Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the fake-news-problems dept.

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.

59 of 531 comments (clear)

  1. Translation by avandesande · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You should only be reading *our* fake news.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re: Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly. Ever read a story you have even a passing personal knowledge of what happened? You'll realise then how shit journalists are, before we even get into bias

    2. Re: Translation by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a difference between a journalist not properly explaining some scientific matter, and MAKING SHIT UP. I don't expect your average journalist to have an understaring of, say, astrophysics, or material science, or computer programming. I do expect, that if they call themselves journalists, they are at least trying to portray the truth. Sure, maybe it's a biased truth. But that's still different from MAKING SHIT UP.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re: Translation by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      How many little lies does it take to warp reality into what you want?

      Is it easier to spot a thousand little lies or one big lie?

    4. Re: Translation by lgw · · Score: 2

      So then you haven't been directly involved in something journalists were reporting on. MAKING SHIT UP is 90% of journalism. It's creative writing inspired by real events. The only 10% that's not is the sports page.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. It's easier this way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess it's easier to believe that people bought the clickbaity fake news about lizard people than to admit that you lost the election because people are sick of being lied to, when they can prove from DKIM authenticated emails that you're lying to them, both about the email and about it being modified.

    1. Re:It's easier this way.... by necro81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess it's easier to believe that people bought the clickbaity fake news about lizard people than to admit that you lost the election because people are sick of being lied to

      Can't both be correct statements? I get that lots of people in the election were fed up, bring the roof down on their heads, and voted that way, come what may. But I also think that there were plenty of people who based that choice in no small part on things that they thought were true, but that with a small amount of critical thinking and investigation, could be demonstrated to be false.

  3. 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.
  4. Hoping for a corrective backlash by clubby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Propaganda is most effective when it's least expected. Citizens of the USSR knew the government was lying to them regularly, and developed a healthy skepticism of its statements. I think many Americans believe their free-speech society is propaganda-free, and as such, have a poor "immune response." Maybe a pervasive fake news problem will hone the citizens' bullshit detectors. Here's hoping.

    1. Re:Hoping for a corrective backlash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To the contrary, many Americans assume it is a lie, so they don't even pay attention to the truth when it's screaming right into their faces.

      I have run into folks who claim a Hurricane evacuation order is a lie so the government can loot their property.

      They don't detect bullshit, they generate more.

    2. Re:Hoping for a corrective backlash by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shit, I never thought about it. It is the best way for some government people to go through my house and try to plant some evidence or put bugs in their. I'm never leaving my home again. Thanks for the tip!

  5. Speaking of lies... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How's that "you can keep your doctor", and "you can keep your health plan" thing working out?

    I knew this guy was full of shit all along, but once he signed a bill extending the PATRIOT act, the rest of you clowns should have figured it out.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Speaking of lies... by dgood · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not Obama's fault that the insurance companies decided not to allow that. The ACA had provisions to grandfather existing policies but the insurance companies decided to just drop them instead.

    2. Re:Speaking of lies... by Kierthos · · Score: 2

      How did all those articles about how Obama is coming to take your guns work out for you?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:Speaking of lies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I remember the "no fly" "no buy" where they could put you on a secret list, and not give you a reason, then refuse to take you off, and not let you buy a gun because of it. I know lots of people on the "no fly" list for no reason ever given.

      Thankfully we have a Congress that stopped him. So, yes, he did come for them and was stopped. Thanks for your "fake news"

    4. Re:Speaking of lies... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Then Obama was a fool for promising something not under his control.

    5. Re:Speaking of lies... by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      Pretty well. I kept my doctor and health plan. So did most everyone one I know.

      The only people who didn't were people who were paying into those scam plans that offered no real coverage, which the ACA made illegal. If they were mad at it no longer being legal to fleece them, I honestly don't know what to say for them. Perhaps they should take up watching TV preachers so they can throw their money away that way instead.

  6. First Amendment by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds like someone is testing memes to use in "improving" the First Amendment.

    Personally, I like that one the way it is, so I'll have to give him a "fail" on his first attempt to spin things as "if only we didn't have that nasty Freedom of the Press..."

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  7. The media is dead by alternative_right · · Score: 2

    For some years now, the media has lacked the revenues to afford investigative journalism. Instead, they have pursued propaganda. Now they are outraged that they have competition.

    --
    Alternative Right.
  8. 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 MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And who is going to teach this supposed ethics? Sites like Breitbarts?

      Journalism has its flaws, more often than not to do with a lack of complete information. But having alt-right types lecture the MSM on ethics is pretty ridiculous, considering the alt-right is literally fueled by people who have absolutely no problem inventing complete fabrications, and who readily admit that truth is irrelevant.

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

      Their obvious political bias all in one direction does nothing to help them, of course.

      I read an interview this morning with a guy who runs of the "fake news" sites. He would refer to what he does as parody or satire, but other people don't see it that way. For example, he wrote a story that someone who was protesting a Donald Trump rally in Arizona was paid $3500 to protest. He thought that was satire. But it was picked up by ABC and tweeted out by Trump's campaign manager as if it were true. He thought that they would fact check and find out that it was fake, but no one ever did. He mentioned how he makes $10k per month from ad revenue, and it's because people share his stories that fit a conservative Trump supporter narrative without ever bothering to fact check anything (or even think critically about whether something is believable - like the "Amish lobby" that was claiming that all Amish people were going to vote for Trump). People eat it up, don't question it, and if it ever does get questioned people have moved on and don't pay attention to the correction, they just assumed it was true and move on.

      Here's the interview if you're curious.

      Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that "no joke ... in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it's the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans." That makes it sound like you’ve found targeting conservatives is more profitable.

      Yeah, it is. They don't fact-check.

      That "bias" that you're referring to is a product of the free market. If conservatives seem to be more gullible, then you write things targeting them. It's not "bias" so much as knowing your audience.

      --
      "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 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.

    4. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The so-called trusted media makes stuff up all the time. They are just more subtle about it.

      Misleading headlines
      "Some Sources Say"
      "Report: " then some narrative they want to push.

      All the while leaving themselves an out where they can claim that they were mislead, some report was wrong, or even just saying, "we were wrong", but long after the damage has been done.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by chipschap · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And who is going to teach this supposed ethics? Sites like Breitbarts?

      Certainly not Breitbarts nor Fox News. But certainly not the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and on and on the list goes.

    6. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Hindsight Bias Effect

    7. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Problem is that the MSM News Outlets are so in the tank for Liberals that it isn't even funny, and they aren't even trying to hide it. They are constantly being caught doing hatchet jobs for quick soundbites that seem to fit the narrative they are driving.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here are a couple examples. See if you can spot the trends.

      Firefighter Jailed & Suspended By Atheist Mayor For Praying At Scene of Fire
      Sounds plausible, right? I'm outraged! Christianity is under attack! I need to share this on Facebook immediately! Here's a quote:

      According to DeQuincy city attorney Paul Horner, Jones made four previous attempts to address the issue personally with Edwards, but Edwards became more defiant with each meeting.

      94-Year-Old Grandma Kills 'Knockout Game' Thug
      The poor woman! She got attacked! If she didn't have her gun, those black youths probably would have killed her! Here's a quote:

      St. Louis Police Detective Paul Horner told CNN the ‘Knockout Game’ is extremely dangerous and needs to stop before more people get killed. "How many more of our young African American youths will have to die before it clicks in their tiny little brains not to do this stupid sh*t anymore?"

      Obama Signs Executive Order Which Bans The Sale Of Assault Weapons
      What?! Just read that article about that poor 94 year old woman, we need more guns! This is an outrage! People have to hear about this! Here's a quote:

      Washington political analyst, 37-year-old Paul Horner, who has been at The Coronado Healthcare Center since early last month after getting into a severe accident in Rocky Point, told ABC News what led up to this assault gun ban on both sides of the party.

      Obama To Honor Muslim Brotherhood Leader With Statue On White House Lawn
      That goddamn Kenyan needs to go back to Kenya! All of my relatives need to hear about this! Here's a quote:

      White House spokesman Paul Horner ended the press conference by giving details to reporters about the controversial statue.

      “The statue of Azhar Azeez will be displayed on the East side of the White House lawn,” Horner said. “The marble statue will stand approximately 21 feet tall, weigh a little more than a 100 tons and is currently being built by world famous artist Tom Downey from England. The statue is expected to be completed in the next 6 months with a grand unveiling celebration for all to see. This is a great day for Muslims all over the world.”

      Donald Trump Introduces New Muslim/Refugee Badges
      It's about goddamn time! Let's make it great again! Here's a quote:

      “The German government’s policy of forcing Jews to wear identifying badges was but one of many psychological tactics aimed at isolating and dehumanizing the Jews of Europe, directly marking them as being different and inferior to everyone else,” Paul Horner of the Holocaust Center said.

      Mom Calls 911 On Masturbating Teenage Son; Boy Arrested, Charged With New ‘Self-Rape’ Alabama State Law
      Share to everyone! Here's a quote:

      An Alabama boy is behind bars tonight after his mother called 9-1-1 when she found her son in his room, watching pornography and masturbating. Montgomery Police were quick to respond, arresting 15-year-old Paul Horner, who attends Jefferson Davis High School.

      That goddamn Paul Horner gets around, doesn't he?

      Anyway, the guy who runs that site, Paul Horner, appreciates all of the page views and ad clicks on his articles baiting right-w

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny that, because many times Breitbart has more objectivity and ethics then oh Huffpo. Or CBS, NBC or ABC. Far more then buzzfeed for sure. Remember those DNC leaked emails? You know the ones, where reporters were sending stuff directly to the DNC for approval. Or where the DNC and reporters were so chummy that they could get things removed from articles if it would look bad. Or the media and the DNC hosting fundraisers? You don't? Well that's okay. This is only a small sample. After all, with CNN telling you that looking at wikileaks is illegal, you should listen to them right? After all, dig through those leaked emails and you find that USAToday, WAPO, NBC, CBS, NPR, ABC, NYTimes, Politico and several others have all had reporters so chummy that they could get things removed. Or they were openly publishing direct DNC talking points.

      If you don't see this whole "fake news" thing as an attempt by those who lost the election, to turn around and create media echo-chambers where only those who toe the line is allowed. You haven't paid any attention at all to what just happened.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because nobody thinks alt-right isn't literally just a nicer word for white supremacy.

      Maybe if you showed me a definition of it, like say on wikipedia?

      The alt-right has no formal ideology, although various sources have stated that white nationalism is fundamental.[1][2][7] It has also been associated with white supremacism,[3][13][14] Islamophobia,[15][16][17][18][19] antifeminism,[1][12] homophobia,[20][21][22] antisemitism,[1][2][4] ethno-nationalism,[23] right-wing populism,[7] nativism,[24] traditionalism,[25] and the neoreactionary movement

      whoops!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      the so-called "alt-right" doesn't even exist.

      The term "alt-right" was not imposed by a leftist conspiracy. It started as a term of self-identification for people that disagreed with the economic policies of the establishment-right, while advocating even more extreme social policies. The alt-right people that I know (such as my idiot brother-in-law), wear the label with pride.

    14. 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
    15. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ahhh, I see you've used facts to rebut my biting comment that left your inner racist child whining.

      Fine, here's a few other definitions:

      "a group of people with various far-right and often racist opinions who are active especially online"
      http://www.macmillandictionary...

      "the "alt-right" — is considered to be a subset pushing for a "white ethno-state," as Republican strategist Rick Wilson"
      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      But please, if these aren't suitable to your tastes, find a definition - outside of alt-right sites - that says anything different.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re: Mainstream media DOES invent news by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those who actually hold a security clearance part of that is not trying to access material you are not cleared for. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative.

      CNN's news report was not targeting the tiny segment of people with security clearances (as low as CNN's ratings are, that part of the viewing demographic is likely ZERO), they were saying that to everyone. There's a good analysis of where they were getting this (blatantly false) idea from over at Pope Hat.

      This is the SAME technique that sites like Snopes and other biased "fact checkers" use. If they want to defend someone's statement, they inject some qualifier that was NEVER included in the original statement, and then claim it was "Mostly True", or better. Nobody buys that crap but the other people in the echo chamber they are talking to.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  9. The real story here..... by tacokill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This new narrative is doing nothing more than trying to lay the groundwork for later action. You see, if information can be labeled "fake" - using whatever standard they plan to use - then the next logical step is to put legal limits on the "fake" information.

    Ultimate, AM talk radio will be the in the gunsights. The left is PISSED that their usual main stream media tricks and gotchas didn't work this time so instead of changing their message, they want to change the rules of the "news" game.

    P.S. It won't work. They blew their wad on Trump and now nobody believes what they say anymore.

    1. Re:The real story here..... by RichPowers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. Funny how only the establishment Left complains about "fake" news. They've lost control of the narrative and know it; Obama's impotent farewell lecture tour is a last-ditch effort to discredit the "alt" sites and networks that helped defeat Hillary Clinton.

      Whatever you think of him as a person or his policy recommendations, Donald Trump is a genius political operator who enjoys outfoxing the establishment media. It's like watching a master-level troll repeatedly outplay every smug asshole in NYC-NOVA-DC. That's why he calls the New York Times "failing" in his tweets to millions of people and decides to let TMZ of all networks air a documentary about him. (And lest anyone pity the Times, remember how they were in bed with the establishment during the run-up to the Iraq War, promulgating all sorts of lies to drum up support for that fiasco.)

      When the First Amendment was ratified, every newspaper in the republic was blatantly partisan -- if your operatives weren't discrediting your enemies through anonymous columns, you were doing it wrong. I much prefer an environment where everyone knows where everyone stands, instead of putting on airs about being some unbiased source of truth even though you're actually in bed with the state.

      Besides, blatant newspaper partisanship back then in no way precluded genius works like the Federalist and Antifederalist letters from being published and shared. Ignore the smug elitists on the Left who think only they can decide what's "fake" and what is not.

  10. Re:So lemme get this straight, Barack by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think anyone is suggesting censoring fake news. But I do think organizations like Facebook, if they're going to get into the game in any way, have an obligation to fact check anything they're claiming is news. It will never be perfect, even where you have perfect journalistic ethics, but at the moment we are literally seeing people fabricating stories out of thin air and then getting them promoted by the likes of Facebook as actual news.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Re:Precisely by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, that's what I'm stating. Stories may have been wrong in part, but the main news outlets weren't inventing news.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  12. Re:Precisely by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure. They played along with the whole "new batch of emails" claim that probably sunk Clinton's campaign.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  13. Re:Precisely by Nexion · · Score: 2, 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.

    Like... CNN, "The mistrusted name in news!" ;)

  14. Dancing around it by paratek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This dancing around a Ministry of Truth is extremely uncomfortable.

    --
    Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition!
  15. It's odd, isn't it? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean, it's really odd. Everybody who's so fucking concerned about fake news now didn't seem to be too upset when Dan Rather was pushing fake news.

    Kind of like everybody who's so bothered by Trump being a pervert didn't seem to mind when Bill Clinton was being a pervert.

    Weird, like there's a double standard or something.

    --
    Do you have ESP?
    1. Re:It's odd, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As fallout from that story, Dan Rather apologized on air, CBS fired one producer, asked 3 others to resign, and Dan Rather resigned as well. Meanwhile, the alt-right & leftist fringe sites keep churning out false stories with nary a retraction.

      People cared plenty about Clinton, don't know where you were living in the 90s, but my friends in victim's rights groups were _pissed_ and that was before the rape allegations surfaced. He also had to pay a settlement and was disbarred. Trump appears to have gotten the presidency despite 10+ allegations of sexual assault. I guess that's the same exact thing for you though.

    2. Re:It's odd, isn't it? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

      I mean, it's really odd. Everybody who's so fucking concerned about fake news now didn't seem to be too upset when Dan Rather was pushing fake news.

      A lot of people were upset. The mainstream media-- the same usual suspects you call left-leaning-- came down on 60 Minutes like a ton of bricks. 60 Minutes ran a correction in prime time, fired the people involved in approving the story to go on the air with inadequate fact checking, and asked Dan Rather to resign.

      That seems pretty "upset" to me.

      So, your demonstration that mainstream media does fake news is a single news story fourteen years ago that was based on documents that turned out to be forged, for which the staff of the program was fired or asked to resign.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  16. You get what you pay for by quax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Russia spends over $1B annually on disinformation, and that's just the money we know about.

    Facebook and Twitter build them the perfect playpen.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

    --
    Someone had to do it.
  19. Re:Precisely by ninthbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd disagree, a semi-valid but highly biased "real" news outlet is much more dangerous, because people are more likely to trust it.

  20. 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.
  21. Re:Precisely by isotope23 · · Score: 2

    Oh yes! So true!

    It's not like the MSM invents news at all...

    Hey What's this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    or this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Nothing to see here right?

    CNN is an "official" source so it must not be fake....

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  22. Remember the Maine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We won't know what to fight for.

    Fight for the USS Maine! Fight for the causes approved by our responsible, professional journalists, and avenge those brave, American sailors slaughtered by Spanish treachery!

    Nothing is ever new. What happens today has already happened before and will happen again.

  23. Re:Precisely by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Informative

    There were several reporters on Diane Rehm's show this morning talking about that. One of them mentioned that his efforts to correct articles that were obviously wrong, were in fact proof to the people who believed the article that he was biased and lying himself. So there you go, the effort to try to point out that an article is fake is met by its believers with a belief that you are the one lying. They'll go on believing the fake news, but now they also think you're a liar also.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  24. Re:The opposite is true by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Editorial bias is one thing, blatantly burying a major news story(WikiLeaks) because it doesn't fit the agenda is equal to being "fake news site". Oh sure, they ran a one or two minute piece once, but TRUMP IS A RACIST runs for 38 minutes every night.

    There is bias (accidental unintentional) and then there is rigged reporting. Calling it bias is ... cute.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  25. Re:Precisely by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

    No? The mainstream media is not as bad as fake news?

    You should take a bit more of a look. Start plugging those names into wikileaks clinton email and DNC databases. You're in for a wild ride son.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  26. Self correcting by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just think what CBS' Dan Rather did with the Bush reports years ago. They made them up out of thin air.

    Yes, Dan Rather of 60 Minutes did report a story based on documents that were turned out to be fake. And, guess what? A day and a half later, The Washington Post, The New York Times. USA Today and the Associated Press all ran stories disputing the documents. If you're tallking about the mainstream media running fake stories-- how about the mainstream media reporting that fake news was fake. 60 Minutes eventually ran a public retraction of the story, and subsequently fired the people responsible.

    This is the mainstream media doing self-correction. That was back in those halcyon days of yesterday when integrity in journalism was actually an ideal that the media tried for, before all the internet media started going with the plan "who cares it it's true? If it gets clicks, run with it!"

    Do the fake news sites ever run retractions? Has Breitbart ever retracted anything they've said?

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  27. Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (FTFY) by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 3, 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)

    Moderator note: your personal disagreement with the following analysis does not make it less relevant or true. Please keep your post election rage/safe space down-mod votes to yourself.

    The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left. They started teaching journalists in school that their goal shouldn't be to "get the scoop" or "get to the truth" or "accurately report the facts." They started teaching them that their goal should be to "change the world." Once that happened, objective journalism died a quick death but the American people have been slow to catch on, but they have caught on, and only 6% of the population now believes that the MSM gives the news without bias/selective filtering/manipulation etc. In the 90s, Rush Limbaugh and later Fox news began providing a counter point to this pervasive bias, and 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. (If you are a Fox news hater, realize that doesn't change why Fox has been so successful or what their formula is or why they are the most trusted news network in the US.) Fox is also one of the best researched, best sourced news outlets on the planet. The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets (not necessarily what guests say though, who by definition are supporting a POV but whom are usually challenged by the host/other guest when they are wrong on the facts)

    While the MSM usually does not outright fabricate a lie, what they do is source lies from Media Matters/HuffPo/other alt left sources. They take half truths, clips out of context etc that fit their narrative, irregardless of the complete facts. Occasionally they get caught and a producer somewhere gets fired. The level of dishonesty has created an atmosphere where fake news sites have more credibility than the MSM, which is a credibility problem for the MSM, not a commentary on the gullibility of news consumers. The fake news sites have still lied less than the MSM, which has a history of lying going back decades. Why the younger generation is using social media as its news source shows just how hard the MSM has fallen and how low their credibility is. The solution is for Fox news to improve and extend it's online presence so that all those who see the MSM for the shills they are can have a reliable, accurate online news outlet.

    The more mature and wiser conservative crowd moved to Fox news or main stream talk radio news sources 20 years ago, and those left consuming MSM pap have been so brainwashed that even the mention, let alone watching Fox news is like salt on a slug. I challenge anyone reading this to take the Fox news challenge. Tune into their primetime lineup for a week before you call them the great satan. Un-brainwashing may be a little unpleasant at first, but it is a liberating experience on the whole.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com...

    http://www.poynter.org/2014/th...
    http://www.newsweek.com/faults...

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  28. 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