According to the New York Times:

Israeli officials would not confirm that they were the source of the information that Mr. Trump shared,
which was about an Islamic State plot. In a statement emailed to The New York Times, Ron Dermer,
the Israeli ambassador to the United States, reaffirmed that the two countries would maintain a close
counterterrorism relationship.

“Israel has full confidence in our intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and looks
forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump,” Mr. Dermer said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html?_r=0


This statement is from the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, not some "anonymous Israeli Intelligence officials" quoted by Buzzfeed, saying "This confirms our worst fears."

If you Google the specific words you hope to find in the search box, OF COURSE you'll find some source that repeats your beliefs.  If you can't find mainstream, accepted news sources to corroborate the quote you're seeking, it's probably not something you should hang your hat on.

Try broadening your search by using a search phrase that includes the names of the main characters in the story, and maybe the date and subject.  Looking for "Israeli officials believe Trump leaked classified to Russia" isn't going to be very well balanced.

It's amazing to me that people know how to access massive stores of information that not long ago would have been impossible, but they can't spend 3 minutes verifying the information is accurate to avoid looking like a [ fill in the adjective ].   

Because the same people believe that Hillary Clinton is not guilty of felonious acts for mishandling classified information and not guilty of public corruption in coercing other state heads to donate to the Clinton Foundation while being the U.S. SOS.

I agree that Buzzfeed and Huffpost have outrageous liberal spin. I discount their headlines like I do with those from Breitbart and Infowars. You can't count on these news sources to convey to facts. I know you label me as a troll because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and I don't care.

Everything gets passed through my smell test. Some news like Morning Joe I watch because of the entertainment value. Personally, I'm more interested in the historical perspective of what going on. If a commentator can equate what's going on with what's happened in the past, then I'm more likely to pay attention.

I also watch Meet the Press. I usually end up skipping over the politician interviews because they always say the same thing and are a complete waste of my time. The exceptions are McCain and Graham. They always have something interesting to say. The MTP roundtable used to include Kellyanne. I used to marvel at her fortitude in defending the things that Trump says. Now she can't seem to get the time of day from anyone.

Because the same people believe that Hillary Clinton is not guilty of felonious acts for mishandling classified information and not guilty of public corruption in coercing other state heads to donate to the Clinton Foundation while being the U.S. SOS.

Also, as I explained to one of the trolls recently, even though words matter in some but many cases, actions speak louder than words. So if one prefers to listen to words without actions to back up those words, then that person is going to believe fake news. JMHO

Also, as I explained to one of the trolls recently, even though words matter in some but many cases, actions speak louder than words. So if one prefers to listen to words without actions to back up those words, then that person is going to believe fake news. JMHO

Cause ignoring words is dumb?  If it doesn't work legally it shouldn't work otherwise.  If you threaten to kill someone only verbally its still a crime.  You don't have to "take action".  I prefer saying the right words and doing the right actions, not a pick either or scenario. Words are the predecessor to many actions and hold substantial value.

With fake news in general, majority of the people out there are sheep and don't question or do any further research.  When I try and talk to my friends/family about fake news, it's like I'm wearing a tin foil hat.

With fake news in general, majority of the people out there are sheep and don't question or do any further research.  When I try and talk to my friends/family about fake news, it's like I'm wearing a tin foil hat.

I read that more people now get their news from social media sites.

Based on the stuff I see on FB and Twitter, that's scary.

I read that more people now get their news from social media sites.
Based on the stuff I see on FB and Twitter, that's scary.

I've been using FB less these days because of the liberal slant. I generally don't use Twitter.

People tend to read headlines and not take the time to look into something (usually helps to read multiple sources or at least know the bias of the source you're looking at) to THINK for themselves. 

Reports often (or always) have some sort of spin on things.  Just give me the facts, not speculation.  Sometimes the reporter doesn't know any better.  Like when a news outlet covers a response to an incident and they report "officers armed with automatic weapons" when they video shows them with handguns and shotguns, they interject a sense of "doom and gloom" into the picture where it probably isn't warranted. 

Some news like Morning Joe I watch

Ah, a PMSNBC viewer, what a shock.

I watch zero TV "news", have not for over a decade.  The truly committed still do it seems, need to get their worldview validated.

Ah, a PMSNBC viewer, what a shock.

I also liked Red Eye back when I had cable.

I also liked Red Eye back when I had cable.

No idea what that is.

Ah, a PMSNBC viewer, what a shock.

I watch zero TV "news", have not for over a decade.  The truly committed still do it seems, need to get their worldview validated.

For a while, I almost refused to watch any TV news.  Too much spin, too much coverage of just crap, etc.  Most of the time that I do watch TV news, it's while I'm at the gym. 

For a while, I almost refused to watch any TV news.  Too much spin, too much coverage of just crap, etc.  Most of the time that I do watch TV news, it's while I'm at the gym.

I limit my TV News watching to morning before I go to work. From 4:15am to 4:30am I usually watch Fox but if they are having a slow news day I will switch to one of the MSM channels. From 4:30am to 4:45am I watch HNN on channel 7.

I limit my TV News watching to morning before I go to work. From 4:15am to 4:30am I usually watch Fox but if they are having a slow news day I will switch to one of the MSM channels. From 4:30am to 4:45am I watch HNN on channel 7.

I listen to NPR on the way to work and sometimes after work, depending on what time I finish.  Even with NPR, there spin, but they usually cover things at a different level/way than MSM.  Can't stand MSNBC.  CNN or Fox is usually on when I get to the gym.  If I have a choice, I'll usually switch to some show on TNT, TBS, AMC, etc.  I read a lot online and when I see something pop up on social media, I'll search for some info.

No idea what that is.

Fox News recently canceled the show. Greg Gutfeld is still a commentator.

Fox News recently canceled the show. Greg Gutfeld is still a commentator.

No wonder I had no idea. 

Stopped watching Fox after O'Blowhard attacked the Swift Boat Vets, and defended Dan Rather's fraud.

I find fault with your premise. Belief is not a choice, it is just something you have or don't have. Action is a choice.

As to the main issue, I don't think people willfully follow news they believe to be false. They might know the news source is biased but not care but I don't think they know it to be "fake news" Furthermore, "fake news"  is being thrown around way too much, apparently in attempts to discredit other news agencies. Biased news, news reported by mistake, and news reported based on something believed to be true is not fake news. I would consider fake news something that is just absolutely made up. Anonymous sources are not "fake news." Anonymous source have been and continue to be real sources of information for journalists. Look at the anonymous source that helped break Watergate. A journalist needs to make sure they can trust an anonymous source and when reading a reader should consider that the source is anonymous, but an anonymous source does not make the information unreliable.

On top of that, the claim of bias has become akin to that of racism in that people think it to be some trump card where once you can prove bias then nothing that individual or agency reports every trustworthy. Someone having a bias doesn't mean they make up news or report false news. It might mean that their headline is less than neutral or what they choose to cover leans one direction but that doesn't mean we should just ignore things they report. Heck, the headline might not even be a bias but just shameful attempts to get readership. To be clear, I am talking about news stories, not opinion pieces or commentators.

I find fault with your premise. Belief is not a choice, it is just something you have or don't have. Action is a choice.

I see that as half true.

A belief is something that you have been convinced is true.  We rely too often on inference and deductive reasoning to convince us what is true.  The reasoning is often based on false or imperfect evidence which we accept based on source, corroboration by our existing beliefs and/or absence of opposing, credible evidence.

So, while the act of believing is probably not in and of itself a choice in a vacuum, the process of gathering, evaluating and grading evidence plus the inferences and deductions we derive from that are very much a choice -- sometime it may be an unconscious choice, but it's a choice nonetheless since we have the choice to accept or change those processes when faced with unsuccessful outcomes.

The media today loves the generate conflict and scandal.  They try to stop short of printing false facts, so they print what they can using words which lead the reader to draw inferences even though there is no direct evidence for those conclusions.

It takes more effort to recognize verified facts in the news, so most don't bother.  They base their beliefs either on their own inferences or those being editorialized by the writers.

I see that as half true.

A belief is something that you have been convinced is true.  We rely too often on inference and deductive reasoning to convince us what is true.  The reasoning is often based on false or imperfect evidence which we accept based on source, corroboration by our existing beliefs and/or absence of opposing, credible evidence.

So, while the act of believing is probably not in and of itself a choice in a vacuum, the process of gathering, evaluating and grading evidence plus the inferences and deductions we derive from that are very much a choice -- sometime it may be an unconscious choice, but it's a choice nonetheless since we have the choice to accept or change those processes when faced with unsuccessful outcomes.

The media today loves the generate conflict and scandal.  They try to stop short of printing false facts, so they print what they can using words which lead the reader to draw inferences even though there is no direct evidence for those conclusions.

It takes more effort to recognize verified facts in the news, so most don't bother.  They base their beliefs either on their own inferences or those being editorialized by the writers.

I certainly agree that someone could be at fault for blind belief though I try not to get too worked up about it because I know how complicated it is to sort out these things. The average person with a job and two kids doesn't have time to go and research the back story of every news report they come across, or dig into a complex web of who owns a news agency and that persons biases, etc etc etc.

It is easy to filter out the obviously slanted ones but harder to realize the ones with more subtle or complex biases.