How to spot fake news.

       I was certain, that by this point, the internet would be awash in posts on how to spot fake news.  I have seen few such pieces, and those have been rather biased themselves.  So here I present a basic primer on how to spot fake news.  Or, for the slightly more educated: how to determine if a given news story is biased or manipulative.  I will start with the highest quality, and least biased type of news, and wade my way into the sewer from there.

       News that does not present a side: You have seen this type of reporting.  Most likely as the police blotter in a local newspaper.  It reads like a simple rundown of facts, because that is what it is.  Even many weather reports do not follow this style any longer.  It is boring, and doesn't drive ratings.  This type of reporting shows only what happened, when, and to whom.  It makes no supposition as to the "why".  Stories that present only some of the facts do not fit here.

       News that presents every side equally, and without bias: This is the rarest of all birds.  I don't recall seeing it at all in my adult life.  Many stories that seem to equally represent more than one side actually do not.  If they have a quote from one side, damning the other, and no response, a quote from one side presented as a statement of fact, but offset by quotes, or a small mention of a countervailing viewpoint buried near, but not at the end of the story: they do not fall into this category.

       News that flagrantly presents only one side of a story:  I count this as non-manipulative because they make their intentions clear at the outset.  Stories that are presented as news, but are actually opinion pieces, (Looking at you Yahoo!) do not fall into this category.

       Anything above this point is not "Fake News".   Anything below it is.  Pay attention to which type of reporting you actually witness.  I'll bet everything above seems foreign and strange.  But everything below seems quite familiar.  Put on your chest waders.  The manure truck is unloading...

       News that presents one side in a way that looks neutral: This is the second most frequently seen type of story.  An agenda is bolstered either by presenting a quote from someone as a statement of truth, the testimony of an unqualified "expert" (Thunderwood College for example), or by not giving equal representation.

       News that presents one side as "good" and the other "bad": This can be anything from: softening the coverage of riots led by Antifa ans BLM, showing one side as educated and the other as rubes, or presenting one side as being affiliated with an undesirable societal element.

       News that over-reports sensational topics: "If it bleeds, it leads" has long been the newsroom standard.  But that simple ratings -boosting mentality, fed by our love of dirty laundry, can mislead the public.  The best example that exists is the public perception that we are living in a very violent period in history, both domestically and globally, When quite the opposite is true.  Crime in general, and violent crime in particular, have both been trending downward for decades.  But you would never know that, reading or watching the news.  This is the most common type of story.

       News that presents the findings of a study or survey: This includes both the stories centered on a media-conducted survey showing what a "majority" believe, and stories where the media is reporting on a correctly conducted study, that is either by ignorance or design, presented in a false way.  In the first instance there are questions like: "Do you support violent felons being imprisoned?" which is presented as "The majority of Americans support tougher gun laws."  (section titled: "Misleading Polls").  In the second instance this would include almost every scientific finding reported on in the last three decades.  This may not be their fault.

       News that is actually an opinion piece: Depending on presentation, this may, or may not be obvious.      

       News with a single, unreliable source: Always presented as factual, and the source is always presented as beyond reproach.  But always found out, sometimes months later, to be false.

       Non-News:  "Trending on Twitter" stories, celebrity gossip, stories reporting the findings or reactions of; UFO "experts", Bigfoot "researchers" and any headline that ends in a question mark.  If such a story were true, the headline would be a statement, not a question.

       Every Blog Ever Written: Even this one.

Reproductive rights and the church

       Attention: if you have a short attention span skip ahead to the conclusion; then become angry because you do not understand where it came from.  This will likely be a long one.
       There has recently been some to-do over the government's insistence that employers pay for birth control.  The Catholic Church, as was expected, became indignant.  See, they run the second largest social services charity in the United States.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities)  Care to guess the largest?  The U.S. government!  Hooray for you, you got it right.  Keep in mind the two largest charities as you read.  The "compromise", which was laughable, at best, was that insurance companies pay for it.
       I say this is laughable because, as anyone who works in healthcare knows, most hospitals of decent size, are self-insured.  The Catholic Charities is easily of sufficient size.  So if their insurers pay for it... oh wait what does self-insured mean again?  The other angle to laugh from, is that insurance companies are better off paying for birth control.  Recent errors in packaging aside (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/birth-control-recall-norgestimat-ethinyl-estradiol-tablets_n_1304950.html), birth control is by far cheaper than the birth, and subsequent healthcare of a child.  That is to say insurance companies have been covering birth control to a greater degree lately, for purely financial reasons.
       The separation of church and state is a two way street.  Catholic Charities is completely within their rights to not cover birth control, on moral grounds.  Especially figuring that it is cheaper to cover birth control than to not.  The people who work there are free to work elsewhere, should they object.  That is the idea behind a free market.  If I object to any aspect of how I'm treated at work, I can leave any time.

       Now to the other part of the joke.  The issue of "reproductive rights"  Someone's reproductive rights are violated when they are told they are not allowed to produce offspring.  They are violated when they are forced to produce offspring.  They are not violated when they are expected to pay for their own Norgestimate.
       By that logic, as a firearm owner, my employer should be required to pay for my gun safe.  Allow me to explain.  I have made a choice to engage in an activity that I am not legally compelled to engage in.  Gun ownership = Sex, in this argument.  The safety measure to prevent unintended consequences should, under this logic, be paid for by someone other than the person who made the choice to engage in said activity, in this case my employer.  Birth control = gun safe.  It sounds idiotic when you look at it from the gun standpoint, because it is idiotic from the birth control side.

       We are then left with two questions.  "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?"; and "Why are they allowing it to become a debate about reproductive rights?"  First we will address the latter.  They are turning it into an issue of reproductive rights because it brings high-profile attention from people who will win that argument.  Bear in mind that it never was about reproductive rights.  Next, let's look at the first question; "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?"  Remember how they are the second largest charity provider.  Why does McDonald's charge less than Burger King?  To try to eliminate the competition.  Ask a Communist: remove religion and people will have only government to cling to for charity.

       Now if you'll excuse me, my tinfoil hat is interfering with my computer...