Talk:Fake News Awards

5 am or 5 pm?
The article says that Trump does not specify 5am or 5pm. On FoxNews, 5pm is the Tucker Carlson Show, and at 5am it is 'Fox and Friends' said to be President Trump's favorite TV show. - 03:45, 10 January 2018‎ 76.217.162.244

Information sources

 * https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/07/trump-fake-news-awards-327285
 * http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/11/norm-eisen/donald-trumps-fake-news-awards-could-land-white-ho/
 * https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/07/trump-fake-news-awards-327285
 * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/7/16860848/trump-fake-news-awards
 * https://cpj.org/blog/2018/01/press-oppressor-awards-trump-fake-news-fakies.php
 * http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367834-trump-moves-back-fake-news-awards
 * https://slate.com/arts/2018/01/the-daily-show-slams-the-other-late-night-shows-for-being-too-factual.html
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/trumps-fake-news-awards-entered-by-stephen-colbert-and-trevor-noah.html

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

More:


 * https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/us/politics/trump-wall-street-journal-fake-news.html?_r=0

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-17/trump-announces-winners-fake-news-awards
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-fY7ypb70U
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d5tZvEAvrQ
 * https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-27/more-fake-news-media-contrived-photos-diminish-trump’s-inauguration-crowd
 * http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/01/21/sean-spicer-donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-bts.cnn
 * http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/
 * https://www.facebook.com/NBCNews/videos/2302322123121138/?q=nbc%20trump%20inauguration%20crowd%20size
 * http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/cnn-continues-to-fall-in-tv-ratings-yogi-bear-full-house-and-friends-reruns-doing-better/
 * http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/media-keeps-confirming-propaganda-arm-democratic-party/
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4ucyt0/megalist_of_the_most_pertinent_dnc_email_leaks/

Suresa108 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Description of the awardees
I added "and major" to the description of the winners being "minor" journalistic mistakes. Some of these journalists lost their jobs and others were suspended for ultimately false reporting. These were not all "minor" errors to say the least. Some were minor, and some were corrected, so I left those descriptors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8600:120:1825:EDB3:3B5C:EE2E (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please actually look at the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Notable?
I saw mention on Talk:Paul Krugman the idea that this may not be a notable topic deserving an article. I had the same thought but I wasn't sure if it was coming from a place of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think some discussion is worth having on how notable this really is. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this should go into an article on Donald Trump and social media or Donald Trump's relationship with the media (if we had one). I don't think it's notable enough for its own article. But I'm gonna give it a few days and see if there's any lasting coverage. I do object however to the notability template being removed with no stated reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel it passes WP:GNG and WP:RAPID as the media worldwide are reporting on it.While one is free to nominate for WP:AFD but think it will best to Revisit this in a few months to see if it is WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to nominate it for AfD yet, didn't even want to put the orange notability tag on it. Everything he does gets media coverage, because he's POTUS, but that doesn't mean it has LASTING. But, time will tell I suppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When would be the appropriate time to re-assess? At the moment I feel it is notable, but may not be accordance with NOTNEWS. However it doesn't seem like that is very applicable to Trump these days. I doubt there will be any lasting or enduring coverage of this, unless he makes it a regular thing. Seems like in 6 months this will be another covfefe or Trump orb. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think trump criticism/relationship with the media article would be a good article to create and merge in. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If he does it again next year, or if it otherwise has a lasting impact, it will deserve its own article. Until then, merging it with Donald Trump's relationship with the media seems reasonable. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea; or just a.....really massive section Trump's presidency article. Other presidents have had relations with the media (duh) so it seems like just having a section for him as with everyone else on that seems fair. It'll just be a little longer. 100.2.155.110 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly every U.S. president has had relationships with the media, some good and some bad (Obama once got into a spat with Fox News in 2009). However, I think like Trump's could be notable because of its highly combative atmosphere and the length of time it's persisted. Some of his current feuds are extensions of his pre-election relationships, like CNN President Jeff Zucker (who helped Trump become a TV star) and his friend David J. Pecker of the National Enquirer. He also hasn't always had a great relationship with Fox News, at least in the early days of his campaign. FallingGravity 08:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like this falls into the other 9/10 Trump controversies, where it's forgotten within a day. Case in point: nobody's sure if these were mock awards or not, because it wasn't worth elaborating upon by the media or GOP. It's best to request a merge with another article. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 20:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify at all as an article. Summarize and merge with related ones.HeloPait (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: A merger is under discussion at Donald Trump on social media. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

tags
I've added POV and Synthesis tags. Notability tag should also be there. When I looked at the article this morning it was full of these issues after a night of anon-IP edits, quite a number of which changed the text to say the opposite of what the sources say (turning negatives into positives and vice versa). I tried to clean up these problems and possibly the tags could be removed, since however this article is not semi-protected I expect the hijinks will shortly resume and the tags will be applicable again. So I'm going to leave them in for now and see what happens. If the problems don't arise again, I will remove them myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you think the article, in its current state, still deserves the POV and synthesis tags? If so, which aspects?
 * I was initially concerned about the comment column in the awards section... but looking at it more closely, I see this is all sourced to an article "Fact-checking President Trump's 'Fake News Awards'" so it is not SYNTH - that source looked specifically at the awards. SYNTH would be if we did our own "fact-checking" by bringing in facts that we judge to be relevant but have not been mentioned in relation to the awards in the sources.
 * Yaris678 (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think it's ok now, except for the notability issue. That's assuming the article remains stable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for removing the tag.  Yaris678 (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * you undid my addition of "See also" section saying "no - using ELs to push POV is disruptive". I tried to do a neutral (or at least diverse) POV and added the section to reduce Recentism. Maybe they were too far a leap and needed annotation to indicate relevancy. Additional feedback is welcomed. StrayBolt (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Mock status
Which source discusses that the award is handed ironically? We should not assume so based on its absurdity.  Ꞷ  umbolo   15:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if you recognize people for being the worst at something and call it an "award", that automatically makes it a mock award. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the Purple Heart? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the goal of the Purple Heart is to honour the recipient for giving their life, not to criticize them for dying. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're mainly right. Most go to the relatively minorly wounded, though, especially lately. I'm not a dick or an idiot, so won't draw parallels between the magnitude of what each side had to lose to win, but both are equal insofar as they're public government acknowledgment in the President's name of failures in important public services, which can be seen either as expression of discontent or as remindful encouragment for those in their respective industries to better prepare and execute their civic duties. Granted, he could have presented the message with a bit more class and a bit less emphasis on lies about himself, but that's par for the course by now.
 * When you take away the fact that he's Donald Trump, he's still the elected leader of a legit superpower nation. His views (and those of his cronies) carry far more notability than whoever sponsors or votes for the Razzies (or any lesser scornfest). They're serious and not at the same time, like the whole Twitter deal. Not quite "mock", but if enough reliable sources say it is, it's at least verifiable and we should parrot it here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Good point actually, It's like the "Darwin Awards". The fact that he doesn't have actual statues or a half hour show or something more than just a small article tells me it's meant to mock, which he's known for anyway. 100.2.155.110 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * They should be called winners and awards, though, not "winners" and "awards". Such finger-quoting sassiness implies they somehow weren't "really" commemorated by the official government for doing their jobs poorly, in that organization's view. For better or worse, they genuinely were, despite second-hand opinion on whether they fairly earned this distinction. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say that it's a mock award in that it's an imitation or parody without the trappings of an official award, sort of like the aforementioned Darwin Awards. On the other hand, the Golden Raspberry Awards have an actual ceremony and present a real award, but are called a mock award in the intro of that article. The phrase links to wooden spoon (award), which looks related to booby prize, both of which are actual items awarded to someone, but jokingly and in acknowledgement of a poor performance. Regardless, I think "mock award" fits in the sense of something being a fake meant to imitate the real thing. I suppose we could also call it tongue-in-cheek, like the Darwin Awards, but that implies, to me, a good-natured sense of humor about the situation, which I'd venture to say is not the case here. clpo13(talk) 20:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Mock award" is a perfect description, because like the Raspberries it is not intended to honor the recipients; it is intended to criticize or ridicule them. But I don't think scare quotes around "winners" are appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Creation - History of the Awards
Fake News Awards page appears created to give a pro-Liberal media bias, which expresses outrage and disgust at President Trump's mock awards, along with bewilderment why such awards are necessary or true? All references are solely from Liberal media, with conservative news media blocked and censored, on the claim that they are "unreliable sources", even though Wikipedia doesn't list them in this way, which appears to be a personal political bias on the part of the authors, in sympathy with the Liberal press, and not genuinely neutral. Improving the article, to include a few conservative published news references and opinions, allows visitors to this Wikipedia article to understand the history of this news event impartially, without unfairly favoring solely Liberal media's opinion, even if they choose to disagree with the conclusions of one side or the other.

What's significant however about the "Fake News Awards" page is that while it's generally accurate, there is one glaring point - you're making light of the original fake news articles themselves, which received President Trump's mock awards, stating that they were unimportant issues at the time, that were retracted by the media quickly, when found in error, as if it were just an honest mistakes each time. Instead, the opposite is true. The stories were always treated like highly important issues (even though they were generally petty and unsubstantiated claims), and then promptly shared by hundreds of Liberal news organizations globally, speaking as one united voice, around the clock, often for days and even as in the case of the 2017 Inauguration crowd size issue - weeks on end. But, when the stories were finally debunked, proven inaccurate, and false, the same media outlets were slow to correct their errors, admit defeat, and made light of it, contrary to the claims of the Fake News Awards article. Then, months later, even though the original stories had already been proven false and retracted, they have been reintroduced back again into the media, which still pretends that they were always true all along?

Tell it as it is then, and give a balanced description of the news event, sharing all sides of the political spectrum, and stop pretending this article is neutral. What has occurred since airing of these types of news stories, throughout the Presidential campaign and in the months following the election, are large segments of the American public doubting the validity and accuracy of Liberal mainstream news reporting, choosing to either block its transmission, or selecting alternative right wing media for their news. Meanwhile, Viewer Ratings of Liberal media continue to drop, to ridiculous levels.

Wikipedia's Fake News Awards page doesn't appear to be created by a neutral party, willing to present all sides of the story, and is instead slanted to solely favor the Liberal media's view, and the Democratic Party itself, which consistently cries foul at the outrage and necessity of these type of awards, as well as behaving as an opposition resistance, rather than a genuine free press not controlled by a political party. The phenomena, which occurred during the broadcast of each of these fake news stories, was a deliberate established media effort, controlled by the losing Democratic Party, to smear Republican President Trump and delegitimize his presidency, as revealed in the leaked DNC emails.

Social media censorship has been imposed, to block fair discussion, along with news suppression techniques by sympathizing search engines, to bury opposing stories, conservative views, and fact checking. Even the Democratic Party's own fact checking sites such as Snopes, employ deception and print fake stories themselves, pointing to censorship, collusion, and blocking of freedom of speech.

References:

1. CNN falsifies President Trump's Inauguration crowd size, using photo shop editing and pre-arrival timing at the event, which is then continuously shared and broadcast by every mainstream media news network globally, for 2 solid weeks, 24 hours a day, after the 2017 Inauguration. CNN only briefly apologizes, at the end, after being proven liars.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-27/more-fake-news-media-contrived-photos-diminish-trump’s-inauguration-crowd

2. CNN falsely claims WH Press Secretary Sean Spicer statement "largest crowd ever" as fake news. Spicer's actual statement - "combination of crowds, networks, cable, and online streaming" was the largest ever.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/01/21/sean-spicer-donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-bts.cnn

3. CNN created Gigapixel showing actual massive Trump Inauguration crowd size, while simultaneously falsely claiming in a multitude of related news articles, that the crowd size was instead tiny.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

4. NBC News, in December 2017, after Trump's Inauguration tiny crowd size story is settled and debunked earlier in the year, as fake news, reintroduces story again claiming crowd size was in fact tiny all along, and that President Trump was lying, taking the opportunity to ridicule him once again, in the hopes the public has forgotten.

https://www.facebook.com/NBCNews/videos/2302322123121138/?q=nbc%20trump%20inauguration%20crowd%20size

5. CNN viewer ratings drop below reruns of Yogi Bear.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/cnn-continues-to-fall-in-tv-ratings-yogi-bear-full-house-and-friends-reruns-doing-better/

6. Liberal Mainstream Media universally promotes news opinion representing the defeated Democratic Party resistance and opposition. Not a genuine free or impartial press.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/media-keeps-confirming-propaganda-arm-democratic-party/

7. DNC leaked emails reveal collusion between Clinton campaign and Liberal Mainstream Media.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4ucyt0/megalist_of_the_most_pertinent_dnc_email_leaks/

Suresa108 (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

comment added by 2600:8802:3404:B300:6591:1082:48B8:64D6 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * All Wikipedia articles are works in progress. Doesn't matter who creates them as much as who maintains them. If you see specific parts that seem wrong, find reliable sources which seem right and fix them. Making two articles for two versions of truth has never been the answer, and never will be. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Conservapedia has their own version of this article that might be more to your liking. clpo13(talk) 18:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * All that typing and not one RS mentioned. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Conservapedia doesn't have their own version of this article. Suggesting that conservative editors go somewhere else then, appears to constitute attempts at censorship and non-neutrality?

Suresa108 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The anonymous IP does have a point; is it NPOV to dismiss something as being "just a tweet" if that tweet is repeated in countless articles and videos? I'm reminded of the old axiom "a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Are there any editorials we could quote that argue in favour of the awards because of the wide coverage that inaccurate tweets can get? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So give us some references and sources to work with... Not arguing the value of the case, but the lack of anything to work with.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggested conservative news organizations to add to list of References (to be added to existing list):

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-17/trump-announces-winners-fake-news-awards
 * Zerohedge conservative news website applauds GOP site's temporary crash of servers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-fY7ypb70U
 * Alex Jones/Infowars conservative news website celebrates President Trump's Fake News Awards (video 62,000 views)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d5tZvEAvrQ
 * RT news organization states President Trump played American media like a yo-yo.

Note: The requirement by some Wikipedia editors that news sources be "reliable sources" translates to only Liberal media sources as being accepted. The result is circular logic, where only Liberal media sources are accepted, and conservative news media is blocked. This is censorship, and not the sign of a genuine free press, not controlled by a specific political party. Makes the article biased and not neutral. Different types of people will use the Fake News Awards page as a resource. It's important to offer the conservative news viewpoint, along with the Liberal, by sharing the 3 articles references suggested, giving viewers a choice of news commentary opinion. Suresa108 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it would help the article if you added the opinions of widely-published supporters of the award. I don't know whether RT and Infowars count as reliable sources, but they might count as widely-viewed editorials, which would mean you could use them as examples in the "Reception" section. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They don't. And no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"not a news story" is irrelevant because social media fits in the definition of fake news.
There are several statements in the comment area on the table that say, "not a news story". This is implying that it couldn't then fit into Fake News as this is the "Fake News Awards" because it is "a tweet". By wiki definition and consensus in prior discussions Fake News includes social media. So I am not sure why this needs is included. Contentcreator (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, none of these stories count as Fake news, which consists of entirely made up hoaxed and deliberate misinformation, not factual errors that are later corrected, or opinions/predictions that turn out to be wrong. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I made an edit right as you posted this. It is irrelevant it suggest that fake news only encompasses traditional media sources as "a tweet not a news story" suggest no tweet with true or misinformation can be considered fake news. If it is was not deliberate. Contentcreator (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that these are tweets and not news stories is emphasized by the sources. If you want it to say something else, you need to find sources for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As stated, it does not need to be a "news story" by wiki's definition or by numerous other reliable source like a dictionary defining it as "false and sometimes sensationalist information presented as fact and published and spread on the internet". It is extremely common for many reliable sources like here to list a non-news story tweet as fake news. If this has no relevance to the term fake news then why is it stated because it is an irrelevant comment? Contentcreator (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Volunteer Marek. By the way, The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and a dictionary definition is not a relevant source.- MrX 🖋 02:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? Is every source going to be "unreliable" because it is very common for news to name tweets which aren't news stories as fake news.Here is NYT name false information Trump is providing as fake news. I am not saying there instances are or aren't fake news just that a tweets which aren't a news story are consistently named as fake news.Contentcreator (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. News comes from news organizations, not Twitter. "Tweeting links to news", fake or otherwise, is not equivalent to "tweeting news".- MrX 🖋 03:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That ,however, does not match sourcing. I provided links to reliable sources (see NYT naming Trump's tweet which state false info as fake news) and several sites including Wikipedia itself specifying social media as an avenue. Almost all of which does not come from news organizations. Contentcreator (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * plenty of news is reported via twitter. Just today Jim Acosta tweeted out several updates about the shutdown negotiations, including quotes from White House officials. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I almost deleted them earlier, but figured there'd be weirdness. If it's a tweet, you don't have to say it's not a news story, because you already said it's a tweet. It's like how you don't have to specify your grandfather isn't your daughter, let alone three times in a row. You could fill a book with things any noun isn't, but it's easier to just call it like it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really an award
It should be clarified that this isn't an award, or more aptly an ironic award. It's a list of stories Trump doesn't like. There is no physical or monetary prize awarded. Many sources use "Fake News Awards" or "Awards" with quotes, and/or preface it with "so-called". Politco writes "Rather than specific awards, per se, the site listed 10 news stories... that Trump viewed as false." Whether this article remains separate or is merged into another, it should not be structured or worded to resemble coverage of actual awards like the Emmys or Golden Globes. I think even using infobox award is a bit too generous. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And lest accusations of bias from liberal media arise, even Fox News calls them "self-proclaimed 'Fake News' awards". (more than once!) --Animalparty! (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The prize is public recognition and acknowledgement for their work. Very few people had heard of most of these reporters, relative to now. Through being honoured by the Republican Party and associated with/against Trump, they become richer in name value and Twitter followers. That's not guaranteed money, but it can certainly help. These things don't need to be tangible, especially online. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It's like when the Ayatollah badmouthed Salman Rushdie. A lot of people who didn't know if they liked him suddenly bought his book, because they kind of knew they didn't like the Ayatollah. Taking a shot from an established villain quickly makes you a sympathetic figure in the eyes of his enemies. It doesn't matter if the attention is for something you genuinely did wrong. As long as he's seen as generally wronger, you win in the public eye. Even the Ayatollah seems hip and with it when knocking America's leader lately. Backwards, but true. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

NOT REALLY AN AWARD - REBUTTAL
"The initial announcement of the winners was described by media pundits as a flop, because the Republican Party's website experienced technical difficulties and displayed a 404 error".

This is not a completely factual statement, because not all media pundits described the announcement as a flop. Millions of inquisitive people visited the GOP site hosting the awards simultaneously, overwhelming their servers, causing the site to temporarily crash, due to popularity of the subject, not because of failure, or a flop as claimed. Media Pundits at conservative sites and news organizations including: Infowars, Zerohedge , Breitbart News , Gateway Pundit , and FOX news , just to name a few, which all generally support the President, celebrated the success of the awards announcement, and instead described it as a victory against fake news. Only the Democratic Party's sympathetic media, including the winners of their Fake News Awards themselves, conveniently described the announcement as a flop, to create the impression with the public that they were somehow innocent, and wrongly accused.

The problem here is this article maintains a bias, which is to promote the opinions of Democratic Party sympathetic mainstream media, defending the same news organizations that Trump "Awarded", and by naming only sources that confirm it's bias against him. It's argued that the media is being denied freedom of speech to attack the President, but by the same token the same media organizations and their Democratic Party sympathizers wish to deny the President the right to freedom of speech himself, to contradict their opinions with alternative facts. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, co-host of 'Morning Joe', went so far as to state that the President has no right to speak directly to the American public, and complains about President Trump's efforts to "undermine the media" and "control what people think" claiming that's the media's job.

All the References provided by the "Fake News Awards" Wikipedia article are the same news organization recipients themselves, or Democratic Party sympathetic media, which points to the article's bias in not reporting the entire issue accurately. To take it a step further, American mainstream media repeatedly seeks to proclaim itself as possessing the sole right to report news, which is always favorable and supportive of the opposition Democratic Party's agenda and its leaders, while attempting to deny the same right of Freedom of the Press to any media organizations that support the Republican Party, and specifically President Trump. Therefore, America does not enjoy a genuine free press at this time, as it falsely claims, and instead has become a source of endless political bias, news suppression, and censorship.

References:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_News_Awards

2. https://gop.com/the-highly-anticipated-2017-fake-news-awards/

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTMYOZYVRag

4. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-17/trump-announces-winners-fake-news-awards

5. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/01/18/breitbart-news-fake-news-awards/

6. https://thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/fake-news-awards-announced-president-trump-announces-much-anticipated-fakenews-awards/

7. http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/17/donald-trump-announces-fake-news-awards

8. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-19/ron-paul-exposes-real-fake-media

9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v7xN02whVY

10. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-12/leaked-facebook-training-manual-confirms-allegations-conservative-news-suppression

11. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-04/will-russiagate-result-social-media-regulation

Suresa108 (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, just because Trump and some crazies consider these recipients "fake news" doesn't mean Wikipedia does. On the other hand, pretty much everything you listed above is garbage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Replying to Volunteer Marek's ad hominem personal attack.

Volunteer Marek's statement: "Look, just because Trump and some crazies consider these recipients "fake news" doesn't mean Wikipedia does. On the other hand, pretty much everything you listed above is garbage."

Where does it state in the bylaws of Wikipedia that it directly opposes the President of the United States or considers him or his political supporters crazy garbage? It seems like this is a personal opinion and attack on the part of Volunteer Marek, and not a statement that belongs in an online encyclopedia open to the public, along with his effort to stifle free speech, opposing viewpoints, by claiming this is not a forum for anyone but himself.

It also appears to be violating Wikipedia's "Editing Talk" rules. This is the contention I have been making, that the article "Fake News Awards" maintains a bias favoring the Democratic Party, and its controlled media, blocking conservative viewpoints, from the discussion. It was previously requested that references be provided, which I provided in my post. However, the problem is that American mainstream media appears controlled by the opposition Democratic Party, at this time, as revealed in the WikiLeaks DNC emails [12]. In the opinion of Democratic Party controlled media then, only they are permitted to publish news, that their news is factual, and everything else from all other sources, which favors the opposing Republican Party and President Trump, is fake "garbage", and should be suppressed, censored, and removed. However, this is not the sign of a genuine free press.

References:

12. https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4ucyt0/megalist_of_the_most_pertinent_dnc_email_leaks/

Suresa108 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You yourself just went into an opinion-based conspiracy that the Democratic party controls mass media. Also, just as we're not having a Wikipedia-affiliated witch-hunt against Trump, we're also not going to call these organizations "fake news".

D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 08:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Which parts of the references I've provided, which you've never actually looked at or read, did you disagree with? The leaked DNC emails reveal direct collusion between the Clinton campaign and American mainstream media, not only to rig the Primary against Bernie Sanders, but also outright control of the media itself, during the 2016 Presidential race by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. This isn't a personal opinion, or a conspiracy theory. If you read the actual emails for yourself, you'll find factual proof, if you desire to see it. However, if it's difficult for you, I will be happy to provide the exact proof here?

1. Leaked DNC Emails Confirm Democrats Rigged Primary, Reveal Extensive Media Collusion

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion

Suresa108 (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservapedia has their own version of Wikipedia's Fake News Awards article.
"Perhaps the solution is to create a separate Wikipedia Fake News Awards page, which offers the conservative news commentary of this event, since the original page is slanted to solely favor the opposition Democratic Party and its media' outrage, along with blocking and censoring conservative revision to the original text.

Suresa108 (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)"

comment added by 2600:8802:3404:B300:6591:1082:48B8:64D6 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Conservapedia has their own version of this article that might be more to your liking.

clpo13(talk) 18:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservapedia doesn't have a "Fake News Awards" article. My suggestion then is to allow a rebuttal sentence, along with references, in the "Comments" section for each of the "Awards", which briefly shares the Conservative news opinion, based on Conservative news media sources, with references. Currently, only opinions from Democratic Party sympathetic news organizations are shown.

There are no rules which require Wikipedia to solely promote the Democratic Party's viewpoint, in your article, and suppress or exclude contradicting information from Republican news organizations generally sympathetic to President Trump. This means you're maintaining a political bias, and becomes an affront to freedom of speech.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_News_Awards

Suresa108 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what this section is about, but it seems to be built on false premises. We use reliable sources for building content, and represent major points of view in proportion to the coverage in those sources. Pitting Republicans against Democrats in an article is not how Wikipedia works. Please take some time to study some of our policies and guidelines (not bylaws) and review how other articles on Wikipedia are written. Once you understand how Wikipedia works, you will be better equipped to contribute here and at other article that pique your interest.-

MrX 🖋 18:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Fake News Awards page appears to have been created by what appear to be Democratic Party supporters and Liberal media sympathizers, claiming unfair and unjust treatment by President Trump. All the references provided in the article however, are solely Liberal media sympathetic/anti-President Trump news media sources.  There are zero references or news articles, offering a counter conservative viewpoint, to support the President's reason for hosting the Fake News Awards.  Therefore, this Fake News Awards page is unbalanced and solely promotes a pro-Democratic Party bias to explain the issue, omitting important details.


 * This goes to the heart of mainstream media's claim, that they alone are permitted Freedom of the Press, and that all other viewpoints which oppose the Democratic Party agenda, or support the Republican Party, and specifically President Trump, should be banned, censored, blocked, and actively removed, on the grounds that such news sources are lightly followed fake news. This is not the sign of a genuine free press.


 * The claim that the article promotes "major points of view" is also a false statement, because mainstream media ratings are collapsing, pointing to more viewers selecting FOX News and alternative conservative media, over traditional media sources, named in the Fake News Awards, such as CNN, according to a recent Rasmussen Report. According to a July 2017 rating, CNN's daily viewership has collapsed now below reruns of Yogi Bear.


 * The problem with making changes to the original article is you have to gain consensus of editors. However, the majority of editors for this article appear to be anti-Trump, so the Liberal media bias for the article remains intact.  Any changes that are attempted to be made with references to conservative news sources are removed.  Therefore, the article promotes a pro-Democratic Party opinion, is unbalanced, biased, containing inaccurate statements, and is not neutral, according to Wikipedia guidelines.


 * References:


 * 1. How Conservative Alternative Media is Trumping Traditional Media.




 * 2. CNN is now the least trusted among viewers.




 * 3. CNN Viewer ratings collapse below reruns of Yogi Bear.



Suresa108 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * if you have reliable sources from independent or conservative media that directly comment on the Fake News Awards, please list them. Infowars and ZeroHedge are not reliable sources. The three links above predate the Fake News Awards, and thus are not directly relevant. Opinions and editorials are largely discouraged, but those of notable commentators can be used to provide balance or perspective. Fox News has covered the 'awards' here, and Howard Kurtz writing for Fox News writes: "The president has every right to criticize news organizations, and the “awards” gimmick has already succeeded in generating coverage by the MSM. But what’s striking is that in most of these cases, the news outlets ran corrections or retractions or apologized. And in some instances, severe disciplinary action was taken. That means there has been some accountability. It doesn’t let the news organizations and journalists off the hook for bad judgment or a reckless rush to publish, and it’s fair to suggest that antipathy toward the president may have played a role, but it mean [sic] the stories weren't deliberately fabricated.". --Animalparty! (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And for what its worth, if you like Rasmussen polls, a Rasmussen survey of likely U.S. voters found that Fox News would have won the 'fake news trophy', the choice of 40% of respondents, way above those who would award it to CNN (25%), MSNBC (9%), ABC (4%), CBS (3%), and NBC (2%).

Replying to Animalparty:

I've checked Wikipedia's pages for both Infowars and Zerohedge, and neither are listed as "unreliable sources" as you claim. This seems to be an arbitrary label then, applied by editors with a pro-Liberal media sympathetic stance, which will make it quite impossible to offer either "notable conservative commentators", or "conservative media pundits", to the article, as you suggest, because all will be rejected for consideration, using circular logic.

Fake News Awards page terms:

Mainstream Liberal media have made 100's of mistakes, almost daily, throughout 2017, promoting fake news around the clock, repeated on every station, specifically designed to smear President Trump, and delegitimize the 2016 election results, only to apologize later, when they're caught lying, and proven false, but all is good - still counted as "reliable", and an acceptable sources of "notable commentators" and "media pundits" at the Fake News Awards page. Freedom of Speech and the Press is demanded, and political bias waived. All other sources of news, unfavorable to Democratic Party agenda are considered fake, labeled as unreliable sources, and blocked.

Conservative media sympathetic to the Republican Party/President Trump, makes mistakes too, also apologies, but is rejected by Wikipedia editors as "unreliable sources", applying a politically biased double standard not imposed on Liberal sympathetic media counterparts, sited in the article, with no acceptable claim of notable commentators or media pundits. Equal Freedom of Speech and the Press is blocked and denied, on the grounds that "neutrality" is not being observed. Censorship wins.

I've received private messages from Wikipedia administrators suggesting I go edit some other less important political document, since I'm "new", and because my stance isn't "neutral", however the article itself isn't neutral, and instead promotes a favorable Democratic Party bias. Just another attempt at censorship and distraction.

Regarding the Rasmussen polls and others like them, a special technique known as "oversampling" was developed during the 2016 campaign, in order to skew results, where extra viewers or voters, if needed, are added to provide a winning combination, showing as an example, a CNN poll, in late October, giving Hillary Clinton a 91% chance of winning the 2016 election.

My suggestion for a change is to simply state under Awards (changes in bold):

"That while the initial announcement of the winners was described by liberal media pundits as a flop, because the Republican Party's GOP website experienced technical difficulties and displayed a 404 error, along with a note that stated "we're making it great again", conservative news organizations, including Zerohedge, Infowars RT , social media sites, and commentators, favorable to the President, celebrated the GOP site's temporary crash, as a sign of success and public interest, which temporarily overpowered their servers."

Allow references to conservative sites which celebrated the victory of the awards show, including Zerohedge and Infowars, without the demand that they be rejected as "unreliable sources" and therefore excluded, since their specific stories contribute to describing the nature of the event. Allow equal Freedom of the Press and leave out your personal bias.

References:

1. Poll Oversampling explained.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/are-the-polls-rigged-against-trump-all-of-these-wildly-divergent-surveys-cannot-possibly-be-correct/

2. CNN poll showing Hillary Clinton's chances of winning 2016 election rising from 78% to 91%.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/political-prediction-market-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html

3. Zerohedge applauds GOP site's temporary crash of servers.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-17/trump-announces-winners-fake-news-awards

4. Alex Jones/Infowars celebrates President Trump's Fake News Awards (62,000 views)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-fY7ypb70U

5. RT states President Trump played American media like a yo-yo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d5tZvEAvrQ


 * What's the problem, that most Wikipedia editors are Democrats? I'm a registered Republican myself, but that's moot- not of your damn business. The article in its current form explains the President's rationale, as well as that there are some who support the awards. I'm not sure what you're hoping will be added, beyond having the page itself- not the reactionaries- directly praise the awards. This whole discussion may as well have a hat on it, as it's been completely unproductive. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 03:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Replying to DarthBotto:

You're putting words in my mouth, using a Straw Man type argument. I never claimed such things. I am not pro-Trump. I am simply interested in providing a truthful account of a current news event, allowing both sides of the American political spectrum, without displaying a decidedly left wing political bias, which currently paints Liberal mainstream media as innocent and wrongly accused by Republican President Trump's Fake News Awards, solely using Liberal media's references and claims themselves as its only source of verification. As it now stands, the Fake News Awards page is not neutral, and is allowing a decidedly left wing political bias.

In my years of experience, fighting fake news, on social media, one can't expect outright change of the article itself however. Instead, the key is to survive censorship and expulsion, with the goal to open some people's minds, to get them to think, question inaccuracies, listen to both sides of debates, and discover alternative facts defined as equally valid explanations.

References:

6. CNN falsifies President Trump's 2017 Inauguration crowd size, using photo shop editing and pre-arrival timing at the event, which is then continuously shared and broadcast by every mainstream media news network globally, for 2 solid weeks, 24 hours a day, after the Inauguration. CNN briefly apologizes, at the end, but only after being proven liars.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-27/more-fake-news-media-contrived-photos-diminish-trump’s-inauguration-crowd

7. CNN created Gigapixel showing actual massive Trump Inauguration crowd size, while simultaneously falsely claiming in other related news articles that the crowd size was tiny.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

8. CNN falsely claimed and vehemently attacked WH Press Sec. Shawn Spicer's statement “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe." as fake news. Spicer's statement was further clarified however as - "the Inauguration's combination of crowds, networks, cable, along with online streaming" was the largest ever.  CNN stripped that part out, and then endlessly and solely ridiculed the crowd size part of the statement instead.

9. NBC News, nearly one year after Trump's Inauguration tiny crowd size story is settled and debunked as fake news, reintroduces story again claiming crowd size was in fact tiny, and that President Trump was lying.

https://www.facebook.com/NBCNews/videos/2302322123121138/?q=nbc%20trump%20inauguration%20crowd%20size

Suresa108 (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. This whole thread should just be removed as it has nothing to do with improving the article but rather is just yer usual 'let's start an argument on the internets today' (the fact it's titled "a rebuttal" is sort of a big tell).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Yes, maybe, but these are your words above (talk): "Look, just because Trump and some crazies consider these recipients "fake news" doesn't mean Wikipedia does. On the other hand, pretty much everything you listed above is garbage."

This shows you have a bias, and that your editing is not neutral. What authority do you have to decide who sees what on Wikipedia? Instead it promotes your personal view that Liberal media should be coddled, while conservative media is blocked. This is censorship. I will appeal any attempt you make to erase conservative content or suggestions to improve the story to make it more balanced and truthful. Suresa108 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do attempt to appeal. Since you refuse to adhere to our rules when we offer them to you here, you can perhaps learn your lesson from others telling you the same thing at Dispute resolution noticeboard. This isn't about liberals vs. conservatives, as we have productive discourse between both sides of the aisle all the time. Consensus is your recommendations are not encyclopedic, as well as that we have rules to follow with reliable sources, formatting and decorum. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 08:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM. Yes, maybe, but these are your words above (talk): "Look, just because Trump and some crazies consider these recipients "fake news" doesn't mean Wikipedia does. On the other hand, pretty much everything you listed above is garbage."

RFCs and surveys open for discussion

 * 

1. Change - "Awards" text (changes in bold): The initial announcement of the winners was described by liberal media pundits as a flop, because the Republican Party's GOP website experienced technical difficulties and displayed a 404 error, along with a note that stated "we're making it great again". However, conservative news organizations, including Zerohedge[23], Infowars[24], RT[25], social media news sites, conservative news commentators and media pundits, along with political leaders, favorable to the President, all celebrated the GOP site's temporary crash, as a sign of success and public interest, which only momentarily overpowered their servers.

(Allow and references to below conservative news sites, which celebrated the victory of the awards show, including Zerohedge and Infowars, contradicting the claims by left leaning MSM news that the awards show was a flop, without the demand that they be rejected as "unreliable sources" and therefore excluded applying politically biased censorship, since their specific stories contribute to describing the nature of the event from a conservative news perspective. Allow equal Freedom of the Press and leave out personal political bias).

Wikipedia does not endorse the following unreliable sources which have been added to lend historical accuracy.

References (to be added to existing list):

23. Zerohedge conservative news website applauds GOP site's temporary crash of servers.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-17/trump-announces-winners-fake-news-awards

24. Alex Jones/Infowars conservative news website celebrates President Trump's Fake News Awards (video 62,000 views)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-fY7ypb70U

25. RT news organization states President Trump played American media like a yo-yo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d5tZvEAvrQ

Suresa108 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Alternative suggested Change - "Awards" text (changes in bold): The initial announcement of the winners was described by liberal media pundits as a flop, because the Republican Party's GOP website experienced technical difficulties and displayed a 404 error, along with a note that stated "we're making it great again". However, conservative news organizations all celebrated the GOP site's initial crash, as a sign of success and public interest, which only temorarily overpowered their servers.

Allow a simple mention that conservative news sites, celebrated the victory of the Fake News Awards, without specifically naming any, to satisfy Wikipedia standards, as the GOP site link, provided on the page, tells the entire story, without necessity of naming specific "unreliable sources", to allow the story to be balanced, neutral, and historically accurate.

Suresa108 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Webpage is working
Your system seems to be having problem accessing the webpage with it responding HTTP 403. The webpage link is working fine for me with 2 different browsers and also through Google Translate. However, this word count tool did get a 403. Today they are throwing up a splash "Go Vote" video and links. Maybe you can figure out what is wrong with your system. StrayBolt (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ...or maybe the problem is NOT on my side: "Orange indicates that the URL was not found (4xx)." --Webverbesserer (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)