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"?
The erosion of trust has to do with the channels of communication broadening.
The same old people considered "professionals" in journalism do the same things they always have, but the talkback of all of us is much louder. You can read what Mark Twain said of journalists to see that it's always been a crooked biased business.
"Fake News" is just a new meme as the journalist community tries to claw back some credibility.
Sorry, guys, the brown stuff on your face from how deep you nestled into certain politicians' posteriors during the recent election cycle is going to take a long time to wear off. That egg on you face looks good, though.
What people seem to slowly realize is that just because news outlets can tell you the truth due to freedom of speech disallowing government from keeping them doesn't mean that they are by any means required to do so.
We used to equate the freedom of the press with the press telling how it really is because, hey, nobody keeps them from doing just that. In fact, though, the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that the lies the press tell you differ from the lies the politicians tell you, not that they tell you no lies.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I wish it was just slipping.
Over the course of the past five years or so I've seen every major newspaper in my country (Denmark) turn into tabloids, with extremely clickbaity article names, misinformation, mistranslations, butchered grammar, lack of understanding of the subject matter or even the metaphors they try to use ...
It's pretty much as the article summary says - they are forced to crank out so much content with so little oversight, assistance or perhaps even education that it ends up a complete and untrustworthy mess.
Here are some quick translations of the top stories on the websites for each of the three biggest newspapers:
Ekstra-Bladet:
Trump raging after boos: Ole Henriksen refuses to apologize! (Because an entire theater was booing at Mike Pence, but this one guy gets singled out because he's originally from Denmark)
Fitnessbabe shares completely honest picture: This is what my body really looks like (Front page material right there)
BT:
Friday is when it happens: Black Friday will beat all records (Why is Black Friday even a thing outside the US, let alone front page material a week in advance?)
Famous Danes losing money: They have million dollar villas for sale - but no one wants to pay the price (Oh hey, we're still feeling a recession)
Berlingske Tidende:
Check it yourself: Your part of the country reveals your taste in music
And a special one just for subscribers: Men: "We want to do everything. So do our wives."
How are people supposed to take these newspapers seriously? How are we supposed to believe anything we read there?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
It's the lack of proper education and the ability of individuals to reason things out logically.
Secondly, desire to believe. In this US election you had Christians and Southerns voting for a New Yorker that lied and was unChristian constantly and is part of the establishment, they wanted to find reasons to believe him or hate Clinton.
Sure, these fake news stories exist, and are sometimes highly visible, and apparently get enough clicks to make a profit for the bullshitters...
But does anyone actually believe these stories? Could people just be Liking/retweeting them because they're amusing, in a "ha ha, look at this tabloid article about Bigfoot having Prince Harry's baby!" kind of way? Surely a lot of readers WILL realize that what they're reading is bullshit, or do fact-checking on their own.
'Fake' news is ubiquitous and always has been, in any news source. Look at how many peer-reviewed scientific journal articles are later redacted or found faulty, and what portion of published research is later found to be fabricated, or is disproved later on or unreproduceable. Now think about how many news articles are written for laypersons summarizing scientific developments, that are misleading or dead wrong. Now think about how many PR department press releases are copied verbatim into 'news stories' without any critical thinking or fact checking. Ok, maybe your news department was downsized and you don't have an editor anymore, and noone will tell you "you can't put that shit in our publication", but critical thinking doesn't take a dedicated salaried position, any writer can exercise it.
Binkowski gives a free pass to the news industry, going with an 'incompetence/insufficient budget' excuse, completely ignoring intentional malevolence/profit motive reasons.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I found this article confusing.
That much is clear.
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. [...] But her earlier remarks suggest it's not really credibility that's lacking there -- it's the absence of someone convenient to pick on.
Sigh, no. Reading comprehension? You fail it! "It's not social media that's the problem. People are looking for somebody to pick on." That does not mean that the problem is that people are looking for somebody to pick on. It means that the problem is not social media, nothing more. And the problem, as TFS says (you got it right there in the quote!) is that "the public has lost faith in the media broadly". See how that works? The problem is not blame-placing. The problem is media in which it is not reasonable to have faith, which is a problem which has always been with us but which reached a head when Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Seriously, you can't even read, and you have an editor job? This is why we can't have nice things. Millions of unemployed in this country, and people are hiring people who can't even fucking read to be editors.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Honestly, most of the fake news is incredibly easy to debunk because it's such obvious bullshit..." says...Snopes.
Well, that's a rather stupid and ignorant statement coming from a company that exists because it's obviously not so easy to spot obvious bullshit, and therefore the public needs sites like Snopes and Politifact.
Perhaps this was a kind, politically correct way of saying people are dumber and more gullible than ever, which is perhaps the real issue.
Trolling is a paid profession now. That says a lot about mass ignorance.
I wish it was just slipping.
Over the course of the past five years or so I've seen every major newspaper in my country (Denmark) turn into tabloids,
75% of the media in the world is owned by three conservative media conglomerates. This has always been a problem but Bill Clinton signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the precise moment at which it truly all went to shit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fake news, you say? Would this amazing coincidence of dozens of media outlets running the exact same theme qualify? This isn't news, it's coordinated propaganda. Fox News? You're missing the forest for the trees.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
For some strange reason, people expect to get their news for free on the internet.
I really think the problem is, there's not yet a good model for paying for news. People get their news from various sites, one story at a time. They don't want to pay an expensive subscription for the whole site to read one story that they found a link to. Just as big a problem: even if the price was right, people don't want to set up and manage 50 different subscriptions, giving their credit card info to 50 different sites, not knowing whether 40 of those sites are competent enough to safeguard your info.
I don't know what the solution is, but I suspect part of the answer is some kind of paid aggregation/curation, with standardized payout to the content provider. Something like (though not quite the same as) a Spotify for news. Imagine maybe if you paid for a subscription to Slashdot, and Slashdot has to pay (according to some allocation of the subscription funds) to the sites that it links to. Slashdot would then need to hire real editors who could vet the news source and story in order to make sure the stories on their site are reputable and accurately presented. Something like this would have the benefit of paying news sources. Also, if people are paying, maybe it will decrease the need for, or get rid of, advertising and all the problems that come along with that.
Of course, there are some problems with that model. For one, while it would allow us to pay for news, it doesn't really prevent the fake news problem, since people can just as easily look at fake news articles from Facebook or crappy news aggregation. It also doesn't fix the "bubble" phenomenon where people only see news that agrees with their current opinion. There would still be partisan "Spotify for news" aggregation sites, and people would tend to subscribe to the crappy aggregation site of their choosing.
The biggest problem, however, would just be formulating an arrangement among these "Spotify for news" sites and all the various news sources. It may not be as hopeless as it seems. Apple, for example, has a news aggregation app for iOS, which links to various news sites. Among those sources is the New York Times, which also has an app offered for iOS, which includes an in-app purchase for a digital subscription to the times. So Apple is already offering articles in an aggregation, processing subscriptions for those sources, taking a cut and passing the rest on. It's not unthinkable that Apple could offer a reduced-rate subscription to the same sources through their own app-- a subscription that didn't offer access to the whole periodical, but just the articles that show up in the app. They could turn their app into a sort of virtual newspaper, with stories syndicated and curated from other sources.
It's a little bit of all theories, it's not new, and it has been amplified by current events.
First of all, there's no epidemic of misinformation. What happens is that there has always been an epidemic of lack of critical reasoning.
Tabloid journalism is as old as journalism itself, and too many people have favored it since ancient times.
In fact, none of the stuff mentioned is new. Confirmation bias? Sensationalism? Lack of credibility coming from tabloid journalism? These are all stuff that have always been out there.
It could be argued that this blaming of specific social networks (such as Facebook and Twitter) is also part of tabloid journalism.
There are definitely some people trying to blame them for stuff that they don't particularly like themselves, like the results of a democratic election of an US president. Because it's easy to take a company as scapegoat while ignoring that none of the fake news and none of the people who believe it are part of the company itself.
The fact is that US citizens elected Trump whether you like it or not. And Facebook or Twitter didn't vote for him. In fact, if anything these companies' CEOs and employees were probably against him becoming president.
Blogs like Gizmodo who keeps posting these idiotic whinning posts trying to blame Facebook for Trump being elected are just like kids in denial... they simply don't want to admit living in a country that is not aligned with their own personal political views.
We're currently at a transitional period from traditional journalism to Internet portals and blogs, so there will be some confusion regarding the new media. It certainly allows fake news to spread in an easier way, but it also allows a broader range of news in general, different perspectives, and coverage overall.
Personally, I don't see it as a bad thing. Journalism just has a new dimension... it became a tool for information that has more potential and that is more powerful, for the good and bad. It is not controlled or limited by a handful of huge news corporations anymore. If we as a society is letting it take a turn for the bad, we only have ourselves to blame. The way journalism and information spreads in society is just a reflection of it.
It's up to us to learn how to use it. We can't expect to be babysitted everytime something defies our ability to use critical reasoning. If people are being fooled by something as trivial as fake news, and cannot be bothered with something as basic as fact checking, we get the results we deserve. That's not a problem with how news work, that's a problem with education and culture.
Traditional journalism has always been swayed by popularity. You really don't have to go too far into history to see it. It's a huge mistake to think we always had impartial coverage in the past, or that the results of elections would be different if it wasn't for social networks and whatnot.
We're having a "national dialog" about this "issue" because the political establishment is pissed that their candidates didn't get elected and they are trying to figure out how to regain control of the electorate.
No, we're having a discussion about this because for the first time in it's 200+ year history, the US has elected a racist, sexist, xenophobic authoritarian strongman to office. This has nothing to do with "the political establishment", so stop lying and saying that's all it's about.
I don't respond to AC's.
The problem with this article is that Snopes itself has a pretty strong left-wing bias. They might be useful in debunking urban legends, but it's not a useful outlet for fact checking anything that politics may enter into.
All these fact checking websites have biases, but people for some reason do not believe they do.
There's a running joke that reality has a left-wing bias. :)
I'm not sure who came up with the saying originally, but I first ran across it on Paul Krugman's weblog and it pertained to economic thinking. Certainly it's hard to be 100% right, but Keynesian folks who follow IS–LM model have had a pretty good track record, whereas the supply-side folks' predictions have turned out to not have be correct at all. Quantitative easing? Krugman et al predicted that since interests at ~0%, inflation wouldn't occur, whereas the supply-side folks were worried about Zimbabwe: turns out Keynesians were right, with no inflation in sight. Government spending? Turns out less spending means less GDP growth in a recession; see Figure 2 from the economic experiment that was run in Europe of the last few years, per IMF numbers:
* https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/06/06/how-case-austerity-has-crumbled/
(Note that Keynes/ians say that when the economy is running well, the government should ideally be running surpluses to help pay down debt: Krugman was against deficit spending in the 'boom' years of Dubya.)
Climate change? Creationism? The Birther movement?
There are certainly crazies on the Left (cf. GMO foods, SJWs), but comparing the two is false equivalence IMHO.
Most people don't. Most people find single opinion and then only look at things that back that opinion up.
No they weren't. They were questioning the reporting style they had used for decades - the one where give the appearance of fairness by treating statements from both sides with the same respect. So when Trump said "If I will get rid of Obama care", they gave that the same weight as Clinton saying "I will keep Obama care". And they treat Trump's claim that "Obama wasn't born in the US", as they give to Clinton's view that "Obama was born in the US".
The practice of giving both sides equal weight has always been questionable. I am left scratching my head when I see a reputable news outlets give the same weight to and anit-vaxer's claims as they do to a professor of virology, and later defend it in the name of fairness. Nonetheless, they seemed to be firm believers in the process - until Trump came along. He made it utterly untenable to treat the pronouncements of both candidates identically.
You have a point there. On the youtube website "Smarter Every Day", the author was given an interview with Obama. He asked Obama why people are so politically-polarized nowadays. Obama (not an Obama supporter) said something rather interesting.
He noted exactly what you claim. That people establish ideas and they seek news sites that support their bias. Right wingers seek out sites that support their beliefs and left wingers seek out left wing news.
Objectivity in news is becoming a thing of the past.
It's up to us to seek out the truth but it takes effort to read between the lines to find the truth.
Instead, many just go for the dumbed down version on TeeVee with the fancy haired fluff balls.
Gone are the days of Walter Cronkite.
News is entertainment, not journalism.