[rustynails77]

I believe Wikipedia has an excellent definition of fake news which matches the understanding that most people I know are using,

"Fake news is a type of hoax or deliberate spread of misinformation, be it via the traditional news media or via social media, with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news

I have researched many articles from around 50 years ago and today. I strongly believe that the amount of disinformation has grown significantly, especially from the Mainstream Media. I find it difficult to find a single news outlet that can't be found to meet that definition above (ie. to spread fake news).

It's not "I disagree with you" (like many posters are saying). It's not those "men’s rights advocates" [from the article] or "Breitbart". It's MOST (if not all) mainstream media.

The issue falls into two categories (above). 1. Blatant lies. For example, how many times have you heard about women's voting rights (women couldn't vote until a long time after men could). Read this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9933592/Wom...

And the UK is not the only country with similar stories. Compare this article with statements like this from the guardian "In 1928, women were granted equal voting rights with men: it had been 10 years since the Representation of the People Act _first_ enabled them to take their place at the ballot box..." (emphasis mine) https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/09/women.w...

Then there's the blatant misinformation. Go to Google, type in "domestic violence" and click "Images". Then scroll through every single image you can find. If you want even more images, pick specific media publications and search that using "domestic violence site:www.smh.com.au" (or whatever media out you like). You will see thousands upon thousands of images that all contain the same thing. Pictures of white grown women, or white men in threatening poses. You will find less than 2% of women who don't appear white, you will find less than 5% of pictures depict abused children. You will find 0% of abused males. Now, compare this with the following.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2010000/t002-eng.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_Unite...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...

You will see the percentage of male victims is 35%, 51%, 41%, and 35% (Australia, Canada, US, UK). In other words, there is plenty of violence against males with the family. If you really have the time, also, read the text in the articles and you will see how consistently manipulative the media are, across the entire world!

The idea is to manipulate and create a public perception. The real reason behind it was captured by this feminist who said that her friends refused to acknowledge domestic violence of any males in case it took funding from women (ie. it's about the money). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSTzV29bS0

I personally think you can't get much lower than denying violence, protection from violence and trying to cut off support any any victim of violence, but, then again, i'm in the extreme minority.

I could give so many examples of fake news, not just these. We could talk about cancer, education, employment, wages, you name it. There's a huge list of fake news. Sadly, these themes saturate the media (world wide) with a continuous stream of lies and misinformation.

I don't think the article helped in the slightest. If anything, I saw it as a backward step. There are perfectly good definitions and plenty of examples that could have been illustrated.

This is a worthy discussion. Let's stop pussyfooting. Hold all liars and manipulators to the same standard. Start exposing blatant lies.