Slashdot Mirror


President Obama On Fake News Problem: 'We Won't Know What To Fight For' (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader shares a TechCrunch article: President Barack Obama spoke in Berlin Thursday during a visit to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and during his remarks he addressed concerns about fake news circulating via social platforms like Facebook. On the subject of fake news, Obama noted that the ease with which we can make false information seem like genuine facts on platforms including "a Facebook page" means there's a great risk for audiences. Here's is what he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation, and it's packaged very well, and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television, where some overzealousness on the part of a U.S. official is equated with constant and severe repression elsewhere, if everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect. We won't know what to fight for. And we can lose so much of what we've gained in terms of the kind of democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we've come to take for granted.

10 of 531 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Precisely by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, the mainstream media is not as bad as the fake news. It's not perfect, but the idea that it is as bad as people who just willfully invent rumors out of thin air and disseminate them as truth is absurd. It's a classic fallacy of the false equivalency.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Mainstream media DOES invent news by HBI · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fact that it's done by names that people used to trust is irrelevant. Or did you miss Jayson Blair? Perhaps the scandals are coming too fast and furious for you to keep up, but they've lost all credibility whatsoever. Their obvious political bias all in one direction does nothing to help them, of course.

    Goebbels' propaganda machine was ultimately disbelieved by the German people based on the postwar US Strategic Bombing Survey's result. The majority of Germans had realized the war was lost shortly after Stalingrad, even though bombing and privation had not started to bite. People see right through the lying. A similar result here - people just don't believe the shit and aren't going to start believing it again without a wholesale teardown of the whole edifice and rebuilding, with a focus on ethics.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But having alt-right types lecture the MSM on ethics is pretty ridiculous

      This opinion delivered to MightyMartian courtesy of, you guessed it, the main stream media. So CNN et al who were in the tank for the left the entire election is smearing news sources on the right. And you fell for it. Wow.

      Oh, and since you were so busy lapping up what your TV told you, you should note the fact that the so-called "alt-right" doesn't even exist. The term is used to group disparate people the left doesn't agree with into a little box so they can smear them with epithets like "racist". It's disgusting. If you had the intellect, you'd be disgusted with yourself for falling for it.

    2. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The political parties. Thank the Commission on Presidential Debates (composed of the Democratic and Republican parties) for creating an environment where news organizations need to play by the rules of the parties, in return for things like debate sponsorships, interviews, "insider" access, etc. The parties have cultivated this relationship with the media for a long time, it's part of the foundation at this point. The Commission needs to be broken up, and political debates need to be publicly funded and available to air by any outlet. Maybe then news organizations can start having a more critical eye on the political system, and this election should be concrete proof that people want that exposed.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or did you miss Jayson Blair?

      Jayson Blair was exposed by his own newspaper (New York Times) in a 7000-word article and drummed out of the business. Your perceived "bias" or not, there is a long history of traditional journalists policing each other.

      You ever hear of a fake news site publishing a retraction or correction? You ever hear Bret Baier retract his pre-election story about how "indictments are on the way for Hillary"? Show me the mechanism by which fake news holds themselves accountable and we can take your suggested equivalency as something other than rank stupidity.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet, you can google

      "site:craigslist.org 1500 week stop trump"

      and see ads in major cities across the US offering to pay people to protest Trump.

      Thank you, you are a perfect example of the people he was talking about. I post an interview with a guy who admits to posting fake Craigslist ads for protesters, and your rebuttal to that is to tell me to look up protest ads on Craigslist. You believe it, because you want it to be true. Do you ever think about it? I mean, actually think about it? People will protest Trump *for free*, they will do it by themselves, organized by themselves, at no cost. So why the hell would someone pay people to do something that they're going to do anyway for free? And, if someone wanted to do something like this and not get called out on it, are they going to post a fucking Craigslist ad? Does that make any sense at all to you? Did you even stop to think whether or not it makes sense, or did you just believe it because it sounds like something that you want to be true?

      Here's another question - did you respond to any of those ads? Did you call any of those phone numbers? No? You just think it's true though, don't you?

      You're a perfect example of the kind of person who gets taken in by this stuff and just assumes that it's true. Anyone can post an ad on Craigslist, you don't even need an account to do it. Anyone can post any contact information, the only thing you need is a working email address. Maybe try calling some of those numbers on those ads and see who they connect to, if anyone, and if you talk to someone ask them if they posted those ads.

      Let me guess your response to that: I called one of those numbers, and it connected to a Planned Parenthood! The people there told me that this was a hoax and that they did not post the ad! Therefore, I know that they are lying and that they actually did post the ad!

      Go ahead, let the confirmation bias flow through you.

      "Hey man, I'm going to head down to the mailbox and check the mail."
      "I will pay you $20 if you go check the mail."

      Yeah, pay somebody for something that they're going to do for free anyway. This makes perfect sense. Way to use the critical thinking part of your brain there.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  3. Re:Precisely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the last week...

    NYT reported Trump poisoned Megyn Kelly and got debate questions before the debate. Their source, Mrs. Kelly, said neither was true. Looks like they made it up completely.

    A guy making "fake news" on Facebook said he made up a story about protestors at Trump rallies were being paid by Clinton. Project Veritas has a video proving this is actually true, specifically Chicago and Arizona rallies disturbed by a woman bragging about it and on the Clinton campaign payroll.

    So we have a "mainstream" news making up false stories, debunked by asking their claimed source, and a fake news story that is proven true with video evidence and public FEC records.

    The mainstream media is not as bad as fake news, it is far worse. Provably so.

  4. Re:Precisely by skids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They made them up out of thin air.

    No, they didn't. They were provided the documents and fell way short on properly vetting them. This was exposed by other mainstream media outlets, and resulted in a huge internal investigation. It is all very well documented.

    Now, if one of these fake news sites was called out for, I dunno, lying that Trump won the popular vote, what do you think they would do... seriously try to improve their processes by finding out what went wrong, or try to sell you some viagra?

    Claiming that the fourth estate is "corrupt to the core" and suggesting we believe random people posting click-bait online instead puts you squarely in the "utter lunatic" camp in my book.

  5. Re:Precisely by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least the big lie is easier to falsify.

    This was one of the problems this election season: How do you falsify a lie?

    Suppose Breitbart ran a story with the title "Obama calls off Trump's transition, Declares self Emperor." Now you and I might know that this is complete bull, but how do you prove it to someone who thinks it might be true? Show them the Pants On Fire rating on Politifact? "That's obviously a liberal site." Show them the New York Times or Washington Post debunking? "I don't trust the mainstream media." Show them a report on FOX News? "FOX used to be good but it's gotten taken over by liberals." (Yes, there are a group of people who think FOX News is too liberal!)

    When people decide they're only going to trust news from sources that we know make up stories (and repeat stories from similar sites), how do you prove anything to be a lie?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  6. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (FTFY) by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)

    You, you didn't fix that for me. The parties created the pay-for-play system, and the media companies are all too happy to play along. They love those sweet debate dollars. And Fox News is not immune, they are also part of this system. This system was created by the 2 major parties, the networks just went along with it.

    The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left.

    Yes, reality has a liberal bias and all that.

    in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts.

    This is misleading though, it is not balanced. It still serves their own bias. When they have a discussion about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and they have one guy who agrees, and one who disagrees, that is not balanced. It would be much more accurate if they have that discussion and they have the guy who disagrees and 49 scientists who agree, that would more closely resemble the state of the debate. When they claim that it's a split issue they're not doing a service to anyone, and they're showing their own bias. That's the fallacy of their model, presenting issues like that in a 50/50 light when they are not.

    why they are the most trusted news network in the US

    It's not such a ringing endorsement to say that Fox is the network that is the most trusted by people who will believe anything that fits their bias. The reason their ratings are so much higher than other stations is because they are the only one who has a strongly conservative bias, so if that fits your view and that's the particular echo chamber you want to watch, you only have 1 option. If you prefer a different bias there are several other options which split the vote.

    Keep in mind that this entire story is how the election discourse was affected by conservatives or right-wingers believing fake news. They're the ones who were roped into believing this stuff. I'm not saying they're the only ones with that problem though, maybe over the next 4 years it will be more profitable to create fake stories to anger liberals and then you'll see it go the other way, but for now the story is right-wingers believing anything they read without question. So, yeah, Fox may be the most trusted network but consider the critical thinking skills of their audience.

    The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets

    Do you have any source for that claim, considering the whole thing how we're talking about fact checking and accurate reporting? Or did you just say that because it feels right? Here's a summary from 2014 giving the least false rating to CNN, over half of Fox's claims were false. Here it is from 2015, with the same results. Here are the current ratings for Fox and CNN. If you have other sources which support your claim, feel free to show them. In the past I've consistently seen NPR as the most factual (not included in the above, which is for cable news). BBC and WSJ are also well-trusted. As for Rush Limbaugh, he's trust just slightly more than Buzzfeed.

    If you want to cite some other study or numbers which show that Fox is more accurate, feel free. If yo

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black