suspected, and then assumes that if Manafort talked a lot to Pence, then it must be Pence. It's pretty tenuous, and doesn't exclude other possibilities.

OC has put "Russia-Pence link" in their title, but all they have is "Manafort wanted Pence as VP", and "he talked to him a lot".

It's certainly not 'news'; the amount of speculation, and lack of analysis or thought involved is more suitable for a blog or forum than a site worth quoting. I wouldn't criticise a DUer for coming up with it, but it's hardly journalism.

[Adrahil]

15. Definitely has a point of view....

Take with a pound a salt with it.

[Amishman]

16. Both use creative omissions to change the story to something more sensational

They know their audiences and put their own twist on things to either enflame or entice their readers. There will be a nugget of truth, but the story will be very misleading

[Oneironaut]

18. Based on what I've seen, yes

The first article uses DailyKOS as a source. That's a blog! I would say that site is fake news as well.