• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

GOP Creates 20 Fake 'News' Sites

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
7
0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/13/house-republicans-unveil-a-new-2014-strategy-repurposing-press-releases-on-a-fake-news-site/

Here is a list of fake 'news' sites, which will be used to announce points against Democratic opponents.

  • Tucson Update (Ariz.)
  • Sacramento Update (Calif.)
  • Central Valley Update (Calif.)
  • Aurora Update (Colo.)
  • Tallahassee Update (Fla.)
  • Augusta Update (Ga.)
  • Northbrook Update (Ill.)
  • South Michigan Update (Mich.)
  • Des Moines Update (Iowa)
  • Middleton Update (Mass.)
  • Moorhead Update (Minn.)
  • Duluth Update (Minn.)
  • Manchester Update (N. H.)
  • South Jersey Update (N. J.)
  • Buffalo Update (N. Y.)
  • Hudson Valley Update (N. Y.)
  • Southeast Pennsylvania Update (Pa.)
  • San Antonio Update (Texas)
  • Loudon Update (Va.)
  • Charleston Update (W. Va.)


"We believe this is the most effective way to present information to leave a lasting impact on voters," NRCC communications director Andrea Bozek told the magazine's Shane Goldmacher. That defense is understandable: Giving people the impression that negative information about a candidate is coming from a news site vs. a political organization would almost certainly be more effective. But is it ethical?
I will be honest with you,.. yes, I do think this is ethical.

Every voter should be informed about who they vote for, and why. If it means having to be forced to look into sources of information - both in a good and bad light against the candidate(s),.. all the better. Question what is being presented to you and figure it out. This is just one example of how vigilant you have to be to look into things.

It is bad enough the voter is lazy to get to the polls - but, when they vote on just looks, with out facts, I consider it a disgrace.

This may just be a grab to get a few lazy clueless voters to vote, but, it truly exposes where the real weakness is in our society; our lack of thinking and researching things for ourselves.
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
It's not ethical because it is deliberately misleading. It's just like native advertising.
OP admitted to being a christian in another thread, so it's not surprising he wouldn't find this unethical either. It's also ironic that he laments people not taking their civic duties seriously or their lack of initiative when it comes to thinking and researching.
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,042
2,521
126
OP admitted to being a christian in another thread, so it's not surprising he wouldn't find this unethical either. It's also ironic that he laments people not taking their civic duties seriously or their lack of initiative when it comes to thinking and researching.
People should take their civic duties more seriously. But it could become quite tedious to do research on every source, and this move simply adds to the political noise.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,363
3,485
126
Fox News spewing propaganda 24/7 isn't enough? Apparently not.

When systematic Lying and Deception is what one chooses, do they have anything of value left in them anymore?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/13/house-republicans-unveil-a-new-2014-strategy-repurposing-press-releases-on-a-fake-news-site/

Here is a list of fake 'news' sites, which will be used to announce points against Democratic opponents.







I will be honest with you,.. yes, I do think this is ethical.

Every voter should be informed about who they vote for, and why. If it means having to be forced to look into sources of information - both in a good and bad light against the candidate(s),.. all the better. Question what is being presented to you and figure it out. This is just one example of how vigilant you have to be to look into things.

It is bad enough the voter is lazy to get to the polls - but, when they vote on just looks, with out facts, I consider it a disgrace.

This may just be a grab to get a few lazy clueless voters to vote, but, it truly exposes where the real weakness is in our society; our lack of thinking and researching things for ourselves.
I get your point and agree with it to an extent. However, I think an intent to purposefully deceive people is inherently unethical.

OTOH, I do see that they must label the site about the NRCC's ownership.

Also, I think the whole claim that it looks just like a news site is overblown. I'd be inclined to think it a blog.

Fern
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,042
2,521
126
I get your point and agree with it to an extent. However, I think an intent to purposefully deceive people is inherently unethical.

OTOH, I do see that they must label the site about the NRCC's ownership.

Also, I think the whole claim that it looks just like a news site is overblown. I'd be inclined to think it a blog.

Fern
It does look like a blog type site, but that's the idea. A lot of smaller news sites are adopting the blog-type format, so it fits in with smaller, independent news sources.

And despite having a label, it isn't prominently displayed at the top. They stuck it at the bottom in such a way that you might not see it. At least in my browser, if you read to the end of the article, you wouldn't see the disclaimer. The only way would be if you scrolled all the way to the bottom of the page. It comes across as deliberately deceptive.

An example:
http://www.electionupdate2014.com/ca21update70/
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
It does look like a blog type site, but that's the idea. A lot of smaller news sites are adopting the blog-type format, so it fits in with smaller, independent news sources.

And despite having a label, it isn't prominently displayed at the top. They stuck it at the bottom in such a way that you might not see it. At least in my browser, if you read to the end of the article, you wouldn't see the disclaimer. The only way would be if you scrolled all the way to the bottom of the page. It comes across as deliberately deceptive.

An example:
http://www.electionupdate2014.com/ca21update70/
Thanks for the example. I searched a bit and didn't find one.

A billboard like that probably wouldn't fool me. I don't see anything indicating it's news. If I'm at an unfamiliar/unknown site I usually look for a tab like "Home" or "About Us" etc. Since there's nothing at the top, I would normally got to the bottom and would've likely seen the NRCC disclaimer. Finally I usually google the site name and see what pops up. They'd be busted.

Pretty lame effort IMO. I don't think they'll be effective at all.

But I agree it's deliberately deceptive. Sad really.

Fern
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,981
12,447
136
Fox News will use these bogus news sites making up shit and quote them as a news source.

And the lies are propagated.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,511
140
106
I have no problem. I can read and realize the slant and take it for what it is worth - probably worthless content. Only ones who need to be afraid are those who can't think and read.
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,042
2,521
126
But I agree it's deliberately deceptive. Sad really.
It's not out of line though for the history of American politics. I remember visiting the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia a several years ago - they had a large exhibit on American politics and associated headlines and articles from the each time period. There is a long history of people twisting the truth or outright making up stuff about their opponent just to garner some votes from people that may not know better.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,288
10,100
136
It makes sense when you think about it - the GOP and it's primary outlet Fox noise have been so desperate the last 6 or so years even staunch conservatives admit Fox is a joke, one that is proving counterproductive to their efforts of mending their beat up image.

Call this just another form of republican rebranding. Same shit, different wrapper. Fox jumped the shark awhile ago, but they're just figuring this out now.

I don't think the GOP knack with yellow journalism and fake reporters/organizations is going to make a difference here ultimately. There's only so much you can do when you're wrong, and consistently being on the wrong side of an issue isn't exactly rare for these guys.

I'm going out on a limb here and will say these fake outlets will run news favorable for GOP politicians, probably not even mention news that isn't, and continue to feed the recent trend of divisive politics while making mountains of hypocrisy out of mundane molehills.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,981
12,447
136
I have no problem. I can read and realize the slant and take it for what it is worth - probably worthless content. Only ones who need to be afraid are those who can't think and read.
I'm afraid of the people who can't think and read because they can vote. Fox News and the GOP are well aware of this.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,434
84
91
I'm afraid of the people who can't think and read because they can vote. Fox News and the GOP are well aware of this.
Yes the GOP knows these people who vote democrat can't think on their own. These voters care only about what the liberal politicians promise them. Scandals and such don't factor into their voting equation.... so you really should not be afraid. as long as money is promised, the dems will get the votes.
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
7
0
Yes, this is deceptive - pretending to be a news site - but, none of what is being reported would be false.

Said candidate did or didn't vote for whatever, and campaign ads can not lie (since the opposition will get sued, etc. and tons of people watching).

If anything, the candidate being targeted on these sites could follow suit and address what is negative, on his/her own site, and then point out his/her positives.

Also, not every one of these sites will have to be looked into,.. only the one you will vote in - each site is dedicated to a state.
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2005
21,042
2,521
126
Deliberately misleading? Like when Dems recently were stating that Repubs wanted to impeach Obama?
So what? Someone else doing something ethically wrong doesn't give permission for another group to follow suit.

And on a sidenote that is off topic from this thread, Republicans have brought up impeachment long before the latest round of the word being thrown around (in regards to the lawsuit).
 
Last edited:

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
422
126
I have no problem. I can read and realize the slant and take it for what it is worth - probably worthless content. Only ones who need to be afraid are those who can't think and read.
This.

And lo and behold; those who clearly can't think are afraid of websites.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY