A Simple Method to Spot "Fake News"

With all the attention in media to “fake news” we present a short course in sorting “wheat from chaff” today. Since I’ve got 50-years of reporting under my belt, I’ve been looking for a way to  teach anyone – in a matter of minutes – to sort “real news” from fake.

Surprisingly, this is one of those “useful insights” that happens from living a multidisciplinary life.  In today’s case,  as you’re about to discover, the “simple way to “score news” arose from my deep interest in treasure-hunting, or all things!

I’ll walk you through what promises to be a very short  and useful column, after we get some of the “usual’s” out of the way.  Specifically, some key headlines to watch and our Aggregate Index chart series.

(Our previous plans to update on the Time Machine Project have been pushed to Wednesday as I continue putting finishing touches on a radical theory called “The Q of Time.” )

More for Subscribers      |||     SUBSCRIBE NOW!       |||   Subscriber Help Center

16 thoughts on “A Simple Method to Spot "Fake News"”

  1. Thank you George for this most helpful treatise. Your method confirmed what my gut was saying about ignoring most of the public arena “noise”. Life is so short. Our time is best spent on improving ourselves and helping others to do the same which is what you do so very well.

  2. I found the easiest way to spot fake news is to listen to the Dems like Pelosi, Shiff, Schummer, & not to leave out the Republicans…Dimnitt Romney, who is as dumb as Bush I & II. Will Romney ever get a Twitter account in his own name? Currently he is Pierre Delecto…didn’t Weiner use that name?

  3. The treason word is a dog whistle. If it sticks, and it will, “treason” will be turned into a campaign slogan. Anyone recall the Birth Certificate slogan from 2016?

  4. Thanks for an excellent filtering tool George.
    When I read Computational Future my filter is to simply look at the attribution; CNN, Time, CBS I just skip over because it is safe to assume it’s a false narrative, sometimes Zero Hedge has good stuff (if you can endure pop-ups),
    Your deep vs broad insight reminds me of a concept about purchasing agents.
    Salespeople tend to be broad to the point of knowing a little about a great many things until, as they progress in their careers, they know nothing about everything.
    Engineers on the other hand tend to have deep knowledge about a very few things. As they evolve, they wind up knowing everything about nothing.
    Purchasing agents, due to their constant association with salespeople and engineers inevitably wind up knowing nothing about anything.

  5. Nicely done article G – can only hope some of Ure audience will execute your ideas regards filters & discernment.

    U somehow always manage to uncover a clue about current events and how the hell we got this place in time/history.
    That clue is Quantum Computing…which is directly connected to Quantum Field Theory – as taught by professor Sidney Coleman at Harvard Univ back in 60s-70s.

    Guess who two of his students were back in time ?? David S Coleman and Matt Groening – both producers – who make entertainment that typically accurately predicts the future. Hell Groening has done it over 25 times in the history of the Simpsons show..9/11/Trump VICTORY..

    U dont think Quantum Field Theory is how TRUMP has managed to kick it in the “non- existent” Deep States ass.

    Treason – get used to that word – repeat it out load several times – change emphasis on syllables – get used to that word – own that word for it is coming to a Screen near U soonly!

    And in case y’all r wondering …ECD prefers a Firing Squad over all other forms of Capital Punishment. Dig hole, line up NoGoodniks next said hole, Fire at will Boys & Girls, back up dump truck full of lime, cover and repeat till the last of yellow bellied Reds B deads – now where did I leave that 6.5 Grendel..

  6. George, you said…
    “Let’s take the circus going on with impeachment in DC.
    There are only a couple of “high authority” sources of fact. One being the president, Donald Trump.”

    That’s a laugher. Nothing Trump says is a truthful statement. There is video proof…It’s all on tape. He says one thing, then contradicts himself in the same presser, then denies he said any of it the next day.

    He lies so much, how could he EVER be considered a high authority on anything but his own lies. Trump is a pure fascist and will lie, cheat and corruptly manipulate for pure narcissistic pleasure. You made this way too complicated George. Spotting fake news is as easy as T-R-U-M-P!

    • Well, this is really an interesting point, Mark.
      Try to look at this from the Historical Method perspective outlined in the piece on “fake news” following. (Non subscribers need to read on Historical Method here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method)

      I wrote what I did about Trump because from an historical methods perspective, TRUMP is a Primary Source. Those who capture and edit Trump are secondary sources. Those who opine on Trump are third tier sources, and so on. Hence, a book by someone who you may not like (say O’Reilly, who spent considerable time with Trump, or the Wead book) are tier two sources , having interviewed the tier 1 source.

      Now we go to the clown posses on the overbuilt news channels. Third tier, at best.

      The average person can be sucked in to thinking “OMG all these tier three people are saying the same thing – ergo it must be true.” And, as a result, because this becomes a self-reinforcing bias, you laugh at the tier 1 central figure as not being credible.

      I ask: Who is not being credible? Pelosi and Schiff (tiers 2 or 3, depending if they met with Trump and are reacting to tier 1, or are seeing a first-hand report (tier 2) or acting based on a NYT hit piece (tier 3) or an NYT op-ed (tier 3 or 4)…???

      It is not complicated. Get to know some lawyers and really delve into what’s hearsay and what’s first-hand. In the news, as I demonstrated in the piece on Urban earlier this week, you may not LIKE that a grand jury can no subpoena the dems (this is going tit for tat now, and its all so laughable) but “it is what it is.”

      The principals (tier 1’s) that have managed NOT to be called into this yet are Val Jarrett and Obama and whoever else is feeding the so-called “news” outlets which are aty besat 2’s but mostly 4’s in authority-ranking terms, based on historical method as explained in today’s PN piece in detail.

      I sincerely your view on Trump “being a laugher” but, laugh or not, he IS the Tier 1 Source and to stay on the Reality track, all good historians (and any surviving/remaining real reporters) will know to keep their judgements of Tier 1 people for their tier 3 and tier 4 audience. the American people, I believe want news and not speculation, fabrication or prognostication.
      The famous words of Det. Joe Friday sound familiar here? Just the fact, man.
      And speaking of liars and Dt. Joe Friday…

      So, notice how cheap the previous tier 1 feller made healthcare?

    • Dude – might want check in at local health clinic – really sound like U R suffering from a serious case of selective hearing. Let me help.

      U must have missed the following on one of your favs Clinton News Network. So I’d like to share a quote from one James Clapper uttered on CNN this past week

      “It’s a little disconcerting to be investigated for having done … what we were told to do by the President of the United States” Https//t.co/peAoCjWCg


  7. George, a simple and practical meta-search engine would simply accept a search string, reformat it to the ideal “and” function for each separate engine and query all of them, pulling back only the results that met the criteria, rather than all the links that met some or none of the stated criteria! So many engines today don’t seem to understand boolean at all!

    Even google doesn’t have the decency to return “no results” when that’s the proper answer. You’re inundated with lots of links that upon careful examination meet little to none of what was asked for.

    A different type of search engine would parse in more human ways, using serious inference to answer questions like “What is the meaning of life?” and “How do I find love?”. This is very different from what most of us are looking for in a fact based search. Google etc., manage to do both rather poorly while trying to sell irrelevant products.

    Of course, both types of search engines need to outwit the SEO strategies in order to provide relevant results.

    Happy coding!

  8. Good one on filtering. I nominate it for your entry into your best of the year.
    Maybe it will jog the memory of the judges as to what real news used to look like.

  9. PG&E is going to miss a month’s worth of income. Nobody is using juice.

    It might be a good idea to short their vendors, if they have any left. Thoughts?

Comments are closed.