Many are going to regret their vote for Trump

Not really. A caricature, certainly but as all (good) caricatures, it says something true. We all know FAUX News is fake news, that CNN is fake news, etc. The concept of MSM is an over-simplification of a much more difficult problem: all sources are biased. Some more than others but nobody is right all the time. And all sources of information are slanted in a way or another, especially on SOME subjects close to their owners' interest.

The concept of a finite set of biased media is therefore absurd. E.g. you cite Murdoch and FOX News as part of it but Frugi and Johny might disagree. It's a flawed concept.

The question is not: what is the finite set of media who lie (so that one might avoid reading them).

The question is: which ones can you trust on which subject.

Al Jazeera is an excellent source except on Qatar and its strategic interests. The NYT remains an excellent source for foreign news and non-political US domestic issues. RT is generally unreliable, a mouthpiece for Russian intox, but gets it right once in a while. Etc.

It is true that even semi-objective US political news are hard to find in America nowadays because the system of corporate media is totally corrupted. That's why acess to foreign news like the Gardian can help on US news. It's often closer to the truth because their journalists still go by some sort of ethic of the trade.

So people search for alternative sources...

The issue raised by Oraloy is therefore: in your search for alternative sources, where do you draw your own bonderies in terms of what constitute journalism and what is fake news? How can you tell when you read some random blog that the guy is not completly crazy?

Whom do you decide to trust, if you don't trust "the MSM" anymore? Do you realize your search for a "true" news source is futile and that it can only lead you in the end to a position of "radical doubt", whence you start believing that Marsians are among us?

Excellent points. I try to get a story from several sources and compare them before I form an opinion. I like the BBC.

Yes, a well-thought-out response.

I think it will be a very interesting process, determining just who is a purveyor of Fake News ™ , and who is not.

Also, who is in the driver's seat to make such a call or claim.

That's difficult to say. It's somewhat similar to religion, and why people believe as they do. Everybody believes what they wish to believe, but most follow the beliefs of their parents.

If we simply used past performance as a pre-requisite to future honesty, I can't think of any MSM outlet that would pass muster, CI.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14515/Teens-Stay-True-Parents-Political-Perspectives.aspx

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abc-most-trusted-news-source-poll-shows-after-turnbull-minister-accuses-it-of-fake-news-20161222-gtgmqa.html

Fox and CNN are opinionated and they filter the facts, but they do not disseminate "fake news".

Fake news is not bias; it is made up facts.

Quote Kolyo:

CNN may make a mistake here and there, but it's not biased like Fox.

But do you think Fox intentionally presents made up facts? Bias isn't what "fake news" is. Fake news is headlines like "80 percent of Ukrainians approve of Vladimir Putin." During the election, stories like that were appearing on Facebook. That's not "bias"; it's complete fabrication.

So is bias not going to be counted as Fake News™?

Where do you draw the line? Lots of gray areas already.

That's right. As I see it, fake news is making up facts.

Biased reporting, by contrast, means reporting cherry-picked TRUE facts, and having a bunch of talking heads tell you how you are supposed to react to those facts. But the facts themselves are true, rather than made up.

Sooooo, cherry-picking some facts from a story, with the intention of totally misleading your audience, is okay?

Are you in politics, perchance?

It's not good. It's just not as bad as completely fabricated stories.

I'm not sure how it's panning out in the US of A, but our Australian news pages on facebook are copping a hammering about it.

They, of course, are just getting told what to say, being Murdoch enterprises.

Actually, I'd say that's BS too. There's a pretense that it's based on fact, which is fraudulent, and misappropriation of facts.

To completely fabricate a story is pure fiction. Sites like duffelblog and the Onion are dealing purely in fiction, and we know that.

Didn't Fox nooz win a case, whereby they aren't a news source, now? Got away with fabrication, because they are an infotainment source?

I avoid:
- Anything belonging to Murdock
- RT
- random blogs (with very few exceptions made for some guys I've come to trust over the years eg Michael Moore is generally reliable)

I rely mostly on:
- a few French sources (canard enchaine, le monde, le point, courrier international...)
- BBC and the Guardian
- New York Times (with care)
- Al Jazeera (with care)
- Haaretz, on the IP conflict

It's MY call of course. You have to make your own choices, and keep assesing them (eg the Washington Post is going down for some reason)

CNN may make a mistake here and there, but it's not biased like Fox.
[/quote]
FAUX News invented fake news. They have been pedling lies for years, eg on climate change.

CNN is not as bad as FAUX but they have a way to endlessly report of useless things and totally avoid important things. It's more infotainment that news, and it's heavily pro-US too.

Yes. A publisher can be totally honest, while carefully selecting what they are going to cover. It's biased reporting, but sometimes it seems to go beyond bias, and all without fabricating a thing.

It's the motive we need to be aware of.

The machinations are a known quantity