Can alex jones sue wikipedia for putting him on the list

can alex jones sue wikipedia for putting him on the list

Other urls found in this thread:

infowars.com/article-50-to-start-brexit-will-be-triggered-march-29-downing-street-confirms/
infowars.com/how-fungus-and-bacteria-are-killing-you/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

well no, he is fake news

smart

Libel. Wait for the new Supreme Court though. We are going to destroy the liberals.

define fake news. I just went their and clicked the first article on his page. Is this fake news?

infowars.com/article-50-to-start-brexit-will-be-triggered-march-29-downing-street-confirms/

>trusted sources like ABC News or MSNBC
>letting NYT and Politifact define what fake news is
>on wikipedia

nope, nothing Orwellian about this at all

MAYNESTREEM MEEDIAR

The problem with wikipedia is anybody can update it.

When C. Martin Croker died last year (voice actor, animator, widely known for Space Ghost Coast to Coast) some lunatic hag with awful plastic surgery kept getting herself put up on his wiki as his "life partner," and of course the man was dead and powerless to do anything about it. His friends and family had to heavily monitor his wikipedia page to take that stuff down.

That one might not be, but it takes all of 30 seconds to find some real garbage on infowars

infowars.com/how-fungus-and-bacteria-are-killing-you/

Rural and suburban retards believe that a guy named Jesus was resurrected for their sins and will come back one day for the final judgement.

The trash that you find on Infowars is pretty tame in comparison.

NYT gets to be the deciders of whats fake news.

So what? You forgot to define fake news for me. How can we know if it's fake news or not if we don't know what fake news is? Why won't you tell me?

No.

Fake news in news that is not factually true
>leaf intellectual

>Wikipedia making a list of fake news
>couldn't biased at all right?
Wew lad. There's some open irony hear that I find hilarious. Lemme guess, they put Infowars and Breitbart on the list too because "hurr alt right?". Wikipedia is run by Jews. It doesn't surprise me that they'd target right wing news sources. Yet conveniently ignores how MSM lies consistently enough as proof. 1/10 wikipedia

I don't really like the terminology either, and I can't give you a good definition because there isn't one. But if you think Alex Jones selling his literal scam health products is real news then you're an idiot.

so all news organizations are fake then?

His scam health products aren't news. Do you know what news is?

The article I linked is posted as a news article and makes veritably false claims about a yeast epidemic which he sells a product to "cure"

Pretty much
There is no list on the article and Alex Jones, Breitbart and Infowars are not mentionned in the article. The few sites that are mentionned are facebook and RT during the Crimea occupation

What IS fake news, really?

Who decides it, and how do we know if it's fake news?

So what? That doesn't make him fake news.

Posting a news article about a fake health epidemic is not fake news to you?

Where exactly do you set the bar?

>telling lies to sell a product is not fake news
Hello there CNN

I'm asking the questions here. Of course it's fake news but just because you print fake news doesn't make you fake news then everyone would be fake news. So is everyone fake news?

>But if you think Alex Jones selling his literal scam health products is real news then you're an idiot.
My local newspaper shills its own shitty promotions through articles all the time, and I don't see anyone decrying newscorp as fake news.

>Fungus and Bacteria don't kill people
>FUCKING LEAF
KYS

Yeah pretty much

But do they manufacture a fake health epidemic to do so?

Of course they do, but there is no fungus epidemic, and his magic pills won't do shit anyway

The allegation would have to be false though.

objectively it means news that is entirely made up or where the reader has no means of verifying the data. The NYT and Wapo articles that always cite anonymous IC operatives falls dangerously close to this, since there's no way of ever knowing if they actually had these sources.

Practically, people consider news media 'fake' if it is biased in a way that they don't like.

>But do they manufacture a fake health epidemic to do so?
No, they just spew bullshit about how if you buy their shitty board games with the voucher out of the paper, your family will be happy and it'll have some arbitrary benefits for your children according to some professional who's getting paid for an interview.

In that case they're not using alarmism, but it's still dishonest and mixing bullshit in amongst real news. They're both just pushing a commercial agenda and while it doesn't speak highly of a media outlet that they're doing it, it's become, more than anything, the standard. I don't see Infowars as some highly credible source, but that's just a shit example and if it were reasonable proof of them being "fake news" then you'd be hard pressed to find news outlets that don't fit the bill.

I don't disagree, I think most major news outlets are guilty of some pretty heinous shit