Slashdot Mirror
The Rise of Hoax News
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Reporter Luke O'Neil writes that 2013 was journalism's year of bungles: the New Jersey waitress who received a homophobic comment on the receipt from a party she had served; Samsung paying Apple $1 billion in nickels; former NSA chief Michael Hayden's assassination; #CutForBieber; Nelson Mandela's death pic; that eagle snatching a child off the ground on YouTube; Jimmy Kimmel's 'twerk fail' video; and Sarah Palin taking a job with Al-Jazeera America (an obviously satirical story that even suckered in The Washington Post). All these stories had one thing in common: They seemed too tidily packaged, too neat, 'too good to check,' as they used to say, to actually be true. 'Any number of reporters or editors at any of the hundreds of sites that posted these Platonic ideals of shareability could've told you that they smelled, but in the ongoing decimation of the publishing industry, fact-checking has been outsourced to the readers,' writes O'Neil. 'This is not a glitch in the system. It is the system. Readers are gullible, the media is feckless, garbage is circulated around, and everyone goes to bed happy and fed.' O'Neil says that the stories he's written this year that took the least amount of time and effort usually did the most traffic while his more in-depth, reported pieces didn't stand a chance against riffs on things predestined to go viral. That's the secret that Upworthy, BuzzFeed, MailOnline, Viral Nova, and their dozens of knockoffs have figured out: You don't need to write anymore—just write a good headline and point. 'As Big Viral gets bigger, traditional media organizations are scrambling to keep pace,' concludes O'Neil. 'We the media have betrayed your trust, and the general public has taken our self-sanctioned lowering of standards as tacit permission to lower their own.'"
It's just a natural reaction to Faux News i think
... and the solution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_ds1xQmD4
When are people going to start demanding Authority AND Accountability instead of sound-bite entertainment?
--
Success is not only the destination (end-goal) but also involves the journey (of hard word along the way.)
Did you see the one in the paper the other day about the supposed "Piltdown Man"? I knew it was a hoax right away, but those papers kept hyping it. All this damn modern techno-web stuff is bringing down the integrity of journalism.
-- MyLongNickname
and the cost of publishing fake news is also zero. In the early days of the web people thought that it would allow the truth to be easily discovered and that lies couldn't live long. The problem today is that there is no much information available that determining truth is extremely difficult - the noise is so high that a real signal is often lost. I wonder if in the future the amount of information is large enough that a truth analyzer could be built to assist in calculating a truth likeliness value for any given article.
"That's the secret that Upworthy, BuzzFeed, MailOnline, Viral Nova, and their dozens of knockoffs have figured out: You don't need to write anymore—just write a good headline and point."
So, like Slashdot then?
Honestly, this seems like a natural consequence of the attempt of the news to be more "relevant and entertaining" and the need to compete with other varieties of the media, as well as the dislike of people to follow real, objective news (as opposed to news which satisfies their own cognitive biases). I've heard quite a few people express that the best places to get real news (outside of maybe the weather, and even that is getting goofy, with the Weather Channel naming snowstorms) is the foreign press, where they seem to be able to have more of a dividing line between what is actual news, and what is tabloid journalism.
The old way was that formal news could be trusted to a certain extent. Now we see that this isn't true. It is too late for the old people who can't learn new tricks, just like the passing generation that can't program their VCRs. (Yes, I date myself with that comparison.) The kids will grow up knowing to check things themselves. As a side note, I noticed just yesterday that Facebook sometimes has the Snopes article listed as a 'suggested link' just below someone's repost of a hoax link!
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Correction for TFS: Readers are cheap, the media is understaffed.
All of this just goes to show that you get the news that you pay for. If you're not paying for your news, not only are you not the real customer, but you're not offering any kind of signal to the writer and publisher that rewards them for quality.
Instead you're probably drawing your news from the 24 hour news cycle, which is the epitome of low quality TFA discusses. The 24 hour cycle offers no time for quality, and being entirely advertising based means that it trends towards sensationalism in order to keep viewers watching (and the ad dollars flowing in). Blogs for that matter aren't any better for largely the same reason, as they have the same instant-publishing goals and are equally prone to sensationalism.
Real news takes time and money. Time to do research, and money to pay for staff and travel to go do that research. If the public won't pay for that, then the public won't get real news. It's as simple as that.
Which is why it's all the more important to support newspapers, which are by and large the last bastion of quality reporting and research. They aren't perfect, but they're all that's left. If you care about the news then the single best thing you can do to help quality journalism thrive is to go buy your local paper (yes, buy; not read for free on their website). Only by giving the journalists in your community a paycheck, some time, and a bit of trust, will you get quality journalism. Otherwise if you aren't paying for your news, you're getting the news that you pay for.
storm typers? paid poster pickens might know? just don't call it cleansing
Conan O'Brien had a story that reported a large number of local news stations using the same canned script for reporting.
" It's OK, you can admit it, if you bought an item, or two, or ten for yourself. "
This is not any attempt at being original, or trying to do something distinct for yourself or your station.
I would say it is ok to send a film crew to your local mall, and actually interview people about their holiday plans. This is original reporting. It may be boring, but at least it involves some work.
The existing media outlets just want to take something conviently packaged and report it as news, this lends itself to just reporting something without giving any actual thought.
So really there is no such thing as hoax news - just stories that aren't true. However, since hardly any of the reported news has any effect on the people watching it - and even less of it is something they could do anything about: whether they know about it, or not - it's mostly irrelevant what gets reported.
That appears to be the opinions of the news broadcasters. The object is not so much to inform, but to get the proportion of the population that still believes in "news" (which is diminishing every day as stories become more trivial and inconsequential) to watch the advertisements before, during and after the show. And it is a show.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Nope. There's always been bollocks on the news. That's kind of why a lot of people totally ignore it.
Fact is, if I don't give a shit if celebrity X slept with celebrity Y, or happens to be gay, then it doesn't matter if the story is true or not... I won't read the story. The people who do hardly care if it's true or not.
But this isn't "new". Most of the stuff you learned at school is absolute tripe. History is extremely revisionist. And most of the stuff that's on the news is so much bollocks that it doesn't matter. Those with a brain will be ignoring it *because* it's on the news, those without one will seek it out to consume it even if it's not on the news. Confirmation bias and all that.
Hence why we have one celebrity taking websites and papers to court at the moment because he happens to share a real name with a convicted paedophile. I have had friends say it was him, though. They don't care enough to research even when the websites/papers involved are foreign and the news story in my country is about how he's taking them to court for mis-attributing the crime to himself.
If you're stupid enough to live your life by news, then you're going to fall into this. You've expected them (but don't really care about it) to research their facts. You blindly believe them. It doesn't matter if you read the Sunday Sport (where the items revolve around aliens in the Royal Family and Elvis regenerating) or the The Sunday Times (where the items revolve around what business is expect to make $10bn when it floats next week on the basis of zero profit so far). All that changes is the area, the scale, and the reputation.
In the UK, we have had one paper shut down for hacking into celebrities voicemail. People protested and sales dropped. The next week, that paper shut down and the owners opened a new one with the same staff but a different name. Almost immediately everyone bought into it and it replaced the other paper. Nobody CARES enough to actually bother about them being criminal liars.
People do not watch the news to see the truth. They watch the news to have something to gossip about with other people who also watched the news. For centuries, it's been like that, and yet people still think you can judge a person by what *KIND* of newspaper they read.
Sorry to tell you, but the news is EVEN MORE unreliable that my friend's Facebook posts... and today they include someone who's trying to tell me that because the New Year starts with a New Moon this is a) unusual (last happened 19 years ago! Odd, on a 28-day cycle, that it even happens that often, to be honest...), b) important or c) going to make any difference at all. Another has reposted a fake "lucky money" satirical rip-off of those posts that say if you repost it you will find money (and hasn't even noticed that "fungus shoe" isn't actually feng shui).
Yet others are trying to tell me that having 5 Fridays/Saturdays/Sundays in a month is something that only happens every 823 years (er, actually, no - it happens nearly every year).
And I honestly consider these people more reliable than the news. Hell, I consider the "QI" game show more reliable than many popular science outlets, even when it has admitted to having flaws in its answers (and actually contradicts its own answers).
News has always been bollocks. The fact that professional outlets are falling for OTHER'S crap stories is the news here, rather than the crap they make up themselves.
BBC has just announced that an alien ship has just landed on Sochi winter olympics site.
http://www.bbc.com/
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
This is evident in more than journalism. It is evident everywhere. Quite simply, we cannot rule ourselves which in this case means throttling back to a point where we can cope with the deluge of stimulus that technology has pressed upon us. As far as I can tell, the quality of goods and services across the board has gone down. Of course I'm looking at it from the bottom of the dung pile, so I expect for the time being, the elites are still getting some pretty good stuff. The WalMart crowd is getting stuff that used to go only to third world countries. Remember this: The only advantage the elites have is that they will be the last to starve.
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
Perhaps our tidy little lives are less likely to experience upset if we only read or listen to what we already agree with.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
When programming that celebrates anti-intellectualism is the hottest thing on teevee (I'm looking at you, Duck Dynasty fans), it should come as no surprise at all that quality journalism is not something that sponsors are interested in buying. Bread and circuses...
Even if there was such a thing as good, accurate, impartial journalism it would be utterly wasted on 99% of the population.
Even when a big scandal like Snowden/NSA, the IRS hit list, or Fast and Furious do get newsplay, the average person is merely annoyed at having their up to the minute live coverage of NASCAR or the Kardashians interrupted.
People are idiots.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
slashdot is also a good example of where are things heading
People have so much fun with all the purposeful news pranks on April Fools Day that the major news outlets decided to do it year round. See, the explanation was simple after all.
This phenomenon is not new. The signal to noise ratio has been poor for millennia. I recall an adage: "Believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see." The Internet has merely made this truth more apparent.
If you think about it, the Internet might actually give us an advantage over our ancestors in this regard--fact-checking and cross-referencing are easier now than ever before.
Of course, none of that excuses charlatan media corporations that publish bullshit stories in order to generate hits.
On the other hand, they are only tarnishing their own credibility, and if they continue to do so they will eventually be viewed as sleazy tabloids. And if that's the image they want to project, there isn't much we can do about it. Some people like that stuff.
The stuff from this year is nothing. The media has been running a hoax that Ronald Reagan called someone a "welfare queen" when he never used the term. Even better, Jet did a two page feature on the woman in question two years before Reagan mentioned the welfare fraudster, and they called her a "Welfare Queen!" BTW, the woman was white in the 1930 and 1940 census.
www.codoh.com
And
'The Last Days of the Big Lie'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GgRWuXcO8
http://exposing-the-holocaust-hoax-archive.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/abraham-landaus-tale-survived-14-death.html
Abraham Landau's tale - "Survived 14 death camps, all other 95 members of his family holocausted"
Abraham Landau was a tireless old fanatic who worked extensively to promote the Holocaust.
He was born in Wilchen, Poland in 1922.
Abraham says he spent 5½ years in 14 different Nazi "death camps", including Auschwitz and Buchenwald. He was liberated from Bergen-Belsen in 1945.
He claims he was the "only survivor of his 95–member family."
Landau was the driving force behind the construction of a Holocuast Memorial monument in the city of New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Abe was also among the Holocaust survivors who gave testimony to director Steven Spielberg for his Shoah Foundation documentary on the Holocaust.
He was a member of the B'nai B’rith National Speakers Bureau and spread the propaganda of the Holocaust to schools and students throughout the New England region.
Over his life, Landau made "innumerable" visits to schools, where he shared his Holocaust tale with young children so that another Holocaust "will never happen again."
As the article states, this sort of ridicule or fear of it used to come primarily from competitors. Some volume of ridicule has likely always came from satire entertainment. As has been eluded to elsewhere in the comments, the news is now basically a memory hole, it's goal is not to spread knowledge and awareness of reality, it's main goal is short term revenue. As a memory hole it no longer has a use for introspection. That leaves satire and other forms of comedy to become the primary source of ridicule. There may be something bigger to this; as news pushes into entertainment it seems appropriate that long-standing lines of entertainment would push back hard.
First my news became entertainment, then opinion masquerading as fact, then didn't even care to hide that it was just opinion, and now it doesn't even care at all.
Why should I even bother with news outfits if I have to do as much work with them as I do with random opinionated news reports online?
It's such a shame that journalism has been buried under this mountain of shit. I doubt it will ever recover its prestige.
For years, traditional news outlets have headed in the direction of airing or printing stories designed solely to elicit a reaction from the audience. The pattern has become, 1) Say something provacative. 2) Invite a reaction (tell us what YOU think). It's all designed to sell more ads. What is happening now is the logical, inevitable conclusion of this pattern. The old saying still appies, however. If something is too good to be true, it probably isn't. And I would extend that to say that if something is too bad to be true, it probably isn't. It will get worse before it gets better. After years of being essentially lied to from every direction we will, out of desperation, start to believe only what we want to believe, and assume that everything else is a lie.
Proverbs 21:19
...you have morons for Facebook friends.
I find it kind of hillarious that an article talking about the rise and proliferation of bogus / clickbait headlines is being posted on slashdot of all things. I had sort of assumed that slashdot was where rising clickbait article writers came to cut their chops before venturing off into the blogosphere.
"our self-sanctioned lowering of standards as tacit permission to lower their own"
Yep. We have come quite the ways. A lot of people used to laugh pretty hard at those conspiracy theorists talking about the hidden hand and pulling strings but here it is, summed up as a fairly loud example about how gullible and stupid we really are.
When Dan Rather replaced a story criticizing the war in Iraq with an even better story criticizing George Bush just two months before the 2004 elections he was so excited with the documents that he overlooked what everyone saw as obvious forgeries. He later stated that even though the documents were clearly fake he was sure that the story based on them was true.
The decline of traditional journalism using multiple sources and editors is the other side of this coin. Watch the movie All the Presidents Men for how they did it in the classic days of journalism. They could not print a story without a second source, even if it was a secret source like Deep Throat. These days, half of tweeted article turn out wrong, een if they are distributed much faster. Basically I wat to see it in the NY Times or Washington Post before I believe something.
Except that the "Local" paper will never have the budget to tackle big stories. Reporters may be real journalists with the best intentions, they may be able to hit local issues which impact your life, but they can't get to DC to investigate the NSA which has more impact on your life than city council allowing a Hooters to be built.
Large cities used to be able to do this to some degree. New York and Washington DC papers were right there, so there was no need to pump money into travel. For other "Newspapers" the "Big" issues required National support.
Rehashing the obvious here, but to make sure there is no confusion the rehash is not bad in my opinion. What we have seen in the last 10 years is the complete take over of all national media. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, and all of their variants all work for the same people, and it's not the average citizen. They all produce the same AP stories and FUD. Enough people distrust them that ratings have plummeted and Blog sites have made huge leaps in readership. Sites like Infowars, Mother Jones, Drudge Report, and Natural News have exploded. Sure, some of their articles are biased just as bad as "Main Stream Media" in the opposite direction, but it gives an alternative that "may" be closer to what people see as true. For example, we see the down side of the 2nd amendment on MSM and the upside on alternative sites. Alex Jones appearing on Piers Morgan's show as a blockbuster event for both outlets (more akin to Jerry Springer than "News")
Whistle Blowers from numerous large News Papers have told us that they have been taken over as well, in terms of what they can and can't report about. The same monopolization of media with Broadcast News happened with all the large papers.
In reality, we need to figure out how to get back major stations and break the monopolies. Supporting local is a start of that, as long as you can keep them from being taken over when they get too large. Petitioning for legal action to break the monopolies is another step.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Hoax News isn't all that bad to me. What really grinds my gears are the Troll News sites. Start with The Onion, then make nothing but "news" posts designed to incite the demographic & political leaning of your choice. Most of them try very hard to hide that they are parody sites.
It's just evil. They are getting clicks & advertising hits by trolling people, most of whom never catch on. I don't get why making a mockery of Grandma & getting her worked up over fake posts about the pope would be a good idea...
> They seemed too tidily packaged, too neat, 'too good to check,' as they used to say, to actually be true.
I think in some cases, that the editors really wanted the stories to be true plays a part. It's not difficult to create fake news that the major news outlets will carry -- just tell them what they want to hear.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Sad but true. Even the New York Times is getting caught running bogus stories or giving favorable treatment to their side of the political spectrum on a pretty regular basis these days.
You can't believe anything that comes out of the MSM news outlets, be it Faux New, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC etc.. The ONLY news outlets you can half way believe are the alternative news media. The MSM news outlets are ALL controlled by corporate interests and all put either a far right or far left spin on EVERYTHING!!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Wow, they just caught on to this? Drew's had time to prove the point, write a book about it, and make a big wad of cash off it!
Rumors that he blew all the money on Heineken, Maker's Mark and hookers should be considered spurious, however.
--Fire up the clue combine and harvest a clue!
--Intrope
I just read the Onion, then I have no worries about whether a story is true or not. On a more serious note, there are people that care about factual news, will they pay for fact checking? It seems like fact checking is becoming its own industry separate from journalism. (e.g. snopes.com). I predict a haves/have not split for factual information coming.
You misspelled Fox News
Thanks for trolling! Saw the headlines, KNEW someone would jump on Fox. I gave up on all "talking heads" version of televised news about 2 years ago. I'm conservative (NOT to be confused with Republicans). I believe everyone should be treated EQUALLY, not one group elevated above another. I do not believe in political correctness, I do have faith, but I do not berate those that don't. I believe the government meddles too much into the lives of people. I believe it is good that government helps those that, for whatever reason, have fallen on hard times, but I believe those that are capable of working, should work. I think it is good that we allow people to immigrate to this country, to broaden our country, but, believe those that sneak across, should be sent back until such time that they come across legally. I believe that the "nation building" started during Korea, Iran, Vietnam, and through Iraq & Afghanistan, should STOP. I believe that that countries should defend themselves. I believe that unless one of our embassies is attacked, if an INTERNAL struggle in a country begins it is NONE of our business. As far as I'm concerned, WW2 should have been the last major war we were involved in, until Kuwait asked for our help in 1991. After it was over, ALL of our troops should have been brought back, as with the ones still stationed in Japan & Germany. I believe all of our elected representatives, including the president should adhere to the Constitution, period! As with any 24/7 so called news operation, Fox, MSNBC has a dedicated news program, with the rest of the time being filled with OPINION shows. THAT is the difference. I might watch a video clip of a NEWS show, but do not watch those opinion shows. They are always biased, and, set up in such a way, to try to force someone into saying something that will make a juicy 30 second sound bite. Both conservative leaning and liberal leading news organizations flood the world with their versions of news. Carefully editing sound bites, carefully wording stories, to drive opinion. As was said many decades ago...it's what they DON'T put in the papers, that speaks volumes.
30 years from now, who will remember these? Spaghetti Tree (1957) will live on for generations.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...by Lara Logan . But I suppose that would be rude.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
How would you be able to tell?
because a lot of people give the mass media way too much credibility.
As I remember hearing in a journalism conference once upon a time: Noteworthy-Entertainment-With-Substance
This has now apparently morphed into: Narcissistic-Enterprise-With-Sarcasm
Sad, as journalism used to be a fun endeavor. You had to juggle 3 things, your sponsors, your subscribers, and your conscience to produce the best product you can. Now there are no subscribers and the advertising revenue are supplied by 3rd parties in bulk (e.g., adwords, and similar platforms) so you are left with only the conscience of the publisher which is the most susceptible to human failing...
Note that in the news there was never objective truth (or so journalism professors tell us). The point of news was always entertainment. The goal of a journalist is to produce information of substance. Of course if the facts are wrong, that isn't substance, so fact checking is always important, but it's important to remember that news being limited in time and duration is always a lie-by-omission.
When people talk about News they often confuse it with Features. Features are the heavily researched reporting that is done in a longer time cycle. News has always been on a short cycle.
Pravda on the Hudson (the New York Times) has been around since before the Civil War. Now, admittedly, they only been into hoaxing for the last 80 or so years, but that's hardly a "Rise".
We can add all Global Warming and Climate Change stories to the hoax news. We can also add "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" to the list of hoax news stories. And it's a long list.
I keep hearing people bitching about this Benghazi thing. It's been a while, but I still have no idea what all the controversy is about. My understanding is that our embassy got attacked, and the administration came out with one explanation for why it happened, but it turns out that there was another, better explanation in hindsight. Assuming that's correct, what's the cause for all the outrage? Why are people still muttering about impeaching Obama over this issue?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Sounds like a Portlandia Skit.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
A portion of the problem is that the quantity of news which is reported by "outlets" has dramatically increased in our modern era. We are flooded with a perpetual onslaught of new information from every corner of creation. And honestly, most of it isn't worth checking. What is worth checking? Stories that will ruin your reputation. Stories that might go viral and cripple your ability to report further. Know what's not? "5 Things you Need to Know about Cheese Curd" "How men need to step up their role in feminism" "The top 10 bimbos of 2013" That is 90% of the "news" we now get (and what % of stats are made up?)
Are we (those of us who are older than the internet) guilty of "rose coloured glass"ing it when we remember that the news used to be better?
Maybe it never was, and we were just blind to the problems back then...
One would have to wonder why the false reporting on the Zimmerman V's Marten trial is not listed in this article.
Coming from an ex-reporter, that Esquire piece is the best, most concise summation of everything wrong with the state of journalism today that I've ever read. The only thing that would make it better is if it had come "from the ouroboros-of-shit dept."
... gets hitched and laid after being a 40 years old virgin. See http://aqfl.net/ for the details. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
... when The Onion becomes more and more believable.
You can begin by resensitize yourself to advertising fallacies. It turns out that the greatest source of deception is business, and that dulls our razor to cut through other forms of bull-shit. The specialized cable news channels with their propaganda are only an outgrowth of the numbing effect of advertising from mass media on the watchdog of the mind.
Yes, and go back to reading books, or wading through detailed print works on-line. The reason is that with print you have time to think and process ideas and there is space to follow details. Mass media is sometimes intended to prevent you from taking the time to think. You must take the time away from the flow of information, whether you trust it or not, to think about it, and then you can begin to find out why you might trust it or not.
People in business have no obligation to help you develop critical thinking skills, in fact that may be what they want to diminish so that you will be subject to subliminal messages and impulsive behavior. They are under no real obligation to respect your dignity and human rights or to promote democratic institutions, either, dispite the confusion of Capitalism with free institutions, the two are not the same. To be a useful citizen in democratic institution you must have the means to critically think and analyse the choices before you, and unless you wish to practice your freedom on a desert island or far away from others in the wilderness, you have some amount of obligation to decide matters with the welfare of others in mind. Selfishness is not a sufficient guiding motive in a democracy or in society in general.
The lack of critical thinking when it comes to the mass media goes far beyond political distinctions. It has to do with what is information an what is propaganda or public relations, the two are really the same, and whereas your antennae might be attuned to the different propaganda in political memes, caught up in the liberal and conservative false dichotomy, you may miss the conflating of news with promotion that is rampet in news media.
One thing social media has done is to increase the confusion, not only is that the obvious problem of a lie that has legs, a hoax, but the fact that journalists are getting lazy and using social media as a source when it has no rights to be a source. This is the larger problem of charity promotions being injected as news items, which is now happening all the time, and with it the cat-video trend of low hanging fruit items getting time on the local and national news coverage because they are easy. They are used as a lead on to promotions as well. I think there is big money behind this and the source is corporate motivated by the 1%ers who want the positive publicity to show that they care about the millions their greed has displaced from the economy. So every firm in Silicon Valley gets to promote its efforts to help the homeless and feed the starving that its technology is creating and to do so for pennies on the dollar of the cost it would reallt take to fix these issues.
All of these would be effectively dealt with by going back and learning how lies are made and why we might forget to notice them, and to rediscover that we have the means to.