A story posted on a mysterious website has been widely circulated on social media after it made a baseless claim that Kamala Harris - the Democratic presidential nominee - was involved in an alleged hit-and-run incident.
It claims, without providing evidence, that a 13-year-old girl was left paralysed by the crash, which it says took place in San Francisco in 2011.
The story, which was published on 2 September by a website purporting to be a media organisation called KBSF-San Francisco News, has been widely shared online. Some online posts by right-leaning users citing the story have been viewed millions of times.
BBC Verify has found numerous false details indicating it is fake and the website has now been taken down.
[…]
Fake news stories targeting the US
The story and the website it originally appeared on share striking similarities with a network of fake news websites that masquerade as US local news outlets, which BBC Verify has previously extensively reported on.
John Mark Dougan, a former Florida police officer who relocated to Moscow is one of the key figures behind the network.
Approached by BBC Verify to comment on the hit-and-run story, Mr Dougan denied any involvement, saying: “Do I ever admit to anything? Of course it’s not one of mine.”
The websites mix dozens of genuine news stories taken from real news outlets with what is essentially the real meat of the operation - totally fabricated stories that often include misinformation about Ukraine or target US audiences.
The websites are often set up shortly before the fake stories appear on them, and then go offline after they serve their purpose.
Conservatives have no media literacy and its a global problem.
Or people without any media literacy are more likely to vote for conservatives…
Have you ever met a liberal though? Eg. NPR is non-stop zionist propaganda. Two sides of the same coin.
“Liberal” doesn’t mean what many people think it means.
It doesn’t mean “leftist” or “progressive” or “humane”. There might be some overlap, but these are not the same things, despite conservatives trying to define them as such.
Curious comment, so I looked at Wikipedia’s Liberalism in the United States. Still not sure what you’re suggesting.
Could you elaborate?
Liberals are pro free market and capitalism. Leftists are pro social programs and taxing the rich.
Thanks! It sounds like “liberal” in this thread is what I’ve always called neoliberal, and “leftist” is what’s known as democratic socialism?
Depends on how far you want to go left. On the more extreme side, these people want to abolish capitalism entirely and replace it with a communal system (workers owning the means of production). Democratic socialism is a very moderate form where capitalism is kept, but people get a fair chance of living in the system (usually through monetary assistance), no matter what family they come from and what their abilities are.
I think you’re confusing social democracy with democratic socialism. The first is as you say, and has huge overlap with liberalism, left liberalism, and progressive liberalism.
The second is achieving socialism through democratic means, without the need to overthrow government as once was believed to be entirely nessecary.
But then again, terms do change context over time, and by place. So maybe I’m the one who is wrong.
that’s only partly true:
economically liberal indeed means free markets and capitalism (this is why the australian conservative party is called the Liberal party)
however liberalism as a whole includes individual rights like human and civil rights, secularism, etc (this is what the US tends to define as liberal)
it’s an overloaded and imperfect term for our current global political cultures
similar applies to left and right wing:
the left are supporters of change and generally change that supports less fortunate and leads to less social hierarchy
what both these things have in common is that liberal and left wing are about change and new ideas, whilst conservative and right wing are about maintaining the status quo (or as is more currently the case, regressing to a previous status quo)
The same you could say with “conversative” term meaning. In the original meaning it was “not willing changes” not “far right radical” whatever it means ( right now it’s considered to have conservative people in that group by left wing people )
Where are you getting this? Also NPR is center-right, they havent been on “the left” for a good while
Literally the only thing this guy posts is “but whatabout zionists”
Endlessly, no matter how irrelevant
And now you, the mainstream media, are amplifying it and giving it oxygen.
It’s like y’all never learned the old Usenet adage: “don’t feed (quote) the trolls”.
Fact checking and clarifying fake news is not amplifying it, especially when it is already this widely spread.
Yes it is.
You might not wish it to be, but fact-checking absolutely does amplify fake news, especially if you give details.
A simple “this story is bullshit” is all that’s needed
A simple “this story is bullshit” is all that’s needed
That’s what this is? I don’t know what else you see or how your “this story is bullshit” wouldn’t amplify it either then.
Exactly lol “this story is bullshit” with no further explanation is exactly what someone who is full of shit would say.
Again, it’s “Don’t quote the troll”. Some of us learned this in Usenet in the 1990s.
Saying “This is bullshit” or “You’re weird” without engaging with their ideas stops the contagion from spreading.
No, fact checking is not amplifying it is correcting the narrative.
It is, though. Studies in disinformation have proven this. This is why right-wing bullshitters are so eager to engage in debate: just getting the chance to show up and be refuted in a legitmate setting, like a major newspaper, gives them an audience for the ideas and credibility, that their position is one worthy of refute.
This is how we got the alt-right in 2015: by taking neo-Nazis seriously.
This is what the media doesn’t understand, and why fact-checkers are getting–correctly–rolled on social media. Every time you bring up one of these lies, even to fact check it–especially to fact-check it–you give it credibility.
This is why the Harris/Walz campaign’s tactic of ridicule is working so well. Instead of saying “No, you’re wrong about XXX because YYYY and ZZZZ”, they’re saying “What is wrong with you? You’re weird.” The latter doesn’t give the lie any oxygen.
JD “couch fucker” Vance would beg to differ.
JD “couch fucker” Vance would beg to differ.
true. This article has a responsiblly worded headline, but it only takes one outlet to get the words just wrong enough…
Streisand effect
“It’s moot now. September 1993 will go down in net history as the September that never ended.”
JD “couch fucker” Vance would beg to differ.
I don’t need fake stories, myself.
To me, electing someone who is famous for prosecuting non-violent drug users and truants en masse when our government is becoming increasingly more fascist by the day seems incredibly ill-advised.
But this is America. Ill-advised is what we do. You drink the unhealthy, uber-sugary soda and just ignore how unhealthy it is because Coke slapped a picture of a Marvel superhero on the can. We’ve demonstrated that we care more about the packaging than the actual product.
Electing someone who believes that we should have laws and enforce them is exactly what we should do.
When she was a prosecutor, it was not her job to change the laws or decide which ones to enforce. If we don’t want non-violent drug users and truants prosecuted, then we should change those laws. We have a process for that, and it doesn’t include prosecutors making those decisions for us.
Electing someone who believes that we should have laws and enforce them is exactly what we should do.
That is an exceedingly euphemistic statement about Harris’ career.
How is it remotely euphamistic to say a career prosector believes in enforcing the law?
Please read what I wrote again. The answer’s already there.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
While you’re correct that laws are created by the legislature the judiciary is where they are judged to be just. At least in systems based on English common law. Look up jury nullification for more info. Also, prosecutorial discretion is a thing. Basically if any law isn’t enforced either through jury nullification and/or prosecutorial discretion then it is vestigial and should be amended or repealed.
Voting for Harris is ill advised if we are concerned about fascism? Are you really saying this with Trump on the ticket?
Why don’t you want to vote for the felon rapist who has a history of racist comments and has taken money from corporations and foreign government over the Cop lady?
Yes, I am.
And I’d suggest that you use a defense other than: “Their guy is as bad as our guy.”
When there are only two options om the ballot and one is set to steer your country into fascism and a recall of human rights — there is no comparison. You vote for the other one.
Douch or turd sandwich?
Convicted rapist vs Cop Apologist. Yeah ill take the cop apologist.
the fascists are not actually law and order, they just wear it as a bumper sticker. mussolini did not actually make the trains run on time. pinochet did not actually crack down on crime he just shot his critics.
