Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's 'Journalism Project' Seeks To Strengthen Online News (cnet.com)
Facebook is taking more responsibility over its role in the media industry. CNET reports on the company's announcement: The social network on Wednesday announced a new initiative called the Journalism Project, which seeks to put Facebook on steadier footing with the news industry. As part of the effort, the social network will work to help train journalists on how to use Facebook as a reporting tool and assist the public in figuring out how to sniff out misinformation. "We know that our community values sharing and discussing ideas and news," Fidji Simo, director of product for the project, wrote in a blog post. "And as a part of our service, we care a great deal about making sure that a healthy news ecosystem and journalism can thrive." The initiative is part of an about-face for Facebook, which for a long time shrugged off its influence on the news and downplayed the impact of misinformation circulated on Facebook on the 2016 presidential election. The company is now acknowledging the significant role it plays in the consumption of news online, along with its ability to shape journalism's future.
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
So Fake News is the culprit for influencing the election? Fake news has *always* influenced the election. Anywho, I know of at least one person who offered their opinion on Facebook (that doesn't necessarily follow social views) and linked to articles supporting their opinion. Their account has been banned from posting for 60 days. Based on this, It's not necessarily fake news the puppet masters are after. It's censorship. America. Land of the Censored, Home of the Unaware.
This would benefit both FB and an organization like Snopes. When a story or link is shared, if the text checks out by some fact-checking source that is reputable, the story would get some type of icon showing that it is not pure garbage. If it is text, then it would be cryptographically signed somehow, so changing something in the story would make the icon disappear.
Facebook's problem isn't only with misinformation. Their filters are likely responsible for the increased partisanship in America and around the world.
I personally feel fixing the filters would do a great deal to stop the spread of fake news.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
that they care that only the right kind of propaganda reaches the audience, and that inconvenient truths etc. are labeled as "misinformation".
However, Liberal lies will still get pumped up as truth(s).
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
Nice in theory and if journalists actually aspired to be moral and ethical in their reporting it would be great. However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business. You have to sell advertisements or subscriptions to pay the bills... So what *you* think is news may just be some tall tale to somebody else and what gets reported is what makes the most money.
Facebook has already shown it's bias toward liberal news and expecting them to change their spots is fool hardy.
^subject.
By that rationale the Chinese "Great Firewall" is also China taking responsibility into what content their people can consume or not consume. If anyone thinks Facebook filters will be objective and accurate, they should pay more attention to history classes.
(Now then again I don't understand why people get their news from Facebook at all, but that's a different topic)
if find("Russia+Hacked+Election+Trump)
There isn't a conservative out there disagreeing with you. But well, gee.....mainstream news is so actively liberal that they'll give their presidential candidate the debate questions.
We went other places. You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It's like you much up a place so bad that it's unlivable, then decide to move to the region where folks who don't want invasive government moved to when they left you. And then you just pass all the same stupid laws and taxes over until that place is ruined. In 20-30 years, Denver, Colorado will be an insane mecca of taxes and regulations that will be unbearable. Then you liberals will leave and move to Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.
Those states might get smart and just start shooting you all upon arrival. Though I think eliminating your right to vote in state elections for 5 years until you gain a feeling for the culture might be more prudent.
...it's not what (most? many?) people want. They want their prefabricated beliefs to be bolstered by the "news" they consume and are very much not interested in "real news", aka facts. Just wade through the other comments here claiming FB will now just filter out everything from one end of the political spectrum in favor of the other. Those people will likely use the "fact checked" indicator as a marker of stories to avoid, since they are obviously going to be slanted and "fake".
I have also noticed an interesting trend recently. A number of political articles on Snopes and fact check sites, where the conservative viewpoint or statement was in fact CORRECT. And they even discuss the evidence of such. But interestingly enough, in several of these cases the fact check articles NEVER post a conclusion. They don't include their "True or False" meters, etc.
And I have wondered, why is it that these articles where either the criticism of a conservative is debunked or the criticism of a Democrat confirmed, are not given truth-meters?
Hmmm...
Because, these sites are extremely biased. Even when their articles are correct, they regularly pick and choose what issues to pursue. And numerous substantiated criticisms of Democrats will never ever get an article on these fact check sites.
I find YouTube to be the best fact checker.
The media claimed that Trump mocked a disabled reporter, or more to the point, that Trump mocked a reporter for his disability. Trump did in fact mock a reporter who is disabled. However, there are videos on youtube that will show you that those body movements of his are used regularly, not for mocking disabilities but to personify his view of someone who doesn't have an answer.
Most of the mainstream media also claimed that Donald Trump said soldiers that commit suicide are weak. He said no such thing. Go to youtube and watch the actual speech. He was discussing the lack of care available for our veterans, particularly the lack of mental healthcare. He was discussing triggers, and our soldiers being left without the support they deserved. Every soldier and veteran I know who watched that video loved it. In fact, it was the first, and almost the only time I watched Donald Trump and thought to myself that he looked presidential.
Watch MSNBC, they'll show you protestors at a Tea Party rally outside one of President Obama's townhall meetings. They'll show you a man carrying an AR-15 on his back. They'll state how this is intimidating and seemingly rather racist. Go to youtube and you'll find the another video of that same rally. Except this video will clearly show the man in question with an AR-15 strapped to his back is in fact a black American.
So ya.....trust me, conservatives are very aware of how fake most of the mainstream news is. Liberals on the other hand are stuck thinking the only fake news is Fox/Faux News. Well, it is fairly fake. But it doesn't have the market nor is it even close to being top dog.
I'll start to believe this hoo-ha about "fake news" being a SERIOUS effort to raise the standards of journalism when I see one reputable mainstream outlet reporting that 'hands up don't shoot' in Ferguson was ALSO 'fake news'.
Until then, it's just "my party lost" biased after-election whinging.
-Styopa
Why is there 'news' on Facebook at all? How about they put a big disclaimer on the front page that says "Facebook is not a news source, anything posted claiming to be 'news' should not be taken seriously unless verified by actual news organizations, you have been warned"?
1: Weaken the integrity of the field of journalism by up-feeding fake news. 2: Promise to strengthen the integrity of journalism for money. 3: Profit.
Now our fake news is called ads that pay to post it
Hmm, why does this remind me of a quote?
..and you have no right to impose your slippery slope end-justifies-means logic on everyone else.
or is it?
Nobody knows for sure!
However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business.
Now? Really? It's always been a business, and it's not the business of selling news, it's the business of selling advertising, and always has been. Those that have tried to sell news (subscriptions) have not done well at all.
Your eyeballs are the product, and to survive, the news has to show your eyeballs what you want to see, true or not. Whether or not something actually happened is completely unconnected from whether or not it's "news." Only whether or not you'll watch it.
Indeed. It should also be done by well informed, educated people who research the issues and candidates, and make choices based on the common good of everyone.
And if we had unicorns that farted cinnamon flavored rainbows, the world would be a more colorful place, too!
No, you have it backwards. the misinformation click sites are the ones ANGRY about this. Not the ones doing it. They have been shitting in through an open window for a while, now they are mad that the owner of the window chooses to close it.
Tell him that.
You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It really doesn't matter where the people came from that moved into your state. People don't just move in and take over like that, no matter what it looks like.
It's the cities. The higher your population density, the more liberal the policies.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
You are confusing "information" with "bullshit". Please don't.
Which is why I dont get my news from businesses... or sites with obvious agendas.
I'd find sources like the BBC to be trustworthy than the Guardian who I find more trustworthy than the Daily Mail which is Fox New's redneck cousin who moved to England and pretends to be erudite.
But I don't trust any one source 100%, there are some I trust reasonably but there are sources such as Fox and the Daily mail who I distrust 100% until I see the news from a less biased source, even then I still treat the article as suspect and wont quote it.
The reason I trust the BBC and similar organisations in Australia (ABC) and Canada (CBC) because they're rarely caught lying, when they are it's almost always an error and a correction is always issued. The reason I distrust the Daily Mail and Fox News is because they've consistently been caught lying, when they are it's found they deliberately fabricated something and they never, ever issue a correction. They are taken to court over these kinds of things often enough that they have a fund to pay off litigants.
BTW, news (or reality) does not have a Liberal bias, in fact it's slightly conservative... It's just that extremists live outside reality.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Trump is the king of fake news and post-truth politics. His method is to simply claim that everything that doesn't praise him is fake and everyone is part of a conspiracy against him. People accept it because they have come to think that all politicians lie all the time about everything, and facts are just something you search the internet for to back up your opinion.
If a child did it, you would dismiss it as an immature argument. Because Trump is an old man and now PEOTUS people are forced to take him seriously.
It's very difficult to combat because even when he tells easily demonstrable lies and gaslights America, people don't care. The truth is what they want it to be, and they want Trump to be true because he promised to kick out immigrants and get their jobs back. Just saying "this man is a liar" doesn't work, the only way to win is to tell more attractive lies than he does.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I hope it HURTS. I hope your butthurt is so bad your great-great-great grandchildren will never be able to sit down.
You smug, close-minded, virtue-signalling progTARDS deserve it.
And I'm LAUGHING at you and your whiny petulance.
See, this is why we can't have nice things.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
This is, quite frankly, late 20th-Century thinking. Since the inception of the printing press, news reporting has been partisan. A lot of papers even named themselves after the party/cause they were promoting. This is why every major town in the USA used to have at least two newspapers. You could tell what a person's politics were by the papers they took.
It was only the advent of large national broadcast media that got us the modern conception of "balanced reporting". Unlike newspapers, not just anyone can get up a national radio/TV network. Probably just as importantly, its helps to keep the Federal Government from interfering with the monopolistic practices required to do this if neither major party feels like you have it out for them specifically. But they still had an agenda, just one that the Federal Government can't complain about: pro-US and anti-extremist. If you were too far to the left or right for the comfort of the national media, heaven help you. The sainted Edward R. Morrow these types like to point to reported live sympathetic pieces from the London Blitz at a time most in the US wanted to stay out of WWII. That's not really "balance" (and a damn good thing he did). Balance was never a real thing. Its just a smokescreen for saying the media's bias should be within a certain range in the middle of the political spectrum, wherever that middle happens to be today.
So this talk about being neutral, unbiased, or balanced is just a bunch of hooey. It was a polite fiction we all agreed to pretend to believe for 50 years while it was useful. But the broadcast era is dead and buried now. Anyone can start up a podcast, website, or twitter account, and report the news any way they damn well please.
More to the point, reporting on evil in a "balanced" way is neither desirable nor moral. For all the talk about "balance", Murrow understood that.
Nice in theory and if journalists actually aspired to be moral and ethical in their reporting it would be great. However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business. You have to sell advertisements or subscriptions to pay the bills... So what *you* think is news may just be some tall tale to somebody else and what gets reported is what makes the most money.
This is exactly why I think CNN, the sole major national news outlet striving for actual "balanced reporting", is IMHO worse than all but the worst partisan outlets. As much as I might dislike Fox News and disagree with their morals, at least they have some. They tried a bit to tell people how bad Trump would be for the country, and covered other Republican candidates. CNN OTOH realized Trump was ratings gold, precisely because he was so bad for the country, and practically became the 24/7 Trump channel. CNN would happily torch the entire country for a 1 point bump in their own Nielsens.
We went other places. You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It's like you much up a place so bad that it's unlivable, then decide to move to the region where folks who don't want invasive government moved to when they left you. And then you just pass all the same stupid laws and taxes over until that place is ruined. In 20-30 years, Denver, Colorado will be an insane mecca of taxes and regulations that will be unbearable. Then you liberals will leave and move to Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.
I bet you'll find that the thing "ruining" Denver is people moving from places like Idaho and the Dakotas because the young people are trying to escape socially repressive areas and college graduates are looking to move to a place with an economy, culture and opportunity. I expect the next places to be ruined will be Texas between Austin, Dallas, and Houston and Georgia with Atlanta as they similarly gain people from the surrounding red states.
No one asked to live in an island. We just asked that you quit cutting down all the trees and then moving after you turn lush forests into deserts.
Right...and big cities were strongly a northeastern system. The problem is they move to a region that doesn't have huge cities. They migrate toward towns and turn them into cities. Then when those become big cities and destroy the region, the migrate to another region and repeat the process - so on and so on.
See Colorado for current example.
Go to youtube and you will find Donald Trump using similar behaviors of others, usually whenever they don't have an answer. I still think mocking like that was immature.
Did Donald Trump mock a reporter? Yes
Did Donald Trump mock a reporter who had a handicap? Yes
Did Donald Trump mock the handicap of a reporter? No
But funny, how liberals forget when Obama mentioned his low bowling score in an interview, and proceeded to state that he bowled like someone in the Special Olympics.
Gee, guess criticism doesn't apply if you have a [D]
But funny, how liberals forget when Obama mentioned his low bowling score in an interview, and proceeded to state that he bowled like someone in the Special Olympics.
Gee, guess criticism doesn't apply if you have a [D]
Because it's not as if anyone can label anything they don't like BS, right?
If you want to play the Popper card and say we have to be intolerant of intolerance, then just remember that this was justified in terms of self-defense against those who would use "fists or pistols" instead of rational argument. So Popper is more properly invoked against the jihadist types who actually encourage others to murder people in truck attacks and such and those who defend them.