May I ask what should then be done with that "propaganda"? Because it would be absolutely horrible if we were to censor news outlets because they favour socialism or are pro Trump or whatever. You can't label an outlet fake news because it has certain political views. In the US elections most media outlets had lots of negative Trump reports and clearly favoured Clinton - is that propaganda already? Or many outlets saying "Clinton has a 99% chance to win the election", is that fake news already?

I think it's really hard to justify censorship in any way. No matter what gets censored it always helps a certain political cause. Censor socialist outlets and you help the conservatives. Censor Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball and you help the feminists. Censor anti-climate propaganda and you help the green parties. Thus, everyone will want to label something they dislike "Fake News". 

  It was me who cited RT. I did that because the person who I replied to wanted me to find Russian sources that state those lies mentioned above. For "some reason" he "wasn't aware" of the fact that Russia makes straight up lies all the time, but could provide a lot of info (some of which is more of a conspiracy theory stuff) about the wrongdoings of USA. Which is weird since I wasn't talking about USA or defending it. The same tactic is used by the Russian trolls who bring up the "But USA..." -argument when they run out of other means. But how does it justify the wrongdoings of a country if some other country has also done bad things? That argument is deeply flawed and a sign of a loss.               

This thread is about fake news. 

It's what authoritarian leaders like Trump, Putin or Erdogan do in order to question the opposition and make the public insecure about who to trust, yes. All that while spreading their own, wrong information. Despicable tactics.

I know, I wasn't questioning you. I was just supporting you in your opinion. Sorry if you got that wrong. And yes, that's so called whataboutism.

The news should report the facts, all of the facts, and nothing but the facts. If those facts support one candidate over another, then that is not propaganda. It simply means reality is biased against one candidate over another. All opinion pieces in newspapers, and cable T.V. are propaganda to some degree or another, unless the outlet gives equal time, representation, and space to both sides of an issue. For example: Let's say Fox or CNN, or NBC decides to gather up a panel to talk about global warming. Now let's say they bring in a ratio of 5 to 1 either for or against global warming. The minority (whichever it may be) gets hammered by the other five people on the talk show. That is propaganda. A better approach would be to bring in just two experts, one that agrees, and one that disagrees. In the 80's and 90's broadcasters were stuck with a fine for doing this. Republicans and a few Democrats decided to do away with those fines. That gave rise to Fox News, with its reporters that scream over any liberal guests, and cut their mikes. 

Anyway I hope that answers your question of what we should do. Simply go back to fining offenders. 

Any outlets saying that Clinton had a 99% chance to win the election were blatantly lying. The real odds were more like 33% for Trump and 66% for Clinton. That's what sites like 270 were reporting based on detailed analysis. 

It's not about censoring left or right outlets. There should be no left or right outlets, and before 1996 all news networks were simply news. If any network decided to start making propaganda they were struck with fines. But again, after these fines were done away with Rupert Murdoch started Fox News and ran a 24/7 propaganda network. Slowly other networks joined in as a reactionary tactic, and news became more about ratings than actual news. Nine times out of ten, whenever a right winger says that mainstream media is biased, what they really mean is that reality is biased. Some things such as evolution, man made global warming, price controls, and the success of communism are not up for debate. Ninetynine percent of climate and evolutionary scientists agree, because the facts overwhelmingly line up with their assessments. It doesn't matter what religious idiots, or oil companies think. Nintetynine percent of economists agree that price controls, and communism are terrible for the economy. It doesn't matter what New Yorkers with rent control, or Bernie supporters think. The difference here is that you won't hear liberals complaining that the MSM doesn't report on the successes of extreme socialism, because they know that's crazy talk. They secretly know that their extreme positions have been rejected by reality, and understand why the MSM doesn't give their ideas the time of day. 

But where did I state that USA hasn't done anything wrong? I was talking about the wrongdoings and lies of Russia, and provided you multiple sources (also Russian (RT)) that prove that Russia straight up lies about these things. And your argument is "but USA...". How does it justify the wrongdoings of a country if some other country has also done bad things? Russian trolls also use this "argument" very often when they don't have other means to defend the said country.

And where is the evidence that USA destabilized for example Tunisia or Libya? In Tunisia the ruling dictator was overthrown peacefully by the people, and in Libya USA and NATO airforces intervened only when Gaddafi (dictator) sent the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship. And Russia gave its approval for the intervention (maybe Putin foresee that the removal of Gadaffi would allow the refugee-wave from Africa to reach Europe).

In Syria USA started to support the opposition when Al-Assad (dictator) ordered the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship, and after the situation has escalated to a civil war. Isis and other fundamentalist-groups appeared in Syria long after the civil war started, and there is no evidence that USA has supported them. But that is clear to everyone that Russia has supported this terrible dictator from the start and has itself bombed cities indiscriminately.

In Iraq USA supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war (both were dictarorships) during the 80's. This was because USA wanted to restrain Iran's influence in the area. But USA didn't support Saddam after the war when he started to use chemical weapons against civilians, and attacked Kuwait. Russia on the other hand has supported almost all dictatorships, especially during the Cold War. Just look at the military equipment that these countries used, which is mostly made in Russia.

But the main point in all this is that Russia has solely supported dictatorships but Western countries don't do that very often, and when they do, they do it reluctantly, not because they want to promote dictatorship (for example Saudi-Arabia is an ally of USA, because its oil resources are so important to the world economy). But when has Russia/Soviet Union encouraged democracy? Russia doesn't even have any allies that are democracies. And all this is because Russia itself is not a democracy (yes, there are elections, but that was the case also in Soviet Union). But you think that Russia is "good" and USA (and other Western countries?) are "bad"? You seem like a conspiracy theorist.

"It's what authoritarian leaders like Trump"

how is trump an authoritarian? what authoritarian policies has he put into place?

have you realised that i've asked you about 5 times now for an example of one of the russian lies pushed to influence america ( such as the facebook ads you mentioned ) and so far you have not been able to list one?

Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. 

"Oh but you see we're not a Democracy, but a Republic. The founding fathers didn't want a rule of the majority, so they setup the Electoral College to prevent that!"

Yeah, yeah, X people's votes shouldn't count. It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever. China, Russia, and every other tinpot dictatorship around the world is technically a Republic too ya know? Not to mention, the creation of the electoral college was a result of the infamous 3/5ths compromise. Northern states didn't think it would be fair for southern states to be able to count slaves as people towards representation. Southern states didn't think it would be fair to not count slaves at all. Of course, in hindsight, obviously having slaves who were ineligible to vote, being electorally represented, at the ballot box, by the very people who put them in chains, is fascist. But the founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this due to their cultural bias, or were forced to make a compromise either way. 

Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian. But he's not the only authoritarian president. There have been many starting with Andrew Jackson. The office of the presidency needs to be reigned in massively. 

"provided you multiple sources (also Russian (RT)) that prove that Russia straight up lies about these things. "

i've said it before and i'll say it again, i do not buy the coverage of the ukraine conflict that is being pushed... so don't bother with it

"In Syria USA started to support the opposition when Al-Assad (dictator) ordered the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship"

what really gave the us the justification to get more involved was the chemical weapons attack, guess who the cause was?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188

https://sarahabed.com/2017/08/16/carla-del-ponte-blames-the-rebels-for-chemical-weapons-attack-yet-wants-to-falsly-convict-assad-of-war-crimes/

https://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-france/frances-macron-urges-military-intervention-if-chemical-use-by-assad-proven-idUSL9N1GD016

...can you guess what the aim of these rebels was?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23139784

to spread sharia in syria... these rebels were aligned with ISIS and were backed by the us

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-syria/trump-ends-cia-arms-support-for-anti-assad-syria-rebels-u-s-officials-idUSKBN1A42KC

this "Isis and other fundamentalist-groups appeared in Syria long after the civil war started, and there is no evidence that USA has supported them."

is absolute bullshit

" where is the evidence that USA destabilized for example Tunisia or Libya? In Tunisia the ruling dictator was overthrown peacefully by the people, and in Libya USA and NATO airforces intervened only when Gaddafi (dictator) sent the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship. "

lol as they have in every middle eastern conflict they started by supporting rebels in a country

if i had a rich nation and decided to fund and support antifa and the communists itching to destroy the us now and i painted it as if america is a dictatorship would that be accurate?

well that is what had happened in most of the conflicts in the middle east -

i supplied two videos showing first off that the us created probably the most significant problem in that area to ironically fight russia

secondly that the wars destroying the region were planned... did you not watch the video? lybia was one of the named countries... to then come back with this silly narrative about the poor people begging america to bomb their countries into oblivion is nonsense

with regards to lybia:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

"In Iraq"

i have nothing more to say about iraq