Template:Collapse/testcases

Problem from jimbo's talkpage
At least as great a problem is that perceptions of bias have changed radically. If reporting is factually accurate in the traditional sense of the words "factual" and "accurate," but presents information that the reader would rather not see, nowadays it's likely to be called biased or fake. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * SBHB, how true! Objective facts are now called "fake news":


 * This is our new world, and our job as Wikipedians and citizens is to not surrender, but insist that RS are our standard. The MSM is not fake news. It is not the "enemy of the people". If we cave, Wikipedia will be whitewashed, undermined, and fail to be an objective documentation of history and knowledge. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Foo

Gosh Bar Some of the U.S. mainstream media is fake news (or fake-ish) along with their "happy-talk" opinions, as people worry to refer to FOX News as "Faux news" or other news groups repeat gossip and "let the reader decide". Some users above have warned how "news sells" and how it can be sold more, aka "yellow journalism" (sensationalism in news reports). In the U.S. it certainly appears how when a news group has a choice between "new" or "true" then they seem to run with "new" and claim they only repeat the news. If the news repeats "crooked Hillary" 999x, then there are many people who would just believe it, because the news "forgot" to report she was found to be honest and truthful after years of investigation. The news groups had the optional opinion to refute the lie of "crooked" but they opined not to refute, about 999x times. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)