Slashdot Mirror
Snopes.com Editor on Fake News: Social Media Is Not the Problem (backchannel.com)
"Honestly, most of the fake news is incredibly easy to debunk because it's such obvious bullshit..." says Brooke Binkowski, the managing editor of the fact-checking at Snopes.com. "It's not social media that's the problem. People are looking for somebody to pick on." mirandakatz shared this article from Backchannel:
The problem, Binkowski believes, is that the public has lost faith in the media broadly -- therefore no media outlet is considered credible any longer. The reasons are familiar: as the business of news has grown tougher, many outlets have been stripped of the resources they need for journalists to do their jobs correctly. "When you're on your fifth story of the day and there's no editor because the editor's been fired and there's no fact checker so you have to Google it yourself and you don't have access to any academic journals or anything like that, you will screw stories up," she says.
I found this article confusing. Snopes seemed to be trying to steer the conversation back to erroneous stories from "legitimate publications," which erode the public trust in all mainstream outlets. (Which I guess then over time hypothetically makes people more susceptible to fake news stories on Facebook.) But her earlier remarks suggest it's not really credibility that's lacking there -- it's the absence of someone convenient to pick on. So what is the problem? Is it the news media's lack of credibility? Algorithms that disproportionately reward alarming stories? A human tendency to seek information that confirms our pre-existing biases? What do Slashdot readers think is causing what this article describes as "our epidemic of misinformation"?
I found this article confusing. Snopes seemed to be trying to steer the conversation back to erroneous stories from "legitimate publications," which erode the public trust in all mainstream outlets. (Which I guess then over time hypothetically makes people more susceptible to fake news stories on Facebook.) But her earlier remarks suggest it's not really credibility that's lacking there -- it's the absence of someone convenient to pick on. So what is the problem? Is it the news media's lack of credibility? Algorithms that disproportionately reward alarming stories? A human tendency to seek information that confirms our pre-existing biases? What do Slashdot readers think is causing what this article describes as "our epidemic of misinformation"?
I think there's some false information often interleaved with news stories in general. For example, about a year ago a muslim dude and his family had their visa to the US canceled, (they were going on a trip to Disneyland) and one of the major cable news channels I saw it aired on (I believe it was NBC) painted a narrative that it was because of Trump, even though Trump hadn't even been the republican nominee yet, and to this day still holds no political office.
Even for those outlets that didn't paint such a narrative, I suspect the story wouldn't have made news at all if Trump hadn't said anything. It turns out the guy had links on his facebook account to taliban and al-qaeda websites, and his cousin attended mosque with a known terrorist. That triggered a red flag that got his visa canceled. So why was this even in the news at all?
US TV channels have never been credible news sources. If you want good information, read at least the Washington Post or New York Times. The International New York Tribune is also very good if you have less time, and then there are several good non-US journals and newspapers to choose from. You can read them online, no need to get them in paper.
Also: If you read a good newspaper and have a brain of your own, then bias is not important at all.
It also helps that there was so much faux outrage over things Trump "said" that he never really said that it became impossible to trust any reporting on Trump.
Things like claims he called for Russia to hack the US (he didn't, he called for them to release information they had already taken) or that he had called on people to assassinate Clinton (he didn't) or that he supported the Iraq war (his "support" was limited to refusing to outright condemn it at the time, it was clear that his "support" was essentially "I'm against it but I'm trusting that the President knows what he's doing"). And those are only the ones I can remember, there were so many stories of "Trump says something outrageous!" and then when you listen to what he really said it was clear the media was making up stuff to sell clicks.
When the media is clearly making up stories about Trump, why would anyone trust anything else they had to say?
Clinton received a plurality of the popular vote, not the majority.
Here's what we know beyond a shadow of a doubt at this point from Wikileaks and multiple other sources:
Most of the major media colluded with the DNC. They had stories vetted. They discussed strategy. They performed requested "edits". And they strategically portrayed the opposition in a negative light.
That, by any definition, is "fake news". It's not reporting. It's news which has been meticulously crafted to produce a desired opinion.
It's propaganda, to use another generation's term.
Take a look at this list of journalists who should be fired but won't be: http://imgur.com/a/D6DMD
I'm led to understand reality has a pretty strong left wing bias, also.
the same NY times who is now excusing pedophilia? I expect this from salon or huff po but no, even the times is now a pathetic joke http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The problem with this article is that Snopes itself has a pretty strong left-wing bias.
No they don't. It is just you reacting to fact checking that you didn't like. Just like 538 people were accused of being pro-Hillary, right until during the last week when they had the highest odds for Trump of any media organization. Then people on the left started accusing it of being pro-Trump.
Regardless of the true bias (if any) of 538 models, people (from either side) were not accusing 538 of being biased because of a careful analysis of their model, but simply because it didn't match their personal political preference.
That is exactly what you are doing when you call Snopes "a pretty strong left-wing bias".
Lots of Muslim terrorists originate from Britain. That's what you get for allowing tons of Muslim immigration with little-to-no vetting, and demonizing anyone who disagrees.
Disclaimer: I'm British.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Many of the "right wing hate crime" hoaxes have been debunked.
Meanwhile, in many incidents people have been arrested for attacking Trump supporters or committing property crimes during anti-Trump riots.
You are part of the fake news problem.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
IANAL, but this is easy to find if you want to. Or you could watch something other than MSNBC and get real news.
18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code makes it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal/unsecured/unauthorized email
Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:
“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”
We now know based on other recipients that she deleted thousands of work related emails.
U.S. Code 798 – Disclosure of classified information
U.S. Code 1031 — Major fraud against the United States
U.S. Code 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
U.S. Code 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
U.S. Code 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally of subpoenaed evidence
U.S. Code 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
U.S. Code 641 – Public money, property or records
U.S. Code 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
U.S. Code 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
U.S. Code 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
18 U.S. Code 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
There is probably more, but you get the idea. At the end of the day I expect that this will all come apart when the old, corrupt Loretta Lynch is out on her ass and the new attorney general appoints a special prosecutor and starts with the little fish around Clinton. Eventually enough of them will roll and she will be convicted of at least transmitting classified info on her servers and probably bribery (favors from State dept after $500k plus speaking fees to Billy), along with many counts of destruction of evidence, perjury before congress and conspiracy. And she knew exactly what she was doing. Both she and Bill are lawyers and he was the president FFS, they both knew the rules regarding classified information.
http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-...
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/1...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like